As some may remember I bought an OM-D EM-5 shortly after it came out. I had terrible luck with it which in retrospect was most likely a defective 12-50. Only about 20-30% of my shots were in focus. I only had 7 days to return it and the store was so much less than helpful I got it back to them on the 7th day. I bought a Fuji X Pro 1 and I love it. However, it has two drawbacks - too slow AF for action and no native long lenses. I would like to shoot wildlife (birds and some larger beasties when I get to go back to Yellowstone). I also will probably need to shoot sports as my boys get older. I liked the feel of the OM-D for the short time I had it. I also like the 'specs' I see on the new GH3 (and it does video exceptionally well which is another place the Fuji falls short). I'm leaning towards the GH3 but the OM-D's IBIS is amazing. So at long last the question: Will the OM-D or GH3 serve my needs in those two areas or would I be better served to return to a DSLR for the sports and wildlife missions? TIA, Tony PS - I know many of you get great results in these two areas but how much easier would it be with a DSLR?