DSLR or Micro four thirds?

Ok, so I want to get a camera for when I go travelling. I will be travelling around different countries on a motorbike, with limited luggage space. I need a good quality camera that is reasonably compact/lightweight and durable.

Requirements:

- Between £400 - £500
- Compact and lightweight
- Has to have a viewfinder
- Needs to be able to take good quality photos, mainly during the day, scenery & panoramic shots in particular.
- Needs to be reliable and durable. I'll be going through desert areas, so a dust removal system would be beneficial.

At the moment I'm considering either a more compact DSLR such as the Nikon D60 or the Olympus E620.

OR

A micro four thirds camera such as the Panasonic Lumix DMC-G2.

So is there much of a difference in the size/weight. Would there be any noticeable difference in the picture quality? Would a DSLR be more versatile?

Any help is appreciated.

The clue for me is you'll be on a motorbike--and you'll have pretty much limited space. So it will have to be the Panasonic one.

Popular Photography runs good reviews on these camera.http://www.popphoto.com while I have not used one of these models myself, they generally rated highly, and they are small in size indeed.

Micro four thirds cameras don't have viewfinders (unless you are talking about electronic viewfinders, or EVF).

I've read the EVF on the lumix G-series is not so bad, but still not as good as the optical viewfinders (OVF) on dSLRs.

So it really depends on what you want.

For their size, M4/3 cameras probably have very good pic quality. But in the end, dSLRs are more versatile.

But you can check out the reviews on dpreview.com (where they discuss things such as size)