Zvonimir Tosic

Put them all on a table. By the looks and smarts, the MX-1 is the only one you can see from a distance it dares to be different a little.

It's not weird. It's normal. It's called life, and some cameras are made to take wonderful real life photographs, not studio charts.
Same as your own life is proven in nature, not decomposed to prove is it possible to happen in the Periodic Table of Elements.

Apple Macintosh has about 5% of the personal computer market. Yet it is good and for Apple healthy 5%. Numbers are not so important as you think. Apple's philosophy is not to become largest in number of shipments, but best in user satisfaction. Similarly, Pentax does not need ned to sell plastic as madly as others and saturate market with same stuff; just a few percents rise will serve them more than adequately. Also, surveys show Pentax tops all DSLR manufacturers in user satisfaction.

Maybe the problem is that camera manufacturers, in order to differentiate themselves and their cameras, break outside the preconceived categories.

Yet, reviewers like the DPR try to put them inside some categories, for users to "compare easier". They believe they make user's life easier then.

Which may not be the case, despite good intentions. Therefore so much mismatch and confusion in "compared to ...".

I personally thing it is best if users take their freedom back, and evaluate every camera as a standalone product in the scope of the same system, *not* across systems.

Only problem with the above logic is that small Pentax is now Ricoh, which is twice as large as Nikon. And readying half a dozen bodies already ...
But yes, to be cautious makes sense; being cautious and playing safe has saved many photographers from taking remarkable shots. :)

Pixelmator is a program developed by two (2) brothers. Hey, let's be realistic there, please. How many people at Adobe are developing Photoshop?!
If instead of criticising a team of two persons for willing to live their dream we actually support them, maybe they'll hire two more coders and bring fixes and features as you need them. :)
Even then, guys, c'mon, it's incomparable what such small teams must now endure under the pressure of disappointed Photoshop fans. It's not their fault many of you didn't support them before – it was simply unrealistic that such a small team can address all ends a big program you'd love to have requires.

Pixelmator is program developed by TWO brothers. Hey, let's be realistic there. How many people at Adobe are developing Photoshop?!
If instead of criticising a team of two people for willing to live their dream we support them, maybe they'll hire two more coders and bring fixes as you need them. :)
Even then, guys, c'mon, it's incomparable what such small teams must now endure under the pressure of disappointed PS fans.

That it doesn't have an VF (and that to many is the deal-breaker?) well, why should have it?

Once upon a time, we all had to use the VF thing and stare through a tunnel, because that was the only way to imagine what film cameras will capture.
And I bet, photographers in film days have missed a gazillion far more interesting shots just outside the VF because they were staring through the tunnel, rather than keeping a camera at a distance (like painters do with a sketchbook) and actually absorbing the world around them and noticing more interesting things happening at the decisive moment threshold.

Thus today, we curse VF-less cameras because of the old technological impediment?

Because this EVF can be tilted 90 degrees, if I'm not mistaken. And because it preserved the hot-shoe, there is no way it can be slimmed down to be attached to a camera without being a part of it. However, it could be possibly moved to the left and half integrated into the body, but then you'd lose built-in flash. Compromises, compromises ...

Then with a lens on, E-P5 surely balances in hands much better than both of those two lighter cameras. For a system mirrorless camera, the weight is ideal. If it were a fixed lens, large sensor compact (like Coolpix A or Ricoh GR), then less weight would be of more benefit.

I don't understand Olympus. Why they issue an E-Px camera, then also an E-PLx camera which is basically bastardised and cheap E-Px? Why they follow the logic, or the lack of it, of the DSLR manufacturers?
For example, why they don't keep the value and the appeal of the E-Px cameras by issuing a separate line of fixed, quality retractable lens cameras with the same sensor and in the similar design (but a camera category that is more like the Coolpix A and Ricoh GR, or even Fuji X100s)?
The small form factor of the mirrorless offer would really show its truer potential, and would not devaluate the appeal of the Pen camera. (And then on top those two lines, have an OM-D like offer too). In retrospect, by now they could practically own the market which Fujifilm, Sigma, Nikon ad Ricoh try to create and establish themselves with their fixed-lens, large sensor enthusiast cameras.
I appreciate your answers.

Plevyadophy, we can do a test and show you images taken with a 645D and one of its new lenses, and images taken with a Leica S and one of its lenses — but not telling which one is which.
I bet you, nor either of us here won't be able to say which was taken with which. And if "you do tell", it will be a purely wild guess.
Because Pentax 645D glass is that good too.

Yep. Medium Format buyers already know ALL about Nikon D800-whatever and Canon EOS-whatever.

Leica S is a smart, beautiful, quality system. I wish them luck, especially in times when it seems people like to step up from a previous photography experience.
I'm also looking forward to see what kind of innovations and new experience Pentax 645D II will bring.

Adobe's move is a good proof that Adobe's products are all very mature, in their autumn, or, an old age. Adobe Flash was the same, and if it weren't for Apple, we'd still be stuck to that dying old horse of a technology.

Adobe as a company lost ideas on how to invent and excite creative customers. It only thinks now how to retire safely by harbouring with their cash cows.

'Visual industry' and 'creative' are NOT synonyms. Most of visuals today are streamlined stereotypes served at a fast pace. Adobe will lose the core of truly creative users, a new talent which is always climbing from the bottom up and is challenging norms.

CC is more like Cash Cows, not creative cloud of any kind.

Juck, judging by the level of intelligence and humanity showcased in your response, I'll take Steve's dumbest over your brightest thought and fair better in life.

I wish Steve Jobs was alive. I'd look forward to some of his ingenious remarks about Adobe during the next presentation of his.

Now the funny part; let's say that after the avalanche of criticism Adobe withdraws their decision, and continues to work as before.
Would you support them again, would your ever believe them entirely, and, would you seek and support alternative suppliers instead, just because those guys never ever dreamt about such a treatment of their customers?

Lack of social responsibility. There is one important issue Adobe overlooks — they contributed the rise of the new creative talent, and with this move they are squashing its future development. Only established professionals with regular income can prosper further on.
But we acquired so much visual talent in the first place because they grew up with Photoshop, which was priced relatively fairly, people being able to keep their rightful copy, upgrade at a relaxed pace, and experiment in it when they liked. Now without such an opportunity, we shall potentially lose new visual talent who needs support. All because social responsibility is less important than a steady, easy income.

Thus I'm not sure why they call their product "Creative" anymore.

DNG is an open format. It's based on TIFF, Adobe contributes to it, yes, but there are no known intellectual property issues or license requirements for DNG.