proxy: Were you expecting a purchase order with this review? This is for information purposes only, don't get offended. I assure you, you are STILL free to choose, or did they ruin your carefully crafted plans? Took away all pleasure...? Best if manuf. stopped making new cameras so some of whiners would enjoy their cameras for many more years to come, no more spoilers. Not gonna happen.
Stop studying specs, make up your mind and start enjoying life. Next year there will be better cameras, cheaper, with higher specs, more features and more comfortable grips... but some here think it is the worst that could ever happen. You keep analyzing just like your life depended on it... and guess what, next December some punk will show you the newest toy. THE ONE you've been waiting for all those years...
I think the upgrade that made the most difference to my photography was a book.
I think the best camera for an individual depends what type of photography you are interested in. I like the XE-2 for portraits and landscapes, but if I was into sports or video in a big way I would probably not have chosen this. Though I'm usually the last person to think this way, I think it's almost as if cameras have peronalities; some of them you take an immediate liking to and some you just never get on with. My old D7000 was technically superb, but we never really got on.
I considered the a6000, but the poor kit lens put me off. I went for the Fuji X-E2 with its pro level kit lens and I love it.
I think the people who would really appreciate this will be amateur wildlife photographers and birders, once they release a decent telephoto. A 300mm lens would be 810mm equivalent! But without the option of a long telephoto lenses, I don't see much advantage over a fixed lens camera. I understand the logic behind the small sensor. As sensors get better and more sensitive, you can either offer ever increasing ISO, or offer images with similar noise characteristics to earlier APS sensors but at a fraction of the size.
Our brains are very clever; we can watch a black and white movie and interpret it as if it were colour (i.e., we don't think of people as having grey faces). Similarly, we can watch a 2D movie and interpret it as 3D. But we cope better with missing information than wrong information. Watching black and white is OK, but watching something with the wrong colours is not. Just shift the hue setting on a software movie player. Grey faces are OK, but purple or green won't work. Similarly, 2D is better than wrong 3D and 3D is only right when the viewer's angle of view is the same as that of the camera (with appropriate image separation). Most people sit too far back from a TV, so will see everything in miniature. Directors will have to sacrifice the flexibility of wide angle and telephoto zoom shots and shoot everything with a standard lens. If they need to get close to the action they'll have to move the cameras in. So 3D is great if you get it right, otherwise forget it.