Olympus OM D ! First shots and specs

This is how it looks with a grip :) Yes it looks like a DSLR. So is it one? No it's not, still a compact.

Here are the specs so far: 

• 16MP
• ISO range: 200-25,600
• 4 fps
• Shutter speed: 60-1/4000 seconds
• 1.44M EVF
• 3 in, OLED touch screen with 610k dots resolution
• Full HD video recording
• Dimensions: 122mm x 89mm x 43mm
• Weight: 369 grams (body only)
• It does appear to have an optical viewfinder on the next picture

It's a little confusing, weight tells us it is quite obviously not a SLR. Also the sensor is likely to be a micro four thirds 17x13mm. So don't let the look of it fool you, it is not even a DX size sensor. It surely looks very good, but so far it appears to be one of those cool design high ISO perf compact that comes with tons of (overpriced?) accessories. Olympus, the OMD was a 35mm SLR, this only has the design in common so far. Prove me wrong, please.

The four thirds system is much much smaller than full frame (blue frame)

What we need to know:

• Actual sensor size?
• Optical viewfinder? How good?
• AF speed?
• Lenses?

I am very skeptical when it comes to that new trend of very premium interchangeable lenses compacts:

1. You need to buy a all new line up of lenses and accessories...sounds like brands are trying to secure their clients with a trick
2. They cost a lot of money for what they are: compacts. Remember, a compact is not a camera that is as good as a big one but smaller. In photography size matters. Bigger sensors or larger film work better. It means that a small camera can't do what a big camera can. Fact. They are just for on the go convenience. In that sens, the idea of premium compact with a small sensor is a bit...counter intuitive, not to say plain contradictive.
3. They are not even compact anymore ! From the moment it doesn't fit in a coat's pocket, it takes a dedicated bag. They why, why wouldn't you get a proper Nikon or Canon that allow you to gear up later without having to change your entire system?
4. The claim that they are "the compact pros would use". No. A pro doesn't use a compact. If he shoots landscape or portrait, he goes for larger formats. If he shoot action or wildlife, he needs super fast reaction time that only SLRs have. If he shoots fashion or advertising, he need tons of megapixels for large prints. So no, that's marketing crap.
5. The claim that they are "smaller more convenient SLRs". No. If that's what you really intend to do, do a body with Nikon or Canon mount. The truth is they are trying to get more money with accessories.  SLRs operate WAY faster than those and sensors are much bigger.

This being said, It can end up being a good camera, 2 possible way it can be good:

• It is just a really good compact but it's priced accordingly
• It is pricey, but performs like a DX SLR and operates as fast. But in that case, with that design, why not just make it an SLR instead of trying to surf the reputation of an old product...