I find it interesting that the micro four-thirds cameras have been a bit of a game-changer here - perhaps more so than the M8 or m9 - although maybe I'm just projecting my personal opinion.
Perhaps not the M4/3 format itself but certainly the EVF available, or EVIL totally.
Personally, I have accepted the 800 x 400 x RGB unit built-in the GH-1 as good enough. [I have 20/20 vision at infinity and need +2.0 reading glasses.]; the lower resolution in the GF-1 add-on EVF unit not so.
I have not viewed through the EP-2 EVF unit [said to be of the same spec. as the GH-1 unit, but built with an Epson chip...]
Bottom line, the Epson chip has a pixel size of 12 microns and a diagonal size of 12mm, small enough for such applications. However, the next generation chip will have smaller pixel size and/or higher resolution...finer than the best ground glass...
The M4/3 cameras all have body dimension slightly smaller than an M-camera, leaving room for add-on's such as an M-adapter. [Merely making up the focal distance difference of 8mm.]
In digital imaging, image size is measured in [square] pixels, not square mm...so long as the pixels are sensitive enough without electronic boosting. Clinging onto the FF format is a legacy of lenses already in use. I am sure the Leicaphiles won't attack the [Leica] prime or zoom lenses Panasonic offered.
To built a camera body in brick-like solidity is easy...any CNC machines can do that job.
Viewing, focusing, or composing -by-wire cannot be a legitimate criticism. With 100% life-view before and during the fact, and chimping afterwards; autofocusing available and manual focusing permitted...what else might we want?
Imagine Leica trying to do all that for the M10 but keeping the M9 pricing.
😀
