This has been percolating for a while, but the new G9 II has escalated my thinking a little.
The EM1x copped a lot of flak for being too big for a M43 camera. The logic of a small sensor resulting alwys in a small camera was not logical at all.
If the EM1x does its job (it does), which is to quickly and accurately take images in any weather, used by any hand (more on this coming) and with any lens attached, then it needs to be the proper supporting element for that purpose.
When I shoot sport with the 300 f4 and 40-150 f2.8 lenses, I prefer either the EM1x or an EM1 Mk2 with attached grip. I rarely use the vertical mode and when I do, I still just hold the main grip and cock my wrist, but the handling and balance of the combination feel right.
The EM1x allows me to grab and shoot, everything where it should be, the rest locked off.
I have used the 300 f4 with an EM1 Mk2 body alone and it was ok, but not ideal.
My hands are average male medium. I can use smaller cameras and do, but the cameras that feel right to me are the bigger ones. The G9 II being slightly bigger than the Mk1 is actually a benefit in my eyes. Large cameras fit in most hands, small cameras only suit small hands.
Yes, they may have been able to make the camera smaller, but by doing that, some of the advantage of the smaller sensor would have been lost. A M43 camera in a decently sized body can out-perform a full frame sensor in the same body in heat dissipation, stabilising, codecs, etc (compare the nearly identical S5 II to the G9 II).
This added size also adds real estate for dials and buttons.
Using the Pen Mini II for a few days has reminded me how frustrating little cameras with limited controls can be. Two touch controls for exposure compensation, AF point shifts etc are not professionally viable and even an experienced shooter on holidays can get a little grumpy.
To me, the G9 I was the nicest camera I owned size to handling. The EM1x’s were ideal, but bigger and the EM1 MkII’s felt nice, but felt a little under done with my two larger lenses mounted and I never feel as happy with their handling compared to the G9, but the MkIII’s nubbin would have reduced the margin.
I did think on the entry blocker this creates for new shooters also. We try to teach new togs about the benefits of exposure adjustment, focus accuracy etc and then give them entry level cameras that lock out easy access.
The reality is, sensor size is not the real determining factor of camera size. It does determine lens size, which can have an effect on the real size determining factor, which is handling and balance fit for purpose.
Landscape shooters have the luxury of using pretty much any camera available, large or small.
Pro sports camera = a large-dual gripped, cleanly laid out, power meaty, tough and fast work horse, balanced for larger lenses and dual orientation shooting. Larger sensor cameras will have larger lenses, but still, the maximum needed is the same from M43 to full frame, which is to say hands are all much the same.
Small travel camera = dinky little sensor wrapper with enough grip for the average hand, probably no view finder, balanced for small primes or light weight kit lenses.
Video power house = standard configuration, or video-centric variant* with ports and cages to take a multitude of accessories.
A camera always seems to end up the same shape, no matter wht else changes. This is becasue people do not change. The early Olympus cameras tried to get away without the view finder, but not long into their growth the finder made its way back in. Some brands have messed with the grip size, shape, the dial placement, but in the end, we come back to the same shaped hand camera we have been using since the 1930’s.
*which may be a small box to a large brute.