However all the images looks good except 1,2,3 and 10 that are unusable except for web stuff. The 5 is oversharpened but it's not so bad

nostalgic- a tide more DR but yellowish ..
at least what i gather, recollecting all info on that.

The reason to be disappointed is simple, it means in this test that the gh2 is the contrastiest/low dynamic range of all the test. DR is the single less appreciated value by what I would call the pixel peepers and non pro's. If you see at the upper echelon of film-making DR has always been pivotal. Film makers even have sacrifice resolution by using filters etc. to get better DR. The reason is simple is that the human eye DR or perception of it is quite high compared to the usual video cam 10 stop. So even if the final delivery medium is not that high people will compress it into that space. It is not by hazard that the Alexa is the darling of Hollywood, not because of resolution but because it is the first camera to reach film level DR.

Now people, the super intelligent ones, will tell you that you can light your subject or use ND on the windows etc. For sure this is a solution, but it will require you much more time, logistic and sometime just plain impossible. Try lighting some wide shots with some heavy sunlight, or your scene is in the shade of the cloud and the background mostly the clouds have sunlight. Or filming in a modern day office at the 10th floor with glass bays. Yes you will can shoot at other times etc but it will take at lot more preparation etc.

It is true that as a final grade the image no9 would be closer than the other camera super flat image, but you could choose the level of contrast in post in the other that would be near impossible the other way round. For me no2 looks very nice. I am sure that 90% of woman would prefer a more softer lighting ratio for there face, I would prefer it if I wanted to get a more flattering look to an actress, I am talking beauty and not the mood of a movie which might be harsher to accommodate the style.

WooHoo! I Calibrated my monitor, and I preferred No. 9. Just need to dial back the contrast a bit, as we all do. I thought for sure it was the Nex5N. Now I don't have to buy anything for three months except a crash free SDHC Card.
I officially name tomorrow Driftwood Day, December 18.

Although this is a dick measuring comp... one thing to notice is that the GH2 looks great compared to the other cams... enough said... can't wait to see the filming without overexposure... ;-)

delete

>Disappointing that the GH-2, in this test is 9. Way to contrasty, and the dark hair no detail.

:-)
Why do you care?

Why the criticism when this thread hasn't turned into a flame war? I think the overall consensus is that all of the images look nice. I agree with the dick measuring metaphor but I do shoot and it is nice to highlight that I can get quality results even on a budget. Sure you can say the GH-2 is a great camera but with nothing to compare it to but heavily compressed Vimeo or Youtube videos you are just running your mouth. I do shoot and it is nice to know that if I enter into a film festival against something shot on a F3 it doesn't look like garbage. If image quality doesn't count why hack the camera in the first place.
-edit grammer

@Vitaliy_Kiselev

Well said bro. I made a similar comment on Koo's Nofilmschool thread about the Zacuto shootout, and I had a thousand replies flaming me!

9.

Zoom in four clicks and you can see the slight bar across the whole imagine, right at the level of the tip of her chin. That's the GH2 I'm used to seeing when I push it's colors in the Symphony suite. It's a great image to play with. You always keep an eye on that line when posting the sharper GH2-X footage.

Impressive. I'd work with that F3 S-log or this any day. FS100 isn't bad. Now, if we only had a real flat Technicolor / S-log setting on GH2. Over that left eye brow really makes a big difference with the lighting kit they were using. GH2 is a yummy camera until people blow out those highlights. No data = no good in post!

1 is the frustrating 5D for sure. It just pushes that sensor way to far for it's own good. It's images are always on the verge of destruction.

2 is the 24 MB AF101. Soft, soft, soft.

3 is the Nikon. 5 is the 5n. Who cares. Both are a hot mess in post.

I

I guess if we can't tell the difference we should use the cheapest cam and spend the rest on Chip Butties.

@Roberto

Revome this EXIF data, please, as it makes topic unreadable.

Good to hear, me to haha.