Recently directed a two week block of a nature doc where the gh2 was side by side with an F3 and then an Alexa. Overall, everyone was impressed with how well the gh2 stood up -- so much so I take back what I said about the F3 on another forum. I now believe the hacked gh2 may look better than any camera under $20K, even if those cameras are fitted with external recorders.

In no particular order, here’s some observations for those who are interested:

SPECS:
Sony F3 with RED 17-50mm zoom outputting nanoflash at psf 140mbps I frame
Arrix Alexa with a variety of canon bayonet mount lenses shooting to prores HQ 422
GH2 with kae 3GOP hack with 14, 25 mm (panasonic) and 50mm (FD) primes
All shooting was done at 23.98 with black frost 1/8th and schiender tru polas

GH2 versus F3

OUTDOOR PERFORMANCE
We started off shooting the F3 at 100 mbps long GOP and almost barfed when we reviewed the results in the hotel room that night -- the high bit rate did not take away from the very “video” look, and the sensor had no ability whatsoever to handle blowouts -- the sun had disgusting fringy bands around it (although to be fair, this could have been the lens). Switching to I frame improved the “film” though the gh2 still somehow had better cadence -- our DoP, who is much more experienced than me, commented that he always thought panasonic’s cadence at 24 frames was better than other manufacturers and some of that knowledge could have gone into the gh2.

Much like how the gh2 trumps the canon SLRS in terms of aliasing and moire, it maintained a slight edge over the f3 with nano in these categories as well -- we were shooting a lot in forested areas at the aliased fringing on foliage was less noticeable with the gh2 than with the f3.
Colour Rendition. Although we did not have much time to play with custom colour profiles on the f3, the general impression was that the f3 handled reds better and the gh2 handled greens better. Overall, the F3’s look was much more like the richness you’d get off a 5D, while the gh2 (at -2,-2,0,-2) had a slightly drained film look while still rending beautiful green tones. Obviously, for nature documentary, greens are more important than reds, so once again the Gh2 was the winner.

INDOOR PERFORMANCE
We were unable to test the gh2 and f3 with only available light, but with a controlled lighting setup, the two stacked up very well. We used the f3 to cover wides and mediums and the gh2 with 50 mm fd to cover the headshot. Overall, the cameras were comparable -- they both handled blacks very well, exhibited minimal noise (in both cases, when there was noise, it was quite pleasing) and experienced no aliasing around the edge of the interview subject, even with a back and top light.

The gh2 did show a noticeable red shift in low light -- I had to click the +G up about four spots on the colour balance and go a few 100 K cooler than the F3; even then we will be doing some colour correct to bring down the red a bit.
Overall, for a sit down interview, I’d say the F3 was the winner with more accurate colour rendition, more detail and perhaps a half stop more of latitude. That said, one is a $1200 setup, the other (counting the nanoflash & lens) is nearly a $30,000 setup.

BUILD QUALITY
The placement of the F3’s viewfinder was even more inconvenient than an slrs and as such was rarely used -- forcing us to rely on the f3’s viewfinder, which is actually worse (and less accurate) than the GH2s. As the F3 lacks false colour of a red or an alexa, you’re basically shooting with a histogram and zebras, just like a gh2, so neither has the upper hand.

We were not impressed with the build quality of the f3 -- it felt very plasticky, even more so than the gh2, and we were constantly worried we would break the thing. I could not, in good confidence, rely on it as a A-cam in a situation where I was far away from a gear house; one mistake and I think you’d shut down production. Same goes for the gh2 -- I’m sure its lack of weather sealing will one day cause me grief; thankfully, its low price tag will allow me to keep backups on hand.

SIZE AND PRICE
- With incredible progress of the hack, we often overlook how important the GH2’s form factor is, but I really saw it on this shoot:
One of our DPs, who has done a lot of work in warzones, saw the gh2s and its results and immediately commented, “these are going to be the Leica’s of video.” And I realize I’ve started to use it that way: like the stereotypical war photographic with three or four leica’s and primes around his neck, I just carry around two gh2s (and may get a third) — usually keep the 14mm on one (sometimes mounted on a glidecam hd), and the second one armed with either the 50mm f1.4 leica or a 100 mm f1.4 fd -- you get the visual characteristics of primes without having to stop to change them, and also quickly become a much better shooter.

In a doc setting, it is incredible how much you can get done when you are not tied to a heavy camera and sticks (nor crippled by the 12 minute run time of canon slrs). It was too rainy/windy/sandy at one location to risk the F3 and nano so we just pulled out the gh2s and ended up getting way more coverage than we would have ever got with the f3 (an interesting point on most of the new cameras, F3 included, is that they are not really designed to be shoulder held, so you end up killing 5 minutes to build a rig whenever you go from sticks to hand held).

WINNER: GH2

GH2 versus Arri Alexa
The above comments about the maneuverability of the GH2 apply even moreso comparison to the Alexa -- with lens, it weighs 30 - 35 pounds and can only be operated shoulder mounted with the assistance of a custom built easy rig.

Indoor Performace
The Alexa is absolutely incredible when shooting indoors with natural light only. It is mind-blowingly good -- in many situations we were able to shoot with a single 1x1 light panel as fill/key. The tonality of the colours is breathtaking (especially at 10 bit) but the real secret is the 14 stops of latitude -- whereas normally you’d have to light to keep your subject from disapearing into your background, and your background bright enough to not drop into shadow, with the Arri there is no need to do this. We shot some quick and dirty recon in an old train car and I felt like I was looking at a major motion picture (in the past, you had to spend hours rigging lights so the setting would look like it was naturally lit -- with the arri, you just use natural light).

In situations that are lit, the contrast between the arri and gh2 falls off a little -- we did a dinner where everyone had their own dedo as a key (to simulate light coming off a practical (oil lamp) on the table), with backlight coming from a fire and various practical and fill from a light panel. In this environment, the gh2’s red shift actually sold the oil lamp light very convincingly, and it’s lack of latitude was not a detriment as we were going for a dramatic look (this is not to say that it was better than the arri, however, as the arri files could also be crunched later to achieve a similar effect -- it was just that the lack of latitude as compared to the arri was not detrimental in this situation). I should say, however, there is something about the gh2 cadence that is still impressive -- for part of the shoot, we had the gh2 on a konova slider and the alexa on a microdolly (the standard dolly from an out of focus silhouette to reveal a table full of diners) and I gotta say, in some cases I preferred the cadence of the gh2 but overall the quality, lattitude and 10 bit colour of the alexa was a sight to behold.

OUTDOOR PERFORMACE
In run and gun situations outdoors, the arri showed some of its limits -- you really needed a good dp (which thankfully we had) who could put the sticks in the right place the first time because it just wasn’t the easiest camera to move around. Even moreso than other large cameras I’ve shot with (like the f800, which is about half the weight) the weight of the arri did limit some options and increase setup time. But, given the spectacular colours, it was worth it.

OTHER ISSUES
- The weight, and the fact that it chews through a 32 gig SxS card in 20 minutes, means you’re not running this thing for long without an assistant. We were constantly dumping cards, backing them up and reformating them (and that was with 7 cards). But if you can afford a $80,000 camera body, you can probably afford an assistant.

WINNER: ARRI ALEXA (what’d you expect?). I would say, however, the form factor of the alexa means that any doc shoot will require the highest quality, most maneuverable B camera to go with it, or you’re going to miss out on certainly angles and opportunities -- so far, the gh2 and Alexa seem a pretty good match in that respect, though we won’t really find out until we get them in the edit together).

ONE FINAL NOTE:
My biggest realization from these two weeks of side-by side comparisons (and a week earlier with the f800 as a cam) is that there really is “a gh2 look” -- something about the cadence, rendering of greens, slightly drained colour palate, and ability to handle dramatic lighting (from blacks to blowouts) makes it unique. As people once spoke of a Leica look, I think the more we play with the hacked gh2, the more we’ll realize it has something all its own. I can’t yet put my finger on what that is yet, but I can say that, much like film, there is something about its footage, which when shot right, gives you a real-but-unreal feeling; it is real because it has incredible detail and lack of video give aways (aliasing, moire, fringing/banding etc), yet is is unreal because the cadence contributes to suspension of disbelief, while its love of being at least one stop underexposed (and usually two) naturally leads to more dramatic tonality of colours and shadows than you’d experience with your own eyes).