I have to say that I've been doing bits and pieces with the E-PL1 and really find it a very good camera. It's different to the E-P2, but in many ways just as good. In fact, that has led me to consider buying the 17mm for my E-P1, which has kind of languished because of the lack of the external EVF.
There is an optical viewfinder, but with the AF, it really isn't necessary. I'd just make the E-P1 a P&S.
I agree. The P ratio is way out of whack to me. However, I must admit they look and feel great, the IQ is great (within it's inherent limits) and the red dot is a nice touch. Other than that, I agree....have never found a way to work out the price to performance ratio that comes with Leicas.
I think we agree; the instrument analogy was the closest I could come. My point isn't so much that I think it's a good value, or the best choice, but that I don't feel qualified to question the artist for choosing that tool. The money comes and goes, the art lasts forever. (Ars longa, vita brevis, 'n all 'at.)Also while I understand the analogy that Mosca is trying to make, I see a vast difference between a hand made wooden musical instrument and a mechanical tool. Every hand made wooden instrument whether it is a violin or guitar (something I know little about) has a unique voice (wood types, age craftsmanship) and for the sophisticated user with a good ear, one can hear the subjective difference. Cameras of the same model are pretty interchangeable with some very slight optical difference in lenses.
Still one should buy what inspires them regardless of price; I just for one cannot see it with Leicas.
Now if you are talking about wine I can get really foolish with a price to performance ratio, but again a subjective feeling more than an objective test.
Most due end up in the hands of the amateurs, it has always been that way.Leica's have been used for professional work in the past, and the M9 is making it into the hands of some pro's these days. Maybe some end up being toys for the rich.