I have thinking about this for a while and haven't really known the best way to express it but here goes... I have been using digital cameras for probably 10 years. I have owned a selection of point and shoots, DSLRs and now m43 cameras. For the most part I have been pleased with the results and as I look back I realize I have images (printed) that came form an ancient Nikon point and shoot hanging near those form my latest camera (G2). What I notice is that while there are subtle differences between the images from all of the cameras I have owned with the exception of a few Fujis I had early on I can't really say that IQ has ever been the problem for me. The things that I have appreciated as the cameras progressed have been speed, the ability to use old legacy lenses easily and more and more manual controls. The other day I was reading a review of the Panasonic G3 and the reviewer was going on about how great the new sensor was and while it did seem to producer cleaner more detailed images it really didn't seem to be THAT big a difference. In fact at some level I find the differences so small as to not really be relevant. It reminded me of my days selling hi-fi. We would have weighty discussions about the merit of a certain tweeter or cross over. We could go on for hours about why tube gear sounded better than stuff with ICs or how moving coil sounded better than moving magnet. I was in that world long enough that I became a very discriminating lister I actually could tell an amp by how it colored the sound,pick out the soundstage and was just as much a tweak as my co-workers. Then one day it struck me...audio was VERY dependent on the environment it was set up in. The size of the room, the materials on the floor and wall, how many windows all contributed to the sound in the room. In fact, it became very clear that for all practical purposes you could often not tell the difference between different high end gear because so many factors went into the sound. I realized at some point you came to a threshold where the differences in equipment was so small that unless you were really listening and knew what to listen for you wouldn't hear any difference. It became the $3000 rule. That was the amount of money you needed to spend to get a great sounding audio where it was significantly better than gear that cost less (say $2000). After that the difference were smaller and smaller until it just became a wate of money for the average person. I strikes me that digital cameras are a bit like that. There are so many choices out there and all of them are quite good (Pentax, Sony NEX, Canon, Nikon, Olympus, Panasonic, Leica, etc.). They all have things to recommend them and their devoted fans. In looking at the new m43 cameras such as the new Olympus PENs and the recently introduced Panasonics I find myself reminded of the $3000 rule. There has been a lot of discussion about the new Olympus sensors and I am sure they will be terrific but I lok at the samples and to me the differences do not strike me as HUGE. I look at my prints and to me they look like photographs and I wonder if I could tell the difference between them and stuff made form newer cameras. I am always reading about how the G2 sensor is not as good and the OOC JPEGs are inferior yet when I look at the images I think they look great. They look like a nice print. I have film enlargements that don't look anywhere as nice as what I can print on my Canon Pro 9000 from the G2 or my aging E-P1. Mind you I have seen images from the M9 and yes they look great but for me at least it's not $5,000 greater (and I'm not picking on the M9 it just was the firs thing I thought of). There are many reasons to need the best possible IQ but not being a professional those reasons do not apply to me. I giess what I am trying to say is that I think these cameras (all of them) are capable of terrific images and so far I haben't seen something that is so AMAZINGLY great that I want to run out and upgrade.