Is the stock lens really that bad? For doing basic stuff like high quality interviews, etc.? I don't need anything wider angle than the stock lens, and I don't need to reach out any farther, so do I really need to worry about it?

I have heard though that the other lenses are brighter. Are they bright enough to give an easier time getting shallow depth of field?

It's not really that bad...but it's not really that good either. It's just okay.

Under well-controlled lighting it can look pretty decent. It really falls apart when shooting subjects against a brighter background. Lots of chromatic abberations - poor lens shading, etc.

Here's a couple of samples shot with the stock lens:

gregory bennett | director of photography (http://www.gregorybennett.com/musicvids/LAL_wasteland.html)

and

gregory bennett | director of photography (http://www.gregorybennett.com/informational/pandemic.html)

If you live in the 6-45mm and watch your ND filters to keep the aperture around 4.5 or at most 5.6 you will be fine. I posted a few pics here click for the full res to see. But yes full wide and 3/4 or more tele and the lens falls apart. But it still fairly nice in the real world drama lengths, so all in all, it's a hell of a lens for what if costs.

http://www.dvinfo.net/conf/jvc-pro-hd-acquisition-systems/123408-getting-most-out-16x-stock-lens.html

Thank you, this is great input. How is the depth of field at those apertures?

Thank you, this is great input. How is the depth of field at those apertures?

It is reasonable, though obviously you would get better depth of field at smaller apertures.

You will get better depth of field at the wider end of the lens, staying away from telephoto. (Telephoto will decrease the depth of field and cause related focus problems.)

to be honest, I've seen far more expensive SD lens do the same.... so really its not so bad, but yes there is certainly better.

its fine for SD deliverables.