http://www.engadget.com/2008/09/22/olympus-outs-mid-range-four-thirds-e-a1-and-micro-four-thirds-p/ Engadget Comments for Olympus outs mid-range Four Thirds E-A1 and Micro Four Thirds prototype http://www.engadget.com/media/feedlogo.gif http://www.engadget.com en-us Copyright 2012 Weblogs, Inc. The contents of this feed are available for non-commercial use only. Blogsmith http://www.blogsmith.com/http://www.engadget.com/2008/09/22/olympus-outs-mid-range-four-thirds-e-a1-and-micro-four-thirds-p/http://www.engadget.com/2008/09/22/olympus-outs-mid-range-four-thirds-e-a1-and-micro-four-thirds-p/Sep 22nd 2008 7:10AMhttp://www.engadget.com/2008/09/22/olympus-outs-mid-range-four-thirds-e-a1-and-micro-four-thirds-p/http://www.engadget.com/2008/09/22/olympus-outs-mid-range-four-thirds-e-a1-and-micro-four-thirds-p/http://www.flickr.com/photos/audioblog/2849769877/in/set-72157607245255351/ ( posted on http://crave.cnet.co.uk/digitalcameras/0,39029429,49299014,00.htm )

This should give enough insight into how small u4/3 camera/lens is.]]>Sep 22nd 2008 7:15AMhttp://www.engadget.com/2008/09/22/olympus-outs-mid-range-four-thirds-e-a1-and-micro-four-thirds-p/http://www.engadget.com/2008/09/22/olympus-outs-mid-range-four-thirds-e-a1-and-micro-four-thirds-p/Sep 22nd 2008 7:27AMhttp://www.engadget.com/2008/09/22/olympus-outs-mid-range-four-thirds-e-a1-and-micro-four-thirds-p/http://www.engadget.com/2008/09/22/olympus-outs-mid-range-four-thirds-e-a1-and-micro-four-thirds-p/Why would people sacrifice image quality (over a bigger sensor such as Nikon/Pentax's 1.5x crop or Canon's 1.6x crop, or even the full frame options from Nikon, Sony, Canon) while paying the same money for the cameras/lenses? The size difference is still fairly minimal, Canon and Nikon both offer relatively small cameras that are more capable than Oly/Panasonic's offerings, with a much bigger lens selection to boot.
If size really mattered to people, they would opt for consumer or prosumer grade cameras like Canon's G series or Sony's H series cameras. I see no future in where Four Thirds is going, unless they really step it up and release a small form camera with the capabilities (image, video, ergonomic) as a Nikon D90 or a Canon D50. And even then, they still have to compete with the colossal arsenal of pro lenses from the Nikon and Canon camp, which takes more than a few months of R&D.]]>Sep 22nd 2008 7:57AMhttp://www.engadget.com/2008/09/22/olympus-outs-mid-range-four-thirds-e-a1-and-micro-four-thirds-p/http://www.engadget.com/2008/09/22/olympus-outs-mid-range-four-thirds-e-a1-and-micro-four-thirds-p/Sep 22nd 2008 8:58AMhttp://www.engadget.com/2008/09/22/olympus-outs-mid-range-four-thirds-e-a1-and-micro-four-thirds-p/http://www.engadget.com/2008/09/22/olympus-outs-mid-range-four-thirds-e-a1-and-micro-four-thirds-p/
So many stereotypes at once... Can't see a hole where to start.....

Shortly: get your hands on Oly E-420 - and then tell me that Canikons are "relatively small cameras" or they are "more capable" or they have "much bigger lens selection". You need a reality check. Fast.

Point is that Micro Four Thirds is not a "tool" - it is a holiday camera for the guy who has big DSLR at home but doesn't want to be burdened by it at a leisure time.

"""And even then, they still have to compete with the colossal arsenal of pro lenses from the Nikon and Canon camp, which takes more than a few months of R&D."""

Canon/Nikon has nothing to compete in the u4/3 form factor.

Also, to me personally, the "colossal arsenal of pro lenses" is now pretty useless baggage from past. They suck on digital cameras for many reasons (nor hardly provide quarter of must-have featrures).

And pretty much all professionals by now could have bought for theirs DSLRs new lenses - simply using money they have saved on films and developing.]]>Sep 22nd 2008 9:24AMhttp://www.engadget.com/2008/09/22/olympus-outs-mid-range-four-thirds-e-a1-and-micro-four-thirds-p/http://www.engadget.com/2008/09/22/olympus-outs-mid-range-four-thirds-e-a1-and-micro-four-thirds-p/
Also, interesting lens; according to Amazon it's $400. Why can't we get something similar for an EF mount? I mean, this is about a 4x zoom and, I would assume, roughly equivalent in range to a 17-70 on a 1.6x. Sigma makes a 17-70 for EF, and it goes for about $400, but it's f/2.8-4.5, not f/2.8-3.5.]]>Sep 22nd 2008 12:57PM