Can mirrorless interchangeable lens camera give same quality picture as other bulky dslr?

What should i look for when i buy this kind of mirrorless dslr which could ensure as good picture as other bulky dslr.

some camera like sony nex 3/5 give ISO 200-12800 and over 14 megapixel. Is this level of ISO really necessary

http://reviews.cnet.com/...olBtm;rnav

on the other hand nikon d40 which give good photo only have 6 megapixel and 1600 iso.

http://reviews.cnet.com/...olBtm;rnav

so what would be your pick

The Sony is a new camera with a limited lens selection. The picture quality should be really good. Priced around $700 US
The Nikon is an older model that will take good pictures also.
The Nikon will have a wide assortment of lenses new and used.
A better choice would be the Nikon 3100 at about the same price. $700 US
http://www.bhphotovideo.com/...amera.html

1) Yes they can.

2) Whatever specifications suits you best.

3) Yes that level of ISO is necessary, people get into low light situations while needing higher shutter speeds… Can't miss those moments.

4) What would be my pick between what and what? The Nex 5 or the D40? I'd go with the Nex 5 cause it's newer, and has higher ISOs. But that's just me.

If it were a camera like the Pentax K-5, or the Nex 5; I'd go with the Pentax K-5.

If the image quality holds up, it seems like there's no such thing as too high an ISO capability. It's not "really necessary," but it lets you shoot in darker situations or use faster shutter speeds or smaller apertures. It give you more flexibility in exposure. That's IF the image quality holds up.

The body on these cameras seems too small to go with the lenses they use. At least to me, it seems like there's not a huge advantage to having such a small body if you have to use full-sized lenses. That's just me, though.

I'd rather have a DSLR with a more diversified selection of lenses, but maybe the lenses for the mirrorless cameras will come along in time. I'd rather have the extended line of features in a DSLR. And, for cryin' out loud, I'd insist on an eye-level viewfinder! What good is a big sensor if you have to hold it at arms length, waving in the breeze, as you try to take a picture. It seems like any image quality gained by the larger sensor would be wiped out by camera shake.

Pixels are not the thing that makes you choose one camera over the other, but there's no denying that you can make larger prints or crop tighter if you have more pixels. They have to be good pixels with room to breathe, though. There's no point in cramming 14 million pixels onto a sensor the size of a dime as the image quality goes into the toilet. The Sony cameras have a nice sized sensor, so this should not be a problem there.

Here's the conclusion page on a Sony NEX review: http://www.dpreview.com/...page17.asp You can use the tab to go back and read the whole review.

Can mirrorless interchangeable lens camera give same quality picture as other bulky dslr?
in theory they should deliver sharper images as their is not mirror bouncing around

sony make nikons sensors so the example d40 image sis a bit pointless really,

do you need 200-12800isi? I don't know i use 100iso 99.9% of the time

my pick would be one around 12mp and a macro lens

Depends mostly on the size of the sensor. The other thing to think of is the practicality of the viewfinding, many of those 'mirrorless' cameras have fiddly viewfinding arrangements.

I've got an Olympus EP-2… And yes the image quality is right up there with a DSLR. DSLR's have other advantages though. The view through the lens on a ground glass screen is still far superior to that on an electronic viewfinder. The autofocus on DSLR's is generally faster that on an EVF camera. The heavier DSLR is a lot more versatile, but in terms of image quality… If you shot the same shot with the two cameras and put them side to side there would be a negligible difference.