Like almost everything, every camera had its own way of using. I shot with Panasonic for more than 7 years and still learning new things. I've got first real glass (25mm pana-leica) only 2 years ago. Until this I've shot with kit lenses only. I have 14-42mm and 45-200mm Panasonic lenses. But with better glass came pleasant results and these 2 primes (Leica & Sigma) worth every penny.

The Voigt is better if you are into manual focusing + video. The Panny-Leica is recommend for mostly stills if you want fast focusing. Works well as a video lens, but less so than the Voigt.

Also, start to shoot RAW if you want the most out of the GH2. Lightroom is easy to learn - lots of videos on youtube. You don't even need photoshop for most of the work once you get a handle on Lightroom.

My 14-42mm F/3.5 Lens must go. I don't like the lens, especially coming from a background using Nikkor's and Hasselblad Carl Zeiss Lenses These are some shots taken with iA on auto and some all manual shot with incandescent light

Video reigns Supreme!! With this machine, Vitally Keslev and Nick Driftwood.

@T2i ...

You're still comparing the way the two companies set the out-of-the-box jpeg settings and NOT the camera. Excuse me, but that's neither rational nor intelligent. Panny comes from a VIDEO background, where the main goal is to shoot rather flat and produce a file great to work in post. This particular Canon comes from a still-camera background and that model is of their amateur line which ... like nearly all tv's sold ... is set for hyper-saturation and a fair amount of contrast and sharpening because that is how ignorant consumers supposedly compare them. What looks "hot" right now? Not what actually can be set for the best output in the way YOU actually want to see it. Take those Canon jpegs out and print an 11x14 inch from them ... you'll probably find it execrable to look at. WAY too over-sharpened and ... blocky.

The problem here is NOT the GH2 ... it's the person using it unwisely. Complaining that a Maserati doesn't ride as smoothly as a multi-ton Lincoln town car on a mush suspension and deeply cushioned seats would make as much sense. You've had suggestions as to how to set up and use the GH2 in a way to get the best of it.

Instead you keep harping that the camera is producing crap. No, it's not. The person using it is. Sorry to be so direct, but if you're going to learn to use these modern tools, you've got to LEARN.

Tough words rNeil.. but it's true. Maybe I wouldn't say it as tough. I've ruined great amount of my shots before I've finally learned how to use these cameras properly and still getting some shots ruined.. It took some time to test things out and find right combination of tools (sw & hw) that work for me the best.. And I'm still open to new things as an enthusiast.. :) And still meet people that think that I'm a noob for using mirrorless because it doesn't spit out these oversaturated jpegs stright from the camera.. But in the end they admit that my results are outstanding compared to their overpriced Canons :) Even my brother is one of those Canon positive people and trying to convince me that m43 isn't wise choice, but our results are pretty similar instead of fact, that his 6D with Tamron 18-55mm F2.8 and Canon L 70-200 F4 cost more than twice as my 2 GH2s with 4 lenses (14-42, 45-200, Leica 25mm F1.4 & Sigma 60mm F2.8). It's just not worth this huge price difference for me to get very similar results. Only thing that his 6D knows better is it's very low light capability but to be honest, how often do we need to shoot at ISO12800+? For me it's very very rarely.. I rather bring some more light and have better resolution and DR over high ISO with lower DR and resolution.. and of course noise :)

The panny 14-42 isn't a great lens, my copy is softer at the long end as well, but having shot with the comparable kit lenses from Nikon and Canon I have to say that i dont think they wouldn't have produced a more pleasing image in the same situation when shooting with a pop up flash. Actually, it doesn't matter if you are shooting nikkors, L series, Zeiss, etc., shooting direct in someone's face with a pop up flash and not fixing your white balance is going to look bad all of the time.

Not bothering to shoot in raw is like not caring where you had your film processed.

No!!!! I'm not comparing the way the two companies set the out-of-the-box jpeg settings. I'm just sharing my experiences taking pictures with a GH2 and not being happy with the results. I don't think you have been reading my posts properly because if you remember, I said that THE GH2 is the SUPREME CAMERA shooting video & THE CANONT2i REBEL SUPREME in photo shoots. That states my opinion on both cameras and my experiences with them. I'm on this sight to learn and share my experiences with others, which I think is a clever thing to do because one can learn and may be get the results one is looking for. I do know (without post productive work) that I do not like the character & quality of the JPEG on the GH2 and much prefer the Canon T2i Rebel. Did you know that I was blown away when I saw the JPEG quality that came out my partner's T2i Rebel that I bought her 2 weeks ago. Why are you telling me what I already know about >>> your comment (Panny comes from a VIDEO background, where the main goal is to shoot rather flat and produce a file great to work in post. This particular Canon comes from a still-camera background and that model is of their amateur line which ... like nearly all tv's sold ... is set for hyper-saturation and a fair amount of contrast and sharpening because that is how ignorant consumers supposedly compare them. ) I'm not ignorant and know all this. I also know that the complete picture quality cannot be judged until one has put the JPEG or RAW file through post. I speaking of the quality straight out of the camera, Just like my Old Nikon F3, MAMIYA RB67, HASSLEBLAD 500 ELX & CM did. With the GH2, Effort is required to get good Photos where as with the Canon Rebel it's effortless. Replying to another comment of yours >>>> (Canon jpegs out and print an 11x14 inch from them ... you'll probably find it execrable to look at. WAY too over-sharpened and ... blocky.) I've done that last week from a T2i Rebel and the print was good.. Not perfect like a post production print but a damn good start. When I take the GH2's JPEG OR RAW file and print them the GH2's print Blows it away. I am not at the stage of complex post productive editing and have only a basic editor which I don't really use. The Point I'm trying to make is the Lack of quality that comes straight out of the GH2. I going to purchase a Canon For my stills and keep my treasured GH2 for my video. I've taken on board the suggestions given to me and are thankful for them. You don't get my point. I'm not complaining nor have I got a problem. I'm expressing my opinion and experiences using this GH2 for shooting Photos. My Kit lens are going soon so I have taken advice from people, well that's a start. You got a bit personal and touchy with your message. I'm on here to learn and not argue with people and I will learn. I do agree with you that the camera is not producing crap. The person using it. The T2i produces the still images that I like right now straight out the camera. May be at a later date that may change, only when I change my lens and get involved with post work on my files. Thanks for your opinion, that's what I'm on here for

Your message to me is very interesting and has made me think. You miss read me When I said the camera produces poor results straight out of the camera compared to the T2i Rebel. I was not comparing the potential post work or changing lens etc.

The way I look at, the camera manufactures Give us several formats to choose from and the still formats that interest me are JPEG & RAW and I believe that a camera such as the GH2 should give me reasonable quality JPEGS & EXCELLENT RAW and I haven't been able to bring this out the camera YET!!! But not giving up. I've just started a journey and am going to see it through. I know the bad qualities of direct built in camera flash. I covered my flash with a small white hanky to diffuse the light and make it less harsh

Just going to chime in with my 2 cents on GH2 stills. With 3 years of experience, and as I ready myself for the GH4 (had GH1, GH2, skipped 3) I can say that undoubtedly the GH2 can take wonderful pictures, but there is a caveat. The automatic settings such as iA and Program mode are not good.

Obviously, they're all based on logic, but the logic the GH2 (and the GH1 did too) for what shutter speed to use as compared to what ISO is very poor in my opinion.

I would much rather have a higher ISO than shoot with a shutter speed of 1/8 or even 1/20 of a second. I'm fine with the GH2 noise up to 3200 ISO, but in iA it doesn't go above 1600, and only does 1600 in low light situations when the shutter is already very slow.

Using the 14-140 lens which is quite slow leads to lots of situations like this where you're already working at a disadvantage.

90% of my stills taken indoors (with a smart M4/3 lens) are shot with the Shutter Priority mode. I find I get much better results when I handle the shutter my self. At least early on in this thread, that would help the user a lot.

@T2iRebelvsGH2LOUIS ...

Have you modified the maker's pre-built settings for JPEG production on the GH2? You've not said anything that would lead us to assume you have. Those settings are easily changeable and while I'm not going to say that the GH2 would definitely be equivalent in your eyes at least try to get the cam set up right for JPEG creation.

If you have ... would have been nice if you'd said so.