BJL

Indeed, both Samsung and Sony are probably obliged to release this source code, due to the open source licensing of the GNU/Linux software used in the cameras.

How about calling this technology "X3", which is the jargon adopted as an industry-standard by CIPA? "Foveon" is just one approach to X3, and not the one that Canon is pursuing, and the "X3" tag is also well-known.

It won't be 4/3" format: it is placed above the X2 in the teaser, which is APS-C. Probably an "X2 with interchangeable lenses".

Leica uses sensors from Sony (probably) in the X2 and CMOSIS (definitely) in the new "M", so problem solved. Only the Monochrom-M, S2, and the older M models use Kodak CCD's anymore.

Leica has placed it above the X2, which it tags as "micro M", so I doubt it will have a sensor smaller than the X2's "APS-C".

My guess/hope is using the same sensor format as the X2, but with interchangeable lenses (and some AF lenses). Would Leica dare share E mount or other NEX technology with Sony? Can it be priced low enough to avoid the fate of the Hasselblad Luna?

This video explains my thoughts on this absurd mis-pronunciaton affectation:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dqf1lhK2yjo&feature=youtu.be

And let me add:
- EVF flush with body, as the actual PEN F VF was.
- The cool 2+2 control dial + switch system
- odds and ends like time-lapse and always-on IS
Not that any of that would need to push the price up, as the "-Pro" tag implies. Maybe call it the "Pen Pro", due to shape.

Lenses are the main size and weight difference between different formats, not the sensors, which are a very small part of the size and weight of a camera. So compare the size and weight of complete working cameras, including something like a standard 3x zoom lens.

Fitting the 5-axis IBIS into this body clears the way for a model with built-in eye-level EVF but without the hump of the E-M5 --- so closer to the original PEN ideal than anything we have seen yet from Olympus. That would be my next camera body (though meanwhile I am happy with the E-M5).

Lightroom is already included in the CC bundle, but I doubt it will be pushed to a subscription-only model due to it having a far higher proportion of amateur photographers as users, whereas Creative Suite and PhotoShop are actually more graphic designers' tools. I doubt Adobe wants to to push the mere photographers away to Aperture!

Ah yes, I missed the footnote.
For those who are interested, price list at
http://www.adobe.com/products/creativecloud/buying-guide.html

A note on pricing:
- if you have CS version 3 or up, the full CC package is $30/mo, so $360/yr. [Edit: first year only, as noted by JamesInCA]
- If you only want Photoshop (not Illustrator, InDesign, Dreamweaver, AfterEffects Premier Pro, or Muse) it is $20/mo, or $240/yr.

These prices probably make sense for professional users who always update to each new version. But as a mere hobbyist who "drives software into the ground" before updating, I would still go for Lightroom at $200 for a perpetual license, or Apple's Aperture which is now a mere $80.

Another good reason for photographers to use tools like Lightroom or Aperture that are designed for photographers, and leave behind PhotoShop's baggage of features that are only of interest to graphic designers and image manipulators.

"I would have expected to see a VF-4 on the EP-5."
And that is what you will see at http://www.43rumors.com/ft5-next-two-olympus-e-p5-pictures/
supposedly with a 2.1 million dot Epson panel.

That is probably not a problem for lenses like this, or any at focal lengths about 30mm and up, because at such focal lengths, lens designs naturally cover the 22mm image circle diameter of 4/3" format and there is little room form downsizing through designing for a smaller image circle. Instead, focal length and maximum aperture are the main factors in the size of normal to telephoto lenses.

It is wide angle lenses that suffer from being used on a smaller format than they are designed for.

I am fine with this equivalence talk if it also included "ISO speed equivalence". My edit:
"The lens will offer the light-gathering and depth-of-field equivalent of a constant F2.7 on full-frame _used at about twice the ISO speed in order to get the same shutter speed_".

I see the optical advantages of using the "equivalent" f/2.8 zoom in 35mm format (which BTW would have to be used at a bit over twice the ISO speed to get equal shutter speeds: "equivalency" buffs often ignore that). In fact, I would rather all my zooms be f/2.8-4 or slower, allowing wider zoom ranges with less optical design challenges, increasing speed if needed by increasing the focal length and format size.

But I can still see a bit of a niche for using this lens: some people prefer the APS-C format over 35mm format for other advantages like the smaller, shorter lenses needed to get a given degree of telephoto reach and the lower cost of the bodies.

Though that last point depends on how expensive this lens is. It has something in common the constant f/2 zooms for Four Thirds, and high price might be one similarity.

At focal lengths this long, there would be no significant reduction in size or cost from a design for a smaller frame size. The basic optical designs for longer-than-normal lenses typically produce an image circle of diameter just a bit less than the focal length: this then gets "cropped" down to the needed frame size by baffles and obstructions in the lens and lens mount, or just by the sensor itself.
That is why all lenses specifically for formats like DX are ones that offer shorter focal lengths; almost all offer some wider-than-normal coverage and AFAIK all go down to 60mm or less.

With an imagined 36x24mm format body at $1500, I can see a couple of good reasons why many people would still prefer a smaller format:

1. Smaller format cameras are already available for far lower prices: $1500 would still be at the level of the high end film SLRs from Canon and Nikon like the EOS-1 and F5, which accounted for a small (but profitable) portion of their total SLR sales.

2. The smaller format cameras are likely to continue to have smaller photosites amd thus higher absolute resolution in l/mm, allowing the use of smaller, lighter, less expensive telephoto lenses. Particularly if Canon stays stuck at about 22MP in its 36x24mm format cameras, giving only about 8MP if you try to use the same telephoto focal lengths on them as with EF-S bodies and then crop.

OldArrow,
Square format is the opposite of a new idea: it is an old idea that has been gradually been abandoned ever since innovations like eye level prism viewfinders made it easy enough to rotate the camera for verticals, and thus make more efficient use of the film or sensor by reducing the amount of cropping needed for most images.

Why do people get so excited about ideas that are old, well-known, and have been tried and then abandoned by most camera makers and photographers?