I anticipate that my English is bad.

When the episode of 'Dr House' was shot with a Canon 5D that was an event, not stop mentioning it on the internet. Then there have been more movies and short films using DSLR's Canon in whole or in any scene and usually tends to be highlighted, such as the case of 'The Avengers'.

Across the street I see is different, 'Musgo' was shot with a GH2, for some the first film made with a GH2 and was a success but not of such magnitude as 'Dr House', was following more in underground forums. (I want to clarify that 'Musgo' is not the first film shot with a GH2, another movie so spanish which was also before shot with a GH2 entitled 'Diamond Flash' in 2011, but the time difference is small, only few months, but it was released in 2011, 'Musgo' was released in 2013). Following the main idea 'Upstream Color' was filmed with GH2 and this fact was not so great repercussion. So too are some movies and a lot of short films made with a GH2 without much discussion.

Something similar happens in the case of films and shorts which uses Nikon, for example, few know that in the series 'Dexter' was used the Nikon D800, while 'Dr House' Canon case was known even people who dont know of cinema or photography, but I'm sure if it was with a Canon the news was a great event.

I see the camera as a means or a tool, really the important in a film is to have a good script -is preferable to have a good script and not a good camera with a bad script-, there are excellent movies that have a great script and the cinematography is austere and even loose, but the spectator is left with the memory of a good story. Sure, good cinematography helps a lot, the ideal is to have a balanced, although a great director can rescue a loose script or story ordinary. I see how many in the industry -mostly low budget- so focused in Canon cameras and I think that marketing has eaten the brain of many people, is obvious that if you feel comfortable with a particular camera is great to use it, but be more open and know isnt a mark problem, this causes ridiculous arguments from experts Canonboy that the GH2 has a video look (videoish). I'm sure if many of them see 'Upstream color' without know that camera was shot ​​will comment; 'very good cinematography, great look', and it was made with a high budget camera, but if you tell thar was made with a GH2 will be conditioned in advance.

In my case I bought a GH2 after many inquiries on the internet, in my country everybody told me what buy Canon, the 550D was the only one that was close to my budget, but its video quality not convicting them and another cameras as the 5D is away much of my pocket and in a forum someone told me about the GH2 and as I have open mind I saw something that I liked and made inquiries understanding for that price I get quality near to cameras of high budget. I dont want to talk from me, just put my example, only what dont understand how some people are so focused on a brand, as if the mark were doing you a favor by using or as if you were paying you.