Switching from NEX to Micro Four Thirds?

[JoeV]

Another consideration might be depth of field. Or, what many people here actually mean to be shallowness of field. In much of my photography having the entire image field in adequate focus is important. This is in sharp disagreement with the recent trend for shallow DOF images. In this regard, even m43 can be too large of a format, and I've found the little Fujifilm X10 delivering consistently wider DOF images, even under dim light where apertures are more often used at wider openings.

~Joe

 

[Machspeed]

Why not have both?

I have the m4/3 camera in my car all the time. The system is really good and cannot be beaten when it comes to portability.
However, image quality is mediocre and the good lenses are neither smaller or much cheaper than APS-C/FF lenses. I'm using the 3:2 crop mode knowing well that IQ is never paramount when shooting m4/3. So losing a few pixels won't matter much. The m43 "gestalt" is not really compatible with studio or landscape photography, at least that's my feeling.

The NEX system (E-mount) is the safe bet in my opinion. You'll always get one of the best sensor/IQ in the business. You get compatibility with all the manual lenses ever created. You have a clear path towards the full-frame cameras.
However, it's true that the lenses department is lacking at the moment.

 

[peterm1]

I have both NEX and m4/3 cameras and of the two the NEX system is clearly better in terms of dynamic range and image quality. I can make shots on my NEX system that I can not contemplate in M4/3. Having said that my M4/3 cameras are slightly older than the OM-D and this will no doubt make some difference. However it is undeniably a smaller sensor with all that goes with that. On the other hand if natural light photography capability is not a particular concern for you the OM-D certainly looks like a jolly nice camera.

EDIT

I have just put this photo here to show what the NEX can do. It was shot a while back in a pub. Lit only by the meagre light from the musicians rostrum and shot at 1600 ISO. I believe could have never got this shot with an M4/3 as the smaller sensor would have introduced too much shadow noise. It shows why I prefer to use the NEX most times for this kind of work.

Guitar player by Life in Shadows, on Flickr

 

[Vobluda]

Same here and fully agree. M43 is fine but APS-C Sony E is just better.
The reason why I am keeping m43 is usage of the long zooms, ie Panasonic 45-200mm.

I have both NEX and m4/3 cameras and of the two the NEX system is clearly better in terms of dynamic range and image quality. I can make shots on my NEX system that I can not contemplate in M4/3. Having said that my M4/3 cameras are slightly older than the OM-D and this will no doubt make some difference. However it is undeniably a smaller sensor with all that goes with that. On the other hand if natural light photography capability is not a particular concern for you the OM-D certainly looks like a jolly nice camera.