In encoding terms: The GH2s Cluster X settings with h264 level 4, 4x4 transform drive low quantisation to its limits using hi-bitrate. The GH3s Hi Profile Level 5/level 4 dual 8x8 / 4x4 transform (though most the picture is quantised with 8x8, 4x4 is generally used for hi-variance frequency range differences on horizontal or vertical edges) is able to perform low quantisation at lower bitrates albeit at lower precision (less info is stored).

Therefore, the GH2 is actually more precise and achieves sharper images (less compression) by keeping more of the information. However, the arithmetic operations involved are roughly doubled and produce larger file sizes. The GH3's variable transform shows that in 8x8 blocks you can drop a lot of the information without creating unacceptable blocking artefacts.

For the majority of pictures the human eye will not be able to distinguish between 8x8 or 4x4. However, moire and other artefacting is more of a problem with the GH3 against a hacked GH2 as has been seen numerous times.

I was excited to get my GH3 and picture wise I think the skin tones and dynamic range are better on the GH3 vs my hacked GH2. My GH2 is sharper, can actually focus the thing with the EVF and is $500!

But a few things really piss me off about the GH3 (mostly related to run and gun shooting:

As soon as you hit record you loose all the screen display info after a while! WTF! Ok so the ergonomics are better but not a huge improvement. The EVF is a friggin joke really, enough for me to really want to send the camera back AND if you add a hood or loupe to the LCD you'll see the LCD is pretty low res and you can't use it to focus with either! Still now way to focus, for run and gun it makes me want to throw this camera out my window, my $500 TM700 has focus peaking and because the EVF is so crappy it's really hard to focus.

So I got the camera and grip and a lens and some batteries for a good price so I'll keep it and it does produce some lovely skin tones and it is better in low light AND it's an $850 camera so just keep on saying that to yourself after you've bought it. $850, $850 ........

Go to vimeo and look at the GH3 channel and you'll see some great video.

@kazuo

Many seems to prefer GH2 if they even have both. I just cant understand why.

the best videos from GH3 ( 4 me, looks better than any hack on gh2):

peace!

GH3 easily, 1 battery is equal to 3 GH2 batteries. I've been shooting events and weddings, on GH3 1 battery can last whole day's shooting, GH2 on the other hand eat battery like breakfast like other DSLR.

So I think we obviously can stop talking about GH2 being better video camera than GH3 because nobody gives us any evidence of it.

Here is a proof of GH3 superior sensor over GH2:

I prefer the GH2 over the 3 for basic image. I'm just basing this off of examples from the 3 I've graded or seen as I've never owned one. There's just something the 3 does with skin that I'm not a fan off. Don't know what it is.

I have seen GH3 footage that to me looked superior to GH2 but this is so subjective. I think the love for the GH2 boils down to the fact that we've had the GH2 for so much longer and have hacked it to death. People know how to get the best out of it and with the GH3 it is new and there are fewer owners in general. Not to mention no hack, so basically we still haven't seen the absolute best out of the GH3 yet. It may end up being far better than it currently stands if we get to the point where it's hacked and tweaked further. GH2 stands as an unbelievable bargain right now. The current used price is just too low to not put it as a best bang for buck tool.

I totally get @Vesku 's point. There is no good comparison material. Just like with GH2 hack patches. It's like people just wants to debate about it, when they could have spent their energy doing that material :)

To anyone really interested in the quality possible with a GH2, I suggest looking at the threads on this site that show countless examples of great imaging from the GH2. For starters, check the Moon thread. Then check the Intravenous v1 thread. Then Boom thread. Then Sedna. I'm sure I've forgotten many others.

GH3 is capable of good imaging too, particularly when used with Voigtlander lenses. Check the GH3 thread for many nice examples.

Truth is the 2 cameras produce different type of images, with GH2 having more flexibility in image type due to variety of hack settings.

And never forget primary determining factor of image is the artist/cameraman and lighting etc.

For those seriously curious, pony up $400 for GH2 and try it out.

And for those who want to optimize their GH2 shooting from a technical standpoint while addressing some of the limits of the GH2, head on over to the site run by @shian to watch his tutorials, particulalry the one on exposing in the zone.

Bottom line - both cams are good -pick your preference.

@matt_gh2

Image is done with sensor and processor. Codec is then only recording that image. GH3 sensor and processor are much better than GH2. GH3 MOV codec is also better than hacked GH2 codec. How is it possible to get better video from GH2 then? Proofs please, not opinions or feelings.

I don't think it's the IQ, I think it's the sensor. It does odd things with colors especially in mixed lighting or predominantly sunlight [5000+K] conditions. As I've proved in the past, the GH2 does not produce accurate color in sunlight, and I would say the GH3 does even worse to the point where colors become excessive. There is a problem with blue light where someone shot in all sunlight balanced for sunlight indoors, will get these crazy electric blue highlights in their hair (it's more noticeable with brown hair), but it is crazy. AND it doesn't show up in the EVF or the LCD screen, but it will on a monitor, and its there in the footage. And it's a giant pain to correct.

I do not trust it. And I cannot work with a camera I can't trust.