I've gotten to spend a lot more time with the gh3 and gh1 and that's shifted my opinion a bit. for 1 I've finally gotten them to match with in camera settings. I've attached a still from some shooting i did today. This is the gh1 and gh3 side by side. Both iso 200, same shutter, different aperture (gh1 sensor seems more sensitive so I needed to stop down the aperture more)

Here's the settings:

gh1
standard -2,-2,0,0

gh3
natural -5,-5,-2,-2

Lowlight, it's a different story. Gh3 makes a usuable image where gh1 has visible streaking that makes it unusable (that's easier to see in motion). Also, you can see the dynamic range suffers more on the gh1.

So now I think in daylight there's hardly any difference worth mentioning between the two cams (gh3 looks a bit softer, gh1 has a bit more artifacting.) And in lowlight, the gh3 is much better. Now I'll almost never shoot at anything but iso 200, unless I'm shooting a live event where I don't have control over light, so I don't mind the lowlight weakness of the gh1. Anyway, I'm bored waiting for my bmpcc so hope this info helps anyone trying to use the gh1 as a b cam to the gh3.

I said (in other topics) that GH1 is more filmic than GH2. And in those ocasions people tell me that GH2 was better... but my eyes tell me exactly what I see: GH1 is more filmic. And my eyes are habitueted with film movies. Until 1972 I see film movies, until 1977 I work with film movies. And I worked only in two video movies, so I reconize the difference. And I reconize when a digital camera is closer to get a film image. And I saw it in gh1. But nowadays the diference between digital and film is almost ending, because there is a lot of movies, shortcuts, documentaries, etc made with digital cameras an many 'big' movies (Cabret, Life of Pi, etc) made with digital too. So our eyes are 'underestending' video as film. Otherwise today even movies made with film are more sharp than last years. But the diference already exists. I'm not speaking about good story, good ilumination, good takes, photography or good direction. I'm speaking about image's texture, color and envolvence. (sory my bad english). I guess a good promisse camera to guet a film-like image is the digital bolex and as possible I'll testing. Now I would like to let a simple question for you guys: Using a GH2 what patche is more filmic?

I like the GH4 way more than the earlier cameras. I find it possible to achieve a variety of 'looks' out of the camera using the internal settings. I also like the way the footage responds to colour grading in DaVinci Resolve. I have been able to get a very nice 'looks a bit like film' result with not too much work.

My impression is that the GH1-4 all use the same basic 4/3 Sensor. Each newer one has been tweeked a little bit more, so they are not actually the same. The big difference is the Processor and firmware used to develope the image. Thus for my use the GH4 is undoubtably the best.

Was randomly browsing when I came across this and thought I'd share it with other poor folk who are pining after a Panasonic GH4 yet can't afford it (which is me for the next few months!).

As don't forget, there is also the GH3/GH2/GH1! And the GH1 goes for under USS$200 second hand, it is the camera I started out, and clearly nothing else in its price range comes even close to touching it!

So have a read of this article and discover why Chase Jarvis is keeping his Panasonic GH1 rather than getting a GH3: http://blog.chasejarvis.com/blog/2013/01/panasonic-gh3-hands-on-camera-review/ Also, this: http://www.anycamerawilldo.com/old-but-not-out/

Its like picking a Polaroid. It’s has its mojo, and just had 8.5 of DR but those limitation build a good foundation for achieving a good look. Good to see you pick up a good tool. I’m amazed by the price.