Ok, I know there have been multiple threads comparing these two cameras, and I've read lots of reviews, but I was hoping for some real world input on this specific topic from the folks on here. I already have an OM-D on pre-order, but I'm second guessing the decision a bit now and debating going with a G3 for considerably less outlay. Here's where I'm at: the GF2 has been serving me well, but I feel it lacking in low light situations. I find myself doing a fair bit of indoor or fireside (camping) shots so low light performance is a key consideration for me. I have some fast prime lenses and they help a lot, but I find with the GF2 I can't go over about ISO 800 before I get really noisy images. From everything I've read, I should be able to improve on that with either the OM-D or the G3. What I can't get a feel for is how much of an improvement to expect for either camera over my current setup. Am I going to be able to get a reasonably clean image at say, ISO 1600 or 3200 on both cameras? Higher on the OM-D? Any real-world comparison or feedback would be great. If it helps with advice, these are my main reasons for considering the OM-D in the first place: 1. Improved high ISO performance 2. IBIS for when I'm using my non OIS lenses 3. Image quality improvement overall 4. Viewfinder - "like to have" coming from the LCD-only GF2 5. Weather sealing - camping hiking peace of mind Any advice/feedback appreciated.