Micro Four Thirds: Mobile beauty with a lens

Since, I have noticed that I am more drawn to objects that resemble a classic look.  Simple, sleek, and sharp-edged designs tend to portray an unantiquated look.  (image credit: photographyreviews.com) When I decided to buy a point and shoot camera, I looked around ebay to get a good deal.  When I saw the Canon Powershot SD1000, I knew it was it.  Love at first sight!  So I got it.

The SD1000 has been with me for more than 2 years now.  With few minor scratches, still looks perfect and in very good condition.  However, having been around with colleagues and friends toying around their SLRs (Single-Lens Reflex, or the "powerful" cameras), I felt bitten by the bug.  These cameras don't come in cheap.  They are quite pricy if you only knew cameras to be point-and-shoots.  But the picture quality is far better.


I looked around but all SLRs look (almost) the same.  There could be variations in designs but to a plain user like me, there's not much difference.  Enthusiasts however don't mind that as what matters (to them) is how it feels, how it takes great shots, loads of options and control, and all those bells and whistles.  If you're into photography, that's the way to go.  I however have a different perspective.

If it can provide a similar functionality, I'd still go for the unaging look, a classic style.  A colleague tipped me about the micro four thirds technology and he didn't disappoint me.  At all!

    (image credit: askthephotographer.com)
 
Look at that beauty.  It all deserves to be on the spotlight, doesn't she?  I just wonder how can the likes of Olympus and Panasonic fit in a similar technology in such small size?  Why didn't the others like Canon, Nikon, Pentax, etc didn't follow?  Wikipedia can do better in defining the differences between the four thirds (standard slrs) and the micros.

A micro four third in the flesh.  The EP-1 is astonishingly beautiful. According to Wikipedia, some advantages of the micros is being light weight, more accurate contrast detect, and virtually no noise and vibration due to the (image credit: photographyreviews.com) absence of the mirror.  Being small comes with a compromise as well, there's no optical view-finder - so you'll be taking pictures like those regular point and shoots, the sensor is directly exposed to dust during lens change, and relatively few choice of lens (for now).

 

Just how small is it for an SLR?-->>  Regardless if it takes as good pictures or subpar as its giant cousins, I'd still want this micros.  The only factor worth considering for me is its price.  An Olympus EP-1 currently costs around 600 USD, that's 28,000 Php. I'm in for a price watch.  I do hope that other manufacturers follow suite.   Competition creates price comparison and consequently increase the number of lenses to choose from.  This will be the SLRs of the future. Light, powerful enough, and handy.  Not big and bulky.

How about you, would you still go for the bigger dslrs if the micro's are more competitive in price?

 (image credit: Photokina-show.com)