GH2 seems to resolve details better...but it could be due to the fact that AF was used. Look at words "Rendition Chart". GH3 focus seems to be more on the background; GH2 focused on foreground? Or is it simply that the GH2 resolves better?

However, the Canon still tends to look a bit more like film, probably due to the full frame.

@GH2UW I Agree

@Vitaliy_Kiselev

Yes...but I was explaining the need for my question. It is impossible for me to test the color banding on the GH3 for many weeks (no stock) and I need to decide about getting an alternative camera asap.

Although for many the 8 bit color banding issue of the GH2 is not so important, underwater it is much more of a problem. Unless it's completely fixed in the GH3 it is an issue I will no longer put up with. I've just used the 12 bit raw Blackmagic Cinema Camera for the first time yesterday...and it is simply stunning image quality with no banding nonsense.

@jasonp I just finished editing a concert, being filmed with hacked GH2, GH1, D7, DVX-200 and some XDCam based, HD broadcast camera. Sorry, I do not remember the model number of the broadcast camera, some PDW-FXXX model. Maybe F800. I was also one of the cameramen. Differences in terms of resolution and color rendition were much greater between GH2/D7/DVX-200 than between GH2/PDW-Fxxx. The GH2 had more contrast in nostalgic mode, not so much details in black, but even during editing I sometimes forgot, which take was from a GH2 and which was from the broadcast camera. To make a long story short: If you are the editor, the proof will be up to the client that your footage is insufficient to broadcast standards, because you will deliver the edit in a broadcast format anyway, and will probably have exposed and white balanced very carefully while shooting in order not to stress the codec with heavy color correcting in post. But If you deliver raw footage, the GH3 might be your choice.

Even missing (or worse) 1080/25/50p in PAL countries is not necesarily a problen of GH2 versus GH3. GH 2´s best quality 23,976 FPS could be conformed to 25FPS without transcoding when the edit is finished. (Audio has to be sped up by 4% to stay in sync) They are doing this with film transfers since the beginning of (Pal) Television.

@Manu4Vendetta - And how does the same scene compare with the GH2?

Has anyone has a chance to try a Varavon loupe on the GH3, yet? Does it work wonderfully with the OLED? Fit properly, etc?

@GH2UW @MRfanny

We have availability topic, use it for all such talks.

thx ND for your quizz and parameters in PP !!

PS: you got me! I made a typical method mistake: I made comparison in my web browser. There the photo is only 50 KB, not enough to detect compression. After downloading it, your photo became 2.5 MB. I put it in PhotoShop... And yes there I could note some compression artifact (VIMEO) on the right image : see the left cheek of the chica, it is flatten:-)

Left=regrade in PP CS6 in prep for h264 export (and how it looks before PP finishes render)

Middle = Original (still a lill' too red!)

Right=Final encode /output and how it now looks in Vimeo after doing regrade (Left)

Here's all I did in PP to achieve 'Left' to output 'Right'. Confusing eh?!

Basically, get it as flat as possible then the output after the encode looks much more reasonable and close to the original if not a little improved, but the result is Vimeo looks better (in my opinion).

@GH2UW i was told late Jan by a store. this news is even worse. I think i might get one from japan or the states after all and wait for a patch.

@Driftwood

A1/ Original Right

A2/ Fave: Right

lol well done you avoided red cast of vimeo re-encoding-and-bad-grading