File :-(, x, )
Anonymous
Work got the Lumix G1 in yesterday. It's shit. I honestly don't see the point.

Any questions?
>> Anonymous
Is it pretty?
>> Anonymous
How is the EVF and such?
>> Anonymous
>>286340
Not really. I hate the articulated screen, and the lens is tiny. Looks and feels just as bad as one of those fuji fake slrs.

>>286341
Suprisingly, the EVF is pretty big, kinda like looking through a 5D in terms of size, but that still doesn't discount the fact that it's still an EVF. Still a noticable amount of lag on it, and it's not really that high resolution, it's easy to see the individual pixels.

One of that daftest things about it, is that once the lens is off, the sensor is only about half a centimetre under the mount, so apart from the risk of dust, you know some camera noobs are sure to try cleaning it with their tshirt or something.
>> Anonymous
>>286342
>some camera noobs are sure to try cleaning it with their tshirt or something.

Let the natural selection work here. The same camera noobs clean SLR mirrors in with their T-shirts and open back covers on film cameras without rewinding first, etc.
>> Anonymous
>>286342
What's bad about the articulated screen? I use mine a lot of the time, and it's only half the resolution of G1's.
>> Anonymous
>>286342

Only half a centimetre under the mount? Risky. At least for the clueless. I can just imagine someone doing what you said with a t-shirt or paper handkerchief.

Shame the EVF isn't too hot. There's a great deal fo potential for a high performance one to give a great view.
>> Anonymous
>>286345
That EVF is around 800x600 resolution, so it's basically like viewing photos on an asus eee. Enough for framing, not enough for checking focus (but there's a zoom feature for that)
>> Anonymous
>>286342
>>286345
That's not the sensor itself, that's the anti-dust filter. While you can still ruin it with your T-shirt, Panasonic apparently thought that noobs ruining the shutter would be worse.
>> Anonymous
>>286339
>>. I honestly don't see the point.
It's a DSLR the size of a PnS.

I was in love with it since the announcement.

But the price kinda ruins it.
>> Anonymous
>>286350

Why did they put in a fake mirror box at the top? Seems pointless.

Olympus's idea beats the shit out of this one.
>> Anonymous
It can't be any worse than the shit storm that is the 50D. dpreview's boards are still full of ranting about that. It is like a troll's paradise.
>> Anonymous
>>286350

It doesn't seem all that compact once you have it in your hands. For that price and size, i'd rather take a 350D/XT and 50mm 1.8. And from the looks of it, there's only 2 lenses out at the minute. :(

We also got the 50D + 18-200 kit in, nothing special.
>> fence !!POey2hdozCZ
god, i love camera store employees. they're almost as bad as the neckbeards at best buy.
>> ac !!VPzQAxYPAMA
>>286352
>Why did they put in a fake mirror box at the top? Seems pointless.
So that it looks like a Real Camera. The Japanese they're marketing it towards don't want people to realize how small their penises are, so they want a camera that looks big and complicated. Also that's where they stuck the EVF and flash stuff, but mostly just for the look of it.

>>286339
What's the AF like? Shutter lag? Does it feel more like a DSLR or like a P&S in terms of time between hitting the shutter and taking the picture?
>> Anonymous
>>286360
>And from the looks of it, there's only 2 lenses out at the minute.
Well, you can get the Four Thirds adapter and use the 25/2.8, 35/3.5 macro, 35-100/2, Leica 14-150 and all new 4/3 kit lenses.
>> Anonymous
>>286352
They did it because their market research showed the Japanese consumer market liked it better if it looked like "a real camera."

Personally, I like the design; it's basically a slightly enlarged FZ series body, and I own an FZ8; the ergonomics fit me perfectly. The ideal EVF camera would be an M9 with a supplementary EVF that either goes in the shoe (like on the Ricoh GX series) or swaps in where the RF/VF is; I imagine the former would be much technically easier. But barring that, and little expectable quibbles, IMO the G1 is the perfect camera for its rough sensor size bracket.

I've never really got the "pocketability" fetish; you can't fit an M in a small pants pocket, but no one complains about that, and it's easy and simple as hell to just throw a camera over your shoulder and go.
>> Anonymous
>>286370
And an M-to-µ4/3rds adapter is in the works, which is going to be just plain awesome when that hits.
>> Anonymous
>>286352
That's not a "fake mirror box", that's a "fake prism housing". And it's actually not pointless since the viewfinder LCD and optics have to fit somewhere.
>> Anonymous
>>286369
It's pretty quick for a contrast detect based system, and on the MF side of things, i don't like how the focus ring isn't mechanically coupled to the focusing mechanism. The shutter lag is somewhere between that of an slr and a fairly decent p&s, not instant, but not exactly sluggish either.


>>286370
Is the adapter out yet? No.

>>286361
And where do you work, Mcdonalds? I'd rather work somewhere that intrests me, and it also means i get cheap shit. Also, i know for a fact i'm a better photographer than you.
>> Anonymous
>>286376
>Is the adapter out yet? No.

Accessories always come later. The G1 itself isn't out yet in lots of places. Though with Panasonic's shitty marketing, I don't think the adapters will ever be readily available everywhere; the Chinese are our hope.
>> Anonymous
>>286369

disappointing that they'd have a "revolutionary" idea, compromise it and then fall short of anything great or really new. should have taken the idea and ran with it rather than trying to please the small asian penises.
>> Anonymous
     File :-(, x)
>>286350It's a DSLR the size of a PnS.

Sorry, it's just not the size of a point-and-shoot. It's the size of a bridge camera.

And it will only get bigger with better lenses than the kit lens. Unless you stick a 25mm pancake on it, it's still not the size of the Olympus retro camera, which IS the size of a point-and-shoot.

The G1 is a retarded concept at $800. Every other company offers entry level bodies at $500 with a full catalog of lenses to complement them.

This is going to fail horribly.
>> Anonymous
>>286386
>Sorry, it's just not the size of a point-and-shoot. It's the size of a bridge camera.

Which is good. Little credit card cameras aren't good shooters. Cameras cluster in a certain size range for a reason.

>And it will only get bigger with better lenses than the kit lens.

When the third-party adapters come out, they'll be hundreds of great old lenses that'll work perfectly on it, and most of them (FL and speed allowing, of course) will be smaller than the kit. Panasonic is coming out with a 20/1.7 pancake next year.
>> Anonymous
     File :-(, x)
>>286391Which is good. Little credit card cameras aren't good shooters. Cameras cluster in a certain size range for a reason.

so this defeats the whole purpose of having dslr quality in your pocket, which the olympus model offers

why would anyone want to pay $800 for this when there are better options out there

>> When the third-party adapters come out, they'll be hundreds of great old lenses that'll work perfectly on it

hmm, what are those hundreds of great old lenses?

and i'm sure the 2x factor will be tremendous fun
>> Butterfly !xlgRMYva6s
>>286376
>Also, i know for a fact i'm a better photographer than you.
Fighting talk anonymous...
>> Anonymous
>>286386
>Unless you stick a 25mm pancake on it
25mm pancake + 2 cm thick adapter = Not so pancake anymore.

>The G1 is a retarded concept at $800. Every other company offers entry level bodies at $500 with a full catalog of lenses to complement them.

These entry level bodies have vastly inferior live view modes and small (albeit optical) viewfinders. I think Panasonic isn't trying to appeal to DSLR crowd at all, they intend to sell the G1 to people who want a point-and-shoot/bridge camera without the usual P&S drawbacks.
>> Anonymous
no built-in stabilization? = immediate fuck up on Panasonic's part

they gotta rely on Panasonic lenses with built-in IS or the over 9000$ Leica ones. none of the Oly lenses are stabilized

not a deal breaker, but they just lost a major selling point for the market they're going for
>> Anonymous
>>286403
>no built-in stabilization? = immediate fuck up on Panasonic's part
This was evident ever since the L1, but they keep pushing forward with it for some reason. They even announced a stabilized Leica 45/2.0 prime some time ago.
>> Anonymous
>>286394
there are quite a few DSLRs with 135 film sized sensors out now.
>> fence !!POey2hdozCZ
>>286376

close, burger king. we just got the new whoppers in and goddamn, they are shit. it's the same shit every year. they keep adding more pickles without actually making a cheap, functional burger for the entry level fast food consumer. i mean, 99 cent menu? are you fucking kidding me? total piece, bro.

and unless you can state something mathematically, it's not a fact, it's an opinion. now, i agree that you're a better photographer than i am without even having seen your work. it is an irrevocable opinion in my mind. but i take deep umbrage with your confusion of fact and opinion. get it right, sir!
>> Anonymous
>>286394
>so this defeats the whole purpose of having dslr quality in your pocket

Who gives a shit if it goes in your pocket or not? Sling it over your shoulder.

The problem with DSLRs isn't their size, it's the damn mirror slap. Also how most SLR finders show less than 100%. Also, some people just prefer EVFs to SLRs. Granted, we're in the minority, but hey, there's still three companies making rangefinders almost fifty years after the Nikon F hit.

>hmm, what are those hundreds of great old lenses?

Well, the mount will theoretically take anything with a longer FFD than itself, which means every mount I can think of for still photography. RF lenses ought to be especially popular, since they're smaller and they've all got good focusing and aperture rings.

>and i'm sure the 2x factor will be tremendous fun

With the (current production and pretty affordable, actually) 12mm Voigtlaender, it'll get you down to 24mm equivalent, which is more than most people need. Tons of 20-25mm lenses out there for normals. 35's become awesome short teles, 50's portrait lenses. There's those 40-45mm lenses, many of them pancakes, if you want something closer to the 80-90 typical range.
>> Anonymous
>>286405
And they got nothing to do with the G1 and u4/3 adapters.
>> Anonymous
>>286361
>>286376
>>286406

...
>> ac !!VPzQAxYPAMA
>>286383
I know! I have a truly *enormous* penis. Simply gargantuan. And I want a tiny camera to reflect that fact.

>>286371
>I've never really got the "pocketability" fetish; you can't fit an M in a small pants pocket, but no one complains about that, and it's easy and simple as hell to just throw a camera over your shoulder and go.
Sometimes you can't just throw a camera over your shoulder. Hell, 90% of the time I have my full Domke full of lenses along with my 40D. But even the smallest SLRs (and even the even-smaller bridge cameras) scream "CAMERA!" and a lot of people will act differently around someone with a camera that screams "CAMERA!". For the situations where I'd want to be using a hypothetical tiny µ4/3, an M8 *would* be too big (although it would have the advantage that it doesn't look like a "professional" camera nowadays to anyone who's not a photographer nerd).

The size of a camera, in great part, determines how it can be used. You wouldn't bring an 8x10 view camera for party snaps, just as you wouldn't bring a 110 for studio work. The 35mm SLR form factor (and 35mm rangefinder form factor, pretty much, since those are around the same size) is a nice compromise between quality/controls/ergonomics and size, but there are still situations where you don't want a big noticeable pro-looking camera. E.g., if you're sneaking it into a war zone. Or, something people here are likely to do, sneaking it into an event or concert, or just doing street photography and trying to avoid having a belligerent asshole start shouting at you.

A µ4/3 wouldn't replace my SLR, but one that's small enough would be a great complement to it. The G1, especially with the lenses it currently has available, just isn't small enough to be particularly interesting except as a proof-of-concept for the system.

So, tl;dr: It's not that the G1 is too large if considered on its own, it's just too large for there to be any situation where it would be better than my SLR.
>> Anonymous
>>286394
what's the name of the pictured camera?
>> Anonymous
android g1 = fail
pana g1 = fail
transformers g1 = FUCK YEAH TRANSFORMERS
>> ac !!VPzQAxYPAMA
>>286407
>The problem with DSLRs isn't their size, it's the damn mirror slap
To you, maybe. Not to everyone. Sounds like the G1 is the perfect camera to you, but it's not the perfect camera to those of us for whom size is an issue.
>> Anonymous
>>286422
Olympus awesome prototype never to be built #23425393
>> ac !!VPzQAxYPAMA
>>286422
>what's the name of the pictured camera?
"Unreleased Olympus design concept that cannot be made with current technology"
>> Anonymous
>>286407
The G1 has no mirror slap, but it still produces an audible mechanical shutter click like a rangefinder.

>>286423
Transformers G1 is also fail if you take the nostalgia goggles off.
>> Anonymous
>>286431

fine, anything named g1 is fail
>> Anonymous
>>286420
>E.g., if you're sneaking it into a war zone.
People have (quite obviously) gotten normal-sized cameras into warzones just fine. You're not going to be able to sneak any camera that's not hidden in or disguised as something else past any customs search, and if you're trying to sneak over a border or something, your body's a lot bigger than any camera.

>Or, something people here are likely to do, sneaking it into an event or concert

This makes sense where it applies, but that's a pretty specialized purpose for a camera. Also, most events are glad to have people there shooting; concerts it depends on how commercial it is.

>or just doing street photography and trying to avoid having a belligerent asshole start shouting at you.

That's much more a matter of technique than camera size. The classic Leica isn't much smaller than this; the M is actually wider, only seven millimeters less tall, and only 11.5mm less thick, and that's without a grip. Put a rangefinder prime or the coming native 20/1.7 on the G1, and the camera's size really shouldn't intimidate anyone.
>> Anonymous
>>286426
FFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFF
>> ac !!VPzQAxYPAMA
>>286435
>People have (quite obviously) gotten normal-sized cameras into warzones just fine.
People have taken 8x10 view cameras into warzones. A smaller camera still might make it fractionally more likely that they'd get out alive, though. A big camera might make the police (or rebels) focus in on you as a Journalist whose camera should be confiscated (or who it would be a coup to have decapitated on live TV) rather than a random gawker who's not going to be a problem.

>This makes sense where it applies, but that's a pretty specialized purpose for a camera. Also, most events are glad to have people there shooting; concerts it depends on how commercial it is.
Up here in Buffalo, during the (regrettably brief) summer, there are three big free concerts per week. I can get a small camera in easily, but often get cockblocked by security if I try to bring in my SLR. I like taking pictures at big gatherings like that.

And it's not *just* concerts. Museums, hospitals, malls, stores, lots of them have occasional prohibitions on photography.

So yes, I agree that it is a specialized purpose...but it's a specialized purpose that comes up for me pretty frequently.

>That's much more a matter of technique than camera size.
Agreed. There are street shooters out there with Pentax 645 medium format beasts. But I would still be more comfortable with a little tiny camera that would just make me look like a random tourist rather than like a Professional Photographer.

I think the overall point I'm getting at here is that just because people *have* made do with big cameras throughout history doesn't mean that it wouldn't be nicer to have a smaller, quieter one.

Never assume that the way you shoot and the subjects you shoot are the only way to do it.
>> Anonymous
>>286431
>The G1 has no mirror slap, but it still produces an audible mechanical shutter click like a rangefinder.

Of course, but that's still much quieter. Hopefully, if they didn't botch it somehow.

>>286425

I'm arguing that the size of small SLRs or this isn't as big of a disadvantage as people make it out to be.

But that's really a side thing, more to the point it's not fair to rag on the G1 for being like it is, just like I wouldn't call a D300 a bad camera just because it's an SLR in a typical SLR form factor. Or, here's a better example, the new Olympus DSLRs because they ditched the flat, Pen-FT-esque mirror set-up the older Olympus DSLRs had.

Look at this being like a rangefinder or TLR; it's just an alternative type of camera.

>>286423
>>286431
>>286432

How has no one mentioned the Contax or Canon G1 yet? (Though I wouldn't consider the Contax fail.)
>> Anonymous
>>286440

>A big camera might make the police (or rebels) focus in on you as a Journalist whose camera should be confiscated (or who it would be a coup to have decapitated on live TV) rather than a random gawker who's not going to be a problem.

Or it might make it clear you're a journalist who isn't to be messed with, or isn't a problem. Random people are the problem in modern asymmetric battlefields; when the other side doesn't wear a uniform, the guy obviously working as a journalist is less of a problem than the guy walking down the street.

Journalists in warzones go way out of their way to make it clear they're press; it's when there's confusion that shit happens, most of the time. That Italian (?) journalist shot in Iraq was shot because her driver wouldn't stop at a checkpoint and she otherwise wasn't obviously press. There was somewhat recently a cameraman shot in the West Bank who got killed because he moved too fast putting his shoulder-carried video camera up on his shoulder and an Israeli soldier reflexively mistook it for an anti-tank rocket and shot. The journalists killed in South Ossetia were killed because they yelled greetings in the wrong language to a group of soliders in the middle of the night, who shot and rushed them to the hospital as soon as they got close and saw they were press.
>> Anonymous
>>286454
And fucking with journalists is something most people don't do beyond a certain point; they don't want the outcry or the journalist's government to get involved or any of that. People only do it when the publication of the journalist's information could cause the problem (e.g. the recent case of Trent Keegan) or if they're just balls-crazy fanatics who'd lop the head off anyone who doesn't scream the exact words they do.

>And it's not *just* concerts. Museums, hospitals, malls, stores, lots of them have occasional prohibitions on photography.

>So yes, I agree that it is a specialized purpose...but it's a specialized purpose that comes up for me pretty frequently.

I agree with you here, too, but I don't think this has anything to do pro or con with the G1 (except that it's quieter shutter and swivel screen might help), and it seems to me a small point and shoot with a leaf shutter and a swivel screen would be ideal in all those cases except the concerts, better than a focal plane shuttered camera with a 4/3rds sensor, and I don't think the hypothetical Olympus has a folding screen. Sure, you'll have a bit more noise, but the extra depth of field will make prefocusing a lot easier, the leaf shutter will make it totally silent, and the swivel screen will let you keep it out of the field of view someone would notice and still shoot.
>> ac !!VPzQAxYPAMA
>>286446
>Look at this being like a rangefinder or TLR; it's just an alternative type of camera.
You're very, very close to grasping my point, but then missing it.

It is not an alternate *enough* type of camera. It gets rid of the mirror slap of SLRs, but it keeps the large size (with its issues of both bulk/weight and noticeability).

This is closer to the difference between, say, a D40 and a D80 than it is the difference between a rangefinder and a TLR. Its niche when compared to an SLR is vanishingly small--the set of circumstances where you need quiet, but bulk is okay. Or for the three people in the world who really prefer an EVF to an optical viewfinder.
>> ac !!VPzQAxYPAMA
>>286455
>a small point and shoot with a leaf shutter and a swivel screen would be ideal in all those cases
The slow lenses combined with the shitty high-ISO performance is an issue for me there. But, in fact, that's exactly the setup I use in those situations right now--an old Canon PowerShot A95. What I was hoping for with micro 4/3 was something small like the A95 but with the ability to slap on an f/1.8 and shoot it at ISO400 without worrying about noise.
>> Anonymous
>>286402


well, except the sony 300/350 which actually have kick-ass live-view modes (and the bodie for the 350 is about 350€)

>>286425>The problem with DSLRs isn't their size, it's the damn mirror slap
To you, maybe. Not to everyone. Sounds like the G1 is the perfect camera to you, but it's not the perfect camera to those of us for whom size is an issue.
well, actually it is kind of stupid. mirrors should be a thing of the past.
one of the greatest advantages of digital cameras is, that there´s no need for a mirror, which greatly limits the size of the body (i.e. you can´t make it smaller or thinner at some point because you simply need the space for the mirror and the prism), adds additional mechanically moving parts etc.

i think the way to go would be micro-four-thirds standart, without a mirror in the way, but still interchangable lenses.
the only thing that needs working are the view-finders, since especially when it is very bright outside sucks.

apart from that, live-view is the way to go for digital photography
>> ac !!VPzQAxYPAMA
>>286454
>>286455
> Blah blah wartime photography points by people who apparently have a much better grasp of the subject than I do
Fair enough. I retract that point.

But I stand by my other points that I have actual personal experience with. :-P
>> Anonymous
This is a failure of the camera. I predicted early on that it shall be stillborn. There's little reason to waste money on this overpriced and uninspired design. It's not even a jack of all trades, but it is still suffering from being a master of none.

Lumix should have had the balls to do something really interesting. As it is they have a rather useless and expensive camera.
>> Anonymous
>>286463It is not an alternate *enough* type of camera.

This is my issue with it too.
>> ac !!VPzQAxYPAMA
>>286468
>one of the greatest advantages of digital cameras is, that there´s no need for a mirror
Remaining advantages to the SLR design:
1. Phase-detect autofocus, which requires the specialized AF hardware getting all of the light, is still way faster than contrast-detect autofocus (which is what cameras that only have live view use). Alternate AF mechanisms like sonar, IR, and rangefinder have their own issues.
2. Batteries last a hell of a lot longer if they're not powering a big-ass sensor and LCD all the time
2a. Related: Running the sensor all the time makes it heat up, which increases the noise.
3. A lot of people prefer looking through an honest-to-God glass viewfinder without digital intermediation. Eventually EVFs will get to the point where they can compete with this for most people, but that day is still in the future.
>> Anonymous
>>286463
>Or for the three people in the world who really prefer an EVF to an optical viewfinder.
I haven't seen the G1, but I would _certainly_ prefer a high-resolution, low-lag EVF to the optical viewfinders in non-full-frame DSLRs if it can automatically zoom in for precise manual focus, brighten in low light and preview exposure/WB.
>> Anonymous
>>286477
>2. Batteries last a hell of a lot longer if they're not powering a big-ass sensor and LCD all the time

not exactly, you can easily switch the screen of, the new alphas do it automatically (after a preset time that you can change). i.e. you dont press a button the screen goes of after lets say a minute, the instant you push something it immediatly turns on again.
also, with battery-technology advancing day by day, even now the capacities are more than large enough for most people (and the rest just buys additional batteries ;) )

>2a. Related: Running the sensor all the time makes it heat up, which increases the noise.

true, though i hope that for example the "new" cmos sensors will help with that. or you could go again the sony way and use special live-view ccd/cmos sensor with a low resolution just to provide live-view and not heat up the main sensor

>3. A lot of people prefer looking through an honest-to-God glass viewfinder without digital intermediation. Eventually EVFs will get to the point where they can compete with this for most people, but that day is still in the future.

i know and somehow it irritates me, because live-view pictures are simply much closer to what the "real image" will look like afterwards. you can already see the white-balance for example
>> ac !!VPzQAxYPAMA
>>286485
And I would prefer a camera that came with a trio of beautiful, scantily-clad women to massage my shoulders between shots.

Right now, my shoulders go unmassaged just as your EVFs are laggy and low-res.
>> Anonymous
>>286472
The same could be said for the more expensive bridge cameras. Yet they still sell, even if everyone on /p/ hates them.

>>286477
Phase detect AF will always be faster by design, but also inherently less accurate and prone to misalignment. If what they say about the G1 is true, most people won't mind - it's good to have a blazing fast AF in spec sheets, but 99% of DSLR users don't need the speed of pro cameras.

As for sensor heating and noise, that was a big issue with CCD sensors, but CMOS ones almost eliminated the problem. (I know of people whose cameras overheated and shut off when shooting in the sun at 105 degrees with live view on, but even they reported no visible increase in noise)
>> Anonymous
>>286490

I'd be willing to overlook all the flaws if they throw in the trio of lovely ladies.
>> Anonymous
>>286496

Bridge cameras are still far cheaper than this is to run and they are not going to be heavier or bulkier. Again, by bringing up the bridge camera issue you've only mentioned how obsolete this camera is even before it was released.

You can only defend this camera or seriously suggest spending the money on it over other options if it existed in a vacuum.
>> Anonymous
>>286490
>just as your EVFs are laggy and low-res.

All the EVFs I've seen so far were superfail, but those were cheap point-and-shoots. So far everyone said that G1 is a huge improvement, I'm interested to look what it looks like IRL (800x600 vs. 320x240 should be like upgrading your super nintendo to xbawks quality-wise)
>> Anonymous
>>286423
>android g1 = fail
gb2/macrumorscirclejerk/ macfag.
>> ac !!VPzQAxYPAMA
>>286489
>[...]you can easily switch the screen off [...]
When I'm shooting a sporting event, I'll spend long stretches of time with my camera to my eye basically watching the game while poised to take the shot. With an EVF or LCD, I'll be using battery power that whole time. With an SLR, it can be pretty much turned off during the time between shots.

Certainly sensor and battery technology is getting better, but given current technology, P&S batteries last me about a day vs. SLR batteries lasting me a week or two.

>because live-view pictures are simply much closer to what the "real image" will look like afterwards.
The problem is that live-view pictures right now are much closer to what the "real image" looked like a half second or so in the past, and at a resolution too low to judge focus. When they get live view with high enough resolution that I can't see pixels to run fast enough that I can't detect the time lag, we'll talk.

>>286496
>The same could be said for the more expensive bridge cameras. Yet they still sell, even if everyone on /p/ hates them.
Bridge cameras usually aren't $800. I'm hoping you're right and the guy you're responding to is wrong because I have high hopes for u4/3 as a system, but I fear he's right.

>but 99% of DSLR users don't need the speed of pro cameras.
I'm not talking the speed of pro cameras. I'm talking the speed of bargain-basement, low-end DSLRs, which blows any P&S out of the water. The ability to hit the button and know that your Decisive Moment is being captured instead of being lost to a slow AF system or shutter lag.

And the guy I was responding to was saying that mirrors are useless for 100% of the DSLR market, not for the 99% who you claim need pro quality, and we're just not technologically at a point yet where an EVF can replace a real glass TTL viewfinder for most serious DSLR users.
>> ac !!VPzQAxYPAMA
>>286497
Second.

>>286499
Second.

>>286500
>So far everyone said that G1 is a huge improvement,
See>>286342right in this thread
>> Anonymous
>because live-view pictures are simply much closer to what the "real image" will look like afterwards.

wat?
>> Anonymous
>>286499
What I'm trying to say is that /p/hags are not representative of the overall market. We demand stuff like noiseless ISO 3200, xbox hueg viewfinder, over 9000 lenses etc.
But there are also people who want a camera which just takes good pictures for their family album in most situations. And they don't care if the viewfinder isn't crystal clear (in fact, they may actually HATE optical viewfinders and prefer screens), the shutter lag is more than 0.1s and there's no f/1.1 tilt-shift softfocus macro to put on their camera. The G1 is aimed squarely at them, plus it's also there to probe the ground about what people want and what they don't in such a camera.
>> Anonymous
>>286509
That can be quite subjective. Some people go "OMG lag" while some don't notice it at all, so I prefer to see everything for myself.
For example, I have no problems with my old MVA LCD monitor, even though some people believe you can't even work with fucking Word with a 50ms response time, let alone play 3D shooters.
>> ac !!VPzQAxYPAMA
>>286512
>But there are also people who want a camera which just takes good pictures for their family album in most situations. And they don't care if the viewfinder isn't crystal clear (in fact, they may actually HATE optical viewfinders and prefer screens), the shutter lag is more than 0.1s and there's no f/1.1 tilt-shift softfocus macro to put on their camera.
Those people also don't need interchangeable lenses, and generally do need the extra $600 they'll save by just buying a $200 point & shoot.

You're right that this camera is aimed at those people. However, those people are aimed squarely at the P&S category of cameras.
>> Anonymous
I've no objections to EVFs in principle, but if they don't match - or more importantly as a new tech - surpass what I can do already (and have done for many years) with the viewfinders I am used to then I don't see any reason for me to use them. I'm someone who has owned and used several bridge cameras along with SLRs and I still don't like this camera. It seems like one of those awkward combinations of all the disadvantages of more than one system without the same advantages.
>> Anonymous
>>286510

you can´t see the white balance through an optical view-finder, you can´t see the tone and contrast the camera is going to use, etc.
>> Anonymous
>>286516
Yes, they also don't care a lot about lenses. But the $200 point-and-shoot makes everything shot indoors blurry.

>>286517
>if they don't match - or more importantly as a new tech - surpass what I can do already
Sadly, technologies without drawbacks are rare, especially in photography - every invention that led to our current DSLRs came at some cost.
>> Anonymous
>>286533

All the LCDs I've seen being used so far are not accurate enough to judge such things. People spend a lot of money and time working on calibration of even the finest screens, but those LCD panels will never be calibrated in years and years of use. Not good.

>>286535

The kind of people not to care about lenses aren't going to spend the silly money on this and will be more than happy with the quality from bridge cameras and so on, which have come along leaps and bounds.

This is a bad and stupid camera. It's pointless. The market it is aimed at by your suggestions isn't likely to want it or afford it.

> Sadly, technologies without drawbacks are rare, especially in photography - every invention that led to our current DSLRs came at some cost.

What a non-answer. Tsk. Like listening to a politician. The EFV a bum deal as it is. Maybe in four or five years it will be interesting, but this abortion of a camera will be dead and buried by then.
>> ac !!VPzQAxYPAMA
>>286533
>you can´t see the white balance through an optical view-finder, you can´t see the tone and contrast the camera is going to use, etc.
I shoot RAW so it doesn't matter. And anyway, human eyes have pretty decent auto-white-balance.

>>286535
>Yes, they also don't care a lot about lenses. But the $200 point-and-shoot makes everything shot indoors blurry.
I've got a friend who's had an original Digital Rebel since they were new and she only learned to change the ISO a couple months ago when I visited. She assumed it was a really shitty camera for anything indoors because she'd been shooting it in full auto at ISO100 the entire time she'd owned it.

Unless the "Intelligent ISO" is really good, this is still going to be blurry indoors for someone who doesn't know what they're doing. So people will probably just pop the flash, which is what they'd do with a P&S too.

OP: Got any experience to share with how it works on the Auto modes?
>> Anonymous
>>286536
>will be more than happy with the quality from bridge cameras and so on, which have come along leaps and bounds.
Protip: A lot of them AREN'T happy with the quality from bridge cameras and such, especially since we've now got noise reduction shit all over the place at ISO 200 on most of them, but don't buy DSLRs because they're scared of size and complexity. In its essence, the G1 is a "DSLR for blondes", and blondes will buy it (especially since it comes in red and blue!)

>This is a bad and stupid camera. It's pointless. This abortion of a camera will be dead and buried by then.
This camera is an eyesore. This camera. This camera. This camera. This camera. This camera. This camera. This camera. This camera. This camera. This camera. This camera.

DURR HURR
>> Anonymous
>>286543
>in full auto at ISO100
Doesn't "full auto" include "auto ISO" by default?
>> ac !!VPzQAxYPAMA
>>286547
>because they're scared of size and complexity.
Bridge cameras and the G1 both have about the same amount of complexity as a DSLR.

Most people shooting P&S cameras don't know enough about photography to know why the quality of their shots isn't very high. They just pop up the flash and the camera picks ISO100 and the pictures are good enough for them. Those who know enough to know that that's not really that great aren't intimidated by a camera with exposure controls on it.
>> ac !!VPzQAxYPAMA
>>286549
Not on the original Rebel. I don't think on the subsequent rebels, either. Canon DSLRs only got auto ISO pretty recently.
>> Anonymous
>>286547DURR HURR

You could have just posted that and saved us all the time. It sums up your argument nicely.
>> Anonymous
>>286543
From what I've read, Panasonic's "Intelligent Auto" mode is pretty good for n00bs. It chooses the ISO based on the amount of motion in the scene, detects faces where possible and automatically sets the aperture for portraits or landscapes, etc. (Btw, this should be one of the strong points for this type of camera. A DSLR can never do some of these tricks)
>> Anonymous
>>286551

Not only don't they know why there is a difference, a lot of them don't even care. They are not as picky as the photographer nerds and even many of them have low standards, judging from dA and flicker type communities.
>> Anonymous
>>286551
>Most people shooting P&S cameras don't know enough about photography to know why the quality of their shots isn't very high.
Of course, but they also always ask "How do you get this blurred background thing" and other stupid questions. (Panasonic should REALLY make a red version of the 20/1.7 and put a label on the box saying "Nice blurry backgrounds !!")
>> ac !!VPzQAxYPAMA
>>286563
>Of course, but they also always ask "How do you get this blurred background thing" and other stupid questions.
I've yet to meet someone who knew enough even to recognize depth of field control was one of the things that made my pictures look better than theirs. They just sort of know mine look better, not why. And for the record, this included me before I bought my first reasonably decent camera and was all like "Aperture? What the hell's aperture?"
>> Anonymous
>>286543
>I shoot RAW so it doesn't matter. And anyway, human eyes have pretty decent auto-white-balance.

are you dumb??
maybe your eyes do, but the camera certainly doesnt.
yes, of course in raw you can edit white-balance perfectly. but if you dont do it soon after you´ve made your shot (i.e. a couple of days) your brain won´t be able to precisely remeber what kind of light there was, you can only estimate (but okay, white-balance for raw is alright.

still, everything else counts. you´ll get the general colors and contrast as they will appear on the final picture (why the resolution of those screens isnt enough for you i dont know...furthermore, the screens are calibrated pretty well, and even if not, they´re still closer to the true image than what you (you =/= ccd) see through the view-finder
>> Anonymous
     File :-(, x)
>>286577your brain won´t be able to precisely remeber what kind of light there was, you can only estimate (but okay, white-balance for raw is alright.
>> Anonymous
>>286577are you dumb??
maybe your eyes do, but the camera certainly doesnt.
yes, of course in raw you can edit white-balance perfectly. but if you dont do it soon after you´ve made your shot (i.e. a couple of days) your brain won´t be able to precisely remeber what kind of light there was, you can only estimate (but okay, white-balance for raw is alright.

What does it matter as long as he makes it look as he wants it to? Making a nice image at the end is all that matters for him and most people. Such is photography.

>still, everything else counts. you´ll get the general colors and contrast as they will appear on the final picture (why the resolution of those screens isnt enough for you i dont know...furthermore, the screens are calibrated pretty well, and even if not, they´re still closer to the true image than what you (you =/= ccd) see through the view-finder

Sounds like a heap of crap to me. You're trying to argue and defend this camera on all fronts without conceding the obvious weaknesses and flaws of it. I can already get "the general colours and contrast" with chimping or experience with photography (film shooting, lawl). A vauge and airy-fairy notion of the colours and contrast on an non-calibrated screen isn't exactly a compelling reason to switch to such an obviously inferior system. I can get a clearer image without lag with an optical viewfinder. I can also judge very well what colours and contrast I will be getting too, as have and do many other photographers.

I don't know what your emotional investment is with this camera that is causing you to act as the Holy Paladin defender of it, but your excuses for its weaknesses and over-inflating of its dubious "strengths" is entirely unconvincing so far. If anything your attempted defence has only highlighted all the more what a flop this is as the issues are aired for me to see.

This is no replacement for my SLRs or bridge cameras.
>> Anonymous
>>286588
>This is no replacement for my SLRs or bridge cameras.

You're dumb. They said from the very beginning that this will be an entirely new class of camera, and it is.
>> Anonymous
>>286591

Your butthurt is showing.
>> Anonymous
>>286594
And you're just jealous that it wasn't your favorite company that made the most innovative camera of the year.
>> Anonymous
>>286591

No, you're a towel.

It's easier said than done to make a new class of camera AND to make it one that is actually useful. This camera fails on all counts. Your defence grows ever more shaky and useless, much like this camera.

This is only a new class of camera if you count "shitty and useless" as a new class of camera. You can't even defend it properly, so you're resorting to marketing speak, buzzwords and insults. A poor effort.
>> ac !!VPzQAxYPAMA
     File :-(, x)
>>286591
>You're dumb. They said from the very beginning that this will be an entirely new class of camera, and it is.
This is also an entirely new class of camera. Doesn't mean it's a class of camera that most people would want to use.

While I'll certainly agree that "Non-SLR, non-Rangefinder with interchangeable lenses" is a new class of cameras and that it has a shit-ton of potential (I've been one of the biggest /p/ cheerleaders for u4/3 in the past), *this particular camera* doesn't live up to that potential. It does not occupy any niche that's not already better served by one of the classes of cameras already out there, and already out there for less money. Just being unique is not enough for it to be good.
>> Anonymous
>>286596

LAWL. I don't even have a favourite camera company as I just like photography, unlike the stupid fanboys such as yourself which obsess more about brands. I don't have shares in the company - why should I care? I'm laughing at you though. Rarely do I see such retarded fanboys foaming at the mouth and trying to defend crappy and ill-concieved products. Keep on BAAAAAAWWWWing and raging over your failure of a camera and company. Your butthurt is delicious.
>> ac !!VPzQAxYPAMA
>>286596
>>286601
Ad Hominem/strawman attacks, the both of you. Go sit in the corner and cool down.
>> Anonymous
>>286598
It wasn't me who used the words like "abortion" etc.

Do you sincerely believe a company like Panasonic hasn't done a slightest bit of marketing research before making this thing (which apparently cost quite a lot in R&D department)? No, of course an anon on /p/ knows better.
>> Anonymous
>>286605MY FAVOURITE COMPANY NEVER MAKES MISTAKES. THEY ARE FLAWLESS. DERP DERP DERP.

Again, now you're avoiding the argument once again by using this blatant logical fallacy about how they "must have done research", so that makes it all okay and so all the obvious flaws somehow vanish into thin air. You are a very poor debater. If you have to resort to this fallacy then you have lost the debate and have no defence for it.
>> Anonymous
     File :-(, x)
>>286607
>you have lost the debate and have no defence for it.

I think you're forgetting that you're not on dpreview, kid.
>> Anonymous
>>286609

And? The camera still sucks and is pointless. Keep it coming though. It's very lulzworthy.
>> Anonymous
>>286613
NO! I MUST HAVE THE LAST WORD IN THIS!
>> Anonymous
>>286614

The G1 sucks, BTW. ^__~
>> Anonymous
>>286619
No it doesn't.
>> Anonymous
>>286622

It's also shit, overpriced and has no advantages over every other choice. BOOYAH! :D
>> Anonymous
>>286623
It has them.
>> Anonymous
i dont get the point... the thing is a behemoth compared to something like a pentax MX with the pancake lens. it isnt compact enough to matter...
>> Anonymous
sooooo, didn't read the thread

the conclusion is that the G1 sucks shit, right?
>> Anonymous
Is this the first micro 4/3rds camera?
>> Anonymous
>>286715
Almost any camera with a pancake lens is smaller than any other camera with a 3x zoom lens.

>>286726
The conclusion is that this thread is full of trolls trolling trolls. Better go read dcresource or something.

>>286754
Yes.
>> Anonymous
OP here. Rather than BAWWWing, anyone else have any more questions about the camera itself?
>> Anonymous
Looks to me like the camera sucks and is pointless, from reading dpreview and stuff. It doesn't seem to be able to do or beat anything that is already out there. Can't be bothered to read the trolling and rage from fanboys here.
>> ac !!VPzQAxYPAMA
>>287023
How loud is the shutter?
>> Anonymous
What niche does this fill and why would anyone buy it over the competition?
>> Anonymous
>>286588
>I don't know what your emotional investment is with this camera that is causing you to act as the Holy Paladin defender of it, but your excuses for its weaknesses and over-inflating of its dubious "strengths" is entirely unconvincing so far. If anything your attempted defence has only highlighted all the more what a flop this is as the issues are aired for me to see.


sorry, in fact i do not care about this camera at all.
i was simply stating, that if cameras would loose the mirror and the mirror box, there are a lot of advantages and that digital single reflex lens cameras are somehow a step backwards in digital photography, because it removes some of the advantages it offers.

i dont know about this camera, wether they got it right, imho the future for cameras should (i.e. most likely wont) be micro four thirds or something like that
>> Anonymous
>>287047

In the future we'll all be rocking full frame, not crippled and shitty cameras like the G1.
>> Anonymous
>>287035
It comes in red and blue.
>> Anonymous
>>287050

I lol'd.
>> Anonymous
>>287048


without mirrors in the camera ;)
>> Anonymous
>>287048
Your frame isn't full until it's 9x12" in size.
>> Anonymous
>>287031

If you've ever used live view on a 40D, kinda sounds like that, but a little louder.
>> ac !!VPzQAxYPAMA
>>287082
>If you've ever used live view on a 40D, kinda sounds like that, but a little louder.
Seriously? Like have you pulled the floor model for both of 'em and compared the sound side by side? 'Cause I've got a 40D right here, and even live view stealth shutter isn't really *that* quiet.
>> Anonymous
>>287084
I thought you had one. I've got one myself.

If you put it into silent shooting mode 1 in the live view settings and fire off a frame, the g1 is a little louder and sounds more abrupt than that.
>> ac !!VPzQAxYPAMA
>>287085
Yeah, I do have a 40D. I just wanted to make sure you weren't just going based on memory of what the 40D sounds like, since memory lies about things like that.

And the G1 is louder than silent mode *1*? That's completely absurd. The 40D's silent mode 1 still makes a very audible click. Not as loud as the full mirror slap, certainly, but still something people are gonna hear and recognize as a camera taking a picture. So that shrinks the potential usefulness of this camera even further. I'm seriously thinking that the only potential buyers for this are people who want SLR quality but want it in pink and are willing to pay a couple hundred extra for the paint job. Seems like they could just buy an XTi and hire someone to carefully handpaint it for less, though.

I am officially adding "Not quiet enough" to my "Not cheap enough" and "Not small enough" complaints about the G1.
>> Anonymous
>>287097
Based on having never held or heard the camera.
>> ac !!VPzQAxYPAMA
>>287098
Valid point, but I've heard a 40D in silent mode 1 and the OP has given me a reference point to compare it to.

Maybe I'll go check to see if any of the local stores have a floor model I can poke at.
>> Anonymous
>>287115
The OP has, or ought to have, zero credibility, though. He's said he's got one in his hands, but he posted a PR render as his OP pic, and he's anonymous, so it's not like how we know Heavyweather is an honest-to-God newspaper shooter or the marine with just a tripcode is an honest-to-God marine or you're an honest-to-God software engineer. If Heavyweather held forth on being a working photojournalist, the marine held forth on the air traffic control work he does, or you held forth on the development process, you'd have some credibility. This guy could be posting from his iPhone inbetween customers at the McDonald's drive through. He could be just a really, really successful troll.
>> Anonymous
>>287116

Maybe this is all a dream and you'll wake up any minute now and remember that real people have lobster claws and three vaginas and four penises?
>> ac !!VPzQAxYPAMA
>>287116
I found some data to back him up:
http://www.dcresource.com/reviews/panasonic/dmc_g1-review/index.shtml
>A lot of people have asked me how much noise the G1 makes when it takes a picture. After all, without a mirror, it should be quieter, right? The G1 is definitely pretty quiet, though it's not silent, as it still has a shutter that slides from left to right in the above photo when you take a photo. I put together this audio clip that compares the G1 to a traditional D-SLR, the Canon EOS-50D. You'll hear three sounds: the 50D in normal shooting mode, then in silent shooting mode, followed by the DMC-G1.
http://www.dcresource.com/reviews/panasonic/dmc_g1-review/shutter_sounds.mov
>> Anonymous
>>286967
obviously, but it begs the question as to why you would try and make an ultraportable camera, and not use a pancake or retractable lens.
>> Anonymous
this camera pisses me off b/c I know the only real reason panasonic created it was so they could have the first micro 4/3 standard... too bad it's still big D:<
>> Anonymous
>>287130
At least to my ears on my speakers, the 50D's silent mode sounded slightly quieter when I had my head straight at the computer, but when I turned my head the G1's shutter sounded about half as quiet as the 50D.

It sounds weird, but I tried it three or four times each way and that's how it came out. My head was turned the first time, I decided to listen to it again just to make sure I heard it right, and that time (head straight) I got that different result. Tried it a few more times.

But either way, they're metal focal plane shutters. They're going to sound pretty similar and make a little noise. No different than a Voigtlaender Bessa or an M8.

I do hope they come out with some leaf shuttered lenses, though. There's not much point to having teensy pancake lens on this body, so it'd be better if they just went ahead and put a shutter on the standard 20/1.7 and made it a little larger.
>> Anonymous
>>287197

I think Leica use cloth shutters.
>> Anonymous
>>287199
M3 through 7 did. The M8 uses a metal shutter.
>> Anonymous
>>287116

OP here. Been meaning to tripfag it up for a while now. Not a troll. I'm off into work today, and i'll take a picture of it. : )

Any more questions?
>> Anonymous
     File :-(, x)
Told you!

Camera-Specific Properties:Equipment MakeCanonCamera ModelCanon EOS 40DCamera SoftwareAdobe Photoshop CS3 WindowsMaximum Lens Aperturef/2.8Image-Specific Properties:Image OrientationTop, Left-HandHorizontal Resolution240 dpiVertical Resolution240 dpiImage Created2008:11:06 12:49:45Exposure Time1/100 secF-Numberf/2.8Exposure ProgramAperture PriorityISO Speed Rating400Lens Aperturef/2.8Exposure Bias0 EVMetering ModeCenter Weighted AverageFlashNo Flash, CompulsoryFocal Length15.00 mmColor Space InformationUncalibratedImage Width1000Image Height667RenderingNormalExposure ModeAutoWhite BalanceAutoScene Capture TypeStandard
>> Anonymous
>>288037

Aha!
>> Anonymous
>>288037
jessops?
>> Anonymous
>>288037
Is that a fullframe fisheye on a crop sensor, or just the worst distortion ever?
>> Anonymous
>>289082
How else would he get a 15/2.8?

Also, everybody without a 1D, 1Ds, Dx, or Dx00, remember: the G1 has more focus points than your camera. If you've got a crop DSLR, it's viewfinder is bigger, and regardless of what DSLR you have the magnification can be larger.
>> ac !!VPzQAxYPAMA
>>289089
>If you've got a crop DSLR, its viewfinder is bigger; and regardless of what DSLR you have, the magnification can be larger.
Yeah, but it's an EVF. Even if it's bigger and brighter, it's still laggy and pixellated. Based on previous experience with EVFs, that'd kill it for me. Need to find someone in the area that carries these so I can try one out to be sure, though.
>> Kilz2latex !!3htj9hFDMA4
>>286598
i think micro 4/3s will be a whole new class. this camera is the first of things to come, so you shouldnt expect it to be ground breaking and awesome.
i can definately see its uses it is smaller than a large slr but not my much they should have gone with a more e-420/10 style body for added small, and zuiko and any other lens company contributing to 4/3/micro 4/3s needs to start making more pancake lenses to really fully utilize the small body.

i dont see why everyones so pissed and butthurt its the first micro 4/3s to come out, youd have to be a retard to expect it to be perfect.
>> Anonymous
>>289104i think micro 4/3s will be a whole new class.

oh what class is that? over priced camera that delivers nearly the same quality as a regular dslr at nearly the same size?

oh wow that really fills my niche, awesome
>> Kilz2latex !!3htj9hFDMA4
>>289109
once again your going by the shit lumix g1, think more along the lines of>>286394
if it doesnt work, who cares........ stop crying about it
>> Anonymous
>>289125

lol, i'm the one who posted>>286394

this is a failure
>> Anonymous
>>289104

A new class of shitty failures soon to be forgotten for all time, you mean. So because you arbitrarily claim that it is the first to come we can't point out what a stinking heap of crap it is any more? Bullshit. You're fucking ADMITTING it is a bad product now but saying everyone should just pretend otherwise for no reason! You are a moron. They don't get free rides. They are still charging a hefty sum for this piece of junk. If they are still in prototype stages then they shouldn't fucking release it.

The fact that it is first is why they should have pulled out all the stops to make it "ground breaking and awesome". Instead we have this limp dick of a camera that is useless and overpriced in this market. Completely ruins their reputation and the idea of the system. It DESERVES to be mocked. This is not innovation. This is poison to future innovation as if this fails it will cause other projects to be cut short.

Also, you really don't know what "butthurt" means. The only butthurt ones are those defending a complete failures of a camera despite how obviously bad a product it is and upset no one likes this failure of a camera.
>> Anonymous
>>289140


I'm not the guy you're responding to but...WTF are you talking about?

I think what he's pimping here is the system, not the shitty implementation in OP's pic. The micro four thirds format certainly will be something new and pretty awesome. Look at what Olympus will be doing with it. That's a genuinely new product with genuinely new features to offer. This isn't difficult to understand.

And, yes, you DO seem pretty butthurt. Probably because it's not Canikon doing this. If that were the case I'm sure you'd have a boner over it.
>> Anonymous
>>289147

did you even read anything he said? jesus dumb
>> Anonymous
>>289148


Nope.

I still think you're a faggot.
>> ac !!VPzQAxYPAMA
>>289140
I think what he was trying to say was
1. Yeah, this camera sucks, but it's the first one out the gate. The first DSLRs were pretty fail too.
2. The u4/3 system concept has a lot of promise.

You need to calm down, sir.
>> Anonymous
>>289149

sorry, i'm the guy in>>289127and>>286394

but glad to see you like to call people faggots just because they disagree with you
>> Anonymous
>>289153


I called you a faggot because you're defending a moron. See what ac just said, it's my same point. It's not hard to understand.
>> Anonymous
still? lol english
>> Anonymous
This is why I hate gear threads. You are all faggots. Especially you, ac. You should know better. Too many gear threads ruining the boards.

sage
>> Anonymous
>>289152

>1. Yeah, this camera sucks, but it's the first one out the gate. The first DSLRs were pretty fail too.
>2. The u4/3 system concept has a lot of promise.

This is not the first ever DSLR. Comparing it to that first huge leap is ridiculous and massively over-hypes the merely incremental progress that this represents. Incremental developments of an established technology and it didn't even try to do anything amazing or adventurous. Even then they still didn't make anything worth while. Unimpressive. That is why this is so bad. It does not deserves such leniency. They should have been ambitious. This was their chance to prove the concept with the first real camera and come out with a bang, rather than a whimper as they have done. Be ambitious now and refine the idea with later revisions. Perhaps then they'd have come out with something impressive that would both establish the system and win everyone over.

I'm still waiting to see anything good come of the u4/3 (not just concept cameras, of course), but I keep an open mind about these things. I'd like some tiny but quality digicams to go with the SLRs, perhaps. We shall see.

I like Olympus's film stuff and used their cameras in the past for years, but this "if you dare to insult this holy camera gifted from the Olympus/Panasonic/4/3 gods then you must be a nikon or canon fanboy! Heretic! Heretic!" is ridiculous and pathetic. I like Olympus and know they made some quality items in the past, but they are not the one true religion that must not be criticized in any way.