4dbill

Hacked GH2 makes it possible to capture beautiful moving images with nothing other than a small inexpensive body and a decent lens (20mm pancake being my favorite). It makes it possible to show every day life, with natural light, that rivals the quality 'pro' cameras that costs 10-50 times more. We often get discouraged not having the latest equipment, especially bulky expensive lighting setup. As Andrew states, light surrounds us always. We only know it well if we really see it, use it and embrace it.

Almost all interviewees talked about telling stories. Yes, it matters for sophisticated film makers and movie critics, but the mass audience, where the most money comes from, do not care. They want to see boobs, special effects and stupidity -- a quick gratification for investing their money ($12 movie tickets) and time spend watching it (Youtube). If the exact contest was shot side-by-side with any of the two cameras tested, most audience members are not going to be concerned about what footage is better than another. They do not understand or care about a little noise, burned out highlights or a slight yellow cast. The general consensus seems to point to the direction that more money you spend on camera, easier and faster it is to turn it around. It all comes down to money. Most artists have luxury of time, therefore they can make any of these cameras work (well.. maybe not iPhone). Since their budgets are severely limited, they choose reasonably prices cameras. Big budget movie makers, on the other hand, need to get things done quickly first time around, therefore they choose the big-boy cameras, minimizing the overall cost. Having said all that, 7D still sucks compared to GH2. It just tells you what is popular (Canon) isn't necessarily the best for the money. Marketing determines results, not truths.