If Canon or Nikon launched a micro 4/3 with a range of lenses to match (which I expect they will at some point), I'll strongly consider making the jump.

Also, I saw a Sony thing of some sort, super thin body with a big pancake lens on the front. Had an Alpha symbol on the front. Mirrorless I think. Astonishing low light performance.

Nikon 1, innit: http://www.nikon1.co.uk/en_GB_N1/

My Panasonic has a Leica lens on it. Is Leica okay? Not that it matters, it can't be replaced.

I find it hard to really disagree with any of that.

If Canon or Nikon launched a micro 4/3 with a range of lenses to match (which I expect they will at some point), I'll strongly consider making the jump.

Nikon 1, innit: http://www.nikon1.co.uk/en_GB_N1/

Explain-me 4/3rds please. I thought it was just DSLR but smaller..

Yeah, I've always been resistant to DSLRs since I tried my first (completely shit) digital compact in about 1997. SLR is for photography nerds, and I dispute that there's anything inherently benefical about the moving mirror. I want a live view off the sensor, inside the viewfinder (or on the screen as a second best) - that's the closest you'll get to the finished image and the best way to compose the photo.

Micro four-thirds is exactly what you described in your first paragraph. SLR sized sensors (more or less) in a mirror less body.

Yeah, I've always been resistant to DSLRs since I tried my first (completely shit) digital compact in about 1997. SLR is for photography nerds, and I dispute that there's anything inherently benefical about the moving mirror.

Or looking at one picture

An inch, I believe.

Correct.

I think I know a reasonable amount of techie stuff, but just to keep my feet on the ground I come in this thread every now and again to be utterly baffled by everything everyone says.

It means "ten pounds"

Some people have called this evolution “mirrorless” cameras. In my judgment, that is a ridiculous name. You don’t name a category of technology by what it is not. I suppose we did use to call an “automobile” a “horseless buggy,” but now we look back on that quaint term and laugh. So, of course we will not call these cameras “mirrorless” for long.
And so the term “3rd Gen Cameras” is much better for this new phase of digital photography.

No it fucking isn't you cunt! Cars aren't called 3rd gen horses! It doesn't tell you anything about the technology, therefore it is a fucking useless name.

They should call it Straight Light Route, as in straight from the lens to the sensor.

Well that's fuck ugly.

I like it! Looks Apple-y.

I think it looks quite classy and understated, though it reminds me more of a Nad amp or something than anything Apple. And at least it's not trying to look like ye olde worlde camera as seems to be the trend with lots of the smaller ones now.

And at least it's not trying to look like ye olde worlde camera as seems to be the trend with lots of the smaller ones now.

I like it! Looks Apple-y.

See, I think that is what it's trying to look like, and that's one of the reasons I don't like it. The shape of the body immediately makes me think of this:

I'm afraid to say that I really don't like the look of the Nikon V1. It looks like a thin slab of laminated cheese with a bump on it. This is frustrating, as I love the look and feel of their DSLR's. I much prefer Fujifilm's X100, which is far sexier and old stylee. Honestly, people who think a featureless sleek thing is better than the oldschool 35mm look are insane. Would you rather be in something that looked like the Oldsmobile from Supernatural, or a Punto? Exactly.

I've not been over the moon with it really. That's my own stupid fault for not buying a DSLR I suppose. Also not buying a book so I tend to just use iA mode all the time.

Do you get micro 4/3s with a touch screen for exposure and focus adjustment, like on an iPhone? Because that would be a good thing.