T3

This is a great opportunity for a competitor. Adobe isn't the only show in town.

Giants can fall. Adobe and Microsoft, you guys are stumbling and slipping. You think your users are captive and will never go elsewhere. Well, customers can and do leave. I left Microsoft for Apple less than two years ago, with no intention of ever going back. I can do the same with Adobe, too.

For those of you who want an EVF on the cheap, consider that the Oly VF-3 is only $99 right now. (The higher-spec VF-2 is also pretty darn cheap, selling for as low as $169 right now, at B&H.) It may not be the state of the art in terms of EVF technology, but I've been using my VF-3 for the last year and I have no complaints. It does the job quite nicely, especially for the price. Sure, if you do a direct comparison with the newest and best EVF's, you'll see a difference in quality and resolution. But for day-to-day casual shooting, I don't think it's that big of a deal. It does what it's supposed to do, and I have plenty of great images to prove it. And the nice thing about a separate EVF is that you can upgrade it later, independent of the body.

The nice thing about a separate EVF is that A) you can remove it, B) you can transfer it to other Pen bodies, and C) you can upgrade it independently of the the body.

I have the Oly VF3. It may not be the state of the art in terms of EVF technology, but it only costs $99 right now! It does the job for me. And I can always upgrade to a newer version later.

Windows tablet? Ugh! Terrible battery life.

Too bad most of the Android market is made up of bargain smartphones, cheapo junky tablets, and the Amazon Kindle Fire. Plus, iOS is the mobile OS where its users actually buy apps!

For CF card users, you need "these special card readers" to offload your CF cards to a Mac Air or Windows laptop too! Laptops with built-in CF card slots aren't exactly ubiquitous.

E-PL6 with a built-in flash would be nice. I don't like having to choose between using using the EVF or using the add-on flash on the hotshoe.

Making a camera today is very different than it was back in the film days of Contax cameras. Back in the film days, all you really had to do was make the body to hold the film. These days, with digital cameras, it's a lot more complicated and the investment in developing cameras is many, many, many times higher because it's not just a matter of sticking a roll of film inside the camera. Now, cameras have very sophisticated electronics (sensors, processors, etc.) that are responsible for capturing the image...much more complicated than just loading film. That's why a company like Zeiss is sticking with making lenses in the digital age.

Tom, I'll say it again: it's about the photos. I could care less about what someone uses to create a photo. I use Canon FF and APS-C DSLR bodies, an Oly m4/3, various compact P&S cameras, and yes, a smartphone camera, too. Doesn't matter, I've gotten wonderful, memorable, cherished photos from all of them. Like I said, it's about the photos, not the device. Open up your mind. Sadly, narrow minds have narrow ideas, hence your comment that I am a cellphone camera "zealot"! Haha. Yes, someone who says that it's about the photos, not the device, is a cellphone camera "zealot". Hahaha! Absurd.

I stand by my assertion that "the best camera is the one you have with you" still holds truer than ever. But only a device "zealot" would say something like "...except those built into cellphones"...especially in the face of evidence to the contrary:

http://www.mobilephotoawards.com/slideshow.php

The pictures say it all.

@Tom Goodman, you're not convinced because you're probably one of those crazy pixel peepers who can't enjoy a photo unless you're scrutinizing it at 100% magnification in Photoshop! Hahaha. Well, hate to break it to you, but out in the REAL world, people don't look at photos that way. Ultimately, today more than ever, the actual image is far more important than the device you used to capture the image. That's what photography is really about-- the photo, not the device. But alas, there are people like you who just don't get it, and think photography is more about the equipment than the actual photo.

No, you really can't tell just by the photo. The reality is that it still depends on how steady your supporting hand is. A moment ago I was emulating both holding techniques shown in the photo, and I was getting absolutely no difference in camera shake. It just depends on what you're comfortable with and what works best for you. Not everyone is comfortable putting their palm (near the wrist) flat up against the body and lens because it puts the wrist at a sharper angle. And it doesn't necessarily result in more stability, especially if that wrist angle is less comfortable. Ultimately, the answer is that it depends on the person.

Maybe you just drink too much caffeine!!

BTW, an electronically/mechanically stabilized lens will still usually give you a bigger advantage than most "human" efforts of stabilization!

@moimoi - While "f/1.8 is actually equivalent to f/2.7 on a full frame" in terms of DOF, this f/1.8 zoom will still put more light onto the sensor than an f/2.8 FF zoom. So you still get an advantage in light speed.

An anvil won't get you photos at f/1.8.

Plenty of people are taking great pictures with phone cameras these days. The maxim still holds true. Just take a look at the various Flickr iPhone photo galleries:

http://www.flickr.com/groups/throughthelensofaniphone/

http://www.flickr.com/photos/lumixm43/8655228068/

I've seen far worse photography done with much more advanced DSLRs.

You're probably one of those people who wants a 14-100 f/1.8 zoom. LOL. Well, considering that this lens is the only f/1.8 zoom available (!), it's amazing that there are people who still complain. If you can find a wider and broader-range f/1.8 zoom, then buy it. In the meantime, I'm pretty sure there will be plenty of people who will manage with this lens.

I can understand people saying that 28mm is "not wide enough on APS-C", but 18mm on APS-C is equivalent to 28mm on FF, which has been sufficiently wide for FF zooms for quite some time.

I would hardly call this a "big" lens. Just put it next to a DSLR lens of comparable effective focal length specs, and you'll see that it really isn't that "big".

Apparently, you've never seen a big DSLR lens on a DSLR body. Various DSLR lens and body combos can also be very disproportionate, too.

Unfortunately, there are a lot of small-minded people who think that if a small camera can't fit inside your pocket, than its completely useless and you might as well carry a 645 medium format camera! LOL.

As someone who uses Canon APS and FF cameras, as well as an m4/3 camera (that can't fit in my pocket, BTW), I can definitely say that "small" still offers a benefit and an advantage even if it's not "small" enough to fit in your pocket. It makes the camera a lot less noticeable, more comfortable to carry around, fits better on a crowded dining table or anywhere else you might want to put it down, easier to maneuver in tight spaces, etc. In other words, even without fitting in your pocket, a small camera can still be worth having.

This is a photographer's camera, not a gadget-hound's camera.

As for the 28mm focal length, what you may not realize is that the 28mm effective focal length (or close to 28mm) is the most widely used (effective) focal length in the world today. Why? Because that's basically the effective focal length of practically every smart phone camera on the planet. It's a versatile, useful focal length, as proven by the millions of smart phone images being produced every day.

Hahaha, this peevee1 character is too funny. Clearly, he doesn't understand the utility of this focal length. Just look at the Leica X1 or Nikon Coolpix A or Sigma DP1 and DP2, etc. Good photographers can do quite a lot with this focal length. Bad photographers just whine and moan! Peevee1 is the king of whining and moaning. LOL.