Michael B. Moore , Nov 20, 2009; 07:43 p.m.
I'm a serious amateur photographer. I shoot with a D300 and tote a P5100 around for times that require it. Actually, because I don't have as much time to devote to more serious photography as I'd like, I find myself more and more with the P5100.
I could really love a great point & shoot that overcomes some of the traditional shortcomings of the genre. I love street/people shots. As well, I have 4 young sons always running around that are frequently the subject of my P5100's attention.
With regard to upgrading, of course Leica is awesome - although perhaps the D-Lux 4 seems a "poor man's version" of the brand. As well, the larger sensor size of the GF-1 seems great - but the DP2's is even larger. A few questions:
1) are there any other cameras that I should be considering?
2) any thoughts/advice/counsel about the GF-1 v. the D-Lux 4 v. DP2?
3) should I just suck it up vis-a-vis size and buy a D40 to get the best combination of compactness and image quality?
Any thoughts are most appreciated!
Starvy Goodfellows 
, Nov 20, 2009; 08:25 p.m.
the olympus pen micro fourthird cameras are certainly worth considering as well.
Jeff Bubis , Nov 20, 2009; 10:23 p.m.
If you're looking at the D-Lux 4, look at the Panasonic LX-3. You'll save some cash. I love mine. If you're looking for something smaller, I'm not sure how the GF-1 fits the bill. It is technically smaller, but you have the same lens situation. I've tossed it around in my head and decided to stick with my LX-3 for now.
Tommy Lee 
, Nov 21, 2009; 10:52 a.m.
There is also a Leica X1 (APS). Ricoh also has one coming up which take in lens module with APS sensor built-in (kinda odd like Ricoh always has been).
LX3/D-Lux 4, Sometime one wishes for longer then 60mm. ISO 800 is so so. Bad 1600.
GF-1, Kind of odd when you take off that superb 20/1.7. With a kit zoom , it is an overweighted LX3 (OK, the pixels are better). With a longer and heavier zoom, it is an off balance slow D5000. This body calls for small primes (and nothing else IMHO).
Monte Johnson , Nov 22, 2009; 02:29 p.m.
Michael I just got the LX3 so I do not have a lot of time with it. I am testing 11x14 prints shot at ISo 80 and 400. What I can see just on the computer is not as much detail in leaves and trees but the lens is great. I do not care much for the raw processing software but it works. I have taken about 80 images so far and I believe for the money it is a great camera. Very intuitive and easy to use. So far I love it. B&H was sold out but Adorama has the silver.
Not Real
Monte Johnson , Nov 22, 2009; 02:32 p.m.
LX3 ISO 400. F 2.5 No Flash 1/40 Sec.
Kendall Gelner , Dec 05, 2009; 05:12 p.m.
The DP-2 makes a great companion camera for a DSLR, that you can carry with you when you can't carry a DSLR but want the same level of image quality - or as a really nice second body for when you are traveling with a DSLR, you can think of it really as another lens.
For one point of consideration, dynamic range I think is a really important factor not often considered - take a look at this comparison, not quite with the cameras you mentioned but the results would be similar:
http://www.seriouscompacts.com/2009/09/sigma-dp2-shootout-pt-3-dynamic-range.html
