When I read the reviews of the GH1, it seems this is a pretty sweet video camera for the price (except with for light). But for stills, it is inferior to Nikon and Canon DSLR's costing $600 less. I'm wondering what's going on with the marketing here. It's looking like this camera is really for video -- for stills, the consumer would do better for much less money. And it seems like this camera would be much easier to operate as a video camera if it had a video camera body. So why is it packaged as a stills camera? Is this is a step to later introducing a video camera body that uses interchangeable micro four thirds lenses? I'm not whining, just wondering what the people here think is going on with the current marketing.