The type of project dictates how much of a difference the camera makes. For event production the camera makes limited difference visually, but ENG style is favored for ease of use.

Good coverage+framing+camera movement+shot selection+editing = professional result. It can be done with an iphone if you want to make a point. All the skills that go into a professional narrative are independent of the imaging device. When you have all those THEN the camera begins to make a difference.

If you are lacking any of these skills the camera makes no difference. So...answer your own question.

In the 4 videos posted above, the thing that I noticed most between them wasn't related to DOF or color space, but the quality of the shot itself. All the dynamic range in the world (or lack of it) takes a back seat to a stable shot... nothing distracts me more than shaky, handheld video.

In terms of final product, the 4th video was far and above the best - due to the edit itself. Yes, the slider/jib movements are very nice, but i'm talking about the was it was cut together along with the choice of music. The 4th video tells a story, while the other 3 are basically endless shot after endless shot of a kid hanging from a rock.

I suppose what I'm getting at is that the choice of camera is only one component in having a quality video - and very often, I see people spend hours agonizing over bit rate when they should be spending hours working on their editing skills, or working on their titles/graphics.

@mpgxsvcd VHS breaks? yes they do detract :) ...from SD and up no. The camera hasn't been an issue for at least a decade now. If anything, the wide access to cameras has been an issue, if that makes sense. To jest, I have a better Panasonic camera than your GH4; it's called DVX100. When you'll figure out by yourself just how is my camera better than yours, you'll cease being distracted by artifacts on your 1440p tablet.

@DrDave well certainly! it would be freakish to film cats in a box with a dolly, HMI lighting and an Alexa! The masses have voted with Likes, the cats must offer an unmediated, transcedental, grungy grainy unlit experience. I'll crawl back in my corner now....

Wtf are we even talking about anymore DrDave? So we have the OP presenting a faux dilemma "oh the pixelses they hurt my eyses my precious" We jump him good, tell him he's polishing a turd with moar pixelses.

You now bring in the unthinking masses "Views! Likes! must be the grungy pixels"

All the above are utterly disconnected perspectives, with unrelated ultimate motivations.

I think it goes to show how different our understanding of the craft is; we all somehow ended up here on PV.

This is a rabbit hole. Shake that camera until you get motion sickness if that relates to the masses as "realism" - "lame like us" (there's been a spy movie in recent years done like that - sorry I can't recall but it's part of a well known series - I couldn't watch it more than 5 min in). Use as many pixelses as technology allows. Use all the pixelses in the local group of galaxies. Spare me an SD raster, I'll take rectangular from the refuse bin.

But tell a story.

So we have the OP putting forward tech specs frame rates masturbation and when I clicky click on his product I see cross-dissolves between endless bad shots. Then he goes "theirs looks better because of editing, yeah that's where the budget went" to quote "It is pretty obvious that the extra time the camera crew put in for editing paid off. The overall editing of their video is what they really get paid for"

OP the editing was done by an editor who likely wasn't even on set. Where was the set you ask? Well you were there as well. Are you saying the editor was/should be paid with like 90% of the budget? That he could use your takes/coverage and end up with a similarly looking product?

OP kill me nowwwwww

I'll stop replying after this one as I honestly don't understand what is the point you're trying to make. I don't care to have the last word. The way I see it, the more tools/choices you people have, the more unwatchable crap ends up on youtube. It's not about the tools. It's never been about the tools. Or not the tools you're referring to. It's about skills and understanding limits of tools. Look, I own a 4.5m jib/crane, a 7.5m dolly track, and literally half a ton of other gear. Those are tools, more valuable than any advances from CS6 to CC, however nice those might be. The people I work with, should they not have the tools above at hand, will improvise a set-up that achieves the goal, or not shoot. They will not go DSLR in hand to shoot a fly on a climbing wall ( just using the example at hand). We will shoot with cameras with 5 stop DR and the shoot will look better than the latest 13 stop DSLR in clueless hands. Our first question is what's the lighting situation, not how many pixels the camera has. We don't go in without a plan, even if it's an event we have no control over. I'm not even talking narrative here which is a different game altogether. Having said all that, there exists the odd "amateur" fellow who with a handheld camera and a sandbag gets shots and makes edits that give pause to professionals. There's one even on this forum, and I would hire him for 1000EUR/day for the right project.

I think we operate in such different headspaces communication between us is meaningless. All we likely have in common is a GH2 patch. Even the reason we got the patch is different.

I think everyone should clearly state his goals, in fewest sentences. Everything else is hubris. Like:

I want views/likes on my channel. (fine, nothing to do with any notion of production).

I want to masturbate to pixels and tech specs. (fine, it could have been car engines)

I want to/I shoot professionally (fine, but lifelong learning curve)

I want to tell a story (fine, but storyboard it first)

I'm a geek with obsessions/spare time, this is my interest du jour (fine, knock yourself out, but don't sell yourself as something else if you want any respect).

peace out.