Leaderboard

I don't know. I think I will stick to my GH3 for my Micro Four Thirds glass.   And at £1500 the BMCC mFT is an option.   I can't risk having shots ruined by big white invaders from outer space.

If you are interested in F2~/5-15mm 3x or F2~/8-120mm 15x full manual pro zooms (L glass) for crop mode EOS-M in either H264 or RAW, I guess you will need to watch my posts in the not too distant future. :)

The RX1 is great because of its integrated lens which lets it keep a compact size. A full-frame, ILC with a EVF and high end glass attached is still going to be a big camera; probably close to the size of an SL1 and you still have to carry full size lenses. I prefer small M43 cameras as second bodies because with a 14mm or 20mm lens theyre small enough to carry in a pocket. 

I've been using the GH3 for video & stills since March, no issues. Did play with the Lumix GX7 the other day. It does better at high ISO's than the GH3. Will definetly be added a GX7 to my arsenal. LInk to  a slide done with the GH3 yesterday.     http://www.dallasnews.com/entertainment/restaurants/photos/20130824-check-out-the-mouthwatering-doughnuts-at-glazed-donut

I must take exception with the statement, "The problem is, F2.8 on Micro Four Thirds is equivalent to about F5.6 on full frame in terms of depth of field control and low light performance, so the 12-35mm F2.8 and Canon 24-70mm F2.8 is not really a like-for-like comparison, and a 24-70mm F5.6 for full frame would be much smaller than the Canon 24-70mm F2.8."  Yes, in depth of field control.  No, in low light performance.  F2.8 is F2.8 on any sensor, Period, end of discussion.   Some sensors do have more sensitivity to light.   http://frugalfilmmakers.com/2013/08/11/21st-century-camera/