Graystar

It makes no sense to introduce a camera that offers no compelling reason for its purchase. DOA.

A few pictures of the setup with background and flash units in place would have been helpful.

None of those images really thrilled me.

I'm at a loss as to why this just-another-small-sensored superzoom is getting so much attention.

In BNC Aug 2011 numbers, 7 of the top 10 spots are DSLRs. Mirrorless cameras are at #5, #9, and #10. That's actually worse than one year ago.

2/3" sensor is 1/1.5"...just a smidge larger than the sensor in the LX5 with a crop factor of 4. So f/2 is like f/8 on a full-frame. It's gonna have all the limitations of a compact-sized sensor. It also looks bulky with that lens and viewfinder. And considering all the operational issues of the X100, unless this thing is 500 bucks I think I'll rather go with a Nikon P7100.

It's interesting. Dunno how useful it will be. But the market will decide.

They should keep an eye on Sigma and see how charging luxury prices works out for them.

With Panasonic and Olympus making smaller and smaller bodies, and with Pentax entering the field even smaller, I get the feeling that the general feedback on this breed of camera is that it's simply not small enough for the consumers who want them...and they never will be, as long as the lenses protude as far as they do (even pancakes) and as long as they're in that 350-400g weight range.

The bottom line is people want...what they've always wanted...was a compact with a big sensor...not a somewhat-bigger-than-a-compact with a big sensor.

WHY?