lhgreengrd1

Mirrorless system cameras are not weaker at all for still photos - unless you're comparing them to a pro-level full frame DSLR with pro lenses - and those are typically $2500+ setups that are really massive, at around 3x the size and weight. An APS-C Mirrorless system will give results that are directly comparable to an APS-C DSLR. Sony also makes full frame Mirrorless systems that can compete with the best of Nikon and Canon full frame DSLRs - but with less of a size/weight advantage than smaller mirrorless systems offer. And the smaller Micro 4/3 systems are really very close to APS-C sized cameras in image quality, with added benefits of much smaller size and weight - particularly of the lenses. And no reason to pay double for a good mirrorless camera. You can get a quality mirrorless camera and lens for as little as $500 or so.

Look at things like the Panasonic GX7 or the Sony a6000 - these were among the very best Mirrorless cameras from last year, and they are still extremely capable - and a basic camera and standard zoom lens of these will only set you back around $700. I'd put these up against any similarly priced DSLR system. But I would also set aside some of your budget (say $300-400) for a good fast prime lens since it sounds like you know what the advantage of a fast aperture can do for you.

Also, don't minimize the benefits of smaller weight and bulk. It's the reason these cameras are so great - I personally made the switch when I found that I wasn't taking my Nikon DSLRs on my trips, because of the bulk of a useful system. My Micro 4/3 system easily fits in my personal item carry-on bag, with several prime lenses. I made the switch to Olympus (I'm not much of a video-shooter, I primarily shoot stills - the cameras I listed above are better at video) and I've never looked back since I did so.

Just about any of these good mirrorless system cameras is more than capable enough to deliver superb still-image quality in the hands of a skilled photographer