I think both GH2/3 and Black Magic deliver incredible quality, but fairly flawed as all round production tools that need to deliver time and again.

I suppose it all boils down to budget. Large sensor plus ergonomics is typically not cheap. C100 looks good, as is the FS100, although lack of internal ND is disappointing. I really hope Panasonic release something soon that is competitive in the £3-6k bracket.

I am in same boat, the AF100 series was a great all round production tool, even with it's terrible ergonomics and menu system.. The M43 format is great and i think Panny have really missed the boat here.. Panny should have released a new AF based camera with the intra frame codec, 100mbps 4:2:2 would kick ass.. Even if the camera had to use the P2 media it would be a perfect production tool because of the lens adaptability..

Within the price range, I still haven't found anything comparable to my AF100, especially due to its great XLR sound, adequate (but not exceptional) IQ, 1080p60 (with the recent costly firmware upgrade), and the MFT sensor mount. I completely agree with @truestory that Panasonic missed a great chance to succeed with 4:2:2 and at least GH2 IQ and bitrate, plus digital zoom for focus (although the focus peaking isn't too bad.) It's a great workhorse that has paid for itself many times over through gigs.

It's a "quality" system -- not in the sense of highest specs, but rather quality in the meaning of "good enough and consistent."

@Leif_ivan

I found little reason to go for the gh3 as it is in the present. For video it´s not really any better than the gh2. There´s a slight improvement in DR for the gh3 vs nicer texture and "sensation of time" (there´s a better term for this, that I can´t think of right now) at 24p for the gh2. When it gets ported and encoder settings are worked upon (not to mention 30 min limit removed and a cheaper price), that might change. For now the gh2 is a very cheap and very very useful camera. I would not even say the usability is any better for the gh3 but then again, I didn´t take any time to explore the wifi options when I had it, nor can I say that my kind of use is any more relevant than that of a docu shooter or something else where the updates of the gh3 might be a major difference. 1080p50 might mean a lot to some - for me I can normally manage on 720p50 or borrow an fs700 for resolution-critical slow-mo.

I´m waiting patiently for the BMDCC with MFT mount. (Having tried the EF version, it´s clearly a useful cam and perfect ally to the gh2 for any film work IMO).

Yes, have been thinking about that. Gh3 would then be a Good "bridge".

By itself, the GH2 falls short in several important video production roles. While you can buy add-ons to fill in the GH2's gaps, the AF100 offers a professional solution in a compact package:

• Video-synchronized audio recording with full-featured XLR inputs.

• Calibrated electronic follow-focus with Panasonic and Olympus lenses.

• Built-in ND filters, zebras, waveform monitor, and color bar generator.

To fill my particular needs, I could bolt a GH2 to a 15mm rails mount and add an external waveform monitor, a matte box, follow focus gear, and a Zoom H4N, plus cables and associated batteries. Or, I could plug a Manfrotto 521PFI remote controller into the AF100 and start shooting immediately.

Which would you prefer?

Just my opinion, but if i'm spending new money, i'd go for the GH3 over the GH2. They are very close but clearly the GH3 is an overall better built and more future proof product. It has more image adjustment, frame rates, moisture and dust proof, AVCHD, MOV files etc. and is already starting with a base IQ level that is beyond the base level of the GH2, so any further development should push it past the GH2 IMO. Very few users have fully explored the GH3 under every scenario yet, to even know what it's absolute best is yet. In the end I think it would make an excellent B cam for a BMC if you do end up going in that direction.