I am a little late to the whole GH2 thing as most of my shooting has focused on the 5D and 7D. However, everything I have seen is awesome and I'm seriously considering getting a GH2. How does it compare with the 5D and 7D( in your experience?) i know it's not as good in low light for example.

I like the low profile of the GH2 and it seems perfect for run and gun documentary shooting. It's price is great and I would just use the 20 mm 1,7 lens.

How good is it for stills?

Could it be a go to camera for professional quality work with the above setup?

Thanks guys!

Thanks Matt. I'm not necessarily looking to match with Canon footage, I probably would look to shoot an entire project on a GH2 as opposed to mixing footage and having the problem of matching footage.

I am an owner of the GH2 and personally think it's a great camera. That said, I don't think it's a perfect. At least not perfect for everything or everyone. I guess it comes down to you (your style) and your needs. I have been using big shoulder mounted cameras most of my days and decided to trade all that in for a smaller and more moddable camera like the GH2. The reason I switch is because my focus on filmmaking changed. I was no longer doing freelance TV type stuff and wanted to shift to more "creative" filmmaking. The GH2 suits this area very well.

I think the problem or misconception that a lot of people have (and I am not innocent of this fact) is that the GH2 is a cheaper alternative to some of the more expensive midrange cameras and therefor better than most other DSLRs, and yes in a way it is but you have to work it harder to get to that point.

You need good glass, which is actually where the GH2 is superior in that it can take anything you put on it (well almost). I see a lot of people shooting on 5DMKIIs and 5DMKIIIs with incredibly expensive canon lenses that otherwise would be too slow for anything but a full-frame camera. With the GH2 you can save BIGTIME on your budget for lenses and still get the same if not better results than the full-framers.

As for its image, it's as near to perfect that you are going to get from a small mirrorless camera. In fact, if it wasn't for the hacks I would never had got this camera. Does it beat the 5DmkIII's image though? Well, I personally think it does but who really cares what I think and maybe I just think that because a) I own one and/or b) I prefer the look that the GH2 gives me.

In the end it comes down to what you put in front of the camera not what camera you use. You can film a pair of shoes on a 5D or a GH2 with a shallow depth of field and probably the 5D will look more shallow than the GH2 but it's still a pair of shoes. If you can take the shoes and put them on some feet then who’s to say that your 5D will make a better storytelling tool that your GH2, or vice versa. Stupid example I know but hopefully you get my point.

However, going back to your original question:

How good is it for stills? It's good but I wouldn't recommend it for a professional photo-shoot.
As for documentary work, I would say yes. It has a particular look to it and works really we because of its size. You would need a zoom lens though I think. The 20mm, in my opinion, is more of an interview/static lens, and thus not good for run and gun type stuff. Another thing to not about the lens is it's a pancake. Have you ever tried to focus on a pancake lens whilst running around? I found this problem with my 14mm, which I cannot even use with my FF.

Thanks for your feedback Tobias.

I have heard a lot about the GH2 ''look' and have seen some footage. But how exactly would you describe the GH2 look compared to other cameras, specifically Canon DSLRs?

Also, have you ever used any FD lenses on the GH2?

My whole goal in getting the GH2 was to try out a lower cost yet high quality camera, so I am hesitant to get an expensive zoom such as the panasonic 35-100 f/2.8 which is a bit expensive. For me, if i was going to get a zoom, I'd probably get a Canon L zoom so I could also use it on the 5d or 7d when i finally get one of those.

Have you had any experience with Canon L lenses on the GH2?

Hi Kang,

Now firstly, and I might be wrong, but I think most if not all Canon L lenses are electronically operated and do not have manual iris control on the lens. This means you are going to need to buy an expensive adapter that will allow you to control the iris from the camera. Personally, if you get a GH2 you can just forget about modern Canon lenses as you have so many better ones to choose from.

I own a 50mm Canon FD f1.4 which I use on my GH2 with a cheap adapter from eBay. This is one of my favourite lenses because it's so organic. The most important thing to consider when using non-native m/43 lenses is the crop factor which is about x2.0 on the Gh2. So technically a 50mm Canon FD f1.4 (which is considered a normal focal length in filmmaking and photography) is actually a really fast telephoto lens on the GH2 (about 100mm). This is a good and a bad thing but it's really up to you how you take it.

Also, remember that the GH2 has the EX TELE CONVERSION function which basically turns any of your lenses into telephoto lenses. I will leave it up to you to research that one as I am still not really sure how to properly explain it.

So for a zoom, my advice would be the Panasonic Lumix 14-140, which I own and think is an excellent run and gun lens.