For making plans, why not Gh2? For unplanned stuffs, I think a smartphone or a small hybrid is better for taking both photo/video.

Under plans I mean my plans, not that I could control all in frame.
GH2 is just unsuitable camera for ENG coverage and fast and cheap to produce documentaries.

@stonebat

Again, I have zero interest in videos like "passed by and saw a body". Or made to prove that you can make some clip or small film on iPhone.

But for normal doc work, with small budgets, without ability to reshoot things, GH2 is not very suitable camera.

Even this $300 camcorder I referenced is much better suited for this.

With the GH2 or any other DSLR it just takes a lot more time to set up a shot, especially with manual lenses.

In real life doc, average guy just don't have time or ability to set up things, unfortunately.

So if a camcorder had all the nice abilities of a DSLR (good sh-dof, low light etc) why bother building a "frankenstein-rig" with attaching a screen, microphone, follow focus etc etc.

Btw, shallow DOF is really minus of big sensors if things go seriously 3D :-)

As for rig, you need proper one anyway, you still need proper mikes, in run and gun you don't need FF, but screen or EVF can be very useful (condidering that even chapest camcorders HDMI output do not have any issues).

I actually don't find it that hard to work with my GH1 vs. my Canon HFS21. I think most of the complaints about DSLR's are overblown. I do know that being able to work in low light situations with better quality is a nice bonus working with DSLR's. The best option is to have both options in the toolkit IMO. You grab what works best. Camcorders are cheap enough that it shouldn't be an issue. GH1 is also one of the best values in the video arena. The quality you can get for under $400 is astounding. Now GH2 will also fall into a similar spot. Both GH and Camcorders are so small that I don't find it a hassle to setup both for work.

Btw, shallow DOF is really minus of big sensors if things go seriously 3D :-)

Oh you are thinking a long way ahead. It is not a crazy prediction to say one day cameras will try to capture the whole scene in focus. Even beyond stereoscopic viewing it would be useful for DOF effects to simply be a function of the playback engine. I think a depthmap is the extra channel to make it possible. It could be calculated from stereo views but a Kinect like camera or even LIDAR is just as likely. I don't know how they will do it - but depth map will be a component of video not too far from now.

@mimirsan very nice.

@DrDave Depends on how good you are at making best use of your GH2 lens collection.

@Vitaliy_Kiselev

In real life doc, average guy just don't have time or ability to set up things, unfortunately.

This is too true. I recorded a couple of 'documentary' sessions at the Moscow conference. Once a live event is running, changes of focus, etc, can be seen by your viewers unless you cut to B-roll. You have to synchronize changes with activity where the B-roll is a suitable target. The camcorder is set to 24p low-contrast, and left fully automatic most of the time.

Btw, shallow DOF is a really minus of big sensors if things go seriously 3D :-)

With the LX7 and FZ200. I use one of several Canon HF100 or an M41 (I got it for a bargain $399 just before Christmas) as A-roll, and they generally have an excellent depth of focus. However, with the shallower f1.4 of the LX7 and even f2.8 of the FZ200 at tele, there is noticeable focus hunting when a significant amount of bokeh is in the frame. In my case it is often no problem to use manual focus, but it does take more time to set up. It comes down to a tradeoff when light is low - shallow DOF and open lens, or higher ISO and the noise that brings.

As for rig, you need proper one anyway, you still need proper mikes

Clean audio is critical for a usable final product. I am filming conferences, and use several tiny Yamaha Pocketrak 2G scattered around, as well as a Zoom H1 (PCM, no ALC) as an overall ambient recorder near the tripod. My home-made lapel mikes use a local Pocketrak in lieu of wireless. Recently, in Moscow, I had my 1.5lb Benro tripod (with an extension tube to 6ft 6ins) loaded with the M41 at the top, the FZ200 and Zoom H1 strapped just below. Editing with Vegas Pro makes it easy to sync the various audio sources.

I see my Canon camcorders as approaching the end of their useful days for me. When traveling light, the FZ200 does double duty as a still-camera, and is the same weight (essentially) as the camcorder (with batteries and charger). When some airlines now limit carry-on weight to 10KG (I am looking at you, Aeroflot) every ounce is precious. If only the LX7 filmed more than 29 minutes of FullHD, if only... But the camcorders are just so reliable. I set them up and rolling with a 4 hour extended battery -- and they just roll .. and roll.. so I just keep using them :-)

When I do a wedding I do the combo deal. I use the GH to get those "Artsy" shots and the HFS21 to do the standard video of the event itself. My main reason for even having a GH is to get the kind of artistic looks that are much harder to get with a standard Video Camera. The different look of camera lenses I can get. Of course the DOF shots, sweet bokeh, various levels of contrast depending on the lens, color rendition etc. The overall "character" of the footage itself. There just seems to be more variety in the GH shots that I can get using old manual lenses. It just depends on what your needs are. You don't need a DSLR to record basic video. The reason 35mm Adapters go so popular was to add those things to the look of a standard video camera.

its a bit late to post i guess, but i shoot with 2x Panasonic HDC-SDT750 cams, and they are absolutely wonderful video cameras.

wonderful OIS and AF systems built in, and the best thing is the 1080/50p @ 28Mbps video mode, and there is no way i can ever shoot in any other mode, 50p vs 25p is chalk n cheese, and who cares about 24p cinema, these cameras with a good quality macro/wide angle lens, a good 60 or 120 Led light, and lens hood fitted, plus a Rode VideoMic Pro microphone attached, shoot wonderful quality video, be it in run n gun mode or tripod/rig mounted, especially great for shooting weddings.

there still is a place for traditional style camcorders, they absolutely kill DSLR type cameras for ergonomics and hand held mode, and i know because i used a GH2 with some big ass lens on it and it was so front heavy it was impossible to hold.

my next cam will be an AG-AC90 because it is an awesome video camera.

cheers

Camcorders are like mini-vans. They just look ugly. And like @Aria says, they don't inspire artistry.

I really do not care much about artistry.

How about showing me content? As we have "cheap raw" for a while, but most things we got are better to reside in their original place (I mean here head of their authors).

Can you explain more what you're thinking? Do you mean content as in creative scripts/acting, or the footage

I mean real content that stands behind scripts and all this acting, shooting. And result of all this work. raw is a tool, you trade your time for better result in some situations. This is it. raw is present in cheapest of stills cameras for long, long time. In fact first hack I made was for Nikon compacts long time ago that enabled raw :-)

My big question is whether the GH2 hacked, or GH3, can ever match the dynamic range and potential color accuracy of RAW, even cheap RAW. I'd love to see an example of that.

Hmm. Why do you care so much?

@maxotics

I think you need to go to http://www.personal-view.com/talks/discussion/6222/raw-makes-obsolete-all-your-skill/p1 to not start here useless flame.

As for me, I do not care about all this "film like". I care about interesting people and interesting content.