You don't have to resort to taking pot shots at DPReview.

I totally agree with M. Reichmann that the G1 offers a lot more than what the spec's imply. And it makes me all the more keen to see what the Olympus will offer with their G10 sized, pocketable body and what lenses will launch with it. We live in exciting times for compact cameras.

I don't really agree with him. By itself, the camera is fine. It's quick, easy to handle and takes good pictures. But it is not compact in any way. Michael compares the size the G1 to a D90 with a 24-70 2.8 and comes to the conclusion that...the G1 is smaller, what a surprise. The regular Nikkor (or Canon) kit lens would make a lot more sense. In comparison to other camera's the G1 is just a little smaller, does not have video or an optical view finder and has a very limited range of lenses. If this would come at a nice price; no problem; but its freakin expensive!

I'm glad to hear some positive reports on the cam though I have zero interest. I'm curious to see how it sells in this down economy and at so high a price point. I'm just not feeling the target market here.

I am sure it is a great camera, but not that small. My Nikon D40 with kit lens weighs 25 ounces and the G1 with its kit lens weighs 22 ounces. Not much difference and a smaller sensor.

Jeez, calm down Wolfie. You're way out of line. Other people's opinions are as valid as yours, and some people, like me, don't see the value in a slightly smaller DSLR-looking camera that weighs slightly less than a DSLR, with a slightly smaller sensor and a slightly higher price tag. Since when is comparing weight a measurebator's pastime? What points are we missing? If Panny didn't want the G1 to be confused with a DSLR, why the hell did they style it like one? Of course they wanted to erode the entry-level DSLR market! Additionally, if you really read Michael's review, you'd have seen his comment about being quite disappointed at Panasonic's inexplicable choice of a mechanical shutter, which is muted, but not silent. Wouldn't that be the whole point of building a camera like this? So essentially, the G1 can't crow about much in the face of an entry-level DSLR other than its live view swivel screen, which frankly, is the reason I prefer my DSLR vs. the G1. I LIKE an OVF, and I don't see its deletion as a bonus. In fact, I bought one for my LX3.

If you do compare it to a compact, it's the biggest of them all, but it does have the best sensor. As a "serious compact," my opinion is that it is definitely serious, but totally not compact. Since we're so concerned about the "main points," I think the most important one here is that, as much as I think this camera is a cluster-f#%* of strangely conservative design decisions and marketing miscues, I'm rooting for it to do at least reasonably well so that Panasonic doesn't screw the whole pooch with M4/3 before it has a chance to start. So the viability of the M4/3 platform is the total main point here. That the camera performs reasonably well in most shooting situations is promising, so that when the time comes for them to actually build the camera they should have built for so revolutionary a concept, there will already be a sense of quality to the format. IMO, Panny just totally left the door open to OLY with this camera. First to market is no guarantee for market dominance.

For me the main advantages are a reasonable balance between size and utility (which small dslr's have), histogram in a useable EVF, tiltable and swivelable back screen and the ability to use M-mount lenses. The design is conservative to be sure, and the mechanical shutter means it's not a silent camera. Is it a perfect camera? Decidedly not. Would I prefer something more in the ballpark of the Oly sample that floated around Photokina? I think so, but clearly that sample did NOT have an EVF, and based on what Panasonic has done, I think Oly should consider it. Anyway, I'm not convinced that they aren't working somewhat hand in hand anyway, as the rumors have been flying around that Panasonic will take over Oly.

But the camera is more handable than any camera I've used, and comes in 3 oz. less in weight than the Oly E-420, and 6-7 ozs. less than the D-40 and the Eos 450, without lenses (based on specs available from DPReview.com)

So ultimately, the issue is what is a compact camera? My Leica Digilux 2 is considered a compact, and it's larger in 2 out of three dimensions vs. the G1. And it's a hell of a lot heavier than the G1. There just isn't a DSLR as small and light. Does that make it a compact? No, certainly not, as there are quality cameras a lot smaller and lighter. Does a sensor smaller than APS-C size make it a compact? I certainly hope not. I think perhaps what we are seeing is the break between pocket sized compacts and larger compacts which are not pocketable but which, through design innovation, allow the photographer to carry a capable camera with large coverage in a small shoulder bag or backpack. I know, one could argue a D40 w/an 18-200 lens does the same, but i think not. For the same weight you will have a compact battery of lenses that cover 14-400mm (35mm equivalent) and the capability to easily take photos at a kama sutra of positions, and have neat things in the camera that do separate it from it's peers. I hope it works, not because I've made my choice and bought the camera, but because i believe in a camera system that is I think represented in it's first iteration by the G1.