Would love to see samples of low light pix from Olympus Om-D.

Hi, I can tell you a couple of things about it:

• low light is circa on par with the D300. The Oly is really quite nice when bumping up the iso, up to iso 1600. Over that, it's already too much.
• Autofocus is excellent, provided there's enough light: if you have it, it moves quickly and precisely. Otherwise, it hunts... and makes wrong decisions...
• the body is a huge step backwards compared to the D300: much slower and clunky in use. But much lighter, and very nice to carry around.

 much better by looking for a used D700 (or new D600) and some glass. A used D700 plus even an old push-pull 80-200 2.8 would cost you 1500/1700$, and grant you exceptional performance in low light. With the D600 you'd fare even better.veryBeing a Nikon shooter, and for the kind of pictures you want to take, you'd be  good, but at F1.8, it still won't cut it in the dark.incrediblyThe only way you can get something similar (much better lens, much worse noise) is with an OM-D with the 75 1.8. The lens is just
My 2c tips, of course, which may or may not apply to you. But they come from experience, as I own the OM-D with the 14 2.5 and 45 1.8, owned D700 with 2.8 zooms, and now own D3s and D4 with 1.4G lenses.
Good luck!Lory

--
'The human race is a race of cowards. And I'm not only marching in that procession, but carrying a banner.'
Mark Twain