[stoppingdown]

Thanks for the feedback. Honestly, I didn't evaluate Canon: there are multiple reasons for switching (or maybe just evaluating to switch), one of these is that I think that mirrorless is the future. EVF might be not yet on par with OVF now, but I think that in a couple of years it could be more valuable than OVF - it's not just a matter of weigh, but also the capability of zooming in the VF, seeing a closer version of the image to what will be the final photo, etc... In any case, it's something that I'd like to try on the field, that's why I've restricted the possible switch to the mirrorless world.

 

For what concerns the other suggestions, including the Olympus lenses, I looked at some of these. Generically speaking, all of my current lenses have a minimum focal of f/1.8-2.8 (for primes, excluding the 300) and f/4 for zooms (the f/3.5-4.5 is substantially very close to a f/4). I don't want to go with lenses with a worse minimum aperture (and for what concerns m4/3, it should be really one stop better, for equivalence reasons, even though I could give up in some cases). It's true that with landscapes it shouldn't matter... perhaps here a spin-off discussion should start.

 

Furthermore, the Olympus 12-40 F2.8 has not been reviewed yet, neither at PZ nor at DxO, so for me is substantially a question mark. Three lenses to replace two lenses is not a bit step forward (I mean, I'm not excluding it in the end if it's the only solution, but I'd like first to explore a solution with only two lenses - it's also a matter of costs).

 

As I've said, the m4/3 has not been excluded yet; should Sony fail, I'd sell back the stuff and try with m4/3. It's just that this possibility now is postponed at least to the beginning of 2014, supposing that I'll take a couple of months for decently evaluating the Sony system. In any case, I'm happy to get feedback even for other solutions; I'll write down the suggestions.