As we said before, it's not a DSLR. There is no mirror, so no reflex (the R in "DSLR"). That is the whole point of this camera. If you want an abbreviation, "EVIL" is a widely-accepted one - for "electronic viewfinder interchangeable lens".

If it doesn't have a mirror, then it's not an SLR camera. It cannot be considered a digital SLR regardless of whether or not the lens is removable.

If it's not an SLR, then it's not - by ANY means - the first interchangeable lens digital camera. EPix launched their system using C-mount lenses in 1996, a digital still camera that was not only one of the first true digital cameras as we know them now (rather than the earliest ones which were digital video still caputure devices, or "Field Capture" - technology also integrated into some LaserDisc players of the era), but was also one of the real pioneers of integrated snap-shot digital photography in an era when scanning cameras were about the most useful tech around.

This isn't news - however, I don't recall reading about the Nikon D90, which HAS brought something new to the market, here.

How's that digital photography reporting going, eh?

Aha, I do see a D90 report after all. It fails to emphasise that being able to shoot HD Video on a true DSLR is in fact, a first, as is being able to shoot video at all (though digital camera sensors are employed in HD video cameras like the Red One, and Sigma's DP1 could arguably be called the first camera with a DSLR sensor to shoot video - but it's not a DSLR, it's a compact with an APS-C sensor from the SD14).

A rose by any other name would prick as deep. OK, so it's not strictly speaking an SLR, but for practical purposes it's as near as dammit. A step up from the FZ series that perform just fine within their limitations.

Someone tell James that the G1 doesn't change the ISO speed to freeze the wildebeesties, it has a moving element within the lens. At least the switch to activate the image stabiliser is on the lenses.

What is totally cool from my view is the side-mounted flip and twist screen. A very useful feature only available otherwise on the Olympus E2(?)

It may be precious to distinguish between SLRs and Live View cameras, but what's the point of having technical terminology if you don't use it correctly?

The end result is not the same, either. You have to use an EVF, which is not remotely accurate for manual focus, or the screen magnified. The provision of an EVF and a detachable lens is the only first it can claim; which is merely simplifying the design over the E330 by eliminating the second CCD and mirror/real viewfinder.

Whilst it may have stabilisation in the lens, do you know that James is wrong in suggesting that the G1 ALSO detects an attempt to photograph fast moving objects? What if you're using an unstabilised lens like the Olympus 7-14mm on an adaptor? The camera is fractionally smaller than the E420, yet loses a true viewfinder and still lacks internal OIS.

It's introducing a new mount, not improving image quality (I seriously doubt the smaller lenses developed for this platform will resolve as well as the Four Thirds lenses already on the market), and not really bringing anything new to the table.

Plenty of other cameras have featured flip and twist or flip/angled LCD screens, such as Sony's Alpha.

The G1 is really a retrograde step from the L1, rather than advancing the bridge camera. Let's see a bridge camera with a good 35-350mm lens and a full frame sensor that delivers decent dynamic range, before cluttering up the "DSLR" market with yet another mount, yet another attempt to cram more pixels into a smaller area.

...purely for the fact that if it has no mirror, it won't have the satisfying 'click' when you press the shutter release... which is surely the only reason for buying a DSLR?!