Hi people, I've been pondering the 'ethos' of Micro Four Thirds recently and thought I'd chuck it up there for debate. After 6 months of temptation, last night I finally ordered the Nokton 17.5/f0.95 to basically complete my general-use lens kit. This was after a great deal of umming and ahhing between the Nokton and the upcoming m.ZD 17/f1.8. It occured to me that as of now, the lenses that I actually use (and plan to use) are the Lumix 7-14mm, Nokton 17.5mm, Nokton 25mm and m.ZD 75mm. All lenses that are, well, big. Not as big as comparable APS or full-frame lenses mind you, but definitely a far, far call from 'pocketable'. The interesting thing is that I've also owned/own the very good Lumix 14mm, Lumix 20mm and m.ZD 45mm - all fairly tiny lenses firmly jammed down the 'compact' end of 'compact camera system', and all excellent representations of what MFT is (apparently) suppose to be about. However, over the last year I've sold both of the Lumix's and I'm planning to sell the 45mm in the near future. I find it a bit odd then, when I read endless comments on forums and so on about how such and such a release is 'too big', and thus defeats the purpose of Micro Four Thirds (think GH3, Nokton 17.5mm, Lumix 35-100mm, m.ZD 75mm etc...). You know the type - "If I wanted a dSLR size body/lens, I'd buy a dSLR; whats the point of Micro Four Thirds if it's not compact?" The thing is, this is a perfectly reasonable comment - I don't really know why I use Micro Four Thirds, when I have basically the largest kit possible within the system. But then, I've never had as much fun with photography as I'm having now... So what is it? What's the ethos? What's Micro Four Thirds about?