Fuji X-20 compared to Nikon D50

Prices were only mentioned because the OP wasn't sure if the X20 would do the job, that he'd appreciate the light weight of the X20 but he would really prefer the X-E1. The X-E1 would be an excellent choice and would be a great camera for shooting in the low light of clubs but he said that he couldn't afford the price.

The difference between the X-E1 and the X20 is that with the X-E1's small 18-55mm kit lens, it's twice as large and weighs twice as much as the X20, and costs a whopping $1,400, way more than twice the $600 price of the X20. Enter the D3100 and D3200. With a similar 18-55mm kit lens (the Nikon version isn't as fast as the Fuji kit lens) these Nikon DSLRs give you near X-E1 performance for not much more than half the price of the X20. Also, if you want a longer focal length, the 55-200mm lens adds only a little more than another $100 to the cost. The X-E1 has no other zoom lenses and the only lens B&H shows that has a greater focal length than the 18-55mm kit lens is the 60mm macro lens, and any of Fuji's other lenses is going to cost $600 or more. That's quite a limitation, when the X10 and X20 have a maximum focal length nearly twice as long as you can get with the X-E1, and the two DSLRs go nearly twice as long as the X10/X20 for hundreds of dollars less.

Sorry, but you need to look at the X10's ISO 12,800 shot again. It's not that it doesn't look great, it's that it's horrible, totally unusable. Yes, you can't use faster glass so you're stuck with a high ISO that's completely unacceptable. But like the X-E1, the two Nikon DSLRs can accept faster glass. A really nice one is the very sharp 35mm f/1.8 Nikkor which at $197 is 1/3 the price of any of Fuji's faster lenses. So the OP can get the X20 if he wishes, but he may come to regret that decision when he sees that it produces images only a very small step up from the ancient D50 that he just sold.