First I'd like to say that I am not, or don't believe to be, any sort of authority on camera equipment or on photography. It is actually quite the opposite, I'm still learning and humbled by those who do great photography. I'd also like to mention why I purchased the EP1. I purchased the EP1 because my old faithful Panasonic FZ3 was starting to fail. For those that are not familiar with this camera, it is their second or third generation superzoom point and shoot camera. What I was looking for, even before mFT existed, was a camera that was portable, flexible, produced quality images, and most important, would inspire me to take more pictures and eventually lead me to taking better pictures. Now, with that out of the way, to the thoughts rattleing around in my head. I was over on the "other forum"(starts with d, ends in w) and I was reading some various posts in regards to the mFT system. There is still a good bit of discussion about various things that mFT does not "compete" with when it comes to larger sensored cameras. Noise, Shadow noise, dynamic range, depth of field....and on and on and on. In the astronomy community, the saying goes, that the best telescope is the one that you will use, and use often. Is this not the case in photography also? Isn't the best camera the one that we are willing to take with us and take pictures with? Isn't photography about capturing the best image we can with the equipment we have? Isn't good photography about understanding the limitations of the equipment we have to produce the best quality image we can? I've gone around to some of the local art galleries and I always find myself in the section of the gallery that has photographs from local artists. Everything from architecture, landscape, street photography, and documentery are presented. When I see a photo I like, I like it for whatever vision the photographer has that presented to me this image. Some photographers have the equipment mentioned under the picture that they used, others do not. The equipment does not change whether I like the picture or not. I don't look for blown highlights. I don't look for shadow noise. I look at the photograph. So I'm left rather perplexed. Does noise, blown highlights, or depth of field matter? Or isn't it the end result, the photograph as a whole what really matters? Some of my best photographs have blown highlights. Some have shadow noise. And these are all from my old dated P&S. I've also seen photographs, while having less noise and higher dynamic range, that aren't very good either.