I usually buy cameras like my parents bought cars--used, a year or two old. Yet I've been getting OM-D fever like most of you. My old G1 is feeling, well, a bit old in terms of dynamic range and higher ISO. So, which impulse to follow?
In poring over the DxOMark scores, I noticed that the GH1 has a better high-ISO rating than either the GH2 or the G3. I really don't care about the video capabilities. Is the GH2 so superior to the GH1 that I'd be a fool to buy the older model?
What interests me is how the various micro 4/3 models shake out in terms of higher ISO performance and usability. I stuck with the G1 this long because most of its successors seemed have slight incremental improvements. The OM-D seems the first model that's really a leap. If the hype is true. Those of you who have tried it: How big an improvement is the OM-D over the GH2 or G3? In ISO 800+, and in usability?
My main camera is and will remain a Leica M8. I have a used Oly E-30 with the wonderful first-version Olympus DZ 40-150mm f/3.5-4.5 semi-permanently mounted on it. The G1 has been the small, light, take-everywhere, "do everything reasonably well" camera, using the 14-45 kit zoom, the Panny 20/1.7, and occasionally some legacy glass. The G1's replacement would play the same role.
I've been waiting for DxOMark tests of the the OM-D, but maybe they can't get one yet, either