Yep. It seems the full frame bodies are getting smaller & lighter and gaining IQ while the m4/3 ones are getting bigger and IQ stays the same BUT... The lenses. The fact is that the lenses still are way too big for me to even consider switching.
I just read about the Canon RF 70-200mm f/4 that was praised for being lightweight at ~700 grams. Well, the Panasonic 35-100mm f/2.8 still weights half of that and is internal focusing - unlike the Canon. And my Oly 40-150mm has way more reach at that weight + has the brilliant lens hood and manual focus clutch. Yeah... You need to do better Canon to gain my interest. And while on the topic... Canon might have the smallest lenses for FFs but the bodies are way too big (and the burst speeds are weak).
When my EM5 was coming to the end of its useful life, I wanted a one lens hiking/travel solution.
The EM1iii + 12-100 weighs about the same as the Z6 or Z7 + 24-200. I went for the Z7 +24-200 and could not be happier.
The Z14-30 weighs much less than my old Olympus 7-14 and the 24-70 does not weigh too much either, even though my old 12-35 2.8 was a super light piece of glass.
With the Z system at least, I do not see a weight or bulk problem with lenses up to 200. The F4 lenses are a great choice for compactness. This is bad news for APCS and M43 in my opinion.
For my architectural photography weight is not an issue and I use a D810 with heavy old Nikon metal shift lenses. With the FTZ adaptor I can swap F lenses onto the Z7, which let me halve the size of my lens collection.
Quite frankly the only lens I miss is my old Panasonic 100-300 which was highly portable compared to FF equivalents. I might pick up a cheap EM5 + 100-300 for long lens stuff.