Ridiculous ISO test. If that's what you have to depend on to make one camera shine above the rest, then it is skewed in one direction. Also the rolling shutter test looked the same in every camera too me. They had the T4i blown out in the highlights so you couldn't see the top of the trees as much. Also, the first test where the sky looked completely blown out in the Sony and Canon but not the GH2's, what were they talking about? There's no way those cameras where set the same. I bet if you opened up one more stop or raised the ISO one notch, they would be a lot closer than what they showed or am I wrong here? Also I liked how the GH2 handled the shadow detail more than the others. The others looked bland and washed out to me.

I suppose that if someone was to look at it from the perspective of a person new to all of this, it would be a fairly convincing test comparison. Using only kit lenses and basically just doing a test that is vary basic like this it would be easy to assume you could not get better results from a GH2 than a T4i. The weaknesses of the GH2 are highlighted in a test like this so I could see how someone could reach the conclusion these guys did.

Canons really do have a huge advantage in certain areas that many shooters would value highly. Low light and Color being a huge thing for many people. It seems that for a lot of people the resolving detail of a camera isn't that important weighed against the other aspects of the camera. I know that great low light capability is higher on the list for many users. For a lot of people if you can see an image and it has punchy color and works great even when there isn't enough light, that is a winning camera. It all depends on a persons priorities.