It should do at least 10 frames/hour, otherwise I'm not interested!
MatijaK: I did not buy my E-3 because it was compact - I bought it because it was just the right size and had many useful buttons available without being able to press any of them by accident.
Then I added a grip and realized I was sorely mistaken, because only with the grip is the E-3 the right size.
I don't want a compact DSLR. I want a big E-7 that can use my existing grip (or has one built-in), I want it to be heavy, sturdy, reliable and a confidence-inspiring workhorse that I can beat a wild bear with if it attacks me. I can buy an E-720 or an E-M5 if I want more compact.
I've been happily and patiently hanging onto 4/3 and my many lenses, and the only thing that can push me away is a small camera body. If they screw up by making the E-7 small, I'll have to switch systems, despite considering a 3:2 aspect ratio with a 1.5x crop factor to be the spawn of Satan (135 "full frame" being Satan itself).
In a nutshell, you want a Nikon D4!
Thoughts: The way Olympus charges premiums on lens hood, black version lens and has been reluctant to offer black lenses may suggest it is quite a arrogant company, I would be careful to buy into their system. Thankfully, Micro 4/3 has other contributing companies to make the system attractive.
I have to admit though, Olympus has better know-how about lenses, good looking lenses too (even better in black in my opinion)!
Yep, that lens hood charge is outrageous!!!
The 150 F2.8 sounds great, but I'd rather see Olympus develop those type of lenses.
What about a m.Zuiko 300f4?
My dream would be an 8-18f4 that takes filters and a 100-400f4.
"the benefit of Micro Four Thirds and Four Thirds is compact size"
So, why continue develop 43rd? A total waste of resources! I would never buy a 43rd cam, but I got an OM-D. The only reason was small size and weight. If 43rd were the only choice I'd stick with a standard DSLR. For me, to abandon DSLR completely, the next OM-D must not be larger and heavier than the current model and needs serious improvement in high ISO and cont. AF performance! And 20+ MP would be great.
IMO the old 75-300 is quite ok in terms of picture quality. The only thing I care about is wether the new one is better optically.
And I just wonder how big - or rather small - would be the Nikon 800 f5,6 equivalent in the m43 world (400 f5,6) ...
How many gazillion lenses in the 14-42(5) mm range are they going to release?
What about a 9-18 mm update?
No VR on the 18-35?
Nikon, please, stop wasting money and resources on futile projects. Reroute them to the R&D department!
I couldn't care less about the design and look of a camera, otherwise I wouldn't use an OM-D.
australopithecus: One small comment. I've toted daypacks about (hiking/cycling) for decades and I get the impression that the camera-gear bag manufacturers pay too little attention to the straps, hip-belts and especially the airflow between one's back and the bag. They could all learn from Deuter who make world-class day-packs. Deuter's "Air-Flow" system is ideal.
That's the reason I don't use and own a dedicated photo backpack. I'm using a regular (Deuter) backpack, because of great straps, back support and airflow, although it is somewhat cumbersume to access the gear out in the field.
... and that Kata rucksack looks like another failure!
They cramped 16 MP !?!?!? in that sensor ....
Could have been awesome, but "wide" angle limited to 28mm instead of 24mm is a serious blunder!
Earthlight: SD1 must be on the top though...
To quote Einstein: "Only two things are infinite, the universe and human stupidity, and I'm not sure about the former."
TimK5: This is so useless! Where is the classic 24 mm equivalent!?!? Apart from the less than mediocre specs of the J1/V1 this is another reason not to get into that system.
"3mm isn't going to be the difference in your photography."
Apparently you have no clue what you're talking about. At the wide end 3 mm makes all the difference!
That's the difference between winner and loser!
"Whether shooting in low-light conditions like a late night block part..."
How am I going to do that with outdated ISO performance? ISO 3200? give me a break.... sounds like an S95 with ok pic quality up to ISO 125...
This is so useless! Where is the classic 24 mm equivalent!?!? Apart from the less than mediocre specs of the J1/V1 this is another reason not to get into that system.