Thanks for the reply.
My question is how would the same video look if the professional film and editing crew used a current $800 to $1000 consumer camcorder from Sony or Panasonic instead of a $3000 GH3. So far, it seems to me that the primary appeal of the GH3, and other DSLRs, is the blurry background achieved with wide open, manually focused lenses. I'm not getting it for the rest.
The point in asking the question is my theory that 1080p capability has done a lot to level the camera/camcorder playing field when the pinnacle of the viewing experience will be 1920 x 1080 60" televisions. iPads and YouTubes are smaller screens and may make less difference. The hobbyists, amateurs and newbies that come to this forum are not indy film producers that will have their work displayed with theater grade digital projectors at the movieplex.
Perhaps my real question is would my videos be any better if I bought a GH3 and a bag big enough to hold it and a couple lenses? My videos will never be viewed on anything bigger than a home TV. Other than increasing the bulk and weight of what a carry around, what would change? The price is not stopping me from getting a GH3. Not knowing what it would do for my travel and family photo and video shoots is stopping me.
For reference, you can watch my latest 5 minute attempt shot at the Grand Canyon here: https://vimeo.com/64474485
. There is a lot of post production, transcoding and editing involved. The goal was to see if I could watch the video and remind myself of the overwhelming visual impact of the Grand Canyon. In a way, it is completely opposite of what Mark does. Mark works at capturing the perfect movie image in camera much like I used to do with Kodachrome slides. What would improve if I bought a GH3 for my next trip to the Grand Canyon, Mt. Rainier,Yellowstone or Switzerland?
Thanks in advance for giving this some thought.
Bill (the other one)