@Sangye: Very very well put Sangye. Thats how i think we should conclude.

@brianluce It says on the Zacuto site in the PDF you can download where they talk about how each camera was setup lightwise, etc. I am afraid I have to go by memory, but I thought they used ISO 320. If you check and find otherwise, please correct my memory.

Also, they used -2, -2, -2, -2 on their picture profile (not sure which, but speculate smooth or nostalgic) with Quantum V9b, in 24H with a manual focus lens.

@driftwood The original cut or that god awful, boring Redux cut?

Even though Zacutos Shootout was hardly something that I could use to pick a camera (and, as others mentioned, was presented like a soap opera where you have to skip all the boring war stories to come to the point where it's actually about the cameras), I found it entertaining to watch, and also intriguing that somebody was willing and able to finance a production like this (with no obvious party who could profit in the end).

The test setting was unlike any situation that I ever encounter when taking videos - for me there are no actors, no artificially lit sets and - most importantly - no second chances to take a scene that was screwed in the first attempt. So almost everything important to me in a camera wasn't tested, but still it was interesting to have that insight into a very different world of taking pictures.

And the reactions to the test are not less entertaining to read than it was entertaining to watch the test. I guess Mr. Zacuto must have some history (unknown to me) that allowed him to spark so many emotions with his production :-)

Regarding the iPhone 4: I think that is the part Panasonic, Olympus, but also Canon and Nikon should take seriously: In a not too distant future, much of the deficits of compact cameras will be alleviated by sheer computing power - you can create DOF effects, remove motion blur, denoise etc. - and the market for dedicated cameras will be eaten alive from the "low end", not from the "high end". The manufacturers should carefully listen to the customers to notice whatever reasons are left for those to buy a camera instead of just using their smart phones. At the moment, I get the impression that they have not yet realized how few steps of further technical advances lie between them having a significant consumer market and dedicated cameras becoming an exotic toy for an insignificant minority.

I originally had them pegged like this (after a 2nd pass), in order of pref:

8/10: Sony F3, Red Epic

7/10: Alexa

6/10: C300, F65

5/10: GH2

4/10: FS100

3/10: 7D, iPhone

Although I thought the detail and image of the GH2 was great, it felt like it was really let down by trying to squeeze its DR with lighting, which gave an overly studio video look for my taste.

It does entirely depend on the DP though, and I think that's the point. The F65 had an odd colour cast that I just couldn't look past, and the FS100 was muddy, and I like the FS100 a lot. It confirmed my suspicions to leave the Canon 7/5Ds well alone, as I find them overly soft and lacking detail, and that is one of the things that is nearly impossible to rescue.

The whole thing has highlighted anew things for me. If you want the GH2 to compete with the big boys, it has to be lit perfectly, and there's little room for error or flexibility. In the quest to light it perfectly, you're at the risk of losing tonality and getting a video look, although with great efforts in post it should be recoverable.

The high end cameras just give you more room. Period. On a set with a larger budget, you need that as an over draft, when you physically can't get it perfect. Same with ENG.

What the GH2vk is, is the most sensationally perfect student/low/no budget cinematographic tool that has ever existed.

@sangye If someone is going to put a lot of money into their camera gear, lenses is one of the best places to do it. They depreciate more slowly, affect image quality and workflow and (if you are cocncerned about perception/impressing people) they are visually obvious to clients.

In my experience, more expensive is not always better but it is often the case that their image quality characteristics contribute to justifying the price. Like the sharpness difference that Vincent Laforet recently showed between a particular Canon still camera wide-angle and a newer Zeiss at a higher priceand similar focal length.

A high quality cine-zoom like the Fujinon is not common to find, and the similarly performing products generally are not cheap at all. There are all sorts of things about it that exceed what a less expensive Canon L series zoom could do (and I say that as someone that really loves using those same L series zooms :).

Also, the idea that the GH2 cannot take advantage of the image quality or flexibility of such a lens is not accurate. But like you said (very accurately) the most important thing is finding the lens that fits your aesthetic for the shoot, which can be very inexpensive. On one of my shoots, some of the shots were perfect for a $100 lens, others demanded one costing thousands of dollars.

Of course if I only had the $100 lens, I would just plan the shoot differently and still make it look great. And maybe that is what you meant? I apologize if I misinterpreted. :)

Byt yeah, the main gear that affects image quality or movement quality would be the lens and whatever you buy to facilitate movement, likestabilizers or cranes, etc.

Favourite film 'Apocalypse Now'... enough said. ;-)

A visually identical scene could have been accomplished on the GH2 with DIY / indie-budget-friendly gear. Most importantly, that lens is ridiculous overkill on a GH2. An Olympus, Voigtlander, or Zeiss Zx prime could look equally good, although of course with its own unique character.

The reasons that Zacuto used "pro" gear are (1) because they could, and (2) because they wanted to match the different cameras as closely as possible.

Cameras, lenses, and filters aside, pro gear comes down to having superior build quality, ideal ergonomics, and being established within filmmaking convention. None of these directly correlate with improved image quality. As far as cameras go, this shootout shows that the gap has narrowed dramatically in three short years. Lenses remain up for debate, although I firmly stand by Olympus, Voigtlander, Zeiss, and Leica primes being up to par for professional work. A high-budget lens shootout production would be very interesting and worthwhile.

Just to mention something obvious that a lot of us have not been addressing yet.

The iPhone suffered codec and DOF issues due to the sensor and software, but let us not forget that it was also the only camera using a built-in inexpensive lens as opposed to one costing 5 digits.

So as @bwhitz mentioned, the term "pro gear" should really mainly be used to apply to the lens in this context. The fact that iPhone (though not at all good enough for my use today) can do as well as it does and compare favorably in image quality with small-chip prosumer camcorders from the very early HD era is quite impressive.

Once again, it is not a tool that I think most narrative filmmakers would want to use (even with a very small budget) but the fact that it can do such a good job if it needs do (barring shallow DOF etc.) is pretty darn notable.

I mention this because having (like most) accurately identified and criticized it for the last month as a demanding pixel-peeper, I only felt it fair to add some real-world pragmatism back into the equation. Soccer parents may very well have all the video camera they need in their iPhone already for a large variety of family shots, and if they want to help their kids film good-looking narrative film, the camera will be able to do some of that too. :)

In the interviews on this shootout, some of them stressed the importance of lighting, other said lenses and some said people around you make for great moving pictures. But they didn't really talk about codecs. A few could quickly point out aliasing, moire and other codec issues. And the results across the web, when viewed on vimeo are consistent with the views from the 4k projector. When I watched part 1 in June, I wrote down notes:

A - Noisy B - Great, nice color C - lacks color D - also lacks color E - looks like A F - Not lit as well, great on couple G - lacks detail H - Great I - same as E

So I saw A, E, and I as noisy, especially in the shadows. Which turned out to be the sony cameras and the C300. I'm not sure if the F3 was using S-log, but looked way different than the F65. My choices in June after viewing once were: 1. B-GH2 2. H- F65 3. F - Alexa 4. G - 7D 5. C - Red 6. D - iphone 7. I - FS100 8. A - F3 9. E - Canon C300

I can't believe I chose the GH2. Maybe I've just seen a lot of footage from it...and like it. And so it really came down to the codec and what the colorist could do with it. Vitaliy said this means nothing to him, but he and Nick should be really proud because I think the GH2 is there because of this groups efforts.

Backtracking to my original pixel-peep (from an abysmal vimeo video no doubt) I picked C300, Alexa and f65 as the top.. iphone and 7d the worst. Would have been interesting to see it on the big screen, and pick something out from that. Now I had to go over the footage time and time again, make a list of criteria for myself to go after and then select something that is not necessarily what I would have picked if seeing it once (on the big screen).

The "Shootout" is great for discussing gear vis-a-viz skill and subjectivity. Not so good for actually getting something substantial in terms of camera capability.

Yeah it was Nick Driftwood. We shd rename GH2 according to the patch it uses, much like the OS in Mac.

GH2: Quantum v9 or Sedna AQ1 or Cluster