Quote:Sorry, thxbb12, I meant that in a different way but didn't express that properly: I think, Nikon focuses more on FX and on CX (or how's the form factor of the 1 series called?) than on DX. I don't see FF dominating the market, either. And as many people I see snapping pictures with an iPad... it looks a bit odd, but on that screen each person can compose a nice image. Which will be good enough for a lot of purposes.
The point is, "in good lighting" each webcam produces "good enough" pictures. And I'm not interested in just "sufficient" pictures, as I always like to see details, optically produced narrow DoF and lowlight pictures. Even if I'm not constantly putting new wallpapers of my own pictures to the rooms I live and work in - to me it feels different doing portraits with a real "camera only, no phone, no internet, no games, no music, no books" device. And to the people I'm taking photographs of, too. I wouldn't miss the overdose of software gimmicks, but I would miss the feeling and weight of a nice lens. Those tiny µ4/3 lenses are no toys, I know - but in my hands they do feel like. Can't help, I need two hands full. :unsure:
I understand some people like larger cameras in their hands. A camera needs to be at least sufficiently large to feature good ergonomics. However, I think most DSLRs are way bigger than necessary from an ergonomics point of view. I'd go for a DSLR larger than a Pentax K5 for instance.
As far as I'm concerned the E-M1 is the perfect size - granted I have skinny fingers.
However, I still think very small systems can be very interesting, even if means compromising a bit. I'm thinking of the E-M10 for instance. Along the 12mm, 17mm and 45mm it makes for an extremely compact and light set, while being very capable. You can even make it even smaller with a couple of pancakes: 14mm, 20mm and 45mm