I ask this because I like to make up my mind regarding camera systems and sensor sizes.
Today I personally use nearly every sensor size from a g11 up to MF including a gh1 which is used by my wife.
However I just had one thought:
Remember how many people moved from DX-sensors to full frame d700 and say how much better it is? they say more color depth, more room to bring up shaddows with out noise, etc etc.
Remember how relativly slow the 4/3 came into market. People saying to much noise etc etc
So now lets have a look at 4/3:
Biggest advantage IMO is size and the posibility to use all kinds of lenses.
But then you give up optical viewfinder and - besides the fun of experimenting - is it that great benefit to use third party lenses? For me not. I once put a Leica M lens on my wifes gh1 but the results didnt blow me away in a way I would give up metering, automatic f-stop and af of the Panasonic lens. So for me its Leica lens on Leica camera, and Panasonic lens on panasonic camera.
Other than size I see pretty good video capability-if one can manage the focusing etc.
For me it turns out that for a little smaller size of the camera body (of micro 4/3) we give up quite a bit of sensor size (compared to a Canon 5d or Nikon D700 or whatever other DX or ff camera), we give up also optical viewfinder (which is a disadvantage IMO), we give up AF speed.
If you take more than a pancake lens into account it is smaller system than DSLR but still not real compact. Lens choices, specially fast lenses are limited of today. Shallow DOF, with the exception of the 20/1.7 or third party lenses is hard to achieve.
So who does really benefit from micro 4/3 and why? How much is "toy-factor" because it is something new and how much would a small DSLR offer more for less money?