I tried one of the NX10 in store and I wasn't impressed...
The reason I went the G2 over it:
- The viewfinder I found worse in the NX10
- Feature wise the pana/g2 appeals more to me, usability etc
- I like the vari-angle LCD
- The lens range is smaller already and I think Pan/Oly/Voigt will always grow faster with more companies involved..
I was in Korea looking for a camera, and could have got a screaming deal on the Samsungs, but, in particular, the lenses made me wary. Both in performance and in selection. The sensor performance seems to be so-so (about same as m43) from the reviews.
I'm just going off the research I did when buying the camera earlier this year. Seemed the sensors were from the same generation, but since it's APSC it has a few advantages, but Pannys experience gives it others. IMHO, it nets out even
IMO, it seems like there's no compelling reason to buy into NX. I think for most people there needs to be some compelling reason to buy into a system, especially one that's likely to be a second system. For example, I have some Nikon DSLR equipment and I was looking for something smaller and more discreet. I still wanted better IQ than most compacts can offer, and interchangeable lenses, and responsive performance etc. Essentially I wanted a DSLR that could be stuck in my jacket pocket. The options were mFT, NX10, and NEX(I don't think it was for sale yet, but I think it was a confirmed official line of gear). Nikon didn't seem to have anything on the way.
So, what did the available choices have to offer:
Leica - well sure it would have been great, but I can't afford an M9 and a lens. Or even just a lens, for that matter. I mean seriously, 10,000 USD for a body? If I had that much to spend I would have bought a D3x.
mFT - met the IQ and size requirements, system was decently large and expanding, plenty of smart and dumb adapters for FT and other lenses, price was affordable
NX - met the IQ and size requirements, system consisted of one body, two lenses with more promised and a dumb(not editorially speaking, I mean no linkages for AF, metering etc.) adapter for K-mount gear, priced about the same as mFT
NEX - met the IQ and size requirements, system consisted of two bodies and two lenses with more promised and some type of limited functionality adapter, priced similar to mFT
So when I looked at the mirrorless systems, mFT ticked off more checkboxes.
NX or NEX would have had to have been substantially less expensive, or had meaningfully better IQ, or a larger range of equipment. Something to have had some advantage over mFT.
But those systems didn't, and still don't, for me at least.
They aren't bad systems, I think, it's just that there doesn't seem to be any advantage to selecting them over mFT.
Which made buying into Micro Four-Thirds pretty straightforward. It started with an E-P1 kit for me(to test the water) and then by watching for sales/good deals here and there, I've expanded the system with a G1 body(new for $200,) a GF-1 body, mFT lenses and some FT lenses caught on sale, and an MMF-1.
One of the biggest problems I have with mFT now, is that some of the FT lenses that I have are really good, and now I'm thinking of selling some of my Nikon gear to buy an E-5 or other non Micro FT DSLR.