Backlash for the Panasonic DMC-GH3, why?

I've seen a lot of negative comments about Panasonic's new body, the DMC-GH3.  I'm taking them in the context that people just hate change.

The body is bigger for better handling of larger lenses and for better ergonomics, including 5 function buttons.  To me, being bigger is a benefit, not a problem.  That the weight has only mildly increased, including the magnesium alloy structure, is a plus also.  It's also weather-sealed, and that's great for me.

I've been looking at micro Four-Thirds since it burst onto the photographic scene and I've been somewhere between disappointment and laughter.  After the Olympus E-P2 was announced, I joked that it would be the E-P14 that would finally be the complete solution.  Today's announcements have resolved that--there is no E-P5, and given the proximity of the price to the E-M5, it's no wonder.  How do you justify the E-P3 when the E-M5 gives so much more?

Now that the E-M5 has changed things, the GH3 is changing things even more.  If the photographs from the GH3 are as good as the E-M5, that will really push back the APS-C set.  The E-M5 image quality is said to be so good that to step up, you'll need to go to 135 format-sized sensors, like those of the Nikon D600 and Canon 6D.  I hope that the GH3 will match that, but I'm skeptical of Panasonic's ability with still images.

I would like to move to the GH3 but I'm still noticing the lack of superior optics where I need them, and I'm not wanting an adapter to make my current lenses work.  Panasonic has a wonderful 100-300mm f/4.0-5.6 lens, except that it's not really wonderful, except in focal length.  It's a budget lens and if they made a similar focal length, higher quality X-series lens for double (maybe triple) the price, I'd be there with cash for both the 100-300mm and the GH3.

Getting light, high quality equipment for a reasonable price is never wrong.

Zeiss and Schneider are continuing to work on new micro Four-Thirds mount lenses with full control.  Unfortunately, what I've seen so far duplicate focal lengths that are already available.  Still, the lenses are being built, even if they're slow to arrive.

I'm still disappointed in how people have reacted to the GH3 today.  It reminds me of the 1960s when Detroit's car makers' plan to make faster cars was to increase the size of the engine, without thought to brakes, handling, or fuel economy.  You could buy a European car that could make a 2800 mile cross-country trip at higher speeds with much greater safety with much less fuel usage.  Does that make Canon or Nikon General Motors and the other Ford?

Nikon D600?

The camera business seems most bizarre now.  Low end cameras gain the most pixels.  Mirror-less cameras are crashing the top 10 in Japan, taking spots away from dSLRs.  Point-and-shoot cameras are looking to replace dSLRs, and phone cameras are looking as good as point-and-shoot cameras for most people.

Then, there is this odd rumour about a Nikon D600.

It supposedly has an FX-sized sensor, meaning that it's roughly the size of a 135 format film frame or 24x36mm.  Looking at the model number, I'd guess that they're fitting it between the coming D400 (or forgetting that entirely) and the still-available D700, to have a fourth FX dSLR.  Of course, it would be economical, maybe priced around US$2000.  That might push the D400 down to meet the Canon 60D, retire the D90, update the D7000 to use the D3200's sensor, etc., and also retire the D5100.

Are the loud people who frequently call for a 135 format-sized sensor ready for a camera body that actually has one?  Will they be ready for the back aches of carrying all the big and heavy equipment?  I'm cynical, so I think they'll be complaining about the price of the appropriate lenses.  You're probably not going to get the best resolution out of a 30 year old craptacular Sigma lens that you got from your grandfather but they're not likely to spend the money to commit to the format.  However, I'm cynical, so maybe they'll prove me wrong.

I would welcome a less expensive 135 format body for wide angle work.  As things are relative, the body size will be big for a while, if not for much more than the size of the mirror and the pentaprism.  If large is suddenly light, I'm sure many would be pleased, or shocked, or both.

Nikon has been winning back their advocates since the D300 arrived.  They've shown a willingness to stand up for their business and show that they're not just a company with a long photographic history.  By the end of this year, it should be quite a lot more interesting.

Well, to update this, the D600 arrived and it's everything I would hope to have in an economy shooter for wide angle work.  The D7000 is a good product on which to base a revision, much like the D300 gave birth to the D700.  I'm impressed Nikon.  Keep going, but one thing, fewer bodies make decisions easier, and please, please, make it apparent which lenses are weather-proofed.

Update: Seeing the Canon 6D, Nikon shouldn't be too worried.  I'd think they'd be laughing, actually, but they can't afford to waste time laughing, really.  Eventually, Canon may make a comeback--Nikon did.  Funny how the D7100 is more advanced in AF and other areas than the D600, but since there is no D400, that makes sense.