I'm sorry to be yet another person who has hated Sony until recently. Anyway, there are a lot of m4/3s users who need nothing more than a m4/3s camera and the Panasonic 20mm f1.7. A great combo for OMD users and a small combo for the compact users. I just realized that the RX1 is nearly the the same FL, nearly as small, the lens is supposedly just as sharp, and the ISO performance, DR, etc., would be a bit better. Probably not as good in low-light if m4/3s uses IBIS, but it would definitely give us more background blur. Sony RX1 cons, however, are mainly the $1500 pricetag, a half stop, and you're stuck with 35mm (cropping is not my plan unless if it's on the fly, which only the A7 can do). But if you're using the 20 all the time, then you're probably good with 35mm. Below are the size comparisons. What else am I missing here? I'd keep the m4/3s camera, but I'd just not get the 17/1.8 or the 20/1.7 lenses. Due to the cost, however, I probably also would not ever get an A7 (and if I did the get the A7, I would still get the 20 for m4/3s).