Trapped in the box, "mirrorrless must be ultra compact" fallacy

Thinking that "mirriorless" only purpose in life is to be as compact as possible is a huge fallacy. Most enthusiast photographers I know have two bodies, some three. Usually a large DSLR a Mirrorless and compact P&S.

I enjoy shooting with large DSLRS which balance great when paired with the bigger professional lenses, (can you imagine a 70-200mm F/2.8 VR mounted on a Pentax Q7?) As a Nikon shooter my main issue is having to deal with two lens mounts, since Nikon mirrorless system is a complete incompatible joke of a system. I own the Samsung 30mm F/2 and the Nikon 35mm F/1.8 both great lenses and an pain in the posterior to have money tied up in duplicates. But guess what? the NX30 is nice and large and with the introduction of the 16-50mm F/2.0 - 2.8 it might just be an SLR killer, it's target is not the Pentax Q or Panny GM1 , it's target is the Nikon D5300 series cameras which hover around the $800 MSRP.

People who are complaining taht the NX30 doesn't fit in their shirt pocket, need to compare it to the D5300 or similar SLR cameras and realize the size advantage and convinnience of having just one set of lenses which fit a compact body like the NX300 and a larger body like the NX30. If Samsung introduces a 70-200mm OIS version, all my Nikon DX SLR gear will be promptly listed on e-bay. I love the efficiency f having one set of lenses and how the pro grade lenses balance on larger bodies. I'm sure there is a huge number of Nikon and Canon owners who feel the same way.

Luckily samsung is not trapped in the "must be as compact as possible" box