Equipment Micro 4/3 kits - alternatives to a DSLR?

gf3 can be had for £250 in the uk?

what are peoples thoughts on this

 

The nex system lenses aren't particularly small, but that's the problem with the sensor size which is not generally smaller. That said, Nex lenses ARE smaller than equivalent lenses for SLRs.

m4/3 lenses ARE smaller than equivalent 4/3 lenses, yet the sensor is the same size.

Seriously, I will NEVER look back.

For those questioning the sensor quality in the m4/3 cameras, panasonic holds back it's best sensor tech for use in it's premium products eg GH2 (this is what I have and I get much more out of it than I did my Oly E500). But Oly have now moved to Sony sensors for the EM5 and the improvement in picture quality is astounding.

I rarely use the EVF on my GH2, but it is adequate (note that I accept it is not on a par with a true optical system). The live view option has won me over.

Then there is the option to adapt and mount near as damn it any interchangeable lens due to the short registration distance. Great for video.

I won't go on much more, suffice it to say that the compact system cameras are relatively new, and so do carry a small price premium, but if you carry your camera around with you as I do in my EDC pack, then that weight saving and in my case considerable size saving is worth while.


EDIT, should point out that I bought the GH2 largely for its video capabilities. If it were solely for photo, I would go with the EM5 (OM-D). Quotes from the conclusion of the DPR review

***********************

Image Quality

The E-M5 sets a new benchmark for Micro Four Thirds images, thanks to a modern sensor and Olympus' excellent JPEG engine. It continues to produce good results in lower light than was previously practical and produces attractive output in all but the most challenging of situations. The combination of its small body and the small lenses available for it (specifically the Panasonic 20mm F1.7 and Olympus 45mm F1.8) mean it's a camera we found ourselves taking everywhere, without any concerns that we were having to make undue compromises on image quality.

The E-M5 can't completely overcome the light capture disadvantage brought by its smaller sensor, compared to APS-C, but it reduces it to the point that it's irrelevant for almost all practical purposes. At which point we think its size advantage, in terms of both body and lenses, will outweigh that difference for most uses. If you're absolutely unwilling to compromise on image quality then spending twice the money and moving up to the bulk of full-frame is the only way of gaining a significant step up from the E-M5.

This capability, combined with an increasingly useful range of comparatively affordable fast lenses (the largest of any mirrorless system), makes it easy to get good results from a variety of shooting situations, even when the light gets challenging. The camera's default noise reduction and sharpening settings aren't entirely to our taste but they're not overly destructive and are easily changed for the better. That minor gripe aside, we've been impressed with the E-M5's output, whether in Raw or JPEG.

 

More compact than system camera. It is the smallest of the lumix G range and sacrifices manual controls as a result. Personally I prefer the ergonomics of a traditional design. Certainly try it out though. As with any other camera system, bodies are easy to change so if you get a bank of lenses together, then upgrade the boy at a later date.