05-05-2010, 03:31 PM
My totally unscientific opinion:
Pluses:
image quality much better than P&S (sensor size is closer to that of DSLRs than to P&S cameras)
image quality approaches that of DSLR
Camera and lenses are much more compact (easier to take with you all the time)
interchangeable lenses for DSLR-like creative control
much less obtrusive (better for candid street photography)
Negatives:
image quality is inferior to best DSLRs with good/great quality lenses
Less depth-of-field control (but much better than P&S cameras)
limited lens choices (should improve)
Systems are not as fast as DSLR (sub-optimal for sports and bird-in-flight photography)
focus accuracy?
Some of these disadvantages will fade or even disappear with improving technology.
I suspect, that for the majority of people who want high quality photographs but are turned off by the size and bulk of DSLRs, the micro-4/3 option will increasingly become the camera of choice.
Pluses:
image quality much better than P&S (sensor size is closer to that of DSLRs than to P&S cameras)
image quality approaches that of DSLR
Camera and lenses are much more compact (easier to take with you all the time)
interchangeable lenses for DSLR-like creative control
much less obtrusive (better for candid street photography)
Negatives:
image quality is inferior to best DSLRs with good/great quality lenses
Less depth-of-field control (but much better than P&S cameras)
limited lens choices (should improve)
Systems are not as fast as DSLR (sub-optimal for sports and bird-in-flight photography)
focus accuracy?
Some of these disadvantages will fade or even disappear with improving technology.
I suspect, that for the majority of people who want high quality photographs but are turned off by the size and bulk of DSLRs, the micro-4/3 option will increasingly become the camera of choice.