Phil Askey: Great round-up but you missed out my personal favourite (and often used), the Leica Tabletop tripod, not as flexible certainly but amazingly well built.
I have a Pentax TT tripod with a design similar to the Leica. It's sturdy, but when folded, as Impulses said, its angled shape is a bit awkward to pack. However, the "thickness" isn't as large as some of the other tripod types in the article.
Nice review. Very informative. I wished you had included the Slik Mini-Pro III and the MeFoto Daytrip. I think those would be worthy contenders.
I have an old Pentax tabletop tripod that borrows the Leica tabletop tripod design concept. However, I find that it's a bit difficult to pack because it's angled legs and ballhead make for an awkward package. Sturdy though.
Dave C 150: I still don't understand what the advantage of a mirrorless camera is supposed to be. If you need a big telephoto and I do, then it eliminates any size difference straight away. So what are the advantages ?
I think there's still a size difference. For example, I recently added a Zuiko ED 50-200 f2.8-3.5 SWD lens and MMF adaptor for my Olympus EM1. This gives me the equivalent of a 100-400mm zoom with a max aperture of f2.8 in a package smaller than the typical 70-200mm lens on a full-frame camera. With a small 1.4x Olympus teleconverter, I can get up to the equivalent of 560mm. Or, I could even use an adaptor to mount that Canikon 70-200 lens on my EM1 and get the equivalent of a 140-400 mm, albeit with manual focus and aperture.
I can't believe Olympus is selling this camera with the old 14-42 II R kit lens, at least in the US. Why aren't they selling it with the pancake 14-42 EZ? It would make much more sense, and make this camera a lot more desirable. Another site said that pre-sales of this camera are slow. I believe it. Olympus hasn't done enough to differentiate this from the previous PEN model. I'm glad they improved the control setup, but they really didn't do enough. Sorry, not interested.
I think one of the first consumer digitals was the Apple Quicktake. This site is an interesting compilation of camera history, including digital cameras.http://digicamhistory.com/1994.html
I didn't get a digital camera until 2002, but after that there was no looking back. I hardly used my 35mm SLR after that.
108: Nothing really clear about the 4/3 future. First Olympus should keep their recipe for colour treatment. That's why I keep that E520 body with all its sluggish AF issues and general image softness : WB and colours I see no equivalent anywhere. E620 image treatment is not as good. Epl-2 is more "digital" like and no viewfinder except that horrid EVF you keep losing if you don't watch it. I checked the OM-D but I found it too small . Ergonomics are a major issue for me and this OM-D body is not comfortable at all, bad handling, sharp angles, a hard feeling. I don't like this all M4/3 line : too small and yet too big to offer the convenience of pocketable compacts like the ZX1 or Canon S95. I want something with the supposed quality of the OM-D in a body the size of a E510/520, and use my superb 4/3 Zuiko lenses , should have also an excellent optical viewfinder and good manual controls. Comfort, Mr Terada, comfort. If Pentax and Nikon can do it, why not Olympus ?
I got the JB Designs Grip Base and it made a big difference. I was getting cramped fingers without the grip.
But, if Olympus had made the grip part of the HLD-6 available separately, I might have bought it instead.