Reading this old this thread convinced me to pick up a GH1 in 2021 for a whopping $110. I've been pleasantly surprised to see that once hacked, it is still capable of shooting some pretty good looking video. In fact, I think I prefer the look to a lot of the modern mirrorless cameras (and definitely over the GH3/4/5 -- just my personal preference). We've gained a lot of convenience and flexibility with the newer bodies, but I think we may have also lost something in terms of a softer image that draws the eye and pulls you in:

My impression is that the GH1-4 all use the same basic 4/3 Sensor.

:-) It is not true, of course and you know it.

But sensor progress slowed recently for all cameras, with biggest improvements now being in noise reduction, ADC improvements, etc.

It is good to understand that making faster sensor and in same time improving low light performance is extremely difficult. So, while to end user it can look like small steps for engineers it is huge amount of work.

Maybe im in the minority but I have never been really impressed with the GH2 image. Hacked or otherwise.

I always preferred the GH1's rendition of colour & skintones out of the cam.
I recently bought a GH3 and (to me at least) I feel the image is a step back in the right direction by Panasonic in terms of image rendering. So much so I decided to go back to Panasonic.

Then I bought a GH1 (for nostalgia) and it all came back why I loved the GH1 so much. And my goodness the stills ability is very good indeed! That camera is a ludicrous bargain.

GH2 still leaves me unimpressed..something just feels a bit off...yet I cant explain why. haha

I look forward to the GH4 dropping in price...so then I will buy one.

I should also say...Panasonic have messed up their EVFs lately (Ive gone through G6,GX7,GH3) they are so dark and have murky colours and oddly soft where the GH1's is crisp and you can clearly see what is in focus thanks to the lower resolution.

paulo. moon t7 has the better texture. I also think GH1 is more filmic.

im updating this thread adding GH4 sensor to the mix.

From what ive seen GH4 better light roll off and dynamic range has improved its power to resolve color. But then is has made it more standard looking, loosing its overall character. Im not saying is no good, its exelent IQ to the actual image standards, but the better it gets for the general public the more we loose the original character of incomplete, or non perfect image from gh1 or gh2. im not being romantic, just is what my eyes see.

g6 doesnt work here with the hack. more over gh3 hacks are not ready yet. in this case we can only take gh2 into consideration. gh2 is far ahead from gh3 after moon t7 release.

@woodybrando Now we have G6, a very well made solution for replacing GH2. They have manage to remake the GH2 sensor and improve it within the same design. Also better image processor, and overall image quality for lower bitrates, focus peaking and of course 1080 60p.

Im quiet sure this will be hacked before GH3, since is cheaper, has same special NMOS sensor and better processor, its perfect camera to be hacked, deserves it more then a GH3 from my point of view.

GH3 is crippled by marketing reasons, G6 replaced GH2 for what GH3 should have been. GH5 will be the real killer. If this G6 manages to get hacked im positive that it will manage to make new 5.1 profiles on AVCHD to new dimensions, and with the new MP4 encoder maybe just maybe we could dream for a 4:2:2 color...maybe im taliing crap.

@woodybrando you cant match GH series cos each one has diferent sensor literally. Its not like canon ultra used APS-C sensor 18mpx for all. Each time was experiment, i think GH5 will be very special hardware with new Panasonic sensor, and extra power. 4k

Getting a bit more on topic, I've been shooting with a gh1 as a b cam to the gh3. Gh1 gives a flatter image, gh3 is way more contrasty. So far the closest I can get the two to match is using:

GH3 Natural -5,-5,0,-3

GH1 Standard -2,-2,0,0

it's not an exact match but close enough that a bit of grading gets it the rest of the way.

Anyone else have any tips on getting the gh3 and gh1 to match?

I find I like the sensor response of the gh1 better than the gh3. Seems like panasonic tried to copy canon and make every color profile super contrasty and saturated. (I had the 5d mark iii and thank god for the technicolor profile, every canon provided profile on the camera is CRAZY contrasty, even more so than on my old Canon 60d.)

If the gh1 sensor were in the gh3 I'd use it as my A cam over the gh3 with its own sensor. (although the gh1 has noticeably more jello, but it also has noticeably less moire than the gh3.)

I attached a frame from a recent shoot, both shot side by side at the same time, gh1 with the 35-100 f2.8 and gh3 with the 12-35 f2.8. Shutter speeds were different I think the gh1 was faster because I think it is more sensitive than the gh3. You can see what I mean by how contrasty and "canon vibrant" they try to make the gh3 and that's using the Natural setting with contrast @ -5.

p.s. the gh3 isn't as soft as it looks, it's just that the focus is on the foreground.

If you posted clips of film and digital, unlabeled, ppl could not tell them apart.

In music you could take a tape recording and digitize it, and compare it to a digital recording, and ppl could not tell them apart.

@cbrandin it is like those TV commercials telling you to buy a new TV, and show you what it would look like while you view it on your old TV.

Strangely enough, if you have a Stadivarius violin and a good copy, and play behind a screen, ppl will usually pick the fake as having the better sound.

@GravitateMediaGroup - agreed. I was being fairly conservative. Also, theaters adopt new projection methods much slower than other industries due to the economics and at some point that will be a progress bottleneck. Plus, we can't assume that all will continue as it has. This kind of progress sometimes happens in fits and starts.

@BurnetRhoades - I'm in the rare position of disagreeing with you here. Sure, 65mm looks amazing, but does anybody but IMAX actually shoot on the stuff? It's an outlier.

Here's my big question in all of this: at what point does the quality increase hit diminishing returns. I personally think 4K for the home is overkill. I think color depth and compression (8:8:8:8 anyone?) is an eventual frontier, but how far does this technology really have to go and still make substantive improvements? To bring this back to the topic (!) I think the GH2 feels close enough in quality to the GH3 that I'm delaying an upgrade. Sure, I will like the additional DR eventually, and the operational features seem great, but nothing is driving me to run out and get a GH3 now that they're finally available. It's not a dig on the GH3's quality but a statement about how great a hacked GH2 can look for most purposes. It's plenty good enough. Upgrading becomes a 'want' rather than a 'need'.

Similarly, there will be a point in the upper end of camera-dom when 4K, 10-bit, 16-stop DR tops out anyone's requirements and people snap awake and realize it's just a @#%ing camera, after all.

@stonebat

How 4K relate to topic title?

You don't need Playstation to play 4K videos, you can do it on modern PC, latest cards have hardware acceparation of 4K playback, even cheapest A31 tablets can play it.