This is a kind of ridiculous post, indicating that I am still in a vacation mode, even though I am back at work (well it's Sunday today) . I worked these statistics out for myself because I am thinking of getting the PM1 for my wife for Christmas and then I thought, well, I'll post it, in part because I was surprised to learn recently (on the "how did you end up in m43" thread) how many of you, like myself, were attracted to Pen cameras by design.

I was trying to figure out what Olympus is doing in regard to the impact of dimensionality on design, and worked out the following based on the idea that a rectangular camera's appearance is mightily influenced by the relation of length to height (all stats from imaging-resource.com).

Raw Data:

EPM1

4.3 x 2.5 x 1.3 in.
(110 x 64 x 34 mm)

E-PL3
4.3 x 2.5 x 1.5 in.
(110 x 64 x 37 mm)

E-P3
4.8 x 2.7 x 1.4 in.
(122 x 69 x 34 mm)

EP1/2
4.7 x 2.8 x 1.4 in.
(121 x 70 x 35 mm)

E-PL2
4.5 x 2.9 x 1.7 in.
(115 x 73 x 42 mm)

E-PL1
4.5 x 2.8 x 1.6 in.
(115 x 72 x 42 mm)


Ratios: length to height (the larger the number, the longer the camera appears relative to its height; the lower the number the boxier it appears)

E-PM1/E-PL3
1.1719

E-P1/2
1.7289

E-P3
1.7681

E-PL1
1.5972

E-PL2
1.5753

Conclusion:
The ratio of the PM1/PL3 is just shy of the P1/2 (which everyone liked), while the new P3 has an even longer longer look than the P1. It is clear that in addition to reducing the size of its new “lite” offerings, Olympus has moved away from the boxier PL1/2 design to a longer sleeker look. In addition all the new cameras are substantially thinner than the PL1/2 and closer to the original P1.

The new cameras are going for a more modern look, which I think is kind of unfortunate with how well the E-P1 was originally designed. And if you can remember what the original mockup looked like, it was even better then too.