...There was an Oly 410 on the shelf-compared them in hand, and the Olympus E-410 is smaller than a G1. And with 2 lenses, is about half the price.
I though the new format was going to give us great images in a package smaller than an SLR. While the G1 seemed very nice, it isn't small.
So besides being a nice camera, where's the breakthrough?
While I haven't compared the two side-by-side myself, the listed specs place the G1 as being smaller than the 410 in all three dimensions. I don't want to outright say you're mistaken, but that's what the numbers say (and I readily admit that they're often misleading).
But I have messed around with a G1, and I certainly found it to be pleasantly small. Not pocketable small, but small nonetheless. And the viewfinder is "large" compared to any FourThirds (and indeed, any APS-C) camera as well. The EVF solution is perhaps a bit of a compromise, but it is a strikingly good EVF, and given its "size" and the fact that it can gain-up to be bright in dim situations, it certainly allows for some interesting things.
The G1 can be had, on amazon, with both extant lenses, for less than $1000. While that isn't necessarily cheap, for a 12MP camera of such innovation and quality, and two optically-stabilized lenses with an EFL of 28-400 (!), and a total size and weight that is remarkably low (larger than a 410 or not, the kit is small, and the lenses are certainly small), that seems like a pretty nice deal to me.
Still, the G1 follows legacy SLR design cues, and is perhaps larger than some had hoped. Perhaps the EVF needed the room; perhaps the designers discovered that a smaller camera that looked like an SLR (clearly a goal of the team) didn't feel right in the hand. Who knows.
But the micro FourThirds format is fascinating to me because it seems like such uncharted territory. Physics demonstrates that, all things being equal, the format *can* have some rather small lenses, shaming even the Pentax DA Limiteds and rivaling Leica's M primes (this due to the reduced flange depth). The mirrorless and digital aspects mean that the system (with the same lenses) can have many different form factors among the cameras. An SLR-like design has been shown. A smaller, LCD-only body is certainly possible. An electronically-coupled rangefinder should theoretically be possible (though I question the lag that the electronics might introduce). Form factors heretofore unimagined could emerge. They sky's the limit. Everything short of a design that needs a reflex viewfinder seems to be on the table and up for grabs.
Meanwhile, the format is extremely open. The format makes no specification of aspect ratio, just image circle, so we may see mFT cameras with 3:2 or 16:9 or 1:1 sensors. A TLR-inspired body with a 1:1 sensor and an LCD hidden away in a waistlevel finder is entirely achievable, in a system that shares lenses with a compact, LCD-only 3:2 sensor body and the G1's 4:3, SLR-inspired design. It's the wild west out there, and it offers exciting possibilities.
I'm actually excited to see Panasonic involved in the format, because after years of finding their way, they've recently demonstrated (with the G1 and LX3) that they have at least some idea what their customers might want and they now have sensor design that performs well, and is likely to improve. If Olympus can deliver on the small prototype they demonstrated, and looks enough to their Pen heritage, they'll do exciting things as well. I think more companies should get on board. While I think it would be a mistake for Leica to market their own body, I think (and this forum has perhaps demonstrated) that a set of Leica-designed (if not manufactured) primes for the format could do very well. Who knows who else might jump in.
The existing products, the G1 and its two lenses, strike me as a nice kit, with obvious value. But they don't excite me. The option to use M-glass is great, but I think that those on the forum that think that that's all there is to the format are missing the point. Yes, the 2x crop factor on M-glass is near insane for the kind of shooting that most RF users do. But the possibilities of the format, with native glass, dovetail nicely with what RF shooters like most in a camera. I'm not saying that all (or any) of these things will see the light of day. But all of them are possible, and to me, that's a really exciting thing. I can't wait to see what develops.
