It's almost impossible to judge resolution differences looking at compressed Youtube or Vimeo video. Only sure-fire way are screengrabs from ungraded file, upoloaded as lossless PNG.

I did a quick and dirty resolution test tonight. I didn't have a chart so I pointed my GH2 at a half eaten pizza from 3 days ago. Pepperoni and mushroom. Anyways guys, I counted hundreds of lines. No joking here, literally hundreds of lines of resolution. Hundreds.

To my eye it was very telling that the GH2 was right in the ballpark with video cams costing 3 or more times as much. Fitted with quality glass I don't see how you couldn't make an excellent nature film with the GH2.

This craze about resolution is a bit overblown. I think that there are so many other aspects that come into play in cinematography. I'd lose my mind if they gave us a solid 4:2:2 and flatter color profiles for the GH series. All I have is a GH13, 550D ML and a couple of Canon Vixia's. Let's keep in perspective that this is an interchangeable lens cam of very high image quality for CHEAP!!! I'm a newbie and I can see the difference between my GH13 and my 550D ML.

I'm just getting started in this field after decades as an Audio Engineer. It's so much fun having such a flexible little tool for so little money. I really don't have the skills to warrant a much more expensive cam, but this camera far exceeds my expectations. I've been cutting my teeth on local Talk shows, Live events and music videos. All low budget to no budget stuff and so it's really great to have such a high quality image as I learn more about filming. I can only imagine what someone with far greater knowledge and ability can accomplish with this camera.

@jimtreats That video looked pretty close to me.....

Now where did I put my damn glasses? LOL

@jimtreats My worn out macbook usually doesn't tell much on these shootouts, but in this case, the difference is pronounced.

that difference is exactly why I went for the gh13 (back in the days), to be able to shoot out "in the wild".. with extremely light gear. After having been let down by the 7d a couple of times (what looked good whilst shooting turned out shit). ..........................

Exactly my experience too.

@Grunf that difference is exactly why I went for the gh13 (back in the days), to be able to shoot out "in the wild".. with extremely light gear. After having been let down by the 7d a couple of times (what looked good whilst shooting turned out shit).

^ are those actual video stills? That's quite a dramatic difference. I didn't realize it was that much.

I'm sorry cowpunk but you have taken the "evidence" you present out of context. Some high iso shots comparing high iso resolution differences between 3 cameras. Second you present a test that is only good for the shooter himself.. (it is lacking in terms of information). It is no better than other test footage that has been referred to or presented as evidence of what the gh2 is capable of. Let's stop wasting time with this nonsensical debate and get to work. Each to his own agenda.

Personally, I have no qualms over using the gh2 for shooting nature scenery whatsoever.. which was what the original question was referring to.

Just to put in a good word for charts - the attached jpeg (sorry, a bit low rez) is from a camera which has lots of passionate defenders and has been used to shoot features, commercials, etc. And good for the shooters, who got results with it. But, based on the the chart, most folks probably wouldn't choose to use it for a nature documentary, shots of building facades or men's tweed suits.

Which is why it can be useful to have charts -- to get a better idea of what your limits are on the screen, big or small. That was all the original poster wanted to know, and asking it wouldn't seem to be all that unreasonable.

@RRRR - that chart was shot at 1080p on the GH2. Vitaly, I'm sorry about the link to another forum, but it's just satisfy naysayers who want to try to hang on to dogma despite all evidence. RRRR, you can see the chart, as well as a 1080i chart, MJPEG chart and 720p chart and more here: http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/readflat.asp?forum=1041&message=38912742

Not enough? Check out how these tests have the exact same results here:

And also at the 8:45 mark here:

But I'm sure you'll find a way to justify a reason why none of that is accurate. I'm sure some here could be presented with the a number of meticulous tests and charts and would still believe the GH2 can resolve exactly 1080 lines of resolution, even if you saw a test done right in front of your own eyes or if, god forbid, you did one yourself. The dogma runs deep.

Look, I'm the first one here to say that charts are irrelevant, except as a curiosity. What I can't stand, though, is untrue information being presented as fact just to further this idea that the GH2 is the greatest digital cine camera ever made (it's not). I feel sorry for people coming here to try to find honest information about their camera, and instead they just get a healthy dose of 'fanboyism.' The camera is just a tool, it's got limitations - all of them do. It's ok to understand what those limitations are. No one will think your d**k is smaller.

What we actually learn from this is: the only thing that counts is a chart. Sony f3, canon c300, Scarlet and Sony fs100 obviously resolve less in a 1080 frame than xf300 and any real world experience is obsolete.

My next feature film will have a chart as it's main actor. That way I will know whenever I cock up the shot.