eyeswideshut: There is something wrong when Olympus presents a superlative lens in the best Olympus tradition and 90% of the comments below seem concerned with equivalence to another system.
Folks, this is a 300mm lens for m43. If you don't use m43 it is clearly not for you.
I second that Gary. It was like ringing the dinner bell. It's funny because to many the extra depth of field will be viewed as a real boon on a lens like this. However in the reviews it is almost universally viewed as a con. Sorry but that's just snobbery as far as I'm concerned.
amblepath: To me the pros of this lens are
1. I get a 600 mm field of view with shutter speeds equivalent to an f4 lens. In a size that can easily be handheld.
2.From the review I read the image stabilization is amazing on Em-1 and Em-5II enabling hand held down to 1/15 of a second.
3. Also from the review this lens is razor sharp centre and corners and doesn't even suffer from diffraction until f12/f16 and then only slightly.
4. On a lens like this I would be happy to take the extra depth of field and view it as a definite plus. ( Whole bird or face in focus at f4. )
5. Very high quality build.
6. Good for Macro work. (I don't understand Richard's comment as all I care about is what I see in the viewfinder and again I'll take the extra depth of field as a plus.)
ConsIt is expensive. (Translation... I can't afford it.)
As an aside. The Panasonic 100 - 400 hands on review did not garner nearly the equivalent full frame dogpile as this did. Olympus hatred is alive and well.
I'm referring to the comments not the article. Also depth of field is subjective as to whether more is better or worse.
To me the pros of this lens are
I wish we didn't have to have all this comparison to full frame that to most people makes it seem like the lens is pretending to be something it's not.
I've used psp for years. I finally got a chance to use photoshop and I know there's a learning curve but it sure seemed cumbersome and overly complicated compared to paint shop pro.
No Hotshoe? No viewfinder? I have the XZ1 and would never consider this Sony as an option. I use the excellent viewfinder for the XZ-1 most of the time. Or for fun I'll attach the XZ-1 to my full size flash (not the other way around) and get great bounce flash portraits. The lens on this sony is also very slow at the long end. I'm sure the image quality is good but I would find this camera too limiting. Of course Sony may have a better equipped model in the works.
Prognathous: It's amusing that dpreview considered Live View to be "a solution looking for a problem" when they first encountered it in a DSLR - the Olympus E330. Now they consider it to the "The missing feature". How things have changed.
DPReviews coment on the E330 was a supreme lack of insight. However I think it's about time we forgave them and let it go. Of course if they acknowledged it I guess it would make it easier for some to do that. We all make mistakes.
I think that picture of the whole stable of 4/3 lenses with the Om-D made the nex system seem pretty sparce. This announcement is I think a 'don't jump ship they are coming' type of announcement.
Back in the late 80's and 90's people got away from slr's and went for 35mm all in one cameras with a zoom range similar to this canon. Of course they were even smaller than this G1x which I guess is a drawback to digital. I don't think it will be long before this style of camera becomes the quality camera for your average family, traveller etc. Most people do not want to bother with changing lenses. If it has good video then I think it will sell very well.
I don't know if she has little hands but the Xpro-1 looks rather massive.