HA! It was just as I'd been bragging on you and the wonderful BBBIIIGGG print you'd shot (and some seller used on his sales booth at events) with 12mpx GH2 (IIRC) --never mind D700--, your affair w/D800 began. (And I think partly in reaction to this, Olympus came out w/40mpx option, just to "show HIM!", out of spite.
)
In some other thread, someone made a recommendation for a beginner to just get a D700 & some primes, as a good starting system; and Kit et al. responded, "Heck, nevermind beginner : that's what I'M thinking of!" (And I feel their pain.)
And for the "GX" line, there's the split personality of the robust GX8 vs. more compact GX80/GX7markII (which alas lost the 7's great gripping grip).
-d.
Ha ha... you remember that, do you? The GH2 photo is still being used, but I'm looking to replace it now. The GH2 was 16MP btw., and from a sensor point of view one of my favourite cameras, since it was oversized. The camera that comes closest for specs and ergonomics nowadays is the G85, and two of my colleagues use that. Apart from the viewfinder, which is not that great, it's the camera that makes most sense. It really has everything I need, 16MP included.
Lots of megapixels, like in the D810, is a fascinating feature. It's like ultra WA lenses and very long telephoto; you see things that the human eye doesn't normally see. For me however, it's a distraction. I try to be a story teller, and I try to catch the moment. Everything slows down when camera bodies as well as lenses approach one kilogram each.
All that detail makes me think about my sister who was nearsighted as a child. When she got her first pair of glasses, she stood staring out of the kitchen window, calling the whole family over and said "Have you seen all those trees on the hill over there?". We had of course, and being two years older than her, I had even been there, aiming to catch the fox that somebody claimed was roaming round there. I had even brought a rope for the purpose, a black silky one that I found in one of my mother's drawers.
That's where I want to be, over at that hill, rather than looking at it through a telephoto lens.
But I'm heavily off topic. Although there are sensible choices around, like the G85 and mid-range Nikon cameras (I do have a D610), I'm a camera extremist. I look for perfection in the absurd. That's why I have an F6 and an OM-3, two of the best 35mm cameras around, although at totally different ends of the scale. And I use them. When I play golf (which I don't do very often anymore), I tee off with a 2 Iron, a Mizuno blade. Even the caddies ask me sometimes why I'm not embarrased missing the tee shot so often
When using a camera like what the GH5s sems to become, there are no bragging rights for resolution, and although it will be better than other m4/3 bodies when it comes to high ISO, it will always trail behind a Sony A7s in that area. If you can't succeed in taking photos that are interesting with that camera, you could as well have used an old Instamatic. It will obviously be great for video, but that won't come for free either. The saturated redorangepink sunsets that come out of an iPhone X won't happen with a GH5s until after the V-log files have been through a couple of hours with some expensive editing software with a user interface that makes the cockpit of a 747 look closer to an iPad in comparison.
The reason why I sold the D700, and didn't buy another one when I bought the D610 a few months ago, was weight and size, not megapixels. The GH5s will be an extreme machine, and it will require work and knowledge. Yes, I'm genuinly interested. If I buy it, it will be a way to keep myself allert. I'm 61 now, so I need that (and more frequent visits to the gym). I'm starting an extended Christmas holiday today, 10 days in all. A major part of it, I'll spend watching photography and video making tutorials. If I retire from my day job, I want my hobby to be a meaningful activity, not something I do to make time disappear. The GH5s would be an interesting challenge to deal with. Time will show...
