Here are my views.
1. no vertical/batt grip (poor for portraits shots)
Why is that a problem? Even without grip the camera is useable not only in landscape orientation but also in portraits. Grip is not necessary for portraits.
2. 3 focusing points only (while others have a minimal of 5)
I only use the center point. I would never trust any camera to set the focus for me, if the focus point is selected by the camera randomly it may not give me the focus where I want it to be. But if your minimum requiremet is 5 points, you have to get another camera than Olympus. I don't know if other 4/3 cameras have more than three, if not you can close this thread and get another, non 4/3 brand.
3. top pro lens too exp, so has to go for third party lens (which often has QC problem)
Bad comparision. Top pro lenses are always expensive. Did you compare them with top pro of C & N? Bottom line of Oly lenses are very good in both optical and built quality, AFAIK, even compared to some other brands pro quality. Oly pro quality is not as expensive as the top pro line, covering everything from 7 to 200mm in zooms which is more than enogh for most people (14-400mm in film equivalent). Yes, you get what you pay for. Oly more expensive than Sigma but the quality is also better.
4. seems like there is only one dial for shutter speed/aperture (can be very annoying when changing between both, while most SLRs have 2 dials for both. (what i observe... correct me if I'm wrong)
No problem at all. Actually, if you think one dial may be a problem and two is a minimum, I have to disagree. Three is in that case the minimum. I use exposure compensation also, so that would also need a dial. I find the way it is done in the E-500 a very nice way. One dial and one button for most of my shootings. Very easy and comfortable to select speed, aperture and exposure compensation.
5. 2x crop making wide angle shots not as wide, while the 7mm-14mm is really unaffordable for most people, unless u r really earning through photography.
And...? How many could actually afford 14mm lenses in the old, film age? How many C & N users can actually afford that focal length today? How many actually need it? The 14-45mm or the 14-54mm is wide enough for most people. They may not be the very best for landscapes but come on, 28mm (equivalent) is wide enough for most of us. Superwide lenses have always been expensive, since only very few are interested in them. But if one can afford it, IMO, Olympus (actually 4/3) is the best choise for a camera regarding lenses. With only three lenses in your bag you can cover the whole range from superwide to long tele. The 7-14mm, the 14-54mm and the 50-200mm which is between 14-400mm equivalent. That is quite a coverage and at considerably less weight than other brand.
6. odd filter sizes. (while you have to pay more for odd sizes).
Odd? In what way? 58mm on the kit zooms is very very common. 52mm on the macro lenses is also very common size. 67mm for the 14-54 and the 50-200mm lenses, well, I don't know how common that is, definitely not so odd that it is difficult to find. The size increase increases the prices also, which I agree is too bad, but what can we do? If by odd size you mean large, well, the filter size and the lens diameter is proportional. Unfortunately, fast lenses with large aperture need larger glasses and filters, especially the zooms and the long tele lenses. Nothing to do about that. Anyway, I would not call those sizes odd, unless you call Nikon an odd camera brand. Nikon has all those dimensions also, and so does probably also Canon.
7. lens are still very limited, not sure how many lens are zuiko going to release in the future. (while future of other brands are secured)
Have a look at the Olympus lens roadmap.
http://www.olympus.se/consumer/images/E-System_Lens_Roadmap_March_5th_2007.pdf
IMO, most people need only one or two lenses. If you go for quality, the 14-54mm (or the coming 12-60mm) and the 50-200 in the pro range. For budget, the 14-42 and the 40-150mm is enough for most situations, the coming 70-300mm covers even more but you loose 28mm in the area which is well used. For those with need for a superwide, the 7-14mm is available, a budget wide zoom is on the way. But that is special case, just like other high quality lenses, like the extreamly nice and sharp 50mm Macro. If you want really low budget lenses, Sigma is offering almost the same coverage as Olympus, and for the long range even better, the 135-400mm is a really nice lens, unfortunately not yet a planned range for Olympus, which ends at 70-300mm. I have no idea of what Leica has to offer, but if you think the Oly 7-14mm is not affordable then you should not even look at Leica. I certainly am not looking at it.
That's for AF lenses. If you are ready to use manual lenses than there is no limit in affordable very high quality lenses. Remember, all, or almost all manual focus and aperture lenses (except Canon) made for 35mm film cameras are usable on 4/3 bodies with the help of an adapter. That opens a whole new world in photography for those who really are interested and ready to explore the possibilities.
The fact that Canon and Nikon has more lenses to offer does not mean they are better or cheaper. They just want you to spend more. Also, not all of their lenses are usable on all their bodies. In 4/3, you can use ALL lenses made for ANY 4/3 camera on ANY 4/3 camera body.
