I do need a new camera, and would love to go for the EM1 - but how can anyone live without a flash ?? Pls explain if all the size and cuteness is out the window, when it seems like a car with 3 wheels ? I would have thought flash and viewfinders are the non-negotiables ? I had the Nex 6, which on paper seems to be the best all round, and better than the EM1, and I thought I was pleased with. But when it went thru the washing machine (a disadvantage of being small) I felt no longing to replace it. I realized I liked it not loved it. The skinny body never felt right, and the lag after each foto cost a lot of good shots. I tried my old DSLR again, and realized it was so much more satisfying. Hence the EM1 ? ... but no flash ? does it freeze after each shot too ? The poorer PQ seems less important, as they are all pretty good anyway.The Nikon leaves me cold, just a bit less than the K3 in every department, except the "prestige" . Seems K3's only problem is size.
I am sure the author has the best of intentions to guide us toward wise choices, and did their best to balance the article. But if you see Nikon and Canon ads passing you on busses, and famous people at Nat Geo with CaNikons around their necks it has a weight in the finding. If a robot was doing the comparison, the K3 might be trumps. Apart from build, weatherproofing, aliasing, highest pq, small size, most importantly they took the moral rather than financial path with built in shake reduction (or on long lenses you can still use the one in the lens). The burden of being the small player, you have to be better than your competitors to stay in business.But human rather than a robot is not all bad. Our sheep like mentality protects us, if everyone else is thinking CaNikon, they are not likely to go broke, and there more lenses ........ Pentax are pretty financial and have enough lenses, but the crowd is conservative. They would have to do a 72 MP sensor to crack that.
maybe they didn't announce it at the last photokina, because they hadn't started on it yet.
Pls. someone set me straight here - they have built a bigger camera than a Nex, with a much smaller sensor than a Nex, have finally put a viewfinder on it like a Nex. Don't these people go down to the camera shop to see where the competition is ? I suppose smaller sensor means it can use smaller lenses, maybe, but even if they are eventually smaller and lead to super zoomy type things - will they really be that far ahead of cropping/digitally zooming on a Nex ??
Excellent idea for reviews - but did i miss the key item of interest - Cost/page, i would certainly tolerate 10% less performance for 50% less cost.