You just cannot compare the Gh2 to the AF100. I have owned both, and I just sold both my GH2's (and yes, I tried all different hacks on the GH2).

For starters, even in manual video mode on the GH2, I cannot adjust either ISO nor white balance while recording. This matters a great deal - lighting conditions change. No matter what on the GH2, tweaking the custom WB, adjusting Kelvin, trying extensively all the film modes, the color was just not right. The AF-100 has a dedicated autoWB mode, a physical WB button that if depressed also sets the black balance!

The Af100 has a shutter you can set so it's always using the 180 degree shutter rule.

The AF100 has "focus peaking" which tremendously assists manual focusing mode - whatever is in focus is highlighted in red, and it works while recording (not just before you hit the button like in the Sony NEX-5N). Gh2 does not have this.

There are exposure meters on screen. When it's too dark, there are bars on the left; overexposed it's on the right.
I can mount ANY lens with adapters without taking a hacksaw to them first.
I can adjust audio input levels for each input channel whether I'm using the built in 384k audio or the XLR inputs on the fly. This a BIG deal.
Dual SDHC/SXDC card slots.
Stock battery lasts over 4 hours.
PUSH AUTO FOCUS! I can't believe you AF100 users aren't talking about this. While in MF mode I can push a button QUIETLY and refocus. I have to go "clickity-clack" on the GH2 and toggle back to AFC/AFS to do this on the GH2.
Nice big quiet IRIS wheel in the front, instead of a noisy click wheel that you'll hear back in the recording.
At the end of the day I found I was never happy with the colors/white balance with the GH2. There was something wrong with all of them to a certain degree. This has been resolved with the Af100.
The AF100 does have face tracking for lenses that support auto-focus. It does work.
Form factor is better in many situations and worse when you're trying to be discrete; I will give that either way to the Gh2.

Watch this video in 1080p mode and you'll see what the Af100 is capable of.

By the way, I bought a very low use (14 hours) AF100 with an extra battery and all original boxes and documentation for $3400. So the prices have come down somewhat, and I've found that I really just love shooting with the Af100. It's a considerable upgrade in every way to the GH2 with the exception of no more ETC mode and the size. That's it.

Sorry, forgot to post the video link (watch in 1080p!)

@Shield: I agree. There are some things with that camera I love... And I actually like the picture of it, there's just something of it that's clean. But I'm myself is a GH2 owner and I don't know what camera I might get next. If I get one now that is...

But on to the AF100. Here's a music video I DP'd. We used both an AF100 for the majority of the video, a 5D on the scenes in the car and my GH2 for the shot of the car driving at 0:40 and the tunnel lights. What I wanted to show was that they all work very well together, but also that the AF100 can look amazing depending on what you put infront! We used mostly Canon L lenses and all the close-ups is a Zeiss ZF 50, all lenses which really brought out the camera. For example, compare to the ultra-wide shot of the guy shooting, done with the 7-14 which looks a lot more "video-y" I feel (but still good) compared to the 5D's wide-angle.

Time is to early really. Especially considering how far the GH2 has come to draw any sort of comparison.
I agree with VK here- these topics just create angry discussions.

Anyone watch the Youtube video I posted? I don't see any mud in that video, and it looks unbelievable. Raw Af100 ungraded footage with albeit high end glass.

Why not wait for AF200? 2012?

If one can make good money off GH2 shooting, he could award himself with AF200 or something... I guess. Still cheaper than M3 beamer :)

problem, is AF isnt hacked by DRIFTWOOD!!!!

You're right...they don't have the same sensor. The GH-1/2's sensor is actually slightly bigger. The AF is an overall better camera hands down but when it comes to IQ the image on the GH-2 (unhacked) was always better looking. I was excited about the AF when it came out. But image wise...like someone already suggested...why didn't Panasonic put the GH-2's sensor in the AF100.

The GH2's sensor is slightly bigger and newer. The AF100's sensor is geared towards a 1080 resolution and nothing more, so aliasing and morie are virtually nonexistent. Also the AF100's sensor was made and developed by the Panasonic's professional devision and not the consumer devision like the GH2's sensor was. Now all that said, they both have there pluses and minuses, hence why I own both. I prefer the AF100's image over the GH2's, and I use both daily. The only thing I think that could potentially change my opinion would be if Chris can get some sort of s-log color profile with his research.

Here's what you hackers have been missing out on:

Here is a picture of my rig the set photographer shot on a shoot a few months back on a city bus.

@bwhitz - I guarantee you the AF100's skin tones are far more accurate out of the box than any amount of tweaking that can be done with the GH2. With the GH2 I can adjust kelvin scale or rely on "auto white balance" and randomly tick the color shift, and it still doesn't ever look right. That was one of my biggest problems with the GH2. Hell even with a Sony NEX5N I can "manually" pull white balance. There's a reason there's so much discussion and debate over which film mode and custom white balance to use with the GH2. Any sort of "pop" in the colors kills the skin tones, and correct skin tones makes very dull/washed out colors. Believe me I wish I could've gotten the colors right; I just couldn't.

Look, we all want to put one over on "the man" and get the same footage out of a $800 body as a $5k camera. With a little grading you pretty much can with the GH2. You just won't get the colors as accurate out of the box nor have as many tools to assist you along the way.
But make no mistake - the AF100's sensor isn't the same as the GH1/2. It's been designed from the ground up for 1920x1080 and there is no downsampling for any "picture" mode.

The Af100 compares much more like the Sony FS100; check out some of Barry Green's test footage he shot with both cameras.
Many people couldn't tell the difference between each one.


Can you get the GH2's footage to look like that? Absolutely. There's a reason for post.