Ok, to summarize my point of view, i wasn't complaining because i'd like to have the most perfect camera model in the universe. As i said, i love my GH2... seriously, with the hack it became a special camera that can challenge, in a way, with some top quality results of high end cameras (i.e. crispness/detail) . So to me it's like to have a Ferrari, but with old and worn tyres. You could push it, but there could be problems. And as as Rerbreg says, with little improvements on DR it could be perfect. I know that low light shots are difficult to achieve because of the dimension of the sensor, and i know that rolling shutter exists because of the refresh speed nature of the CMOS... and i can accept partly these limitations (both using fast primes and stabilization gear).

That's why i posted my original comment and my little experimental film (made as a video for my song). I wanted to know your opinion on my point of view, and on the movie, in which i experienced all these problems.

As i already said, i'm ok with the sanity patch, as it's (to me) the most reliable patch i tried, it's really clean from noise and to my experience it allows me have more details on the shadows area to work in post. Obviously in a limited way.

@Azo, i would love to own more cameras, and i understand your point... different cameras for different purposes, but at the moment i only own a GH2, and i'm investing more in lenses and gear. And anyways i like the idea to limit myself with only one tool and find workarounds. Before these hybrid cameras, the price for a decent one was huge, and not everyone could afford different ones, so the only solution was to work around the limits and make it work. With my first post i was just trying to discuss that this new hybrid market offers to us different choices, but most of them are plagued by the same issues, in a way or another. So it's weird to have all of this choice, since some "classic" issues are always there. Maybe the new digital bolex will make a little difference (being ccd). Who knows.

You know what I don't like about the raw workflow? Luts.

Now everytime I ingest a batch of footage I have to, at some point, cycle through a folder of luts, apply each one, then compare them all in an obsessive compulsive quest to find the "right" one. And this is before any creative grading has even begun.

You don't need big hardware to work with 4K footage.

@eurocameraman , nice work! how do you find it to match the AF101 & GH2 footage in a shoot?

Call me lazy, but coming from the motion graphics world (heavy 2d/3d), i'm kind of allergic to heavy workflows. I mean, to me shooting is the first step of the process... if it gets too complicate, heavy or expensive... i'm kind of loosing the point. Don't get me wrong, post production starts from the moment you transfer the footage in any workstation... but i don't want to add further steps to it. At list the first process of reviewing the shots must be straightforward. For example, i've been always amazed and scared from the workflow implied with the RED ONE raw material. So much quality, but so much pain in the ass to manage the raw. The final result are stunning, but what if you are in a run & gun situation and just wanna be able to shot properly and review/edit on the run? Not that it has be always that way... but all this "raw thing" it s kind of making everything slower. I'm not against it, i'm observing the whole process happening, and i hope it will get less frustrating with the time (either it will get easier, o i'll get more easygoing with it, maybe i just need the time to accept and digest it). By the way, speaking of quality, if i have to buy a used 60d, at this point i prefer the full frame glory of a 5D mkIII.

Glad that you can manage the postproduction and the storage with RAW. As i said before RAW and 4K produce wonderful images, but i think we are still not ready (or at least "I'm not") to manage the workflow, unless we have a lot of time and big cash to spend in hardware/storage.

I'm waiting until to see how the A7s shakes out...pricewise. To see in the dark....And from the gh4 news, 1080 isn't any better than the gh3, unless you downconvert 4k. Rumor newz is that this year the gh3 will be heavily discounted, along with the g6. Middle of the pricewise road folks...like gh folks... should also be looking at a6000. It's pretty hard to beat the multi-aspect ratio sensor of the gh1 & 2.

Hello fellow filmakers, i've been following this forum from when i bought the GH2 in 2011. But i never actually posted on here. With the hack (i always used the Sanity patch, as i rely on stability and hard drive economy) it became a little jewel... but as with other dslr cameras, i've always been plagued by the infamous rolling shutter (micro and macro jello). With GH2 it's still there, but with obvious improvements on sensor speed/refresh.

This is my last personal project with GH2:

Wheter you'll like it or not (for who's not interested in the story and want to see the footage i suggest to skip the intro and go straight to 1:26) it has been an hassle to manage all the defects that this camera has. Ok i'm not a pro, nor i own pro gear, all handheld/tripod, but between rolling shutter, compression artifacts, blown highlights due to low DR, noise from rising the shadows (and in general the weird ISO issues), i've honestly spent too much time on the post-production side (and it's not an enjoiable time like color correction, setting the style etc...it s a pain in the ass to correct every single clip that looks wrong, not knowing until the end if it could be used or not) Don't get me wrong, i think that for the money it's a great camera... but a filmmaker should spend more time on shooting/editing/soundtracking rather than try to adjust and correct in camera errors. Obviously you cold say...spend more money and get a pro camera. Yes i could... but isn't the purpose of this market segment to give us a middle way? It's disappointing to know that in this market range you could have cinemalike style, but in the end, you have to die to get something interesting out of the footage. And i'm not talking about shaky footage to stabilize.. if it was only that... it would be fine: it's the camera against my shaky hands.. so perfectly fair. It's all the rest that has been a nightmare. I love and hate this camera, so i'm now used to this.

With the recent news in the market, such BMCC, 5D markIII, GH3 & GH4, i've been overwhelmed by the desire to upgrade to a new model, but what i've seen is that there are no real improvements... or to better say, none of these new models give me a good reason to make a definitive choice.

5D MKIII: too soft with factory settings (even more to my eyes used to the crispy GH2), too much of an hassle with the new RAW/magic lantern (storage, heavy post, dedicated software, monster hardware to interact in post). No middle way to choose from...or soft, or supercrispy but heavy like hell. And one of the biggest issues to me: no flip lcd screen (if you get used to it with GH2, you can't even think to go back)

BM CinemaCamera: no m43 active mount to be able to use my m43 lenses electronic functions, smaller sensor (ok better with metabones, but still impossible to get a beautiful, creamy shallow DOF like 5D), totally different workflow in post plus it's required to spend tons of money in rigs and other stuff needed to have decent results. Plus ergonomically really sucks! And i don't need 12 stop of DR, if the price i have to pay is a nightmare in post.

BM Pocket CC: to me is too small, and still has a lot of issues. Yes, cool for the price, but still too much of a toylike that requires anyway painful postproduction.

GH3: as you all have seen... to me not worth an upgrade from GH2 (to me big improvements should have been better low light performances, little more DR)

GH4: basically 4K is not exactly what i need now... i was still looking for better low light and DR. And if i get the yagh... the price is going crazy to the 5MKIII range. I've been at Camera Park, the 25th of April when Driftwood presented it, so i had a chance to touch it and try it. Overall a good camera, lot of differences from my GH2, i saw the pedestal and control of the blacks and the cineD profiles... all cool stuff, but then i saw online different tests and actually the little improvements in DR brought back the hated noise. So... i could write for hours, but to cut: i live and work in London, and in June i'll be traveling for my first time to the US, so i thought it was the right time to purchase a new camera, to try it on the road, shooting the landscapes i always dreamt of. The idea to shoot only with the GH2, and then having again a hell of post issues made me want to make the big step in upgrading. I was thinking to the 5d (as i ve been secretly in love with its look for years... glorious full frame creamy footage and great still camera) but i've been shocked at how bad it is with its softness. And the idea to sharpen in post seems to me ridiculous (post sharpening will not add detail, it will only destroy high frequencies).

I'm actually thinking to continue with my GH2, buy the metabones speedbooster and see if can get any little improvement (at least in light and crop factor) So this is my confusion about what's going on in the market actually. This market is constantly throwing at us multiple new features with every new model, but then they "forget" to improve the old ones. I understand that these companies are challenging each other... but this is not going anywhere. Do we really need all of this? Like RAW and 4k? Beautiful indeed, but still, there are so many other old issues, i'd rather to see them solved before. It's like: we can go to the moon.. but by horse riding. Let's go less far, but in a better way. I hope you understand my frustration and point of view.

Ok, I should clarify:

Personally I believe that for PROFESSIONAL USE unless it's a proxy, all footage should be at least 1080, 422, 10bit, and 150 Mbps or higher I-Frame If 1080 or 600 Mbps or higher I-Frame if 4K (UHD).

Personally I believe that unless it's a proxy, all footage should be AT LEAST 1080, 422, 10bit, and 150 Mbps or higher I-Frame.

Question: Do we really need the GH4 and 4:2:2, 10 bit, 4K, Raw file?

Answer: Yes.

Shoot something on a chroma wall with a GH2 and a GH4 with 4:2:2 and do some compositing... and then repeat there's no "need" for better than GH2-level footage. ;)

@CFreak You have misconception about what 12 bit vs 8 bit does. There's no difference in dynamic range whatsoever. If the sensor delivers, say, 13 stops of DR it will be still 13 stops of latitude between the darkest shadow and the brightest highlight, no matter whether you encode it to either 8 bits, or 10, or 12 or whatever. The difference is all about HOW MANY brightness steps will be between the darkest shadow and the brightest highlight. So you will definitively see more banding, more discrete color bands, using 8 bit compression on gradients. The most common situation for smooth gradients that occurs in nature is a sunset. You will definitely benefit from 12 bits if you shoot sunsets on a daily basis. Other than that the difference is not as obvious to human eye as most people tend to think.