[QUOTE="David Ruether"]\n[QUOTE="David Ruether"]\n[email][/email]: [...]\n[QUOTE]\nOut of curiosity are you likely to save up and buy the Panasonic GH4 camera\nDavid? Will it fit the lens of your older Panasonic cameras?[/QUOTE][/QUOTE]\n[QUOTE]\n"Debating" on the first; "YES!", on the second - all of them,\nplus all of the other-brand lenses and adapted-lenses I have\nfor them...;-) BTW, in terms of marketing, it is notable that\ntwo very good Panasonic cameras never got full reviews at\ndpreview, the G5 and G6, which are "bang-up" good still cameras,\nand best-of-class for video image quality BY FAR compared with\nthe non-Panasonic competition! Weird, huh? 8^)\n-\-DR[/QUOTE]\n\nOut of curiosity, I tried an experiment last night:\nI figured that 200Mbs was 25MBs, and 25MBs divided\nby 60fps = 0.417MB per frame (or 417kB per frame),\nassuming constant bit rate - so I took a couple of\nsomewhat "out-sized" very sharp and detailed original\nMFT JPG still photos of 1920x1440 pixels that averaged\nabout 2.25MB each (unsharpened 1920x1080 video frames\nwould likely be less than this, even with all-I) and\nre-JPG'd them down to about 410-416 kB file sizes at\nthe same pixel resolution, and then compared them\nside-by-side at 100% with the originals. MUCH to my\nsurprise, there was VERY little difference! The finest\ndetails generally remained in both compared with the\noriginals, and only the highest contrast fine edges\nshowed a very little, very fine stair-stepping in\nonly a very few tiny areas in the photos. This assumes\nthat the camera's compression is equally efficient\n(but it includes some extra "slop" in the form of\nthe additional resolution compared with the HD frame\nresolution...). This looks very promising for getting\nat least fairly spectacular HD video detail from the\nGH4... ('course, mebbe me "figures" were wrong...;-).\n-\-DR[/QUOTE]\n\nWhere did the 200Mbs and 25MBs come from?