« on: September 04, 2014, 10:36:43 AM »
I don't think it's a question of quality, eg I.Q...I'm quite happy w/the images I get from the M..they are pretty much the same as i get from my 70D. I don't think the competitors have anything revolutionary w/sensor performance, I am always going to stick w/nothing smaller than an aps-c
The issue I have w/the M is w/useability...it will never be more than a walk-around or 2nd camera when I can't carry the DSLR... No EVF, kind of clunky controls when trying to do Exp comp, and I really like a built in flash for fill light,etc. Only a few fixed ISO settings, very very poor battery life(you must always carry a spare)
I don't regret the bargain I got w/the M, but am willing to spend more to get more. Another poster commented that it's not "dead" eg, it's quite alive in Japan, but that doesn't help me here in U.S.A.
It hasn't bothered me that not all the lenses weren't offered in the US -- I bought them from Canada and elsewhere. It makes a big difference to me that it is doing well in Japan because that means that it is not a dead end system. If it was not doing well in the market it was designed for (Japan), then I'd have treated it as a P&S to be replaced every few years and would not have picked up additional lenses.