Leaderboard

[quote name='kirk' timestamp='1348916703' post='19173'] Good to hear Jon. You could perhaps try and uninstall the hack and have a look at the quality the camera produces, then compare with the hacked. I began with hacking mine when I got it, tried without for a while, and never hacked again other than freeing the PAL/NTSC, ISO and time restriction. The GH2 is a magnificent tool even unhacked, and the various hacks can change that a fraction, but often at the cost of instability, more noise, time spent and more expensive cards needed. I'm sure I'll be stoned for this heresy, but just give it a chance and see for yourself ;o) Be sure to use a good screen when comparing though! [/quote]+++100% There is an enormous amount of Placebo effect with the GH2 hacks.

Lower f-stop numbers like f/1.4 or f/2.0 are better then f/3.5 or f/4. Lenses are usually described with a focal length and widest possible aperture. The wider the aperture the better. So if you see a lens described as a "50mm, f/3.5" and then another "50mm, f/1.4", the latter is better because the lower F-stop number indicates a wider aperture opening. f/1.4 is better then f/3.5.

The cage will probably not work with the shorter M43 turret? Anyhow, I can see the point of having a fixture for rails, for battery, follow focus and a mattebox, but the camera body, being a monobloc aluminum structure, is a cage in itself. There already are three 1/4 inch holes on top of the camera for handle, mic etc, and if you need side handles they can be fixed to the rails. Paying that high a price for something that already is there seems somewhat silly?

I don't understand the strange comments about the aesthetics. It is striking and I suppose that divides people but I am on the side of the looks, it is beautiful. Show me your rare wood handles for your plastic DSLR made in China!!