Hello everyone! I am a long-time Nikon shooter that currently has a D90 and D80. Originally, I wanted to sell the D80 on Craigslist, and upgrade it to the D3100, which I think is Nikon's first worthy successor to their D40. My reasoning is that I really want a small camera to carry with me sometimes. I'd also like something a little more user-friendly, so that when I'm teaching my girlfriend, brother, etc. something about photography, they will be encouraged to grab this camera and enjoy using it, as opposed to being overwhelmed, like they are with my D90 or D200. However, it's hard to consider the D3100 with the current prices of the G2 and GF2, which are selling for about $300 if you look in the right places. The G2 is body-only at $300, and the GF2 is with 14-42 lens for $350, plus tax (So about $380). I can't really search the forum because, as search terms, "G2" and "GF2" are too short, so the search function just gives me an error. Looking at the cameras, it looks like the G2 came out first, and then the GF2 followed, which was a viewfinder-less, more compact version. Is that correct? I like the on-body controls and viewfinder of the G2, especially seeing as neither camera is really pocketable. But, given that this decision has a definite economics component, is the GF2 with lens a much better deal at $380 than a G2 body-only for $300? Is the 14-42 worth investing in, or should I get the G2, which already has a viewfinder, and put that $80 towards a better mid-range zoom? I already have many Nikon primes that I can use in the meanwhile, so I'll definitely be getting a Nikon-m4/3 adapter. I can't wait to see what Schneider releases; looking around, I'm really stoked that Zeiss and them have committed to the format. I'm not set on these two cameras: It's just that they're the two good deals that I've found. If any of you have any better recommendations, I'm all ears. The only worthwhile m4/3 camera on Craigslist here in Austin, TX is a G1, and the guy wants $350 for it.