Upon doing some research with the two new players in the full frame world, I came upon the GH3. Now fair enough this is a completely different league. But then again D600 and 6D are two completely different cameras if you ask me. Seeing that big hit of the GH2 (although I completely missed it), people (fanboys?) ranting about sharper image and the 2nd handness being a better option (if there's no shutter the camera technically has a higher lifespan right?). I'm left clueless.
Anyone handled a smaller sensor before (like the GH2)? Many say it's sharper with no aliasing or moire issues but there's something bugging me about a 2x crop and 16MP. Maybe the megapixel marketing war had an influence on my judgement.
Realistically if the stills are equal, the video as good as it's said to be (although I find the colours a bit harsh) and the sensor size not a problem. The absence of shutter could be a great pro (silent, no shutter life, smaller body..)
Information is scarce and it is a wide topic. So I figured I'd bring the question up here, see what your thoughts are
talking video AND stills as both should be considered in a purchase.