Mikehit said:
So you expect the MFT camera to be one quarter the size of the DSLR? You are joking, right?
nope. don't worry, I understand equivalence. we all know size of gear will not be proportional to sensor surface. That's exactly why most smart buyers [stills, not video-centric] will not even consider buying mFT. Size, weight and cost savings simply not attractive enough. People buying grossly oversized quarter-sensored mFT camera bodies [like Oly OMD EM1 / II] at prices almost equal to FF cameras or expensive f/1.2 lenses just to get equivalence to much more economical f/2.0 lenses on FF image circle do NOT qualify as *smart buyers* in my book. Your mileage and opinion may differ. No problem with that.
Many smart buyers are however willing to buy APS-C gear as the "smallest acceptable" sensor size. IF this crop gear offers decent IQ, functionality, performance, UI *and* is significantly smaller and less expensive than FF gear. System that currently meets these requirements best is EOS + EF-M lenses. If Nikon and Sony had equally good APS-C systems they would sell a lot them too. And if Canon had come out with more compelling EOS M models right from the start, they would have sold a lot more cameras and EF-M lenses as well. And Fuji might have sold a lot less of theirs. Yes, IF. And yes, "speculation in retrospect". But not unfounded.
Ever since its inception FF (135) sensor/image circle has offered optimal relation between imaging area, IQ, creative possibilities and size/weight of gear - relative to size of (average) human hands. Smaller image circle does not translate into much smaller gear. But any larger image circle drives up gear size (lenses!) significantly.
That's why 135 format (FF) has established itself as "holy grail format" for universal, generalist, *hand-held, portable* use. Yes, there are some specific niches where larger or smaller sensors are better suited, but those are rather small niches. That's why smart buyers don't want to be relegated to crop sensors only but want FF sensored gear if they are asked to shell out significant cash for cameras and lenses ("significant" for regular income earners and/or non-super star pro's].
At the same time a significant and growing portion of stills imaging gear buyers with sufficient disposable income is aging and many are less and less willing to tote around large, heavy, expensive and "suspiciously conspicuous" gear. That's why many want capable FF gear that is as compact and light and silent and least conspicuous. That's why many (of us?) have smaller MILCs [e.g. Canon EOS M + EF-M lenses] in addition to our larger DSLR setups.
In short: there is no reason to assume a compact, fully functional Canon FF MILC at reasonable prices [eg similar to 6D II pricing] along with a lineup of decent, compact, affordable native lenses [similar to how EF-M lenses are positioned, of course somewhat larger and somewhat more costly, but by as little as possible] and full backwards compatibility to all EF glass by means of a simple adapter and full compatibility with Canon EOS flash system and other system accessories - would NOT SELL WELL.
How quickly such an offering would bring DSLR sales to their end is speculation of course. My guess is: rather quickly. Your opinion may differ. No problem.