That's half the reason I'm tending to "confused." Good glass is very rarely not big glass, outside the 50 and especially the new 40, so anything that I'm interested in the body weight advantage just isn't. I could see this justified if it cost less than a T3, but that's hardly the case. (Speaking of that, where is the cost here?)

As far as I can read it, things are thus:

1. It's small and light, great for taking higher quality snapshots for monitor viewing... except that iPhones these days are going to take as good of pics for this and you're already carrying it.

2. It has a big sensor in a small body! Oh yeah, we already mentioned lenses...

3. Studio work? No advantage to the size of the box on the stick.

4. Sports? You're kidding, right? Even if the focus is half as good as it's said to be, panning and telephoto lenses kill its advantages. And the menus instead of buttons; I can't imagine being trackside and trying to change settings to go between long down-the-straight head-on shots and close-up at the apex panning shots.

It's hard for me to judge where cameras are going. I get kind of bent out of shape when I see these iPhone galleries that take really artsy and high quality shots with a stinking phone, while I'm carrying this stone-age box full of moving parts. But I at least know they can't do that with a 300 mm lens chasing motorcycles. Yet.

So, yeah, I think it's confused. Or I am.