Only Nikon has managed to get PDAF-on-sensor working well. Everyone else's hybrid AF hasn't been that great and without it you will have a hard time tracking small, fast-moving objects via AF alone. MFT doesn't even have PDAF at all though their CDAF is faster than everyone else's CDAF.
Further, and this is a key one for me, even if you have DSLR-speed PDAF, if the EVF lags, then you will have a hard time with composition. Optical viewfinders do not lag like EVFs do. See, e.g., the bird half out of the frame in this:
http://www.naturalexposures.com/cor...nics-newest-micro-four-thirds-camera-the-gh3/
DSLRs also give you the highest bang for the buck if you value viewfinders, which often don't come with mirrorless cams or if they do, only on much more expensive cameras that can be higher priced than comparable DSLRs.
I've owned compacts, premium compacts, MFT, and DSLRs, and there is a reason why I went back to compact + DSLR. A MFT is a "tweener" that fits neither here nor there and doesn't give you the DOF ability that DSLRs have *and* have the problems above. NEX has the DOF ability but lenses are almost as big as DSLR lenses past wideangles, and they also have the problems above. That said, if you could afford only ONE camera system beyond your phone, Nikon 1 is a good compromise. MFT too, if you don't take many action shots. But if you have the money, imho, a RX100 or LX7 (no matter how small, mirrorless system cameras will never be as small as the smaller compact premium cameras like the RX100, which is truly pocketable even in tight jeans) paired with a DSLR (for action shots and bokeh) is the way to go if you shoot action sometimes. Try doing that on a mirrorless other than the Nikon V-series, and you will pay through the nose for the privilege of having the newer, less laggy viewfinders.
P.S. Stop trolling and implying others are troglodytes. No need to insult others who disagree with you.
I bought into MFT very heavily, getting a lot of lenses including the highest-end ones available for their focal lengths, and at the end of the day it still wasn't pocketable, so I still had to use a camera bag. Coat pockets don't count, because it gets hot in the summertime where I live. So I thought... what the hell is the point of "miniaturizing" if I still have to use a bag?
So I sold all my MFT gear for a RX100 and am happy with that decision. The RX100 looks like a compact and doesn't attract the attention... mirrorless system cameras can't say the same unless you stick to their smallest camera/lens combos.
The DSLR is for situations where I won't be hoofing it up a mountainside, in which case I would be ok with DSLR weight. DSLR lenses tend to be more reasonably priced too, like the cheap 50/1.8's compared to Sony's 50/1.8. Sure you get OSS with Sony's 50 but it costs like three times Canon's and about twice Nikon's (especially if you get the Nikon on sale or used). And OSS isn't even that important if you plan to use it as a portrait lens or other situations where things are moving, as you need to jack up the shutter speed ANYWAY to freeze motion. And for MFT sure you can get the 20/1.7 but it's slower focusing and due to sensor size difference it isn't as fast for bokeh reasons and ISO... and it also costs like $300. The 25/1.4 is better and a fairer comparison... but it's $500. All up and down the line you see this repeat. The Oly 9-18 is ridiculously small and light... a real boon over DSLR wideangle zooms. But it also costs almost $700 and gives you basically the same performance as a Sigma 10-20mm f/4-5.6 lens which can be found new for under $400. Etc. etc. etc. all up and down the line, you see what happens when you don't have Sigma/Tamron giving price pressure.
Truth be told, MFT lenses are way overpriced. Sigma was able to make lenses for NEX/MFT for a lot cheaper. But Pany/Oly are losing tons of money and have insufficient scale to really bring down prices for their lenses. Oly in particular is looking unhealthy and if I went MFT again I wouldn't want to go Pany due to their lack of IBIS... so Oly's health is a concern. CaNikony aren't going anywhere, though, so I'd feel safer investing $$$$ into their lens mounts. CaNikon in particular have a lot of third-party options that are cheap and good... that's not nearly as true for the mirrorless mounts (without adapter). I also don't feel like buying into any MFT lens is that safe because they might jump on the hybrid AF bandwagon and their existing lenses might not have been built with PDAF in mind, so the AF could wind up being slower and thus needing updates... I've been through that drill before with Nikon's lens updates that barely changed anything but nevertheless severely devalued my existing lenses (18-200). Plus with MFT lenses so overpriced, there is a risk that they do eventually drop prices a lot, so whatever you bought now will be devalued as well. It's the price of being an early adopter, I guess. As for me, I am fine with being an early adopter of RX100 but will take it really conservative and use my DSLR until mirrorless is viable for action shots and have cheaper native-mount lenses, which probably won't happen until Tamron/Sigma have more and better lenses available to put price pressure on the camera companies.
Facebook
Twitter