Leaderboard

Well for under $1000 you are looking at what has the best codec & cleanest detail, and that is the GH2 with the hack. The GH1 has 4-2-2 but only in MJPEG mode at 720/30p. I'd say rather than chase 4-2-2 (which you cannot get for your price range in 1080p on a large sensor) the GH2 will make your job the easiest in post because of the high bitrates and clean resolution.

Low Light, ok, that's a good reason. I'm yet to find any decent low light footage shot with the LX7, so it's hard to know. The only clip I've been able to find is this Pretty badly shot, but doesn't look too bad. Dynamic range would probably be better with the RX100 too. I'm still undecided, but that 120fps option would be nice. If it were just used for a few random shots here and there, could easily be uprezzed to 1080P. Your "what do I want to use it for, and how" makes perfect sense. Although to be honest, my only real requirement is a camera that can shoot video at 1080 50P minimum, with either manual control or some kind of exposure lock. Anything else would a bonus, so I thought it would be nice to get a few opinions here on what additional features others find most appealing. Which I appreciate, thanks! In fact, if Nokia announce a Pure View Windows Phone 8 device at the Microsoft conference next week, I might even consider that.

If you're shooting on a corporate gig though, C100 with easy to use compact form factor and little files that look good enough will be perfect. It's just easier than spending money and time building a massive rig to get RAW capture, which makes workflow into a pig and the client probably won't notice anyway. If I were making a short or a feature or a series I'd be quite tempted to BMD, but for a huge amount of those making a reguolar living out of video this C100 is gonna be a very attractive product. They're just made for different markets. I still hate 24mnbps AVC though :rolleyes:

4-2-0 24Mbit??????? another fail from canon. sony A99 will kill this product like anything..