There seems to be a trend of increasing body size with some 4/3rds cameras (for example: post-Pana G3, and of course GH3 and now E-M1). And I think that most, if not all of us, agree that lens size is a bigger factor in determining the overall size/weight benefit of this system. However, I think it needs to be said--because I don't think it's said enough-- and considered that some shooters (like myself) still would prefer smaller bodies for this reason: we don't always need to have the lens glued onto the body; I find myself often and able to put the lens (most of them) in one pocket, and the body in another pocket when traveling about. This way, they are still with me and ready in the case I am approaching a shooting situation. So just because a rig is not pocketable as one whole unit doesn't mean it can't be separated to be pocketable. Of course, there's a few pocketable body options...plenty, actually. But it seems the best features (that I like, especially built-in viewfinder) seem to be reserved for the top. Unless of course we wait a few years where some of the today's top tech will trickle down into smaller bodies, but by that time I'm sure better tech will still be in the best, "big" bodies. Just a thought...and hoping for a small E-M5 successor. Thanks for reading. PS-- yes I know the argument "the EM1/GH3 isn't much bigger...." and "compared to DSLRs they're already small..." but hey-- for people like me, I'll take every size/weight advantage I can get. It's the main reason I left DSLRs!