This I think is the only test on a chart of the gh2 in a german magazine. I don't know how to interpret the result. If someone can please do.

http://www.slashcam.de/artikel/Test/Panasonic-GH2---der-kompakte-Ueberflieger--Aus-dem-Messlabor.html

This is why proper test are important and thus what I tried with what I had for the gh2 Dynamic range. I see endless debate about the gh2 resolution. I saw these example below

http://philipbloom.net/wp-content/uploads/2011/12/4.jpg

http://philipbloom.net/wp-content/uploads/2011/12/9.jpg

http://philipbloom.net/wp-content/uploads/2011/12/7.jpg

From the pb test. If people say the C300 is 1000 line so how much would you give the gh2. Factoring the smaller head because of the fOV, I would say very very close. But then all this is subjective. I hope someday somebody does a proper test on a chart. Perhaps one or both of you. Or just try to put both of them in good lighting condition where you can close the shutter and use some sharp lens. For the Gh2 its 14-140 is already very sharp and see the result and publish them with all the details.

I haven't seen your test. (Where's the link?) But I'm neither implying bwhitz's test is flawed. I also don't care about resolution, but if you say bwhitz's test didn't have much fine detail, look at the numberplates.

Have you seen the recent EX3 and GH2 comparison? I don't care about resolution, but since i saw much more detail in the GH2 footage than in the EX3, regardless of how you calculate the resolution, i need to tell you that something in your test is probably flawed. Unless that comparison used one very soft lens for the EX3 footage.
http://www.personal-view.com/talks/discussion/1769/gh2-vs-ex3-stills...-#Item_15

@Ptchaw

I mean colors and such as well. The GH2 is overall more punchy like the Red MX. Even if you desaturate and gaussian blur the GH2 is still doesn't have the same look. I think of them like different film stocks...

7D is softer, more traditional, Kodak-stock look. GH2 is punchy and new-age digital cinema.

@cowpunk52 "It's still very very good, especially for a dslr."

This has absolutely nothing to do with how a camera performs image wise. A few DSLRs right now are much more advanced technology wise than video cameras. I don't see any "video cameras" downscaling from a 5k image besides the Alexa (which is really not a video cameras either). They're mostly native 1080p chips. And native chips NEVER resolve as well as a properly down-sampled image.

"Some have claimed that the gh2 resolves more than 1000 TVL, but that's unfortunately not correct."

No, you just don't want it to for one reason or another. But it does. I don't know where you're getting the 800 line measurement. The Zacuto test measured the 5D at around 800 lines. The GH2 is sampling a 5K image... it easily matches and/or out resolves any native sensor (like the EX3, as I've demonstrated). And the XF is not really close. I've been working with XF footage allot last week and it barley out resolves a 5D/7D... but it doesn't matter because the detail, even with it being sharper, looks worse and more digital.

> I still have my 7D. It's great when you need a softer look.
@bwhitz As is a gaussian blur

@brianluce "Nice test. Probably not a lot of participation because us GH2 cult members consider the 7d as a peasant's tool."

I still have my 7D. It's great when you need a softer look. And I still like the menu layout better than the GH2...

Anyways, I'd love to be adding some examples to this thread, but my 7D is not with me at the moment...

@danyyyel "Look here another example http://www.dvinfo.net/forum/panasonic-lumix-gf-gh-series/503321-how-many-lines-resolution-gh2.html I just saw that yesterday, do you think it is real!!!!!!!"

Nope. Allot of people are threatened by a $800 camera that performs this well. Expect some vindictive testing... This is really the only site I trust anymore for accurate examples. Pretty much every other site just has a bunch of old Varicam and HVX users that are trying to protect their $40,000 2/3" camera investments and just aren't realizing how far behind proper "video cameras" are technology wise.

So although your test might just be quick and less technical, it's just much more trustworthy in the end... thanks!

@danyyyel " have made one test yesterday about what I would call lens DR. These test have use quite a contrasty Tamron 17-50, I have bought an old 28-90 vivitar 1 FD lens and look how it affected DR etc."

I'm really interested in this. In my own experience... If the GH2 (just as an example) had 10stops with Canon L series or Nikon glass, then it would have 8-9stops with Olympus, and then 7-8 stops with Panny glass.

@brianluce I refered to the zacuto great camera shootout, where they measured the 7D to 11 stop of DR. like you can see here http://nofilmschool.com/2011/06/zacuto-unleashes-great-camera-shootout-2011/ so my guess is that the gh2 is not far from it, if mot better. My aim was to quantify from a known camera, because unfortunately the gh2 has nearly no proper test.

Unfotunately I have no red to compare it with and I have asked repeatedly if the people who had one could do it , but to no avail. Humbly I did take my time and some method to test it because the other people did not do the test, with what I had, be it the lowly 7d. Look at the philip Bloom test, it provoked a lot of reaction because at first sight it looked like the gh2 was beaten by every other camera except the Af100 in DR. With a little research I saw that it was not necessarily the case. So I device this test.

It is good to have some quantifiable test because it can stop the speculation. On one side you have people saying as if the gh2 the best thing since slice bread on the other they are always dishing it, someone was claiming not long ago that it was not resolving more than 600-700 line!!!!!!!!!! Look here another example http://www.dvinfo.net/forum/panasonic-lumix-gf-gh-series/503321-how-many-lines-resolution-gh2.html I just saw that yesterday, do you think it is real!!!!!!! Each and every place you find people saying "hey it has limited DR, small sensor, hey the highlight is not x or y". It is good with some test to put it in context. What it is and what it is not. At least someday when some people will claim that their Canon has better DR, perhaps someone will refer to this test if it is the case or not.

What I wanted after the first test was to see how much we could manipulate/push the image and shadows in particular. I just wanted to share it with the community hopping that that the ever, hey it has limited DR to my DSLR x,y or z.

@itimjim, sure it is more a tecnical test than an esthetic one. The shadow/highlight tool, in photoshop can be quite aggressive, it really separates the black (in this case) compared to a normal curve. Something like the image below would be more acceptable. But in motion the posterisation is much less visible because it is noise and very grain like. So it moves to the human eye looks smoother. Should get a way to post the mts. So anyone can play and test so that we can derive some conclusion about the level of push that would be acceptable. Sure the level of acceptable noise is a very subjective thing.

@danyyyel I like your tests, and this topic. I would say the image pushed in photoshop looks borderline unusable, but it is hard to tell without seeing motion. It may blend better as a sequence of frames.

I'm sure that pushing the darks just a little less would result in a usable image.

They are 160 ISO, so as to remove any confusion about the numbers.

I post this other image because I could not remove the other one. The only difference is that I forgot about the value on the wall just above the bear ear. I have also posted a boosted image using photoshop shadow/highlight to show a bit more what is in the shadow. It is quite extreme to separate the different level in the shadows, it does not mean that they are usable, this needs discussion.