Sorry, but the author's polysyllabic verbosity and turgid ratiocination gave me a bad case of MEGO when reading this article. It reminds me of a certain kind of "scholarly dissertation", in which the author uses fifty words where ten would do, in order to establish his deep intellectuality. I had to skip the whole long bit about watches--wanted to get to the meat of the article.
Plus, he dissed the OM-D. Heresy! Especially as I am buying one. His knock on the faux pentaprism of the OM-D I thought was ridiculous. Gotta put the EVF SOMEWHERE, and what better place than on top of the camera? 'Sides, it makes it easier for us SLR users to acclimatize. I certainly don't think looking the the back of a camera (quite often held at arm's length) is really the best way to shoot--especially if you're trying to be inconspicuous.
And what's wrong with retro look? I thought retro was cool these days. I dunno about him, but I like the look of the OM-D (but then, I'm an OM user). Is he another member of the "MFT cameras should look like a rangefinder" crowd--rangefinder, of course, being a retro design itself. Hey, there are only so many configurations a camera can take....
