Okay, I've never ever owned a DSLR camera. The Nikons have been on blowout lately, so I figured what the hell -- I'll grab one. SLRs are supposed to be the end-all of stills photography after all, right? Now I realize that the D3100 is a bargain basement entry level model, but I really thought it'd be more fun to use. First the good: AF-C/tracking is boss. The GH2 can only dream of keeping up. Fingers crossed for Nikon 1 style AF becoming the standard soon. And, uh...sensor is fine? By the DXO numbers, it's not a huge step from the GH2 but it is better. The bad: Everything else. * The viewfinder. Holy tiny window, this thing is awkward. My glasses -- and my nose -- get in the way. Unpleasant compared to GH2 or SLT. * AF-S on this body with the kit zoom is like using the Panasonic 20. Not awful, but distinctly lazy. IIRC, the Rebels are better, but not :43: level? * Auto ISO takes way too much effort to toggle. * Kit lens is kinda shoddy. I didn't expect miracles, but both current Panny and Oly 14-42 lenses are nicer. * Changing settings is not as smooth as Q-menu or SCP. The trick is with mirrorless, setting changes are integrated into shooting. On a DSLR, they are a distraction from it. * Camera is blowing highlights on non-challenging exposures. This might be JPEG processing, as I haven't tried RAW yet. Most of the pictures look like the default contrast level is two ticks too high. This isn't adjustable with Active D. Lighting on, which I thought is supposed to *prevent* this problem. Honestly this caught me a little off guard. I'm not sure if I've just picked the wrong camera, but I'd much rather have my GH2 or even my PM1 than this creature. Can someone please explain what I'm missing here?