[shuttertalk]

Since these two CSCs (Compact Camera System, woooo ) have made it to market at roughly the same time, here are some reviews:

EP3:
http://www.photographyblog.com/reviews/o...p3_review/
http://www.dpreview.com/previews/olympusep3/

GF3:
http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/panasonicdmcgf3/
http://www.photographyblog.com/reviews/p...f3_review/

It's interesting to see that Olympus have made improvements to their flagship product, with faster AF and image processing, built in flash, etc. whereas Panasonic have dumbed down their product to make it more consumer friendly, with no EVF socket and even removing the flash hotshoe -- seemingly at the expense of alienating more advanced photographers.

[Toad]

Yes - neither the GF2 or GF3 were in any way improvements on the splendid GF1. It's a weird sort of upgrade path IMO. The G3 on the other hand looks quite tasty.

[Zig]

Agreed; am almost tempted by the idea of the G3 and that 20mm.
Hey Toad: are you back with us from the land of ire and mice, or i-padding ol' buddy?

[Toad]

Not yet - back on the 25th...

Not to ruin the suspense, but it's pretty bloody amazing.

[matthew]

It's interesting to see that Olympus have made improvements to their flagship product, with faster AF and image processing, built in flash, etc. whereas Panasonic have dumbed down their product to make it more consumer friendly, with no EVF socket and even removing the flash hotshoe -- seemingly at the expense of alienating more advanced photographers.

But unlike the Olympus rangefinder-esque cameras, the GF1 was never Panasonic's flagship. That remains the GH models – the GF has always been the smaller and less complicated counterpart to the midrange G series.

I saw the GF3 today, and I have to admit that I'm smitten. It's the size of an LX5, but feels smaller and appeals to me in a way that the GF2 never did. For that matter, the GF1 never really caught my eye the way this little camera has, either. With the little 14mm lens it's quite petite, while it looks almost tough with the 20/1.7 attached. And for fun, I tried it with the new Leicasonic 25/1.4, which is also a really nice combination but the lens is much bigger than the camera. Tomorrow I'll take it for a spin with the 7-14.

[Zig]

Just had a look at the Olympus, though I seem to get a slippery memory when reading about small cameras of which the names are solely composed of a couple of capital letters, a dash and a number.
Are any of you "more tempted", say, by this Olympus over its immediate forebears? Not a leading question, just curious.

[matthew]

I can't keep the little Olympus cameras clear in my mind, and sometimes get the names wrong for the cameras that I already own. Nonsensical letters and numbers drive me up the wall. Leica, Canon, Fujifilm and Konica have all named cameras "S2". I'd like to complain that the camera companies don't use enough of the alphabet, but off the top of my head, I can think of a camera for almost any letter. But I digress.

I have only actually played with a couple of the E-PL (cheaper) Olympus line, and while they should appeal to me, somehow they don't. Perhaps that's because I know there's something better out there. (I'm eternally dissatisfied with my ultra-cheap Nikon 50mm f/1.8D, despite it being easily and irrefutably the best 50mm lens that they make for my particular needs, at any price.) Perhaps the more expensive Pen line would appeal to me more, but by the same token the cameras that I like are typically the ones that are too expensive for me to justify buying.

None of the Panasonic GF's have appealed to me so far because I've always liked the flip-out screen and eye-level viewfinder of the Olympus E-3 SLR, which is what my GH1 replaced. The GF's aren't good enough to be a "system camera" for me – and not because of the image quality, but because I wanted the flexibility of the different viewing methods, and the bigger grip that makes using different lenses so easy. Never mind that I mostly use the 20/1.7 lens on it, it's still my most flexible system and the only one that I use zoom lenses with.

But I really like having my little Panasonic TS3 P&S camera, and almost always use the lens at its widest, which is a 28mm equivalent. The GF3 is finally a camera that I can not take seriously – it's small, simple, unassuming, and doesn't need to be able to carry the same weight as the GH1. I'm not saying that I'm going to buy one, but I can feel the appeal for the point-and-shoot upgrade market.

(Since I'min a late-night off-topic ramble anyway, I'm constantly irked by by people saying that the GF1 is "more pro" than the GF2 or GF3 because the newer cameras don't have a P/S/A/M 'mode' dial. Well, I suppose that makes my Nikon D700 an amateur poseur of a camera, along with the D3x, D3s, and every other top-of-the-line machine that Nikon has built since the F4.)

[Toad]

Have to agree on the GF series. While I really liked my GF-1 when I owned it, the lack of any other method to compose other than the LCD turned out to be a deal breaker for me in the end. I will never buy a camera without a proper viewfinder again (preferably optical).

[shuttertalk]

Some reviews posted from Engadget today of the EP3 and EPL3.

http://www.engadget.com/2011/08/29/olymp...ra-review/

Positive comments on the overhauled AF system, which a marked improvement over the EP1 and EP2, but they say the price tag is hard to swallow for an upgrade.

Also, they posted an EPL3 review as well.
http://www.engadget.com/2011/08/29/olymp...ra-review/