My comments about at 1000D successor being a new small camera didn't imply a higher crop factor at all. I can't see any reason why Canon shouldn't be able to make a 1.6 crop dSLR significantly smaller than 1000D.
I wrote form factor, not crop factor and I was refering to the rumour about Canon producing a smaller APS-C DSLR (can't find the link at the moment -do you remember the one that had a picture of the EOS IX APS film SLR?). With hindsight, I should have made this clearer!
I have read that the Panasonic doubled the refresh rate of the GH2's sensor
I've also read somewhere (but I can't remember where -typical!) that a slower refresh rate is one of the reasons that the new Nikons' CDAF is so much slower than the G-series. If so, then it was a poor strategy by Canon to fail to address this whilst pushing HD video in their DSLRs' marketing, as it is a feature that most amateurs would find very useful for video (it would also make the 60D's articulating screen far more useful for stills photography).
I'm not quite sure what the extra two connections on the lens mount do for micro-4/3rds lenses. If they truely help with CDAF then maybe Canon should have already started introducing such a system on new DSLRs and lenses.
I didn't know that the SX series still used a micro-motor for AF.