I switched to m43 for two reasons. First was the fact that I wanted to more easily be able to use legacy glass with my DSLR and it was a lot simpler process with m43 than anything else available at the time. Second I wanted the kit to be small so when I was dragging up into the mountains or traveling it wouldn't be such a pain the backside (and shoulders) to lug around.

In retrospect I haven't missed having a DSLR at all. Of course I find that I do prefer the mini-DSLR body style. I have had great luck with the Panasonic G2 and GH2. One thing that I have found is that the EVF on the GH2 is in many ways superior to the OVF on the DSLRs I have had. For instance the OVF on the E-500/520 was absolutely awful for me because it was so small. Manually focusing legacy lenses is MUCh nicer on the various m43 bodies I've used.

If I only used my camera for personal use, I'd be all m4/3. But I don't, I use a camera for both my day job (art director at a military contractor), and for freelance work. I find I can't bear to NOT take out a DSLR when people are paying me. My answer is ultimately both... but...

THERE IS AN ANSWER ON THE NEAR HORIZON!

If the D600 turns out to be an FX camera, my prayers are answered. There WILL be an obvious IQ difference in full-frame and m4/3, and if the D600 is actually sold for $1599 as rumored, I'm in for both. As it is now, IQ is a toss-up in my current workflow, and that keeps pushing me back and forth between m4/3 and an APS-C DSLR. A D600 and E-P3 would be the perfect combo for me. Then I can sit back and lust over the pending E-P4.

__________________
Nikon D600, 24-85VR, 70-300VR, P7700, SB-700.

I also ditched my heavy 5D and L-lens setup and was aiming for the EM5, but I couldn't wait so I got myself an EP3. Boy was I surprised. Obviously the quality is different, but it's still very good for what I do. Instead of my zooms I was happy to go all primes (12/17/25/45) and am loving it so far.
I've been doing some stuff on the side for some years and did my first gig (recipe book) after switching the other day, the other half of which I did with the 5D and so had a straight comparison. The EP3 did veeery well, so good in fact I'm thinking of hanging on to it and instead go for the next implementation of the Pen or OM-D.

Overall I'm just loving the compactness, the lenses and the whole system. Needless to say I'm also loving this community :-)

I miss the full frame look, and C-AF and that's all. I don't miss the size, or being torn on whether I wanted to bring my camera along or not.

__________________
EM5; 9-18, PL25, 100-300 and some others.
(also, 6D + RX100)

I've never used a Nikon, but have been watching this closely. I would want it to be more D5100 sized, though, and no D800 or D4 sized.

__________________
EM5; 9-18, PL25, 100-300 and some others.
(also, 6D + RX100)

I'd expect it to be D300s sized, a bit bigger than the D7000.

I read that killing off the semi-pro APS-C model would help separate their pro cameras from the fast gaining m4/3 cameras. There would be APS-C for DX lenses and hobbyists (to compete with m4/3), and the full-frame cameras for decidedly better IQ over m4/3. Does make some sense, and opens the door for a later large sensor system to eventually replace the DSLR-lite Dxxxx cameras without affecting their "pro" image gear.

__________________
Nikon D600, 24-85VR, 70-300VR, P7700, SB-700.

Done it twice now. 5D kit to EP2 to 5D kit to OM-D. Was overall very pleased with EP2 but missed, as others have described, the FF look. But when the OM-D was rumored and then announced, I knew it was for me. And it is.

Fits my style perfectly. What I do miss, sometimes, from DSLR is the fast continuous AF and better selection of long glass. But I don't miss that enough to support dual systems or the bulk.

If I was still doing this professionally, I would have the m43 for wide and medium, and an APS-C for telephoto and be very content. (Actually did that with the EP-2. I was still at the newspaper and shot with the m43 wide and carried a 1DMkIIn with 70-200 for my telephoto)

__________________
A few of my photos can be found here: http://jeffryscott.com/

I sold all my Nikon DSLR equipment some months ago and along came the OM-D. I ordered it back in Feb, still waiting for the black body 12-50 kit. I have the grip, a couple of lenses & batteries. Recently I purchased a used E-PL2 while I wait. VERY impressed with the images straight out of this camera. Had a huge complement from my daughter last week (LA pro photog) about the quality of my images. She shoots very expensive Canon's and is a great commercial/wedding photog, and was amazed at the results.

No regrets for me, Love shooting great quality images all wrapped up in a very light package with wonderful JPEGS right out of the box. Finished with camera tanks !!!! I really don't see how the OM-D can beat the E-PL2, we shall see if it's worth the expense. Frankly comparing shots on this site, other forums and testers web sites I don't see much if any difference in image quality between the two. I know I am comparing different photogs with different skills in different places with different setups and it may not be a fair analysis, so I will do my own.

Hope to have my OM-D end of this week, plan on shooting same shots, same lens, same set-up on both camera's next week. I know I will love many things about the OM-D. Not sure about the extra expense and picture quality.

We shall see.

As much as one side of my brain keeps telling me to dump all of my Pentax DSLR gear and concentrate of micro four thirds, part of me can't yet let go. And I really do use both systems. I keep waiting for an auto-focus system in micro four thirds that will be be much better-suited to sports and birds in flight. The Oly E-M5 has made great strides in image stabilizaiton; perhaps Panny will make a breakthrough in AF.

__________________
Panasonic G5 and Panasonic GX1, Lumix 14-45mm f/3.5-5.6, Lumix 45-150mm f/4-5.6, Lumix 100-300mm f/4-5.6, Lumix 14mm f/2.5, Lumix 20mm f/1.7

Olympus E-PM2, Zuiko 9-18mm f/4.0-5.6, Zuiko 14-42mm f/3.5-5.6 II R, Zuiko 14-150mm f/4.0-5.6, Zuiko 40-150 f/4.0-5.6 R, Zuiko 15mm body-cap lens, Zuiko 17mm f/1.8, Zuiko 45mm f/1.8

If we really consider this for what it really is, and that's mirrorless vs DSLR, things start getting in fact much simpler.

A sensor is a sensor is a sensor. It has a given size; which is in fact irrelevant. In fact, all people in this thread are only talking of two main advantages: FF look (a matter of taste) and C-AF (a technological issue).

Since Nikon already introduced phase detect AF in their diminutive V1, I guess mirrorless is only about a year or so away of achieving the same AF performance as a DSLR. And putting to sleep an antiquated technology for good. Legacy lenses and marketing will surely keep DSLRs in the game for quite some time but that's it. Mirrorless in general will be the way to go, absolutely no technical dissadvantages whatsoever.

And then you'll have your pick of FF "look" as well as huge pixel count, at the expense of some size/weight sacrifices, or and APS-C sensors for portability.

__________________
http://500px.com/Eyes_Unclouded_Photography
http://eyesunclouded-photography.blogspot.gr/
http://www.facebook.com/eyesunclouded