Upload & Sell: On
I had Canon DSLRs, up to a 5D II, then III, and Zeiss primes, an looked for a smaller system that I could take everywhere. First a NEX 5, then 5N, then a 7, with an assortment of Zeiss and Leica primes. Last month I kissed my DSLR and primes good-bye. Last week-end I went on my first major shoot post-DSLR, and didn't miss it one bit.
But the two systems are so different that, if you are looking for a mirrorless to replace your 5D+35L, for get it. There are just too many things it doesn't do as well. That is true for the NEX as it is for all other mirrorless. But you will discover things a mirrorless does better than a 5D, and the question becomes: am I overall better off?
In my case, the NEX goes with me everywhere, litterally everywhere. And the fact that I do that gives me many photo opportunities that I otherwise wouldn't have. No way could I go into business meetings with a 5D and 4 primes. No way I could take it with me everywhere all the time. Once that was established, I saw the 5D down to less than 5% of my shooting time, and it was gave over.
How much have I lost in IQ? I don't think I have lost anything actually. But that is because my shooting is well suited to the NEX: almost only still targets, and very little use for thin DOF. And my primes are not exactly cheap.
One mor thing. Mirrorless performance is advancing so fast, it is only a matter of time for someone in the M-mount space to introduce a FF mirrorless with interchangeable lenses, and my investment in M lenses will be just fine. Or I will love the Sony RX1, and be happy.