Background: I currently have a GH2 which I absolutely love. I'm about 50/50 for video/stills. I'm finishing up my last semester in university so I can only afford to have one camera setup. I have the GH2 and the PZ Vario X 14-42 lens. Although I'm satisfied with the GH2 and I know it is king of video, there are three main reasons I am wanting to switch to the OMD, and one thing holding me back. I do a lot of hiking/mountaineering, so weather-sealing is nice. Additionally, I can't find any primes (~20-30mm) with IS but a prime is all I want for travel and the PZ Vario X lens is a bit underwhelming IMO; therefore, IBIS is great. Last, as I do a lot of hiking and outdoor stuff, the DR of the GH2 is leaving a bit to be desired. So, the one thing holding me back is the 30p of the OMD. Forums everywhere praise 24p, but for overall quality would you even be able to tell the difference with 30p? That sought after "film" look is due to a combination of things - colour, lighting, motion - but many attribute it to 24p. Is this at all true? From what I understand, that motion look of film is more to do with the shutter speed (ie. shooting 24p at 1/50 will look the same as shooting 30p at 1/60). Is this true? Is the 30p an issue? I put a lot of effort into the videography stuff and am getting into it extensively, so I don't want to limit myself with a big downgrade, but from watching videos online overall quality between the two cameras is near-indistinguishable, and the upside of the OMD outweighs that anyway. TLDR: Is 24p really a noticeable difference from 30p? Isn't the motion look of film due to the shutter speed relative to the frame rate (ie. 24p at 1/50 will look the same as 30p at 1/60)?