I didn't realize how TINY that olympus 14-42mm lens is. WOW!

@aim120
I think NEX is a LOSER.

The camera is aimed at a person who doesn't know how to use the camera, and probably doesn't EVEN WANT TO LEARN how to use a camera. It's difficult to convince an ignorant camera user to buy a 1000 dollar camera (I don't mean "ignorant" in a bad sense, it's the people who ignore what camera does, they just want A PICTURE). People who spend that much money on an APS-C sensor WILL want more, and what they're stuck with is controls THAT ARE WORSE than on some Point-N-Shoots.

It's a neat camera though.

@ALwin
That's a "a little bit" short-sighted.
[sarcasm mode on]
Because we still all listen to records, because CD's and now DVD-audio could never be as good as a record. Because we all still use film cameras instead of digital cameras. Nobody uses flourescent light, because it hurts everyone's eyes. And nobody will EVER use more than 640kB of RAM. And horses are much better than cars, because, as opposed to transportation they're also a good friend.
[sarcasm mode off]
What other opinions do you have about direction of technology?

@Yemble
The EVF is a lot more flexible, it can show overexposure in REAL LIFE, simulate various conditions (motion blur) in REAL LIFE. And can be molded for any other photographic purpose. And it will only get better, AND BETTER.

There's NO WAY to improve the optical viewfinder. So far, the only reason, optical viewfinder is around is because EVF hasn't quite evolved yet. Only the core fanatics will kick and scream, until they turn into equivalent of record collectors in the audio business.

The FUTURE IS COMING

@zelannii
No, you don't. Time and time again shows that NOBODY (but the core professionals) use adapters for adapting an SLR lens to a mirrorless camera. The MAIN advantage of a mirrorless camera is the short throw lenses that are smaller. With an adapter, your wive's camera will be JUST as big as an SLR. (for example, just the adapter on the 4/3's is the same size as fixed pancake lens)

If canon or nikon are going to enter the "mirrorless" arena, they're going to have to bring the new lenses with them, because it doesn't make any sense to market small camera with larger than necessary lenses.

so Yes - you can - but why? In the meantime, there's olympus pen1 and pen2, and there's lumix gf1.

@Inect
Milk that cow, 'till it's dry, and then milk it 'till its dead. You know there's money to be made when the audience is a bunch of addicted fanatics.

@pika2000
Screw FM transmitters. Get a car with an AUえーゆーX input. Or replace the deck with one that has AUえーゆーX and USB, and never deal with FM ever again. In the unlikely event that you car has a cassette deck; cassette deck is MUCH BETTER than FM transmitter (better freq. response, better noise/signal, no interference, etc.). USB is the best. Aux is 2nd. Tape 3rd. FM - only if you're tone deaf, and like your music served with a cup of static.

@photoguy622
There's NO downside to having more pixels. It's a common myth. Yes, there'll be more noise, but it's a higher density noise, so you can resize it into lower megapixels (of your desire), and average the noise out (effectively, noise reduction).

I dare anyone to do this. Take an ISO800 picture with a P&S;, and resize it 4:1 (use a good image resizer), and you'll get an extremely noise-free picture.

@Marko
The closest equivalent removable lens would cost 1200 bucks (and that's a lumix gh1 with 28-280mm equiv). So, yes, much nice, but not quite the same price range

@bigcow05
I've already killed that subject. And I'm pointing out what OTHER camera features are much more important.

The bokeh argument is BOGUS.
4/3 sensor is 13.5mm high, and the APS is 15mm high... The bokeh blur is directly proportional to the sensor size, so your bokeh will be exactly 11.1% longer. Now tell me that if you go to restaraunt and they fill your glass 90%, you're going to complain and not leave the tip. A factor of 0.9 is IRRELEVANT in size comparison. As I said, in the old days there was 120mm film, and you could see the difference between 120mm and 35mm film. Of course, it's very difficult to find an f/1 lens for 120mm film for direct comparison of max bokeh (if such even exists), but even then the difference is not NIGHT'n'DAY. Now that's a 1100% area difference, and 350% length difference, and you're telling me that 10% length (30%area difference, because you like quoting highest possible difference statistic, even if it doesn't relate) difference is going to make a significant difference.

You're delusional. And the reason I brought up all the other specs (like the viewfinder), is because that's going to make MUCH MORE difference in using the camera, and getting the desired shots, then getting 1.1 (read: INSIGNIFICANT) factor more linear bokeh (the way people actually perceive bokeh, because human eyes don't actually perceive AREA). Whereas the the sensor is SLIGHTLY bigger, the viewfinder is SIGNIFICANTLY CRAPPIER (in every single way: half-refresh, almost half resolution, and half the size.... it might as well be black and white, for comical relief)

Who cares when they made the sensor? Here it is NOW, and they put it in a camera that's coming out RIGHT NOW, and it's worse than a 1.5 year old sensor in the lumix G1... Theoretically shouldn't be, BUT IT IS; I don't know why you're still in denial.