Isn't that exactly the same thing he said?
I even said the same thing TWICE in different words and he misread it TWICE: once in my original post, then again after he attacked me the first time. I wish people actually, you know, READ others' posts before acting like jerks towards them.
Thanks for the opinions thus far. Also - no need to debate DSLR vs Mirrorless, i've made up my mind about this one for reasons i don't need to get into here. I went to go try out the NEX-6 and 3R last night at the Sony Store here in Tampa but alas, they closed it a week ago. Ill try out BB later today but the Olympus may be impossible to try locally.
Your situation and priorities may be different. I'm just telling you my own experiences and potentially saving you money if you go through a similar pattern (I wasted tons of money doing what I did). I went from a D90 to a whole slew of MFT cameras and lenses, only to grudgingly admit that MFT is still not jeans-pocketable. I downsized further to an RX100, which is a little bigger than the Canon S95/100. MFT/NEX/DSLRs offer little advantage over a RX100 if you shoot in good light and don't need anything outside of the RX100's 28-100mm range (or the LX7's 24-90mm range if you're willing to go up to that size level... I'd love that extra width but the Sweep Panorama mode on the RX100 helps soften the blow of not being able to go to 24mm, for me).
Here's the kicker: the RX100 is good even in low light, the traditional bane of compact cameras. My very first test of the RX100 was absolutely BRUTAL--ranging from near-pitch black outdoors to dimly lit indoor restaurant conditions, and the RX100 completely outperformed my expectations. A RX100 at its wideangle end (equivalent to 28mm on FX, at f/1.8) on par with a APS-C/DX DSLR + kit lens (which starts at 28mm FX-equivalent at f/3.5). Crunch the numbers and you will find that the sensor size disparity is canceled out by the lens speed disparity. The only way you can do better with MFT or NEX or DSLRs is by buying a fast lens like a 20mm f/1.7 or 35mm f/1.8, at which point you're spending a total price of more than what you'd spend on just the RX100 which includes the fast lens for free.
The RX100 isn't a complete system, however. There is no hotshoe, for starters, though you can use an optical slave flash to complement its (bounceable) built-in flash. It doesn't have PDAF. It has no interchangeable lenses and sometimes sweep panorama isn't enough to make up for it on the wide end.
Due to these limitations, I added back a second camera (D5100) for times when size/weight aren't important, and because DSLRs can still do some things that mirrorless can't (especially the lag-free viewfinder which EVFs are not going to be able to match for some time longer, if ever... important for framing action shots).
I'm not saying your shooting style or priorities are the same, but in my experience the whole pocketable-system thing is overrated for NEX, which is why I posted that ridiculous photo of the lady with huge honking setup... by the time you add a telephoto lens to a NEX, the size advantage vs DSLR isn't that much. Adding anything else like strobes just hammers home the point some more. MFT is smaller, but if you want pocketable like I did, I believe an RX100 is the best available compromise today.
If you are dead set on NEX vs MFT then I'd suggest thinking about lens sizes and selection, and how much you want/need an EVF. Don't let hybrid AF sway you much unless you take action photos a lot because no mirrorless camera has DSLR-like AF except the Nikon 1. And an EVF will always be useful due to sunglare and framing and allowing you a third point of contact with the camera to steady it. Definitely hold both in your hands to test them out first, particularly the NEX which some people feel is unbalanced, but others are okay with holding it basically by the lens.
Facebook
Twitter