quarki69

hack is good,
hack is like releasing hidden powers, is like overclocking your processor, i wish there would be a hack for a human brain, like in Matrix, so i can learn After Effects, or Resolve from A to Z in 5 seconds, or i wouldn't need to sleep so i can shoot and edit 24 hrs a day
Hack is really good,
and as to a GH2 vs GH3 - i got rid of GH3 after couple months, but i still shoot with my GH2;
but that's me :)))

For me the GH2 was absolutely great! I never had any quirks and it was always reliable (I used the "Vanilla hack") Image is also very good "out of the box" for my taste. I sold it (bad idea) and bought the GH3 therefore. There are things which are also great about that camera:
Get rid of AVCHD! 25/50p! Much better feel and weatherproof! Better photos (for my taste)! I prefer 2x crop (better/wider with anamorphics)!
Dynamic range of the GH3 really is that much better over GH2. I recently captured video in very foggy conditions and later during grading I could make things visible my eyes couldn't see when I was shooting - that was really astonishing. But at first glance I preferred the image of the GH2 (still not sure what "cinematic" really means? I always thought for many it means "get as shallow depth as you can" but that is not my cup of tea because that is not so filmic)

For me the Sony heritage in the GH3's chip reveals itself in how it handles highlights as well as biasing towards a "cold" image compared with other sensors.  You can remove the cold feel or any color bias in your grade but there's nothing you can do about electric, harsh highlights.  
 
Both the GH1 and GH2 don't feel as harsh and electronic.  Pre-grade, the color and tonality can feel quite photographic and decidedly not camcorder-like.  For almost a year before ever purchasing my GH2 I reviewed shoot-out after shoot-out, with the GH1 in the mix with 5D2, 7D and other cameras and my eye always favored the image of the GH.  I lusted after the ridiculously sublime shallow DOF you could get more easily with the 5D2 but it's color (we're talking pre raw here) never spoke to me and even on YT/Vimeo streams it was easy enough to see other cameras didn't have as much detail as the GH.  The GH2 only seemed to improve Panasonic's position compared to all comers.
 
When I saw the GH3, before finding out Panasonic had outsourced its sensor, I could tell right away that something was rotten in Denmark.  The secret sauce wasn't there.  Detail, sure, but that's it.  The Sony revelation made everything clear.  Top to bottom, from the VX1000 to today's F65, I just don't really like the way their sensors look and top to bottom it usually has to do with electric highlights.
 
Anyway, Driftwood-patched (take your pick) GH2 is still king of the hill AFAIC if you have to shoot compressed.