Lots of people come to express sincere condolences to m43 ecosystem:

Lens roadmap shows that all people are now transferred to other camp

I however, will be buying and using all the cheap m43 gear that will hit the market as people panic and sell their gear. I almost can't wait!

Well, it depends on whether a GH6 is an m4/3 camera or a full frame camera - what with it being their flagship movie camera. I think that will signal which way Panasonic will go, or indeed if they stay in the camera game at all, as I have my doubts about the new full frame stills camera making much of an impact in the current marketplace (at any price).

I suppose it all depends on whether Panasonic announces an m4/3 mount GH6 or not. If this doesn't happen within the next 6 months, I would say that their commitment to Micro 4/3 is at an end.

A lot of readers and others I've talked to in the industry have expressed concern over whether Micro Four Thirds can survive as a platform, with only Olympus continuing to invest strongly in developing new bodies and lenses for it. (Again, Panasonic says they're going to continue investing in Micro Four Thirds, but we expect to see their pace of MFT development slacken some over the next few years, given the heavy investment they're going to have to make in the new L-mount platform.)

Despite Panasonic's likely retreat, though, I don't see any sort of problem for Olympus and Micro Four Thirds in general. MFT already has arguably the most extensive native lens lineup of any mirrorless platform, with options ranging from entry-level to no-holds-barred professional optics, across a wide range of focal lengths. When it comes to true "native" optics, MFT offers a wider range of genuinely excellent choices than any other mirrorless system on the planet.

https://www.imaging-resource.com/news/2018/12/12/a-full-frame-olympus-not-just-no-but-heck-no

Dave issue is not understanding the market and how it works, despite being one of the best among interviewers.

@kinvermark I used to think so too, but in fact, many combinations of ff bodies and lenses are actually no larger than mft, and in some instances are even smaller. Practically every one of my Sony lenses can be flown with the a7 III on the original Crane: the 55mm f/1.8, 16-35mm f/2.8, 24mm f/1.4, 35mm f/1.4 and 85mm f/1.8 (smaller and lighter than GH5 + Oly 45mm f/1.2 Pro).

To some extent, manufacturers are being their own worst enemies on this one. They are making great big megasized m4/3 bodies and lenses. The GH5 is bigger than my A7r Mark III. The Olympus Pro 12-40 and 40-150 lenses are not tiny (even if they are still a big smaller than the full frame counterparts for focal range). On the other hand, the Panasonic 12-35 and 35-100 are very decent small lenses which seem to get the "promise" of Micro 4/3 - good quality small/portable gear.

I didn't watch the entire Northrup video, but before I got bored of listening to him talking, he was talking a lot about equivalent depth-of-field requiring similar-sized lenses. That's not wrong at all - but it also somewhat misses the point that the lens still has decent light transmission (t-stop) properties.

Is my Smartphone smaller than a Yi M1 with the Panasonic 14/2.5? Sure. Can I instantly put on a small 70-200 equivalent lens with decent quality? On my Smartphone, I can't. On the Yi, I can.
Can I get 4k/120 fps on a Smartphone? No. Can I get it on the tiny Z-Cam E2 which has interchangeable lenses? Yes.

Will Micro 4/3 die without major vendors supporting it? Yup - and it probably will. It still has a number of years left, though.

For starters, horrible clickbait title.

VK's inside info reveals the Company that gave us the GH2,4 and 5 has fundamentally changed to one seeking margin, not volume, in partnering with Leica on those photo cameras.

Don't care what they do with L mount, so long as they keep chasing volume with MFT cameras.

And also we would like to produce more cinema lenses designed for exceptional video quality.

Oh!!! That is news. As they're not making any now at the moment.

Mr. Uematsu: About the MFT standard. The standard means that we have fixed about the interface between a lens and camera body, and also the optical image circle and flange back. However, we never make any discussion with Olympus about the products itself. For the MFT we only have an agreement about the lens mount, without discussing specifics of our products. This could possibly lead to competition between our products. Therefore you may find almost the same specs lenses made by Panasonic and Olympus. If we can make any good discussion, we can make very good balance among products of two companies. But it is strictly prohibited by antitrust law. For the L-mount alliance, the licenser is Leica, Panasonic and also Sigma are just licensee.

Ms. Fujiwara: We have no information which other companies will get the license for L-mount as Leica owns the license. This will be the Leica’s decision to which other companies to offer the license for the L-mount.

Interesting. So Leica might still keep strict control over L mount? I seriously hope not!

Instead opening up the mount to some third party organisation to manage it, like was done with MFT.

PV: During the IBC I have noticed a lack of any Lumix cameras at the booth of the Panasonic Broadcast & ProAV Team. I am wondering if this is due to considerations that GH5 or GH5s are not suitable there, or due to little communication between divisions? At the same time I've seen a few interesting cameras and solutions which can be interesting for the regular customers, for example, remote camera systems, which probably can be used together with the consumer cameras. Do you share the information between Consumer and ProAV teams? Could we see in the future some of the advanced consumer cameras, to be used, for example, as a part remotely-controlled camera solution?

Yes, I wish those divisions were on friendly terms. Then we might have seen a Panasonic EVA1 MFT! Sigh :-/

:-(