[Zig]

Am I misreading between the lines here, or have the G2 dpreviewers got a share in Panasonic? On the heels of a hasty interpretation of market data that declares the UK's apparent wanton embrace of m4/3 and a hat-tilt to "Panny", one of them opens his G2 gambit with: "The outward appearance may have been pure DSLR but the G1 is likely to be remembered as the camera that foreshadowed the end of that breed's preeminence", as if in some way a death-knell has sounded for DSLRs. Odd. Even odder given that in the meat 'n' spuds of the (p)review of the G2, he seems to suggest that firmware updates are a perfectably acceptable way to sidestep questionable edge sharpness. The G2 has a funky little touch-sensitive swing-out screen thingy...that can be used unless one doesn't want to, and it seems a bit odd to call this a "radical credential" if such is the confidence in it that care is taken to point out that it can be turned off. And a mirror and viewfinder added all that weight to DSLRs, didn't they?
I'm slightly concerned by the guy's somewhat martially heroic language, as though somewhere in Virtual Space there's a 2-sided scrap going on between DSLRism and m4/3ness: "pedigreed beauties...clambering on to the barricades...take up the mantle...going into battle...".
Fair play though(as they say round the shires), excitement is excitement.
Yet are there are other players that are surely being more gently radical in throwing all the ingredients up in the air and seeing what comes down, and slipping past the ropes?
I'm just wondering really: it seems like Panasonic et al are trying every which way they can to get a viewfinder without having a mirror and viewfinder(fine) and cresting any available m4/3 waves(and well), yet I wonder to what extent the implications of a camera like the Ricoh GXR A12 are being considered? Early days, yes, in terms of a modular lens approach, but when one considers the price, sensor and features of this camera long with its f2.5 50mm macro, there seems to be a quiet and understated solidness to it and its appearance. Someone was merely woolgathering, but they did float a few future(and imaginary, yes) considerations of a modular approach, such as, howsabout an IR module and stuff..?...
I think to be honest that perhaps the field in some way may be much wider than mere "formats" and form factors here, and that after the flogging to death of "how many uses of Live View can be found because we've backed all our horses up Mirrorless Alley", the ground looks interesting.
Not sure(as usual) what my point is: certainly not a dissing of m4/3, nor a Dinosaurian-Lerv-Fetish going on with DSLRs, just an inkling that there's more to the "race" than the horses that are shouted about the most.
As an aside, am wondering about the new G2's lens...is this a way of really just getting costs down before folks cast a colder, post-hype eye between m4/3 and wallet? Mind you, I do understand that costs are defrayed by the use of the lenses one already has, but just a thought nonetheless.
Thoughts on the G2? On Ricoh? Even on separating what's workable from what's hypeworthy?

[Toad]

I think the rumors of the demise of the DSLR are incredibly premature. The *improvements* to camera design (if they are actually improvements) presented by m43 are evolutionary - not revolutionary. The elimination of the internal mirror allows a *somewhat* smaller camera - but really that's about it. Before anyone jumps on me, I know that there are other different features as well - but that is the biggest one.

At least as many people are interested in moving to full frame (and the somewhat larger cameras required for this) as are interested in going to a smaller sensor / smaller camera combination. The dpreviewer clearly needs to tone down the rhetoric.

[shuttertalk]

To me it's all about sensor size, as Mr. T has pointed out, with the ultimate goal of reducing the overall package size. At the end of the day serious photographers want flexibility of interchangeable lenses, and an ecosystem of accessories such as flashguns and the like. The body shape is probably just a byproduct of the reduction in size - the rangefinder shape probably makes sense in a camera of that size.

I just wish that everyone would just settle on the new standard "size" - m4/3 seems the rage at the moment - and start producing en-masse.

[Toad]

I just wish that everyone would just settle on the new standard "size" - m4/3 seems the rage at the moment - and start producing en-masse.

That would be contrary to product marketing strategies that are crafted to make you want the *next big thing*. If nothing much changes, why would you sell your perfectly good current camera to buy a new one?