Here's another article from Luminous Landscapes.
"I've never been a fan of the Four Thirds format. When it first was introduced I complained on these pages that it was a step in the wrong direction...The raison d'etre for 4/3 was to make cameras smaller, and though the first models were somewhat smaller than their 1.5X and 1.6X competitors, it wasn't long before Canon, Nikon and others started producing DSLRs that challenged what Olympus (primarily) was trying to do with the new format...it wasn't without its problems, or its detractors. I looked at it the EP-1 when it first came out, but went away disappointed. So much so that I decided not to review it, because I really couldn't find much to say that wouldn't have sounded like I was out to get Olympus...Briefly – I found the autofocus to be primitive, the rear LCD too low-res, and the menu system confusing. I also just don't find a camera without an eye-level viewfinder to be usable..Doing serious photography with a camera at arms length just isn't my thing. Oh yes, and no built-in flash...
The article was an overall positive review of the Panasonic GF1, that concludes as follows:
"In the final analysis what we come down to is that the GF1 is likely the best of breed at the moment, but not a panacea for someone looking for a semi-pocketable large sensor camera."
http://www.luminous-landscape.com/reviews/cameras/gf1.shtml
So what about the GF1 - here's some snippets of an honest thoughtful user review on Amazon:
Not the holy grail - not yet, November 15, 2009
- Overall image quality came below my expectations - for a sensor close to APS-C in size. It's head and shoulders above a compact camera, but for $900, you can get much better IQ from an entry level or mid level DSLR, especially above ISO 200.
- Low light performance is at the level of APS-C sensor a generation or two ago (think Nikon D40, not Nikon D90). This is particularly problematic in the shadows - with significant noise visible at relatively low ISOs - e.g. ISO400. The noise is also of the worst type - chrominance as opposed to luminance.
- So, what does this all mean? If you are looking for a small camera to carry around - either get one of the fixed lens packages from Sigma, Leica, etc. or wait until Olympus perfects the autofocus on the EP series. If you are looking for a travel camera - go for an entry level or mid level DSLR - the size and weight difference is not that great and the difference in flexibility and image quality is well worth the tradeoff.
http://www.amazon.com/Panasonic-DMC...1?ie=UTF8&s=electronics&qid=1275839949&sr=8-1
Bottom line? As illustrated by professional testing, professional reviews, and user reviews
the 4/3 cameras are not the "holy grail". There's no "innovation" regarding the sensors on 4/3 cameras - they're just smaller. Because they're smaller, they're simply "not as good" as larger APS-C sensors. Meanwhile, DSLR makers shrunk their camera sizes down and with a nice prime, the size difference doesn't buy you anything. 4/3 cost more than entry-mid-level DSLRs - and I don't know why since I assume that a smaller sensor is less expensive to produce, and they do away with mirror assembly and a built-in flash on a lot of models. Actually, I do know why... higher margins for the camera makers. That's fine - they're certainly entitled to a profit, but I won't bite.
What likely will be "the holy grail"? EVILS - like the Samsung NX + a nice line of fixed lenses, especially a fast pancake-sized 50mm equiv. I was excited about that one when I first read about it - and its price was right. Unfortunately, that camera, imo, had a few too many vices upon further investigation, so I went with a compact DSLR with a fixed fast lens. Give it a year or two, maybe the next Samsung or whatever, and somebody will get it right. Until then, compact DSLRs give you the best bang for the buck all things considered - imo. 4/3? Right out. You can keep them.
