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.

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).

@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.

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.

All comsumer camcorders are very small and light now :-)

And usually you not carry them to make amazing video of crashed car and dead bodies inside. So you make plans. ANd for me, even 3 extra camcorders do not make difference as you need good lighting on set anyway.

My favourite thing about the GH2 is the 20mm f1.7 that has just the right DOF to make the footage of people look really nice. My extended family sometimes point out shots taken with the 20mm and say 'That looks really good'. They don't know about DOF they just notice the subject looks sharp and clear, but I know that the slightly defocused background is doing all the work.

It makes me think that a simple AVCHD camcorder with this 'NICE' fov and dof that keeps things focused, exposed and stabilised automatically would be unstoppable.

You might think that the NEX or G series hits this mark but these cameras are still too complicated for a someone who wants something simple. I think the Sony RX-100 is almost the right type of product but perhaps still a little too complicated.

What I meant to imply is that a 4k video stream can support 3,840x1,080-pixel image per eye (or split the other way - 1920x2160) - which is better for 3D than today's half rate solutions based on 2k.

I understand.

I am not talking about streams, I am talking about actual televisions that provide half of vertical resolution to each eye. Issue is, our eyes are not independent, and here you present with images obtained from two horizontally positioned cameras (with some offset between them), so, claims that you see half the resolution are wrong.
In fact, passive 3D feels like having better resolution compared to FullHD 2D, because of 3D.

A comparable Hybrid camera will be less than a camcorder in the same condition(ie: new vs. used).

It is strange statement.

A comparable sausage is cheaper than the bread.

Are you saying that the difference between a 1/3" sensor and a 1/2.33" sensor is comparable to the difference between full frame and m4/3s?

They have 1/4.1" sensors as I remember, and difference is pretty close.

Most people shopping for a consumer camcorder think that a camcorder can take better video than a still camera.

And it is true, for most normal uses and average tasks camcorders are much better.

The more people that realize how good the video is in a hybrid camera the less that will purchase a camcorder.

On comparable price usually you have some problem with hybrids.
Bad handling, lens problems, much worse stabilizer, issues with build in microphones, issues with AGC, issues with auto modes.

If the used $300 camcorder can shoot the same video that the $1400 model does how are these companies going to sell their high profit models?

$300 is not the normal retail price for S90K camcorder, this is first.
Also I rarely see $1400 prices, it is also exaggregation.

http://www.amazon.com/Panasonic-X900MK-Camcorder-Internal-HC-X900MK/dp/B0072B5E2Y/ - $898

http://www.amazon.com/gp/offer-listing/B0072B5E2Y/ref=sr_1_1_olp?ie=UTF8&qid=1349366774&sr=8-1&keywords=panasonic+x900&condition=used - $744 for returned

The FZ200 has the same autofocus that a camcorder would

Nope. Not the same. It is same as say that FF cameras have the same FF as m43.

The big difference is that the FZ200 can take great RAW stills as well.

I don't really know why you bring this as argument.

Once the majority of people believe that then the camcorder will be short lived.

And this is into religion territory.

Check out the quality of photo/video by iphoneographists.

http://www.iphoneography.com/

Not bad. Not bad at all.

I don't know anything about market overtaking stuff. I don't have crystal ball. I just know what I like when I see it.

@stonebat my thoughts exactly. People already have phones and phones are coming with much better cameras than they did a few years ago. Phones are coming with autofocusing and picture profiles already.. How many times have you said, "damn I wish I had my camcorder" when something happens? With cell phones you have the camera in your pocket already. Plus, with cell phones and other devices becoming more and more integrated with other types of gear, people are starting to expect that newer phones will have better video/audio/still capability. It's a given these days. People aren't going to want to purchase multiple gadgets if one gadget can do 80% of the work of others. Between my GH2 and my cell phone camera, I'm never going to buy a camcorder. I'd still bet that others will do the same and over time even dedicated SLRs will start to suffer.

I use the G10 and the GH2 side by side, and the G10 does some things better. The GH2 does somethings better. The GH2 always has minor color problems, which is always annoying. Need a quick macro shot? The G10 focuses down to a centimeter or so. Focus tracking? Hit the button. Aliasing got you down? OTOH, the GH2 has great sharpness. If you are doing a big shoot, and you can't hire a full crew, say ten cameras, which one is more idiot proof?