First: thanks for letting us know. Could be interesting.
Second: I realize that this is a press release, which means it is obliged to spend a lot of high sounding words saying practically nothing. In which it succeeds (their note on diffraction is hilarious). So how about a little analysis: how it works (beyond the fluff), what might prevent it from working, that sort of thing. That is, a reality check of all the market-buzzword speak. Thanks!
For the full review would it be possible to try a ~symmetric WA on it? Would be nice to know how much (if any) magenta shift and or corner smearing show up on the M.
(I realize that the M is probably not designed for that. Then again I have no idea what or whom it is designed for.)
Welcome to see more reviews, and not just of cameras and lenses.
That said: here's a request. Can you go with measured weights and dimensions, rather than what the mfr claims?
For tripods, how about a stability measure. One possibility is to attach a laser pointer to the hot shoe, point it at a target, and find the spread as the tripod or nearby surface is struck with a known force.
Also for tripods, how about a carrying capacity measure? I have no idea how to do this, but as long as it is reasonable and consistent it should be fine. There are too many meaningless numbers bandied around as it is.
OK, format-wise this is basically a u43 camera, only not for reasons of ... what, corporate perverseness? $800 for a somewhat larger than typical u43 with a slow, fixed lens? From a technical performance perspective surely they could have gone u43 and made the lens separately -- those who like the all-in-one kit lens would never have to get anything else anyway, those who don't could access a wide range of existing lenses.