[TheAlbionJackal]

I may just have done a stupid thing.

I've sold my Canon 10D, 24mm F2.8, 100mm F2, L Series 17-40mm and 50mm F1.4 lenses in favour of raising some cash and hoping to replace them with something smaller.

I'm looking at some of the usual compacts that pop up on most review sights such as the Panny LX5, Canon S90/95 and G11/12 and the "Micro-Four-Thirds" cameras such as the Sony NEX-3 and NEX-5 and Panny GF1.

With my Canon I specialized in Landscapes and Natural Light portraits and would hope to continue with that.

Call me old-fashioned but I would generally value a lens on it's maximum aperture and online tests and reviews.

My question is then, that if a compact like the Panny LX5 has an F2-F3.3 24-90 lens and yet the Sony NEX cameras come with 16mm (32mm in real terms) F2.8, is the LX5 not going to produce better images in my desired "specialisms"?

I understand that the NEX is a different beast with interchangeable lenses but surely what is effectively a 32mm at F2.8, regardless of the sensor is not going to be as good in, for example, lowish light than an F2 24mm?

I know sensors and megapixels enter into the scheme of things but I would still want the fastest lens over my desired spectrum and therefore would the LX5 be the better option?

Any help would be gratefully received.