I keep hearing some folks saying that M4/3 is dead because Sony has now shown that you can make full-frame mirrorless cameras just as small. I say that’s non-sense for the reasons that I have already mentioned in Lenses: The Most Important Part of a Camera System. While the Sony A7S ii is about the same size as an Olympus E-M1 (although the E-M1 is far from being the smallest M4/3 camera), the Sony FE Mount lenses are huge in comparison to M4/3 lenses and they are 2 to 3 times the price too. So your Sony kit will be 2 to 3 times the size, weight and price of the equivalent M4/3 kit. The camera size is really not that big of a factor. Not only that, but for me it actually becomes a hindrance to have a small body with such large lenses, it just doesn’t balance very well. So yes, the Sony has better image quality (mostly important if you are a pixel-peeper who must always have the newest and greatest), but if price, size, weight and convenience are important to you, than the M4/3 system wins hands down.
Let me illustrate with some actual examples (special thanks to CameraSize.com). Olympus E-M1 on the left, Sony A7S II on the right. All with equivalent lenses in term of focal length, aperture and stabilisation (applying the 2X factor of the M4/3 system).
First the bodies, nearly the same size:
And then with equivalent lenses:
I rest my case…