Yeah - it's definitely a subjective, "YMMV" kinda thing along the philosophical lines of how many grains of rice makes a "pile" of rice. To me, the Oly in particular, makes too many concessions to keep the camera small. I'm okay with using the LCD at arm's length to frame on a point-n-shoot but not for a more serious camera. Others may not have a problem with it but it's a deal breaker to me. I also view the 4/3's format as a concession on sensor size that you're already making a concession on with DSLRs over a "full frame" film camera. Another feature I like, frankly, is its pricing to be honest. $699 at B&H with kit lens. To me, even the Oly DSLRs are small enough to be in compliance with the Barnack philosophy that drew me to RFs in the 1st place but this camera is more in line with a RF style of shooting - fast fixed descreet prime. DSLRs, apart from the mirror, seem to be more designed around zooms. The Yashica CC I just sold was considered a small camera - great for street shooting, and it is/was. However, the Konica Auto S3 I'm going to put up here for sale soon is considerable smaller next to the CC. Both were great for street shooting, both fall into the "compact rangefinders" category. The smaller size of the Auto S3 wasn't advantageous from a practical standpoint over the CC. It's not a "who can make the tiniest interchangeable lens digital" competition. It's who can give me the features I want, ditch the mirror, and make the digital equivalent of a "compact rangefinder". The Oly/4/3 is the Konica - smaller, a fine camera, but offering no practical advantage from a size stand point over the Samsung/Yashica CC. Both are in the category of "compact". It's just that Oly and the other 4/3's made too many concessions that are "must haves" to me to get there. This is how I view the size difference between the 4/3's and the Samsung.
