This is comparing apples to peanuts - you missed the point

Don't compare a 20 year veteran photographer's needs to an average Joe Blow who is shooting as a hobby or just starting photography on a limited budget.

In my original post, the thread was ONLY to explain the difference of the two systems - not to get into any ego trip with professional photographers. As we all well know, - it is common knowledge that "whatever someone uses-- is the best you can get." Back off and rethink what I said. "If - you want a camera that will take ALMOST as good (even under a loop) as the 8000.00 Nikon (meaning the average photograoher) - not the pro who is shooting for the White House or National Geographics -- you can get just as super great shots with the Lumix FZ-50 - and spend under 500.00 - 600.000 -- AND -- you don't have to spend four to five times what you spent for your camera body -- for your lenses. Obviously, if you are financially loaded and can afford to drop 10,000.00 just to get common shots of Aunt Minnie or Uncle George, an occasional trip to the cCribbean, or Australia, and come home with great shots, Go for it. (I also mention that any member of the family can pick up the Lumix and quickly take a great shot). Try THAT with your 10,000.00 Nikon!!! But if you want those same shots that you can't tell the difference in the two side by side, why would Joe Blow - want to spend 8 to 10,000.00 for something they could get as good for under 5-600.00? I'll take a dozen shots or more of an elusive subject with my 480mm non-changable Leica lens - - while Mr. Ego is changing his lens AND - I'm no longer having to carry a camera bag that weighs 20 lbs. as I did 25 years ago. Once average Joe Blow uses a Lumix FZ-50 -- he will stick with it. At least until he or she turns Pro. Guaranteed.
Ancient-One
80 years old -
Retired Business owner -
25 years in commercial photography.
and strictly Nikon user. (35mm)