Just to change the direction of this discussion back towards the original question (Why the appeal of mirrorless?), Thom Hogan has a revealing article on his site today, about a Sony freebie he went on (
http://www.sansmirror.com/newsviews/sony-kando-20.html). It tells a great deal about how Sony creates the impression that they and their cameras are, as Thom puts it, "Fun, fascinating, fervent, festive, and fruitful. [...] It makes you want to create more photos, and more interesting photographs. It makes you want to stretch yourself and your gear to its limits."
How is the trick done? A lot is known about how it is done, because the pharmaceutical industry does it exactly the same way and that has been studied intensively for years. Most people think the key is obvious: the money - a lot of money, in this case. In fact, it isn't the money - although generosity is important. The key is in how you get to go: "To get into Kando, you have to submit an essay as to why you should be there, and point to a body of work. I did, and I was accepted." Of course, the actual selection criteria are quite different from what they tell the "applicants": "I noticed most of the 150 that were accepted all had very visible and different kinds of Internet presence". They didn't want photographers, they wanted "opinion leaders".
This is straight out of the doctors-and-drug-companies playbook: there you are, working away in [name of city] and no one ever tells you what great work you are doing, and along comes Big Pharma/Sony and they think (or pretend to think) your research/photography is really good. Often, they also tell you they really want your input about their exciting, cutting-edge developments, and that makes sense, because you
are an exciting, cutting-edge person.
Of course you get there and you feel creative and interesting and want to stretch yourself. And those positive feelings transfer to the people who made you feel like that.