The operative word there is "informed" choices.
How "informed" is the choice to fly more than a couple of hundred feet at the most above the ground? What purpose does it serve? What problem does it solve? Taking images or video at that height with a wide angle lens results in - what?
If your aim is FPV flying, to get a thrill out of feeling as if you're soaring like an eagle at great heights, then your choice to do so is no longer "informed" by the necessity to appropriately separate various forms of heavier-than-air craft. And your MR is exactly that. Aircraft of a certain size have collision avoidance systems to prevent midairs; those smaller, including most helicopters, do not and fly "See and Avoid" under Visual Flight Rules to provide separation. So how in the world are you, the operator of the "other" aircraft in a potential midair, exercising your responsibility to "See and Avoid?"
It's not that I or other posters in this thread "just say so." We have, you'll have to admit, a bit more experience with being in the air than you do. That's not being smug, or superior. Our experience ought to be valued. If you want to do more than just dabble in this field and are considering turning it into a line of work, then start with becoming familiar with the rules of the road. You'll eventually have to prove yourself competent not to me, but to a representative of the FAA, someone far less interested in cutting you any slack.
I like footage at 500-550', and they do look different than 400'. I'd probably like pictures at 1000', too. They serve a purpose. Expression is a purpose. Enjoyment is a purpose. They may not do anything for you, just like Picasso's work may not do anything for you. This doesn't mean it's not important, or worthwhile.
Your experience is certainly valued. But I don't want you speaking for me, or telling me what I "should" be doing. There's a big uptick in "drone spotting" by pilots that most of us don't consider genuine. We cannot have discussion until quads stop being vilified.
As for 'the rules of the road', even you have to admit that those rules need to be looked at and adjusted. These are not 1-ton helicopters or planes that require a lot of vertical space. They're small, agile, and very different from traditional aircraft. Nobody wants to see
anyone hurt, but this isn't just as simple as 'playing in YOUR space' anymore. Stop treating quads as second-class. There's enough space for everyone.
Here's the bottom line.. if you're flying and inspire 1 over populated areas you are putting everyone and everything in its path at risk..to fly over New York or populated areas with an unproven aircraft is taking a huge risk to the people down below. .it has nothing to do with long distance or elevation flights ( extreme flights )..not everyone is a tool on here..
Being in public carries a risk. Cars, frisbees, golf balls, baseballs, footballs, hockey sticks, camera phones, binoculars, knives, guns, computers, food, scalding coffee, rocks, paper airplanes, hedge trimmers... These are all things that put you at risk when you're in public. Sometimes it's malicious; the overwhelmingly vast majority of the time, it's an accident. You
cannot ask that the government hold your hand and pass laws to keep you safe 100% of the time, because then all of the above would be banned or severely restricted. While we do see people who have issues, they're a very small percentage of pilots.
These quads are generally pretty safe. The pilot should face severe consequences if he damages life or property, but I cannot personally agree that we should outright ban their use if a person is nearby. The one guy flying his Phantom in and out of girders at a soccer game - that guy is kind of a ****, I won't disagree. But taking some images in public in a city, assuming the quad is generally in open space, is not any more unsafe than any of the above things I've mentioned.
It's time to put away the blankets - we live in a world where one general size does not fit all.