I am an owner of Canon DSLR and a G3 m43 camera. The best thing about the G3 is its size and weight and also has some nice features such as crop sensor for extra reach.
However when it comes to lenses theer really isn't much great lenses, and the few that are coming out like the Leica 25mm f/1.4 and the Olympus 12mm f/2 are really expensive lenses for their sizes.
The Leica 25mm is more expensive then all of Canon and third party 50 1.4 but yet it is far smaller. Also the 12mm Olympus again is expensive. I was always under the impression that the most expensive component of the lens is the glass, so find it hard how lenses these small cost so much!
It's not just the amount of glass. For example, cheap wide angle lenses are fairly pricy. To put it another way, if you had to make a lens with the same performance and make it smaller, would it cost more or less to manufacture ? Some of the lenses are small but still optically quite complex -- small size is a design constraint.
The Canon 50mm f/1.4 is cheap partly because it's an old lens (almost 20 years old) and partly because of the economy of scale (they sell a lot of them).
The olympus 12mm isn't cheap but neither are Canon's higher quality wide angle primes.
It looks like the m43 lenses have been slowly dropping in price. For example, the 20mm f/1.7 sells for low 300s now (400 when it was released)
So the summary is that you pay a premium for good performance in a small package, and also for being an early adopter of the technology.
