@ Andre Hmmm, the Petroski book sounds interesting but gets seriously mixed reviews on Amazon. Interesting. Reading your comment made me realize I didn't even think to look at the reviews before buying it. I didn't look because Mike had praised the author, and the recommendation of somebody who I know (a little) and whose judgment I respect is worth more to me than 10,000 anonymous Internet reviews. I just clicked straight through and paid without thinking twice. Not a criticism of anyone who is guided, to whatever extent, by those reviews; just an observation about my own weighting criteria.

@ Earl I read somewhere, recounted by a photographer encountering an Olympus camera rep, that the camera division was in good financial shape and insulated from the troubles. Sorry to be a downer, Earl, and I don't want to pile on (I like Olympus a lot and hope it thrives), but if an Olympus rep said this, he/she was completely mistaken. Olympus's camera division is losing money (a lot last year and even more the year before) and has been "troubled", as they say, for the past decade. Among Wall Street types, it's been the accepted wisdom for years that Olympus should close the division down. Olympus has been subsidizing the camera division's poor performance with the enormous profits it makes in its medical equipment division (endoscopes, primarily), which accounts for more than 70% of the company's gross revenues. And the division is not "insulated" in any way from Olympus's troubles -- there has been at least some outside pressure on Olympus (from shareholders and the banks that hold its debt) to close the camera division for years, and the recent accounting scandal, which has put Olympus in a difficult financial position, is only intensifying that pressure. Against that depressing reality, Olympus clearly wants to continue making cameras. I really hope they do, but they will have to start making money at it. And pretty soon.

For those interested in how Kodak's original technology has been extended, there's a "behind the scenes" article on Nikon's Japanese web site that discusses the development of the 14-24mm f/2.8 and 24-70mm f/2.8 lenses, both of which use very large diameter, radically aspherical PGM lens elements. The article has more than its share of the cringe-worthy "with joyful hearts, my colleagues and I strove for the glory of the company" sorts of commentary (forgive them; they know not what they do), but it has some interesting tidbits on the interplay between the design and manufacturing engineers over what could and could not be manufactured. And it's got some interesting pictures of the elements themselves, which are quite visibly large and weirdly shaped. It's here: http://imaging.nikon.com/history/scenes/25/index.htm

Always fun and interesting to see how your tastes compare to others. I voted for four images -- one of them is extremely popular, but the other three are all in the less popular half of the group. I am unable to glean a lesson from this fact, despite preparing an exhaustive choice-preference matrix that also included ice cream flavors, novelists deceased at least fifty years, sports involving a spherical or ellipsoidal ball, lip balm brands, and members of the opposite gender, sub-category certain brunettes I once knew. But I do know that I love that hummingbird shot (and every image, even the ones I didn't vote for, is pleasing to my eye).

@ Atkins: Also, Sony has nothing to learn that Nikon and Canon know, except being consistent and following up. If it weren't for those giants, we would probably be much further in camera development today. I'm as bored with traditional SLRs as the next guy, but for whatever reason I occasionally feel compelled to object when Canon and Nikon get unfairly dumped on. Held camera development back? What has either done to keep other electronics and optics giants (and they are the true giants -- several are many times bigger than Nikon) from making innovative and different cameras that people want to buy instead of buying Nikon and Canon DSLRs? Then, too, both companies have far outpaced their competitors in many critical areas of camera and lens development -- two minutes of thought will turn up a long list. Really, the only thing they haven't done is experiment with the basic form factor of interchangeable lens cameras. They may soon have to, but up 'til now, the large majority of the market has neither demanded nor rewarded that.

I agree, a very enjoyable movie. I think I would have enjoyed it even more if I could have understood the other 80% of what Jeff Bridges said. (A Netflix repeat viewing is in my future.) The ancillary benefit to me was, following my inevitable trip to Wikipedia (basically every experience of my life now ends with three hours of research about it on Wikipedia), the introduction to Charles Portis. There is a small but not insubstantial litcrit crowd that considers him a major American literary talent, with a couple of "masterpieces", whatever they are, in his oeuvre. I had always thought of True Grit as nothing more than another piece of John Wayne schlock -- always nice to have one's stupid prejudices overturned.

@ Mike: "... you could have spent all that money on booze, cocaine, prostitutes and out-of-control gambling binges in Monaco or Vegas." Now you tell us.

@ Seth: The only pro I knew that used it regularly sent his to San Francisco, the only lab he tried that could process it correctly on a regular basis. That was The New Lab, I'm sure. I was working in a camera store 60 miles north of San Francisco in those days, and I remember when the owners of The New Lab were going around signing up retail agents like us. We were soon sending them the majority of our customers' Kodachrome. They were among a handful of labs around the world that invested in a then new process for developing Kodachrome, using a converted Cine processor and (I think) newly developed chemistry. It greatly simplified the processing of Kodachrome and made it possible for independent labs to develop the film. (Of course, The New Lab made this investment at exactly the wrong time, unfortunately.) Previous to that time (1990 or so), I believe that only Kodak itself could process the film, and they used a process with (working from fallible memory here) scores, maybe hundreds, of separate steps and machinery that took up about two city busses worth of space. I saw an original, old-style Kodachrome processing line at the now long gone and forgotten Kodak Palo Alto Lab (35 miles south of San Francisco) on a tour for camera store employees. The Kodachrome line was easily the largest, most complex film processing system I've ever seen. And that giant KPL lab--a factory by any reasonable definition--built in the era before mini-labs revolutionized film processing, was itself an amazing edifice, taking in film of every type from thousands of camera stores, drug stores, supermarkets, stationery stores etc. all over the western United States using a system of daily couriers and turning it around, delivered back to its place of origin, in two days. Tens of thousands of rolls of film developed every day.

I seem to like slowed down covers for some reason: Luna doing Guns n' Rose's "Sweet Child O' Mine" -- very different from the original, quiet and lovely. Mates of State doing Fleetwood Mac's "Second Hand News" -- again, slower than the original, with the beautiful harmonizing this couple is known for.

I second Geoff's opinion of Ms. Kenneally's work documenting the drug culture in and around New York City -- among the best photojournalism I've ever seen. She is not unknown (she's won several important photojournalism awards over the years, and gotten the odd Guggenheim etc.), but I think she's underknown -- doesn't have the wider reputation she deserves given the quality of her work (or at least that used to be true back in 2005 or so when I first came across her; maybe it's changed since then).

@ Player: I jumped ship waiting for a professional successor to the SF-1n, which alas, never materialized, even though Pentax never closed the door to the possibility. It's seems like the same old song and dance today. Really and truly, Pentax is no different than 99% of other companies 99% of the time. Nobody talks much about future product plans for many reasons, but one big one is that they don't actually know for sure what they will be marketing in 3 years. @ Fred: With Pentax once being top of the hill in 35mm SLR sales (annual sales more than Canon, Nikon, Minolta, Olympus etc COMBINED) Boy, you'd have to go back a long, long time for this to have been true. Maybe in 1967 (when Pentax was indeed the world's largest SLR manufacturer by unit, but I'm dubious it was by that much of a margin). More likely you'd have to go back to 1957 or so, when Pentax was essentially the only Japanese company making SLRs. I love what Pentax is doing these days, and think they've got a clearer-eyed product and marketing plan than I've seen from them in 25 years, but I just don't think you can construct a convincing business case for making a FF DSLR in 2011 based on sales figures, and legacy M42-mount lenses, from the 1960s.

Bob wrote: Surely the juries going to 'stay out' until we see the viewfinder..... How they can introduce a 'serious' camera without a viewfinder is a worrying mystery to me, and does not bode well for what is coming next! Do Japanese camera makers EVER do any market research? You know, I understand the preference for an optical viewfinder, but I guess at this point, I'm motivated to object to the disdainful tone some folks take towards the idea of a camera without one. Express your personal preference, fine, but as with most things photographic, many knowledgeable photographers -- and camera engineers, for that matter -- won't automatically share it. Me, for example. I don't. My photographic resumé goes back further into the dim past than I even want to admit to myself, starting with an SRT-101 and including SLRs and rangefinders of many brands and formats up to 6x17cm. I cut my teeth on old ... er, classic ... technology. And I have no problem whatsoever with a serious camera that uses an LCD for viewing/framing. None. In fact, in some ways it offers important advantages. (And in other ways, drawbacks, of course. Life, in my experience, is like that.) In 15 years, people will look back on the moaning about this the same way we now look at the equally loud and mournful moaning about autofocus or automatic exposure control. Electronic viewing, whether by LCD or EVF (really the same thing), is a tidal wave--it's already swept over 95% or more of the imaging world and it ain't slowing down. It will, without question, be the overwhelmingly dominant viewing system even in serious imaging devices in the not too distant future. Arguably, it already is. And we'll all be just fine. And the same thing, by the way, can be said about still/video convergence. Also a tidal wave. Put on your life jacket.

Also, since I'm apparently determined to avoid actually working today: I agree that the M3 is achingly pretty, but "possibly the ... most significant, too"? Hmmm. I don't think it's even the most significant Leica; the original Leica I, as the progenitor of small-format photography, has to rank higher, no? I'd also rank one of the early practical SLRs, arguably a 1957-ish Pentax or the Nikon F, higher, as the progenitors of the SLR era. Or perhaps the Juspin Konica. The what? The Juspin Konica. The first autofocus compact 35mm camera (1977), ushering in the era both of autofocus and of the modern point-and-shoot. Japanese camera industry folks still mark the Juspin Konica as a world-shaking development (it's often referenced in history stories on Canon, Nikon, Olympus et. al. web sites.) But really, one of the early Kodak models (1888-ish) has to be the "most significant" title holder -- the first cameras ever made that were suitable for non-expert use, bringing photography to the masses, as the cliché goes. The M3 is awesome, but it was the culmination of a dying breed, one that promptly passed firmly -- and very quickly -- into niche status very shortly after the M3 appeared. Maybe this is a topic for another post, Mike! Or not :-)

Glad to see this. The numerous people who commented on the earlier thread about the video of the nice German lady from Olympus to the effect that "that camera is huge! Olympus is crazy!" were a bit overheated. I think she must be a fairly small woman. I'm 6'2" — if you saw it in my hands it would look a lot smaller. The E-P1 is not tiny — many, many point-and-shoots are a fair bit smaller and lighter. But, with the 17mm lens, it is definitely in a different class of portability than any DSLR I've ever used — coat-pocketable or easy to wear on a belt pouch, as many people do with their cell phones, or easy to slip into a briefcase or messenger bag along with your laptop etc. As I said in my earlier blurb about it, I wish it were 15% smaller still. I think many people will deem the portability gain too little to get excited about. But I'm positive that many others will think that the portability gain is worthwhile.

Hey Ctein, First, let me say that I'm perfectly happy to have my mistake corrected on this, and will be glad to change my tune, if I ever get the time to think seriously about it again. I first read that DOF is dependent on image mag and aperture only -- and independent of focal length -- in a book called Applied Depth of Field by a man named Alfred Blaker who was, as you probably know, a prominent author of technical photography books for many decades. I happen to have a photocopy of the relevant chapters which I'll reread (and scan and send to you if you'd like). (The book contains a ton of cool drawings, which showed me what physically causes sharpness falloff from front to back and why DOF varies with aperture. Still remember the aha! of that.) I tested this claim fairly informally when I first read it (early 1990s) because I didn't believe it, but my tests showed it to be correct. I may now be learning that my tests were flawed :-) I then saw the same claim in a primer on photography published by Kodak a few years back (which I don't have), but maybe Blaker wrote that, too :-) I really actually don't have time to investigate this myself right now, but I'll stop repeating the claim out of respect for your knowledge on such matters, Ctein. But until I can figure out what's wrong with Blaker's lovely diagrams and equations (he's got lots of 'em!), I'm going to remain quietly neutral ...

> John Emily wrote: "This is a nonstarter..." For *you*, fine. ".. But who cares about most fundemental (sic) mechanics of how you have taken every photo you have ever taken? Amazing what a little cosmetic design work can do to generate loss of focus." See this is where I get annoyed. I don't share your preference so, in your view, I am not just different but also deluded or stupid. I've got a photography resumé as long as both of your arms put together--including reviewing hundreds of cameras for magazines over the past 10 years--and using an LCD for framing is not, a priori, a non-starter for me. It will have its benefits and drawbacks, but I believe there's a good chance it'll work well enough to make me happy when I'm using this camera. Your preference is different. Fair enough. I will pay you the basic respect of not calling you deluded for having it.

>Tyler Ball wrote: "Wake me when they have a 24mm or 28 equivalent prime." Olympus did make a point to ask me about desired focal lengths in future lenses (although I don't kid myself that they care too much what a schmuck like me thinks). I told them a 14mm (28mm-e) and a 28mm or 30mm (55-60mm-e) would do just about everything I care to do with a camera these days, if the longer lens opens at least as wide as f/2. My semi-educated guess, after many, many years in the camera business is that they will hear a fairly loud call for a 10mm or 12mm wide prime, so I don't think that's too much to hope for, eventually. >Pedro Estarque wrote: "One question, it seems obvious, but just to be sure: You can manually focus by turning the lens ring, right? Does it stop at infinity and at closest range or does it spin endlessly like some camcorders?" Yes, there's a manual focus ring on the lenses. If you have focus assist magnification enabled, as soon as you begin to turn the ring, the focus area is magnified on the LCD (I don't remember how much). In conference room light, it made manual focusing easy and quick. I'm about 98% sure that I remember that the focus ring free-wheels—i.e. spins endlessly like some camcorders. >YS wrote: "I hope it won't end up dog slow like current DSLR contrast AF systems (or even just slightly slow)." I feel safe saying it's not dog slow in reasonable light—i.e. pointed out a window in a midtown Manhattan office building at 10 a.m. on an overcast day. Beyond that, I just didn't get enough time with it to say. >Arjun wrote: "Do you know if the VF-1 OVF has a 1.0x magnification factor? I don't know what magnification the E-P1's OVF has. I only looked through it for about 5 seconds, so have little to say on it at this point. > Robert Noble wrote: "In many decisive-moment situations, a camera that need not be raised to the eye to compose a shot has a clear advantage (for example, I personally find the waist-level-viewable digicams unbeatable for street-shooting in every respect except responsiveness and IQ). And I defy anyone to frame more precisely using the viewfinder of any non-SLR than one can frame using the rear LCD on the E-P1. The composition you see on that LCD is exactly the composition you will get." Yeah, I agree with this. I love old cameras, but I'm perfectly ready to embrace new viewing and framing options. An LCD has a lot of advantages, as you point out. I don't want to be chained to an eye-level shooting position. But LCD's can be a hassle in bright light, and, as I said, I'm going to have to see how happy I am using this particular LCD on this camera, trying to shoot serious pictures in varied conditions.