Anyone who appreciates cameras in small packages (Like ME!) but with high image quality has tough choices to make. There is a compromise to be made between portability and IQ that recent cell phone camera advances cannot obviate. Now, cameras are getting smaller, and some mirrorless cameras are very very capable and small. Until you put a quality zoom lens in front of it. Then you are stuck with a body that is too small to work well ergonomically with the lens. That (besides money) is why I have stuck with a DSLR. Problem is DSLR's are not really compact, especially with a big lens stuck on the front. Enter good old fashioned non-zooming Prime Lenses. Now before you recoil in horror, let me list some good things.
1) Primes tend to have better Image Quality (i.e. sharpness, resistance to flare, contrast)
2) Primes are smaller than most zooms. Especially zoom lenses that can approach Prime quality.
3) Primes can have a faster/larger aperture, and will typically deliver critically sharp images at wider apertures than zooms.
4) Primes are usually lighter than zooms.
5) You get more exercise "Zooming with your feet"
6) You miss more shots/You have to work harder to get the shot you want.
Did I shock you? Yes #6 is a good thing! Unless you are shooting a paid event where you have to get the shot. Then I use a zoom. But I would rather use a prime.
Some people argue that you miss shots because you cannot go wide enough. I call BS. Both of these shots were taken with a 35mm Lens on an APS-C (or cropped) sensor Pentax K-5. This equates to a slightly longer than "Normal" lens yet I think these look pretty good and I didn't feel particularly limited. Plus the resolution is amazing, I could print these pretty big with no problems at all. Try that with a ultra wide angle zoom that you cropped to the same aspect ratio!