@PhilipBloom thanks for the tests. Been shooting a $1 M doc with GH2 (f3, f800 and Alexa as A cams, just depending on what we're shooting, where we are and which owner-operator we're working with). Your screengrabs confirm what have become a few of my gh2 rules to live by. Not sure if you'd agree but here they are:

1. Gh2s prefer to be at least one, maybe 2 stops underexposed. Especially with driftwoods latest patches which recover shadow detail, I personally believe the live histogram is a little untrustworthy. When I try to avoid clipping shadows I find that I often end up blowing out highlight detail and not getting skin-tones in the zone I want them. To my eye, the gh2 shot of the boat and bridge is suffers from this, however that said:

2. The dynamic range of the GH2 isn't quite up for HDR type situations, such as that scene, with a dark foreground and big sky in the background. I've found for wide shots outdoors especially, 1/2 of the stuff I shoot on the gh2 has an ND grad in it. But the other point is that:

3. Gh2 WB is very cold. Given the lack of latitude of 420, getting WB perfect the first time is so key. At first, that meant trying to get it right with Kelvin settings (especially when trying to match the 800). I found that worked reasonably well, but I was not entirely happy. Next was a manual white balance to a grey card. Much better, but still not there. Lately, I've switched to using a warm card 1 for most balances. I find it gets the skin tones exactly where I want them (finally!) but pushes the background too pink of course, however, adding blue in the correct evens it out perfectly without affecting skin tones. However one problem remains:

4. Sharpness. Gh2, especially wide, especially with panny lenses, is too friggin sharp. So unless I'm using legacy glass, I always got a black frost 1/8th (at minimum) in front of it.

The value of these tests, I find, is that it gets people talking about plusses and minuses of different cameras and how they compensate for those in the field. Anyone who does these tests is going to be criticized for their method, but this is a bit ridiculous because everyone will have different opinions of the best method (there is no objective best method). That said, regardless of which method is used, the tests usually reveal certain fundamental characteristics of a camera, and that is important for anyone who cares about their craft to learn. Not sure if it was you who said it or someone else, but each camera is a bit like a different kind of film stock and it is important to know it inside and out so it can be deployed when it suits the situation (and compensated for when it does not).

Thanks for taking time to do the tests. Can't wait to see the full results. And although it goes without saying, thanks again to the guys who made this happen, specifically vitaliy and driftwood.

By way of reference for skin tones, here's something uncorrected shot with the method described above -- balanced to a warm 1 card, on the panny 14mm with a black frost 1/8 -- key through a photoflex small softbox with grid (2 x 312 lights balanced to tungsten) with fill coming from 2 x 312 lights behind the water tanks (dialed down and turned slightly to daylight).

Happy with the tone of the skin and results, although would have lighted a slightly larger lab so my back I could get some depth of field -- the camera is basically against the wall). And I wish I noticed the friggin lav wire slipped out!

I already asked to stop discussing PB in this topic.

I like this point JDN made:
"The value of these tests, I find, is that it gets people talking about plusses and minuses of different cameras and how they compensate for those in the field..."

That's it right? As JDN says, no matter what camera, we are obligated to compensate for shortcomings -- such as graduated filters for outdoor shots because of lack of DR. If we can't compensate, we need a new camera. I couldn't predict or work around or get used to the moire and aliasing of the Canon 7d, so I exchanged it for a GH2. It works for me. YMMV.

Nice vladnik. Give a bit more blue curve
& take out a touch o green

for me ,the F3 is nothing special,no 2k,no 4k, and FS100 also dont like it,for the price,and picture quality is not bettar than GH2

@adventsam
its color corrected high compressed jpeg...
:)
and i boost sharpness to emphasize noise...

@tmcat your statement is incorrect, in fact Bloom himself has posted the results in this very thread, please read and get your facts straight before posting.

@reckless

Ah so the results aren't in the order as posted on pb's blog; it's meant to be matched? So i assume those are just the cams used which he went over 3 times prior. we could saved a lot of confusion by using a more elementary layout in the vein of, 'draw a line matching the amount of objects with their numbers."

I still don't mind the results and I don't think that skin tones are a particularly strong point of the GH2. I don't care for the impact it will have on none GH users as most don't really begin to grasp how useful these bitrate patches are, not just to image quality but in terms of personal knowledge and community development. I would also go on to say that it is not a camera for 'everyone,' to be using, as it's very involving.

Very sorry about the erroneous post, it was genuinely, a retarded arrival to this thread.

>all these teaser still shot and camera guessing game is creating a lot of traffic for sure.

Yep. Same old tricks.
More traffic, more affilate links clicks, more money.
This is how it works.

The Gh2 costs practically ziltch...when compared to...UHM....everything ELSE.... and given the price difference the fact is...GH2 is and always will be champ in my book.

Nice work @Vladnik, I think I should hire you to do my CC.