The comments here reminded me of a question I meant to ask a while ago but forgot to...

By my math, only about 3 or 4 parts need to be realistic... the rest can look like a MechWarrior and we'd be okay with it.

Cuz someone already beat me to the new SMBC all about cave paintings...

I am actually quite impressed by the resilience of that washing machine. I also now know that I should decline the free takeaway service when I buy my next washing machine. No way I am letting them have all the fun.

There were recent test results that suggest that, but it is far from confirmed. So for the time being, we're running with the whole 'speed of light is the limit' theory. And our grandkids will make fun of us for believing in such crazy stuff the way engineers centuries ago thought the forces of traveling faster than…

Just to be clear... we can still throw slurs and GIFs at one another though, right?

This camera is amazing. And there is no way I can justify spending the money for it as a hobbyist. So instead I will find some small niggling detail I don't like about it and blow it out of proportion...

There's a lot of mathy stuff involved that I don't fully understand... but basically... the f-stop on your camera is a fraction relative to how much light is coming through the lens. f-stop = focal length/aperture diameter. So a smaller aperture on a bigger lens/sensor can possibly let in more light.

Agreed. Someone in the Canon engineering team deserves a raise for figuring out how to fit all that in a true compact.

Because the sensor is over 4x bigger - giving much much better image quality, dynamic range, and depth of field. f2.8 on a 1.5" sensor is going to give you more control over bokeh than f2.0 on a 1/1.7" sensor. At the wide and at least... that advantage will drop off as you zoom.

1.5" sensor is some weird new sensor size that would be somewhat gigantic with a 112mm equiv. zoom lens on it. 1/1.5" sensor is a complicated way of saying 2/3" sensor, which is what most of the 'enthusiast compact" cameras have been upgrading to. If I were a betting man, I would wager this is actually a 2/3" sensor.

Fuji's X100 has gotten rave reviews pairing the APS with a fixed 35mm for $1200. If the lens is any good, adding a zoom capability to that for less $ seems like an improvement.

No, its not a filter... its really what they call the Aperture Priority mode on the camera... it has dedicated PASM modes, but by default the camera is in its 'New Shooter-Friendly Mode' which gives everything cutesy names.

I'm a sucker for wide angles - I was kinda hoping it was going to be 16mm (24mm equiv) like the sony lenses... only faster and on a camera system that doesnt call the aperture 'Background Defocus Mode'

I've read conflicting reports on whether its going to be their amazing hybrid viewfinder, or that 'dumb' VF in the X10. I'm hoping as the MSRP creeps higher and higher, they will have less of an excuse to cheap out.

I'm sure there will be more, those are just the ones available at launch. I like the choices, a wideangle, standard, and portrait - covers most of the basics, and leaves room to expand. I think them all being fixed zooms will also give the new system a quality advantage over some of the mediocre kit zooms the other…

Canon hasn't said anything one way or the other. The Wells Fargo site might have screwed the pooch.

Pretty sure that press release quote is for their new bridge camera, the S1. Though, if Fuji found a way to make a 24-624mm zoom lens for an APS sensor, then let me just give them a giant bucket of money now.

"RIM began to get its mojo back."

I'm voting for Mat solely out of selfish support for one of the other 10 Mat's with 1 t in their name in this world. Kick some superfluous-T butt!