Upload & Sell: On
I don't think the story here is about outclassing.
I think it demonstrates that the Fuji X-system currently produces remarkable quality for the size, style, and relative youth in the system. That bodes well for the future.
But at the same time, DSLR and Fuji X are different tools, even if there's overlap in how they can be used.
In my opinion, the single most overlooked factors in photography-tool-use are non-image quality related. We have never had so high image quality as today. There isn't a living photographer whose work would improve more than in a diminishing way with improved image quality. Does that mean we wouldn't welcome better IQ as it comes down the line? Of course we welcome it. Bring on the DR, clean ISO (base and high), etc, etc. But I don't care if you're shooting for Nat Geo, selling prints for $10K or more a pop, or working on $1 Million budget commercial jobs. The image quality is not what's holding you back.
Far more important are direct usability issues: AF/MF, lag, metering, etc. And that stuff, except in specific cases, is outshone by lighting and exposure 100-1.
An XE just can't do all of what a DSLR can do. And a DSLR can't be used in all the same ways as an XE can. Horses for courses.
I'm happy to own and will continue owning my 5D2, and I'm thrilled about my coming XE.
The story here is that IQ is not a major issue in choosing cameras among the higher end equipment (and anything in the $1K is higher end in the scheme of things). Size, usability, availability, system, etc, are the important factors. That's what I take from a test like this.