As much as I love the GH2 and am amazed by what it can do, I want a camera that can be taken seriously by clients, is in a professional form factor and can deliver both great stills and video. Surely shouldn't be much to ask being as we're now in 2012...
Never understood this if video is important (stills are a different matter but a second shooter should handle stills - pro's rarely do both - Greg Williams being an exception)
A GH2 destroys the $4,000 Panasonic AF100 (and in many areas all Canon DSLRs currently available - we are talking video). So if you can't communicate this to your client....something is wrong with your communication skills. Heck BBC and NatGeo use GH2's constantly.
Plus you need to rig a decent matte box, follow focus gear, large tripod, audio recording devices etc anyway. All that gear "looks pro" and the cameras hide under all that stuff anyway (pic of Canon below).
Not picking on you - just wondering why people always say this.
If you REALLY care about looking "pro" you shouldn't consider DSLRs at all - the market (USA at least) is flooded with cameras and rental prices have plummeted in recent months. Alexa, Red Epic Scarlets, Sony F35's can be rented for very little cash.
Course "if" Canon DSLRs get clean HDMI out via a magic lantern hack in the next few weeks (possible) - the landscape changes yet again.