odd model selection, making the comparison skewed
yes, for one thing, the title is misleading.
For another, the weird selection makes for a completely skewed comparison. To compare Sony's cheapo camera with Nikon's and Leica's much more expensive cameras is just wrong. For about 100 quid more, the Sony Nex 5N blows them all out of the water. The same goes for taking the cheapest M4/3 model on the market to compare with the Nikon, and then saying "the Nikon's small sensor isn't really an issue, unless you wanna shoot in low light..."
Cause good low light quality beats every crappy little flash you can stick on any of these cameras.
Sure, a truck full of lighting equipment you set up at your dinner or party will almost eliminate the Nikon's issue. Even then a larger sensor is preferrable. If at least, they managed to make the Nikon smaller, but they didn't; even the lenses are clunky.
The bottom line is, the Nikon would be a good deal at 300, but its like twice that. Thats like trying to charge a thousand for a Nikon 5100.
Lastly, I think the whole CSC idea is more of a boon to vendors than to customers. They like it, cause it gives them many more chances to sell extra glass to people who would not normally carry any and don't really need to. There was some Olympus model with an absolutely great, bright lens built in, that beat every single CSC kit lens I've seen. Most people would never need to swap that, and it folded down pretty well too. Forgot the model number though, but its on DPreview.