We're expecting our second child in June and I've been looking for a new camera. I've had a 6mp Minolta 5D for five years and got some good shots of our first child but it's showing its age. More importantly, it's seldom at hand because of its bulk and I mostly use my cheapo Fuji F40fd. At first I was thinking panasonic LX5 vs Canon S95/100 as an upgrade P&S but quickly realized that a :43: would offer much better low light performance for similar money. I would envision primarily shooting indoors using a small prime (probably panasonic 14/2.5 since the 20/1.7 is a bit too much for me now). I've been driving my wife crazy scouring the web and after reading dozens of GF vs Pen threads I'm sold on an Olympus body (though I was tempted by the availability of GF2/3 kits with the wide angle prime). I realize that prices are a moving target but these are the two options I'm considering: New E-PL1 body for $150 plus panasonic 14/2.5 (~180 on ebay) vs Refurb E-PM1 c kit lens and 1yr warranty for $330 (add prime later) I like what I read about the PM1 AF performance but maybe the PL1 would still feel like an upgrade from my aging dSLR. I loved the IBIS on my Minolta and the consensus seems to be that the PL1 IBIS works better than the PM1. I like the built-in vs clip-on flash (recognizing the limits of both). It also seems better to go straight to the smaller lens if I'm trying to keep the system compact. On the other hand, perhaps the PM1 kit zoom would be small enough and fast enough for my purposes and I would enjoy the newer features of the body. I just wrote a huge check to uncle sam but six months down the road I might even spring for the 20/1.7. Is this trade-off as close as it feels or is there a clear edge to one?