"A simple, human reason: I don't like to smile in pictures (a little different from in-person). I'm not really that serious, whatever the facial expression implies. (and I hadn't thought of that irony!)"
- Taylor Davidson
Yes, I am a god at pool tonight. And y'all are missing it.
what i got out of this: they're not quite there yet. i'd love to drop my heavy & intimidating 20D and have a digital equivalent to my Olympus XA 35mm. hope the next few iterations get it right.
- nate beaty
What I get out of this: either are perfectly fine for 90% of the ways we (non-pros) need to use a camera today.
- Taylor Davidson
from email
i'd say the same for digicams in general, which are a fraction of the price of these. i'm definitely not a pro, but these are going for what i paid for my used 20D with a great lens, and the photos it produces are far better than the samples i've seen from the E-P1 and GF1. that said, i'm watching the progress on these closely. i'll be in line to get one when i think they're worth the cost.
- nate beaty
But the difference in size of the cameras! Form factor matters. Granted if you have a 20D your decision is different, but if you didn't already have one it would be a different decision.
- Taylor Davidson
from email
very true! don't get me wrong, i'd *love* to have a compact form factor with a large sensor. i've been pining for this for years and am glad to see it finally happening. i'd settle for a built-in 35mm or 50mm fast prime lens that can focus decently in low light, cheapo built-in optical viewfinder, no flash, and basic aperture-priority mode + ISO control. that's all i use in my 20D anyways. and about $500-$600 would be ideal.
- nate beaty
That is exactly the type of camera that Mike Johnston, the author of the website where this article appeared, has been talking about for years. A "DMD", in his words.
- Taylor Davidson
from email
i remember reading it and seconding the sentiment!
- nate beaty