I don't really understand why there are so many topics on this subject (Especially on other forums) where people need to compare sensor sizes and photographic systems as if their livelihood, honor and pride depended on it. I switched over to m43 "officially" (for myself) when I bought my OMD to replace my D200 (Which I still own as well as a GX1 that was a gift) as it suffers from the autofocus drive screw spring weakening and no longer positively engaging with lenses (I must be one of those weird people who keeps photography equipment around forever until the resale value plummets into oblivion I guess). I plan on speedboosting my lenses anyways so I don't see the FOV/"DOF isolation" problem. Otherwise I don't see anything about the supposed noise disadvantages or other things associated with the small sensor size. If anything, I know that if I post this on a less welcoming forum I would probably have my arms ripped off, BBQed then used to club me like a baby seal if I were to bring this up on other forums. From my own research I still don't see the supposed magical noise that is supposed to eat my images alive then part of my soul because the sensor is smaller (I sure see that kind of soul consuming, detail annihilating noise when the D200 is set at ISO 3200 or pushed beyond that). I also don't see the problem with the dynamic range either. To me, "full frame" is my FM2n and I didn't see any magicialness from it besides the viewfinder view being amazingly stunning. That and it is my other fun camera. The OMD being my primary fun camera and the D200 being the thing that tortures me when the lighting isn't anything but immolatingly bright. Now I find I can bring the OMD along with me all the time; what used to be "keep the DSLR in a secure location" becomes "people don't even know what it is, except it possibly is an old film SLR." Oddly I see no weird medium format vs "full frame" debates on the internet. I was able to handle a Contax 645 and the viewfinder blew me away. Nor do I see anything about how large format "mirrorless" cameras with their massive pieces of ground glass will utterly obsolete DSLRs from the very existence of the face of this planet with extreme prejudice. Kind of strange that I keep seeing this weird trend of "FF will destroy mirrorless" followed by "NEX-FF mirrorless will destroy everything left after that and FF DSLRs." Still nothing on the large format mirrorless cameras annihilating all photographic systems still. It is kind of weird how that works. Maybe I read too many forum posts when I was research m43s as a system for my OMD purchase. They left me an impression that photographers were too busy shooting pictures of test charts under weird lighting conditions and then measuring differences that were in statistical margins of error then debating about those numbers and DXO's number then bashing m43s for having postage stamp sized sensors instead of stepping away from the computer to take photos. (That or they're too busy taking poorly composed lousy shots, somehow mismetered shots with matrix metering while citing a notoious, pagebombing, Nikon D40 zealot-cultist inspiring person (which I shall not mention as he earns revenue when people open his site up without blocking the ads on his pages) to justify themselves) Not that any of what I said keeps me from aspiring to buy a used D3s for myself in the future (Maybe I am one of those crazy people who use multiple systems for their purposes... Or something like that. That or I am apparently very out of touch with the trends in online photography discussions). Curious on everyone's thoughts on this subject matter.