I saw the E1 and loved it.
It was easily the best dig slr at the time.
I used it for a couple of years but it was showing its limitations.
When the E3 was released, I was not impressed by its spec, but the olympus die hards on the 4/3rds forum convinced me that it was a lot better than it actually was.
I shot 3 airshows and out of over 8000 shots ,I had to reject over 6000 due to poor autofocus and appalling noise - even at ISO200.
Even the static shots were bad!.
I decided to go to london last October , when the E3 was still hot property , and traded 3 bodies , a 50-200 F2.8, 11-22 2.8, 14-54 2.8 as well as 2 converters, 2 power grips and a flash gun for a Nikon D700 and a Sigma 120-400 f4-5.6 +£300 and am glad that I did.
Just like you , the E3 killed it for me,but the D700 got it back.
The D700 is £600 more expensive than the 300 but in the kind of light that we get in Ireland , I can shoot all day at ISO 800 with no almost noise and the loss of crop factor is not a problem as the full frame sensor allows greater scope for selective enlargements with none of the penalties of the smaller sensors.
I can understand the arguement for going for the most affordable body with the best lens you can afford, but that was for FILM cameras.
The sensor is now usually the weakest link, where as before, a cheap PK mount body with a good pentax lens and Kodak of Fuji film could get you some excellent shots, not any more.
Tom, the best bet is to shoot in RAW mode.
You can change the white balance and a host of other settings at your leisure.
It can litteraly mean the difference between a wasted days shooting and a learning experience with good shots to show as well.