Originally posted by aurele About the design : what the fu** is wrong to re-use a design that worked perfectly for the past years ? See Leica : from film to digital, it's more or less the same design and the basic bouton are still at the same place, and that's good, because ergo is good too. Why change for something worst ?
Same for the OM-1 : the design is really good.
...which is exactly what he himself says, if you read the article.
He compares the Leica, for instance, to the X100. He likes the Leica because Leica has always been about handcrafted precision instruments. He doesn't like the X100 (design-wise) because it's simply attempting to copy the Leica's aesthetics.
Similarly, he likes the OM-1 (mostly) but dislikes the OM-D because it's simply caching in on the OM-series legacy without any functional reason to do so (i.e., the EVF "prism" hump).
The one digital camera he praises is the Nikon V1, which is pretty much what you'd expect from a design student. I think it looks like crap, but he thinks it has "learned" from its predecessors while creating a look of its own. A valid argument, even if you don't like that "look of its own."
Overall It's not the most sophisticated argument in the world, but he has a pretty clear thesis, and hey... it's a tossed off blog post, not a final paper. Again, whether you agree with him or not is not the point. Just realize that he's not out to trash your favorite manufacturer. He's not passing judgment on these cameras as photographic tools.