DSLR to Micro Four Thirds - why did you change?

I think you'll find this a pretty common theme in Micro 4/3rds world. When I started getting into photography seriously and wanted to upgrade from my bridge-style Sony 707 I bought a Canon 30D and some pretty seriously nice lenses to go with it. I was traveling a lot with my now-wife and I wanted to have a "serious camera" for some of those trips. At the time it was reasonable to carry around all that gear along with my laptop because it was just the two of us.

When we had our first kid I started to realize that any amount of luggage space that could be taken up by kids' stuff would be. Carrying around a 40# backpack almost exclusively filled with camera gear started making less sense given how much other stuff we needed to bring along for the kid.

When I bought the GH1, I was comparing it to my 30D. The GH1 was superior to the 30D in many ways, which is to be expected since it's so much newer. The GH1, however, paled in comparison to the 50D, which was the current Canon model at the time.

For people who mainly take family photos and also mix in some landscape and detail photography, Micro 4/3 is a really good compromise between IQ and weight. If I made my living, or even a serious hobby, of something like sports photography I wouldn't be in the Micro 4/3rds ecosystem.

So it really depends on what you plan to do with your camera. There are strengths and weaknesses to the system. I started out with the GH1, so I was into M43 when the lens selection was pretty sparse. Now that I can have a fast-wide prime and with the addition of a good flash to go with the admittedly-slow zooms I'm in a good spot.