http://www.olympus-global.com/en/news/2 ... hirdse.cfm Basically they will make an interchangable-lens digital camera that uses the 4/3 sensor. But it will not be an "SLR" by the old definition as it will not have a mirror and pentaprism/pentamirror with an optical viewfinder. Instead it will use the LCD screen primarily or you can use an electronic viewfinder (a small LCD screen where you used to be looking through a prism/mirror through the lens). The advantage is that the distance from lens to sensor is greatly reduced, meaning more pancake lenses, and smaller zoom lenses. The new micro cameras will be able to use the current 4/3 lenses with an adapter, but the the 4/3 cameras won't be able to use the micro lenses. My commentary: This is an interesting trend that was coming, but I'm not sure how revolutionary it is. It's basically a current P&S with an interchangeable lens, and a larger sensor. So kind of a Sigma DP-1 with interchangeable lenses. The two major companies haven't released a P&S with a larger sensor yet (Nikon was expected to, but the new P6000 announced today has a small sensor in it), and I'm not sure why other than they read the tea leaves to continue to trend to "cameras that fit in your pocket" rather than the size of the old P&S in the days of film with a larger sensor for higher quality (less noise). This new Micro system will probably attract users who don't want to lug their full dSLRs out (the full size ones, not the Rebel users or D40/60 users) on a trip, but rather bring a very compact and higher quality system with one or two lenses with them. The problem will be convincing them to buy a new camera and lenses to go with it that won't be compatible with anything else they have. Another thing would be the possibility of being able to quickly record video with this system. This would kind of mesh with the current rumor that the new Nikon D90 will be able to record video in live view mode, thus becoming the first true dSLR to do so. But I think that this was the "revolution" that was coming in SLR technology. Not much has changed in terms of SLR technology if you think about it - the current SLRs are basically film cameras with a sensor in place of the film back. The rest of the technology isn't revolutionary. We've had film cameras hit 10 fps before, that can go to 1/8000 sec or faster, etc. The biggest difference is that pictures that would have been impossible or not printable ten years ago are now possible and pretty good considering! (i.e. ISO 3200/6400 shots) I remember when ISO 800 was king, 1600 was pushing it, and 3200 was reserved for B&W, and even then, it was a stretch.
I wouldn't say this is a revolution either. The reason we've kept reflex mirrors is that they're tied together to the hardware. Not just the CCD or CMOS that lacks an electronic shutter mechanism, but also to direct light to the phase detection autofocus system which lets SLRs autofocus rings around point and shoots and video cameras (but gives us a darker viewfinder that makes it more difficult to manually focus). To me it kind of feels like what they've done is reinvented the rangefinder camera, without a rangefinder. The whole point of a rangefinder wasn't to put up with a clumsy off axis viewfinder that can introduce parallax problems and makes it hard to adjust to different focal lengths. The point was to get a compact, quiet, discrete camera that a photographer can use without making a racket and drawing attention. If this concept could use an electronic shutter then the camera has just become nearly silent. I don't see it as a revolution, or an evolution, more like an offshoot. A branching. I see people watchers and candid photographers embracing this along with the people who just want a high end, flexible P&S. Leica's already done the digital rangefinder thing, but they did it expensive, presumably appealing more to the elitists. If this takes off it could appeal to a whole new generation of people photographers, or rather everyone who was scared away by the price tag of the Leica cameras.
