This is a very interesting discussion. The number of different responses shows clearly that there is a market for a range of different cameras at different price points and different features.
From my personal perspective, I bought an E-P3 last year because I like the old-fashioned non-SLR styling (some might call it "rangefinder", but that might be somewhat inaccurate), the larger body size compared to the E-PL3 and E-PM1 (I have large hands, and find the others uncomfortable - I have bought the larger grip for the E-P3, which makes holding it much more comfortable for me than the default grip) and the touchscreen. I don't tend to be a big user of an EVF. When I first had the camera, I didn't use an EVF at all: I find it more pleasant using the rear screen, and using a viewfinder (either optical or electronic - I previously used a film SLR) I find a strain on my eyes.
I subsequently bought a VF2 for use either in bright sunlight or when using my manual focus adapted 135mm lens (I found that I couldn't get critical focus with just using the rear screen, and didn't like having to zoom in to focus, where I could no longer see the whole image), but only use it when necessary, keeping it in the bag the rest of the time.
As to weather sealing, lovely as photographs in the pouring rain can be, taking photographs in the pouring rain is less than fun for me: I am what one might fairly call a fair weather photographer. I went on holiday to Wales earlier this year, and expected rain, so bought a special plastic bag designed to go over a camera: poor man's weather-sealing, if you will. I ended up being very lucky with the weather, and the bag has remained unused. I do wonder how much use that it is to have a weather sealed camera in all but rather unusual conditions (extreme humidity, perhaps?), as an unsheltered camera used in heavy rain, even if capable of remaining in perfect mechanical and electrical order, will still end up having image distorting drops of rain on the front element of the lens: is one not better off taking a photograph from a sheltered place even if one's camera is weather sealed? Perhaps more intrepid photographers than I have a cunning solution to all of this that has yet to dawn on me.
I tend to be of the view that there is much to be said for skipping a generation when upgrading things: there will always be something better just around the corner, and always buying the latest and greatest camera bodies can get very expensive very quickly. I imagine that there may well be an E-P6 one day in a year or two that will be a very satisfactory thing indeed (global shutter, perhaps?). Until then, the E-P3 is capable of producing very lovely images, and although not quite as lovely as the OM-D (or E-PL5 or E-PM1), lovely all the same.
I notice that a surprising number of users are keen on the idea of a second or backup body. Perhaps I'm missing something, but I wonder what the use of that is with digital cameras, at least for non-professional purposes. With film cameras, one would often carry two bodies so that one could have one type of film in one and another in the other (I would often have a Canon T-70 with Kodak E100-G and an ancient Canon FX with Fuji Velvia, for instance - but that was a seriously heavy load with a goodly number of lenses!), but that consideration no longer applies with digital. Is a second body carried in case of failure? I've never had a digital camera fail (before the E-P3, I had a Canon G10 and before that a Can on A630) aside from running out of batteries, and that's best dealt with by carrying spare batteries. Some professionals carry two bodies so that they don't have to change lenses as often, which makes sense if one is taking photographs at a wedding (and being paid to do so), but not so much sense if one is ambling about the countryside on a relaxing holiday taking photographs of whatever takes one's fancy. One of the advantages, I thought, of Micro Four Thirds is the splendid compactness of the system compared with the image quality that one can get. I carry all of my equipment around in a tiny Lowepro ILC 100 bag, into which everything fits nicely (in the strictest sense of "nicely", as it happens; I shall have to carry my 135mm lens in its separate carry case when I get the 60mm macro for which I have been waiting for some time, and if I ever get the Samyang 7.5mm, I shall have to leave the 14-42mm at home; I might if I am lucky be able to squeeze in the 17mm f/1.8 when it arrives next year).
I know that it's better to have to bodies for video so that one can take a scene from multiple angles at once and then cut the footage together later, but I don't do a great deal of video, largely because of the time consuming editing process.
But perhaps I'm missing something. I'd be very interested to know why people do carry two digital bodies around with them for stills. (Or perhaps people don't always carry two bodies? Perhaps people take different bodies for different occaions? I've never been very good at editing my collection of equipment and taking only a limited number of items for particular trips; maybe this is where I am going wrong). Perhaps there will be reason to get an E-P5 when it comes out (I vaguely suspect at around the same time as the announced 17mm f/1.8, perhaps early next summer) and use the E-P3 as a backup. I should be very interested in what people think about second bodies, compactness and carrying a subset of one's equipment at any one time.
