Here's something for you to puzzle over, what do the popularity of and buzz about iPhone camera applications, m4/3 and NEX, the Fujifilm X100, and the resurgence of Leica all have in common? Even the Olympus XZ-1 shares a bit of this buzziness.
Frequent readers of this site probably know the answer I'm about to give.
The commonality? They're generating buzz because they're giving the photographer something they're not getting from most cameras (compact or DSLR).
Let's face it, even the lowest of low DSLRs these days is a pretty amazing instrument. It'll take great images, even in low light, that'll print well up to the size (and beyond) that you can really consider doing at home. Sure, the build quality might not be robust and a few features you might want aren't there and a few hand-holding things you don't want are, but as a basic "take more-than-competent-photos-in-almost-any-situation device," the low-end DSLR is mature and capable of excellent work. We all need to spend more time maximizing what our current tools are capable providing us, because I'll bet that 99.9% of us are underutilizing what we've got.
Move up the DSLR ladder and we have some even more amazing products. The Nikon D3s and D3x are incredible machinery that extended photography well beyond where we were with the best SLRs at the end of the film era (and Canon has a similar pairing). They ought to be incredible, as they represent the eighth generation and almost fifty years of constant iteration, with the only two "big" changes being the addition of autofocus and the change from film to digital.
In the compact arena, pretty much the same thing is true. Even basic compacts are pretty credible cameras for family and Web use (at least in good light), and the high end currently is getting close to challenging where we were with DSLRs less than a decade ago.
As photographers, we ought to be happy, right? So why is it that we get these short frenzies of extreme love for things that are new and not the traditional digital offerings? Apps on the iPhone triggered it. The Leica M8 and M9 triggered it. The E-P1 sort of triggered it and the GF-1 and GH-1 amplified it, as did the NEX-5. And lately, the X100 is triggering frenzy again.
Some have labeled these products as "the future of photography," others as "retro," and still others a host of additional names to try to describe why they generate so much interest, but I'm of the opinion that they share something much more important. They offer an alternative. In the case of phone cameras and apps: spontaneity, creativity, connectivity, and power to do things that you couldn't do in the camera before. In the case of the M8/9 and X100: simple direct control coupled with getting out of the way of the photographer while producing state-of-the-art images.
As everyone from Apple to Leica has shown, price isn't an issue. The iPhone was more expensive than other phones (and the original didn't even have a camera or apps yet). The M9 is more expensive than most DSLRs. The X100 is more expensive than most compacts. That they can be more expensive and still generate such buzz should be a real wake-up call to the rest of the industry. There's something missing from the current best compacts and DSLRs, and people are willing to pay for it.
That missing thing is a bit nebulous, though. It's not a particular feature, nor is it retro design, higher build quality, or even necessarily a better user interface. If I had to pin a label on it I'd call it "photography centric design" as opposed to "technology centric design." Most of the cameras I've mentioned are much more photography-centric in design than the current DSLRs. Even the m4/3 and NEX have at their core the notion that if the products are smaller and more convenient you're more likely to carry them for casual photography.
To put it more bluntly, the "joy of photography" has been de facto replaced by the "joy of owning the latest technology" because of the camera makers' constant push on technology. As I've noted elsewhere, there's a long list of photography-requested features (a short version of things you've requested can be found here) that is not getting done while still cameras get turned into video cameras and stuffed with megapixels beyond what the majority of the market actually needs.
I was quite disturbed two years ago when Nikon executives responded to a question that they would back off from high ISO capabilities and come up with a "better balance" between more pixels and high ISO in the future. Did they not actually understand the D3's success? Or the D3x's, for that matter? Despite the many small changes, the D3 wasn't a better camera than the D2x for any other reason than it's ability to photograph in low light and deliver a quality 12mp in virtually any conditions. The D2x was also 12mp, but couldn't do that. The photography-centric thing here was that you could photograph in light you couldn't before, and get quality results doing so. You only had to look at the sidelines of the 2004 and 2008 Olympics to see how the pros voted: it was the low light capabilities of the D3 that resurrected Nikon at the pro level. Nothing else. Just low light performance was enough to flip the tide.
Low light capability is definitely a photography-centric thing. If you ever used film at an NBA game in the 80's before strobes became popular, you'll know exactly what I mean by that. Megapixels are not so much photography-centric. Yes, there's demand to print larger with a smaller camera, but it's not quite the same thing as enabling a photographer to break through something that was a clear barrier before. Iterative improvements are expected; but it's clear photography-centric improvements that are buzzworthy.
So how are each of the hyped things I mentioned earlier photography-centric?
iPhone: many apps allow you to pre-visualize processing effects, but the big buzzworthy thing is the connectivity (being able to live-blog photos, for instance). Camera phones tighten the connection between photographer and viewer because they collapse the process to near instantaneous ("publish to Facebook, Twitter, yourBlog, etc."). It also seems interesting that the iPhone got to HDR, pano-stitching, and more, faster than most compact cameras. Photography-centric.
M8/M9: simple four-decision photography is back: aperture, shutter, ISO, focus, all controlled directly and manually with individual controls. And some people value the photographer-friendly optical rangefinder: bright, shows what's happening outside your frame. More buttons, more features, not so important. Photographer control, buzzworthy.
X100: similar to the Leica, though not quite as direct and simple in control (but close in everything except focus, where AF is basically the substitute). And again, that bright optical finder with a bit of overscan.
m4/3: most of the ability of the modern DSLR with less bulk and weight. Initially, the E-P1 and GF-1 had a bit of that direct control design to them, too, but both Olympus and Panasonic have moved to more novice-friendly UI and away from direct controls and buttons (a mistake, as the buzz generators have all balked at this direction, and thus the buzz has disapated).
While there is technology behind each of the products in question, it isn't the technology itself that's driven the buzz, it's what the technology enables for the photographer, and in very practical ways. After all, it's the user who generates the actual buzz, and the group of users that amplify and broadcast it. (Why do I think someone will miss the point and put a Buzz button on their next camera? Oh wait, I should write a Buzz Photo App for the iPhone and make a fortune before they do ;~).
Part of the problem is that camera marketing got waylaid by numbers, much like a lot of marketing does: 25% more pixels! 50% more focal length! 15 new post processing effects! Benefit marketing claims seem to have disappeared, which is another indication of technology-driven versus photography-centric design. (What's benefit marketing? Oh, something like "Photograph in light that makes Halloween Haunted Houses look overlit. Only with a D3s.")
I watched the movie Confessions of a Shopaholic the other night. So-so film. But we camera users have become a bit like the main character and are way too addicted to the act of acquiring new. Let's fall back in love with taking pictures instead, okay?