So, when Hasselblad offers one a choice of esthetically-pleasing grips, it is the worst idea on Earth. But when Pentax offers esthetically-pleasing Leica-like brass panels on a cheap point-and-shooter nobody feels like shouting "A camera is not a fashion accessory - it's a tool!" ?

I think it is pretty gorgeous, and you are all unimaginative group-thinking non aesthetes. To a degree. But I truly do not see *why* this is an ugly camera because no one here has explained why it is an ugly camera. I think the lines of the grip are beautiful. I happen to love rich wood burl on a lot of things - knife handles, stereo equipment, rifle stocks...car interiors. So what, exactly, is aesthetically ugly here - besides the fact that it is shockingly different? Yes, very few of us will want a $5000 NEX-7. But what if this was $200.00 option? What if it were basically free? There is quite an accessories aftermarket in the auto industry, and it appeals to more than a few psychological profiles. There are those who want to hot-rod their 'rides', others who like the idea of replacing some sterile interior plastic surfaces with the sensuality of rich wood burl. British-Bavarian automaker Mini owes a lot of their success to their decision to market individual customizations of interior and exterior options as a 'cool' exercise in expressing ones individuality. Materials options include many which echo those shown in the Hasselbad prototypes. Assuming these options do not reduce the ergonomics of a camera significantly - exactly what is the problem here, guys? We have a *55 billion dollar* camera industry with almost zero marketing of this concept. Yes, there are some customizations available, but most of them are utilitarian, not aesthetic. About all we see marketed by manufacturers are a few cameras with a choice of exterior colors. Given today's computer-assisted 3-D scanning and 3-D sculpting technology, I am curious how successful a business model built around these ideas would be. $55 billion is a gigantic market.

That noise you hear is the collective exhalations of knowledgeable photographers gasping at the image quality and feature set of the new NEX offerings. As far as "(And don't give me that adaptor crap...)" well... why not? As it seems to erase your tautological objection to the NEX lens line. I propose a cage match between you and Michael Reichmann (http://www.luminous-landscape.com/reviews/cameras/sony_nex_7_first_impressions.shtml) on the topic. ;D

My excitement just got tempered significantly when I looked at the sample photos accompanying Mr Westlake's review article. ISO 400 shots look usable, but ISO 1600 look as bad as the old Canon G10 for noise, and not nearly as good as the new Canon G11 at that ISO. What is the advantage of a larger sensor supposed to be again? Isn't it supposed to be at higher ISO's? And where is the in-body I.S. system? Can you really use a GF-1 hand-held beyond 70 mm without a stabilized lens system? Do I really want to pay 2 or 3x for this camera vs a G11 or S90 or LX3 or, hopefully, an LX4?