Precious, perhaps, but claiming firsts?
It may be precious to distinguish between SLRs and Live View cameras, but what's the point of having technical terminology if you don't use it correctly?
The end result is not the same, either. You have to use an EVF, which is not remotely accurate for manual focus, or the screen magnified. The provision of an EVF and a detachable lens is the only first it can claim; which is merely simplifying the design over the E330 by eliminating the second CCD and mirror/real viewfinder.
Whilst it may have stabilisation in the lens, do you know that James is wrong in suggesting that the G1 ALSO detects an attempt to photograph fast moving objects? What if you're using an unstabilised lens like the Olympus 7-14mm on an adaptor? The camera is fractionally smaller than the E420, yet loses a true viewfinder and still lacks internal OIS.
It's introducing a new mount, not improving image quality (I seriously doubt the smaller lenses developed for this platform will resolve as well as the Four Thirds lenses already on the market), and not really bringing anything new to the table.
Plenty of other cameras have featured flip and twist or flip/angled LCD screens, such as Sony's Alpha.
The G1 is really a retrograde step from the L1, rather than advancing the bridge camera. Let's see a bridge camera with a good 35-350mm lens and a full frame sensor that delivers decent dynamic range, before cluttering up the "DSLR" market with yet another mount, yet another attempt to cram more pixels into a smaller area.
Biting the hand that feeds IT
