@eyenorth Thanks for taking the time to provide that video. I appreciate it.

Shaveblog - well I used 3 different Carl Zeiss Vario Sonnar lenses and 2 Canon L series lenses went through all the color profiles on both cameras used a color chart shot inside and outside went through all the Kelvin settings - and yes the G6 in my opinon is producing a better image than my hacked GH2 - Driftwood Quantum 9b HACK - 150 mb/s - and Im a huge GH2 fanboy - I love that camera - but time moves on an G6 is the new kid on the block...

But next till I will just look on youtube like everyone else then comment on the compression artifacts

@andy_lee

What do you mean? H.264 codec is used in both AVCHD and mp4 files, the data is just stored differently.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/AVCHD

As far as comparisons go, only original files from camera, or clips of them compressed losslessly (not even ProRes, but actual lossless formats) are any good. Of course recompressed Vimeo or Youtube clips are near-useless for judging compression quality of camera itself.

@andy_lee Yeah, that was your first mistake - actually having both cameras in hand. What were you thinking?

Your second mistake was spending the time and effort to carry out a comprehensive comparison, organize the data, and then trust what your eyes told you vs. whatever preconceived notions and accumulated fora wisdom regarding bitrate uber alles you might have. BO-RING.

Seriously, well done. I know what goes into testing like you did and it's not for the lazy.

As soon as I can buy just the body from a reputable seller like Amazon/B&H I'm buying one. I'm particularly interested in comparing a more evolved Driftwood patch like IV2 or Moon T5 to the stock G6. While certainly better than the stock GH2, I feel these later patches are significantly cleaner looking than the older Quant9b. I'm most interested to see how the G6's noise/grain stacks up to IV2's, as that patch produces the most filmlike noise/grain I've seen from the GH2 to date. Sometimes I shoot at a higher ISO than needed and stop the lens down, just to nail exposure but with a bit more grain. Hopefully the G6 offers the same creative latitude.

Personally I'm thrilled that a stock $600 Lumix body shoots at this level, and without having to jump through patching hoops or needing expensive high-speed cards. I don't care whether the camera is plastic or a G vs a GH, all that matters is the footage. Very psyched to pick one of these up this summer when bodies are more readily available.

Well, watching that video, i've to admit maybe gh2 hacked version has a little bit more detail than g6. But in low light spaces, g6 seems to work better.

And with g6 you do not have to manage HUGE files.

G6 seems to win, even against gh3 for me.

@eyenorth - The link refuses to open in Safari. When I try in Firefox, it just sits there. After downloading the latest version of Opera, Mega prompts me to upgrade.

Switch to Firefox and it works fine

why do people assume that same mega pixel means same sensor. I don't think that the gh2 sensor developer team have been sitting for the last 2/3 years. It might be the same sensor with tweaks to enhance low light, speed and DR, or a complete new design sharing the same megapixel. I remember reading that the gh sensor chief engineer in an interview saying that they did not want to increase megapixel (I don't remember from which models to its successor),but had to because of the marketing department.

@danyyyel When the G6 was announced the GH2 sensor was one of the main talking points. But going back and looking at Panasonic's announcements, they clearly state that the new Venus engine is doing some advanced NR, so that would probably explain the difference in performance.

@nac Yes, I think dialing all that way down in sharpness softens it up a bit. Leaving it a bit sharper doesn't seem to introduce artifacting, so I'd probably leave it sharper for shooting :)

It is very simple to know from raw photograph if NR is applied or not. The best example is the Canon line of camera which have barely seen any upgrade, in the case of the 5d3 it was just the jpeg engine that had heavy NR. Once people looked at the Raw, claim of multiple stop improvement compared to the 5d2 was clearly just heavy NR.

Well. It's really so hard to decide between the GH2 and G6. I'm 2 months away to buy either one of them for video use and I'm really confused of what to get. I'm on a rather tight budget so I can't get a GH3. What would you guys recommend me to do?

@andy_lee, please proof. Any "test" between GH2 and G6 I have seen so far lacks for controlled testing conditions: Controlled means: Using artificial lightning, not natural lighting. Even when it is overcast and cloudy, light changes within minutes. So please use artificial lightning. Use some b/W test chart, like the one I attached. You will find many others on the web, they are just a good starter for finding identical sharpness values for your cameras prior to comparing. Then look for comparable picture profiles. The comparison of eyenorth was using natural -and therefor changing - light from the windows. In this comparison, the G6 might have flatter gamma, but dark greys and blacks look as crushed as Gh2. Soft highlight roll off? I do not see it! Would have been easier to spot, if lightning would have been steady during the test... Have fun!

I tested both camera last week in my studio with 3 800w Red Head Tungsten lights - Ive been doing this for 20 years! and I always use color charts in the frame

So pixel peep all you want the G6 is producing a nicer image stock out the box than my hacked GH2 running Driftwood Quantum 9b updated hack 150mb/s.

Do you really think Panasonic are going to release a camera thats not better than the gh2! -Duh!