NowHearThis

You just answered your own question. Everyone already knows that lens is excellent, some things a just a given. ;)

http://articles.washingtonpost.com/2012-08-10/business/35492808_1_galaxy-s-ii-samsung-galaxy-tab-phil-schiller 85 Milliion sold in 5 years, in the USA alone vs ...much less from the DSLR...

Exactly.  I posted a few shot on another forum, a "mediocre consumer grade superzoom" could not have taken shots as sharp as these:

You speak out of ignorance.  I paid $510 for the 18-200, I also paid under $900 for the NEX7 kit, I then sold the 18-55 for $150, which puts my investment total to $1260.   So there's no need for...

I don't know if you realize how dumb of a statement that is.  Did you even read the original post?  Did you even read the first line of mine:  here let me quote it for you because you seem to rush...

Really, you think I want to preach to you?  Sorry, that's not my calling in life. You whole point revolves around length, mine is about the overall size.  Back when I was looking to switch cameras...

http://www.dpreview.com/forums/post/51298646 I had the exact same primary setup as you: a Canon T2i (550d) + 15-85 IS lens.  While I liked the lens, I still found there were times I needed/wanted...

With respect, I am going to disagree with both your statements. I bought the NEX7 for it's Image Quality, the "smallness" was a just a big plus.  One of the advantages of the NEX is it's short,...

That's not quite correct.  My NEX7, 18-200, 50mm, flash, charger and tons of extras fit in the very small Tamrac Aero 36 (model 3336) bag.  (not shown but also fits: neck strap, & hurricane...

True. But I used to shoot with a Canon Rebel; I'm still bitter about that experience.  lol -- NHTwhile ( ! ( succeed = try() ) );

Just a little bit of a stretch, but I get what you mean.  I'm a NEX-7 user, but I appreciate what Fuji is doing and wish others would follow suit.  This is a good move by Fuji, offer something much...

Regardless of Photozone.... the 15-85 was a great lens.  It's biggest flaw is lens flare.  Sharpness, Contrast, and color are all very good. first one was at 24mm the second about 50mm, both...

The 3N is a great little camera paired up with the 16-50 and you have a very nice, very small package that will take excellent photos.  The sensor in the 3n holds its own up against much more...

I've been hearing this argument for 6+ years now, from the D40 to the D5200.  It's still the stupidest argument against getting one of these cameras - most especially for someone "buying their...

I was going to write something similar, but you said much of it for me.  Nothing Thom says or writes will have any impact on how great the photos continue to look coming out of my NEX7.  Wether...

I forgot to add Live Histogram or Level in the EVF (I use both quite often). :-) If you flat out will not use an Electronic Viewfinder, fine, pick up the D5100. As a stills camera it's really...

The thing is the OP is looking at purchasing an entry level interchangeable lens camera.  If the OP is like most people, then he'll probably shoot JPGs almost exclusively for quite some time. The...

No it doesn't, but the OP was asking for opinions on which is better and why.  I think the previous poster looked at what each offered and made a decision based on that.  He, myself and others see...

First off, both are excellent cameras; and  regardless of what anyone might say to the contrary, both are capable of taking fantastic pictures.  Up until fairly recently I worked part time at a...

11"x14" and up.  That's mostly what I print to display, and more and more I'm printing 16"x20" or 20"x30". 1) I don't have time to mess with pictures in RAW only to still have grain be there and...