Nope. As either a primary system or a travel system, that's a damned nice
piece of hardware. What Oly needs to introduce is a pro-quality body capable
of keeping up with what sportsshooters and journalists want. If they can
make a 10MP sports/action cam that's smaller and lighter than the
competition, they'll have something.

I had a bit of a play with one - too small for me, I can't hold the thing
properly. Yet to see the E510, but it should be identical to the E410 but in
a more traditional sized body - I think that would be better for me. But for
me the real killer on this camera is the 1-2 second shutter lag when in live
view mode. Makes live view a complete waste of time. I know someone who
traded in an E330 on an E410, and after a couple of days went back to where
he bought it, and undid the deal. He has fairly small hands and prefered the
feel of the E410, but overall he preferred the image quality and response
time of the E330. I thought the E330 did the live view fairly well (except
for the fact the viewfinder was always a bit darker than it should have
been), and was disappointed to find the 410 so bad at live view.
Interesting to note on dpreview, that although noise is comparable to
400D/D40X at low ISO it is only because of the aggressive noise filtering,
which comes at the expense of detail.
Although those new lenses are small, I don't think the full benefits of 4/3
have been achieved yet. I would expect that the lenses would be faster for
their size. Especially given the small sensor which gives increased DOF. If
the camera had a larger viewfinder image, with a 2.8 kit lens to give extra
light to fill that smaller image, and also 2.8 to allow smaller shallower
dof, I think it would be a much more flexible/usable camera. With the small
sensor, a 14-42/2.8 lens should still be fairly small and compact. Given the
negatives of 4/3 (small viewfinder, increased DOF, more noise), I think the
lenses need to be such that the full benefit of the small frame can be
achieved - ie, small fast lenses.

It's good that they've improved on noise (I'll accept the stipulation)
but as I've said in the past, as sensor pixel densities continue to
climb then they will hit the noise wall soonest.  As you say, they've
not met the compactness promise (OTOH they seem to have not compromised
at all on optical quality either).

4/3 seems to me to be a dead end technology.

BTW: "Adjustable NR levels" really means how much fidelity you're
willing to give up for the _perception_ of less noise.

Cheers,
Alan