Ernesto Mantaras

I don't understand that either. Perhaps they thought they were getting RAW or something? And didn't think about the expense and hassle of an external recorder. And the fact that you'll need an external monitor! I wasn't aware of that one, I thought Canon had solved that. "Free magical firmware update (doesn't include mandatory extra equipment)."

  But of course Moon Trial 5 looks amazing! There is a very noticeable difference between that patch and the stock GH2 footage, and in all cases YT compression will affect detail and sharpness, I never said it didn't. Perhaps we're not understanding each other correctly (maybe the fact that I'm a non-native English speaker gets in the way). I AM saying that the footage was destroyed (or rather just plain bad) before being uploaded to YouTube. I AM stating that I BELIEVE (I don't know for a fact, I'm inducing) that Panasonic did in fact made the quality of the G6 video mode not be as good as the GH2 to protect the GH3. I AM considering the possibility that the uploader took all the wrong steps to end up with a shitty MP4 that misrepresents the G6 video quality, but considering all the sources I've seen so far (from several different uploaders) are just as soft, I am more inclined to believe in the "crippling" theory. I think we're pretty much in the same line, but we're not quite tuned.

  Why? YouTube compression will destroy the quality of a video, but it doesn't do it to the extent that, say, a camera that supposedly shoots just like the GH2 ends up looking like an FZ200. If that was the case, then all the GH2 footage uploaded to YouTube should look like that, and it doesn't. In fact, that DrewNET video I posted was the reason I became crazy about the GH2 after learning a lot from it from EOSHD, and convinced me to take the plunge two days before I bought a Canon. You can't deny there's a lot of detail there in spite of YouTube trying to obliterate it.

I have to insist, Andrew, and I don't mean to be negative but I don't want there to be false hope either. YouTube won't give you the original file quality, but it will certainly not destroy it as much to make this big a difference between two videos that, according to our expectations, should look very similar in terms of detail under the same conditions. The detail present in the first video can't compete with the one you see in the second one, and considering they've both been equally destroyed by YouTube compression they should both look just as good or bad, and instead there's a clear winner in the GH2 video. G6 video: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3oijsASQQ6k   GH2 video: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rcKuGoMN-VQ   Again, I hope I'm wrong on this, but what if Panasonic didn't want to take sales away from the GH3 and crippled the image quality in the G6? Because considering how popular the GH2 is, and if it has been improved in every way by this new compact model, then many people will think about it more than twice before spending almost double as much on the GH3. I know I would. The GH2 competes with the GH3 in video quality, but now it has been discontinued. Would Panasonic allow the G6 to compete against the GH3 as well? And just to make it clear, the GH2 unhacked delivers great images by itself. The hack only boosts that up (and by far!) but detail is there to begin with, you can see it right out of the box. On the available G6 sample videos there's no such thing.

  That is absolutely correct, but just to make it double clear: while YouTube compression can bring a bazzillion types of artifacts it will not render your perfect full HD resolution, carefully encoded video into something this soft: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3oijsASQQ6k&feature=share&list=UUxSt5kmZG3dNXsBJqtzIKmQ (or, in other words, it cannot turn GH2 worthy footage into that low resolution video) And if there are differences made between partners and other regular channels, then those aren't to blame either, because you can find perfectly detailed videos like this one in the same PanasonicLumixVideo channel: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MT-2VF3-fWo

  I understand YouTube compression and those videos' softness has nothing to do with it (though I deeply wish it did). That can only come from either a bad encoding on the uploader's side or indeed the camera's true capabilities. Watch any good GH2 video uploaded to YouTube and you'll see there's no such softness in them, in spite of YouTube's compression. Here's one, for instance: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rcKuGoMN-VQ   Still, I'm rooting for this camera to be what all of us are hoping.

  I saw that video last night, along with several others (which I posted below) but although colors seem to match, resolution is way off! That's soft, incomparable to what the GH2 can deliver. As much as I'd love for this to be a true GH2 improvement/replacement, I'm afraid the video capabilities are not up to par. I really hope I'm wrong, but if these videos are any indication of video image quality, then it's a bummer. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-qhS49-_nHo   http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lHoCFgzwibs

It looks as if the background was overexposed, but in post, like what would turn out if I brought the whites to the left with a levels adjustment. Weird. Perhaps the camera was applying some sort of rare contrast? Which is difficult because the subject looks a bit washed out. I know the background's supposed to be white, but perhaps the light shouldn't have been as bright and have the backdrop be a very light grey, just underexposed under 100 IRE? It looks to be overexposed, pure white, if you haven't touched the colors. Perhaps this is a case of the gamma problem in Mac? Where blacks and whites get crushed into a 16-235 palette.

It remains to be heard, too, but leaving microphone options aside, don't you think the Tascam DR-60D would be a better option for recording on-location sound?

Keep the list growing! This is very useful stuff. Thanks guys. :)

The 17.5mm f0.95 Voigtlander would be a normal lens on the Pocket Camera, so perhaps that'd be a good choice to use in both that and the GH2 camera.

One other thing, would an 8.5mm lens designed for 2/3" (while still vignetting) be useable (versus that $5 eBay 8mm f/1.2 fixed iris lens for 1/3" sensor)?

Very illustrative, Julian! And I'm waiting for those pics, Andy, I wanna see how the bokeh looks on the Pentax. Here here's another lens that isn't on the list but could perhaps be a good addition to the list? Pentax 12.5mm f1.4 http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/553973-REG/Pentax_C21211KP_C21211KP_1_C_Mount.html If it performs as well as the Cosmicar then I'm getting one!

Rungunshoot said it right. A 50mm is a normal lens, while an 85mm is a portrait lens, and a 75mm would be close (that 25mm by 3 on the BMPC). The idea of 4K for $4K is great but the EF mount turns me off. E mount would've been the ideal choice! And right now I wouldn't be able to handle 4K RAW. Now HD and 2.5k are a different thing... The BMCC, with that same sensor and more physical buttons (and a swivel screen... and a compressed RAW codec like Cineform RAW...) would be the ideal camera for me right now. But the BMPC looks to be quite sexy in its own right.

Hey, guys, what about this lens? The Pentax 8-48mm f1.0. http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/341297-REG/Pentax_C60812_C60812_8mm_to_48mm.html I know it says it is for 1/2" sensors, but it amazed me how sharp and free of CA (for the most part) it is! I saw how it performs on a video tested using a GH2 on ETC mode (which effectively turns it roughly into a 1/2" camera). https://vimeo.com/25024473 Is it too much of a stretch to think it will be useable on the BMPC?

  Exactly!

It'll be great to see that GH2 test you mentioned. Let us know once it's done!

So do you think this lens would cover the BMPC sensor? I still haven't received my Pentax 25mm f1.4, but the look I've seen on the GH2 is great. If I can get a similar look on the BMPC with that zoom I'll be satisfied! Thanks for the cool recommendations you're throwing.

Very nice options! Thanks! What adapter could we use to put it on the MFT mount of the Pocket camera? Because it says in some descriptions that it's not C-mount, although it's close.

Here's a thought I haven't read anyone talk about yet: because of the size of the sensor, wouldn't we be able to use EF-S lenses via Speed Booster? Unlike the case of Super35 sensors, where you need a full frame lens.   I'm saying this because, say, the Tamron 17-50mm f2.8 is roughly a 50-150mm lens on the Pocket, but if you fit a Speed Booster in the middle then you get a 35-105mm f2, and that's with IS (if it's implemented through the electronic interface of the mount, I hope!)

Just more, not better. That's up to the lens.

    Not quite. Micro 4/3 in the GH2 is a 1.86x crop factor relative to 35mm full frame, and 2x in the case of the GH3. Super 16mm is about 3x, so that's a lot more DOF.

It's funny how now cameras are the accesories of lenses. I'm actually really excited about these two new cameras and what they'll mean for the competition!

  You could get the Voigtlander 17.5mm f0.95 to get a kinda normal lens, but it's quite expensive.

Not quite, I think, since 1080p isn't as much data as 2.7k, but I hear you. Still, I bet they've figured it out somehow if they're offering that option. I wish they'd get around to using Cineform RAW as a recording format or something like that. I guess it'll come around to that sooner than later.