I've been pretty set on getting an OM-D for my work trips. I've discussed this here. But this past week I had my first week-long trip after handling an OM-D in person. And so I really tried to visualize having the camera and how often it'd be small enough to take with me, and small enough to not be a nuisance.
And, honestly, I just don't think it's small enough. It's my own fault for not really thinking things through; but when hitting the streets and grabbing a beer, going to restaruants, hitting the lake, or going to a free outdoor concert, an OM-D would still likely be too big/goofy to look and feel "casual".
So, I think I want to go even smaller. So now I have my eyes on a NEX. But because of the strange ergonomics and small lens selection, I think I'd get a NEX as a compliment to my DSLR, rather than as a substitute. Which means no need to splurge for the 7; I think I'd just get a 5n and a 16mm 2.8. That would likely work just fine; though I wish it was faster.
But then I debate with myself... would it be smart to go with the EOS-M? Then I could share lenses between my "travel camera" and my "big boy camera". I just hate the looks of that thing. I know that's a stupid reason to not buy a camera; but it just looks so plain and "Joe Consumer" to me.
Plus, used (but great condition) NEX 5 + 16 2.9 = ~$600, versus new (only choice) EOS M and 22 f2 = $800. That's a $200 difference for a camera I'll probably only have a couple lenses for.
The E16 image quality is just sad. It doesn't justify the NEX APSC sensor. You are wasting your time with the E16. Get a DP1/2/x, X100 or RX100.
If you can't put it in a jeans pocket, it's too large to carry it everyday. I mean you can, but IMO is not worth it.