Does anyone know why the Canon 5D's footage during the skin tone test was banding more than the others? It seemed to be the case on my screen.

This is an incomplete low light test, we don't have enough info yet.
Did he shoot a low-light test at F2.8? If so, why?

Yes, when sticking the SAME LENS at F2.8 in front of each camera, the GH2 is POSSIBLY a poorer performer at any ISO.

There is a FLAW in the low light test so far- no camera looks good WITHOUT a lens. They all look bad. You must factor in APPROPRIATE LENS, not same lens when doing extreme test. I don't see any lens detail yet- hopefully that will change as he updates his post

Now to REALITY, for $1000 you get the 25mm F0.95 Voightlander and now which is worst at same ISO setting? Why not use a Canon 85mm F1.2 for the low light test? With both lenses, then you better low light performance and resolution at the ISO setting on GH2.

LENS speed is critical in a low light test, so not discussing it up front in detail is incomplete in my opinion.

If this is a real-world camera body test (and lens), then tell me a combo that outperforms the GH2 with F0.95 Voightlander combination for under $2000?

It's true, even the Epic is not as good as Alexa and F3 at low light. If the same lens was used in all tests, I don't care, you can stick a fast lens to any camera with interchangeable lenses.

But point is: for any kind of planned shooting, we would take care of lighting. A doc shooter might need a FS100 with a fast lens, but for indie features the value for money of a hacked GH2 with a good lens is incredible. I'm quite relieved that the skin tones were not really so hard to grade. Maybe VK can pull some tricks to access better profiles to even improve on that. I like how the skin tones are not so blotchy after correction with the help of higher bitrates.

@NickBen it looks like a 85mm ZF F1.4

The GH2 kills in the resolution but losing in the picture profiles. I really wish we had a flater setting.

As far as low light the GH2 is not the king but still ok. Its not like I am filming vampires, if I was then I would get a FS100.

I was disappointed in Bloom's failure to include the Nikon D7000 in the low-light tests. While I wouldn't expect it or any DSLR to seriously compete with the FS100, F3, or C300, the D7000's specs would lead you to expect it to show its best performance on this test. In my experience with the Nikon D5100, I can rely on it to deliver comparable noise and dynamic range at ISO 3200 as the GH2 at ISO 1600.

I was fairly pleased with the GH in the skin tone test. It wasn't perfect, but not unusable either. I wonder how hard it will be to get Pany to come up with a flatter profile. it seems like a really important thing for both the AF100 and GH line. Gotta make that a priority along with more fast glass.

I liked the look of the F3 S-Log the best. The FS100 2nd and then the C300 in terms of low light. I will say that I thought it was remarkable how fine the grain was when the C300 was cranked all the way up to ISO 20K. Unbelievable how these cameras do in low light.

I'm not too put off by the GH performance in low light compared to those monsters. It was an extreme test and hopefully we can augment the GH with a Nikon or Sony DSLR. I think those are acceptable low cost tools for very low light situations.

I wonder if 'smooth' might have been a better choice for the skin tone test?

The low light test is nonsense He has filmed with f2.8? Besides - use light sources, when filming

and the Winner is: the GH2, the camera with the best resolution

i don't mind noise to a level, as long as it's decently 'filmic', like 70's stock film. or even 16mm noise for that matter. and the high driftwood patches DO make it looks so, to a degree. so- what are the differences between this 'nice' noise and 'ugly' totally unusable noise?

IMO there's no problem with seeing how far cameras can be pushed. Now when it comes to whatever camera you have, then you learn that camera and work within it's limits. I have always believed that's how you work with any tool. Stay in it's sweet spot and even cheap things can perform at a high level. I've had to engineer sound with some awful equipment, but I still manage to get a good sound working within the limits of the gear. Unless you're working in extreme environment, that would require only the best.

All of the cameras had acceptable image when not under stress, which is a win for low budget film guys everywhere. I will say tho that Pany needs to upgrade the AF100. No reason that camera should be using that sensor. Everything else about it is great, but that sensor.

I'll be trading up to the GH3 if it has the sharpness of the GH2 and the low noise of the GH1 ( or better!) and an awesome hack to up the bitrate indoors.

GH3. Another year, another cam. Why can't we have it all? I expected by now the Canon 5D Mk III would be a big step up. Maybe Fuji's organic rainforest brew will open the gates. In any case, time for a new sensor with lower noise and better everything.