Like many aspects of our current world, this is an issue with no direct answer. From my time, we first saw the destruction of the larger format commercial market (not absolute, but more than 80%), then the destruction of the commercial 35mm market. Our media has gotten smaller, our expectation of quality has actually decreased.
The market, for the most part, for high end cameras is now mostly with hobbiest (as the professional market continues to get smaller). A cell phone, is in fact, quite acceptable for most images these days.
Ironically, an images are still an exposure (media sensitivity, f-stop and shutter speed), depth of field and composition. But in order to try and make their expensive camera's seem worth the huge price, we now have hundreds of settings. So in effect, artificially increasing the complexity (as it seems to be believed that complexity equals cost), while the market for high end camera's shrink leads one to the edge of a cliff.
I believe this article is a very narrow point of view. There is a huge path to upgrade...just that it is not absolute. Want really wide angle, well there is no upgrade. Strobes, tripods, shutter releases, some of the lens and and lots of other parts offer great upgrade paths. We went from a 50D system to a 5D system... and yea, had to replace one lens. But a FF should not always be "the path", and that part is correct. I shoot mostly underwater macro images... and there a FF sort of sucks..it is too large, has DOF issues and one has to have lots of backups. But land is a different issue. I wonder how many people today make large commercial prints and actually need the improved resolution that a FF has? Want a large telephoto with Canon, your only low cost option is the 100 - 400, and that is sort of natural upgrade for a FF (like it or not). And one can always use it on a full frame like a cropped sensor. Only recently has there been an affordable larger zoom available.
I'm rather surprised at the image quality @ ISO 1600, it is much better than I would expect. The wine cask image is pretty good looking and better than anything I can take at that light level.
This appears to be sort of a Canon S95 with a big sensor...interesting choice.
Not been much of a Sony fan, but camera has several aspects that I find very attractive, including being able to do reasonable macro (which all the other larger sensor camera's cannot do.
I hope everyone understands just how interrelated these two companies are with the 4/3rds. I know the flash controls for Panasonic are made by Oly and obviously the sensors for Oly are made by Panasonic. I would guess, they share a lot more items than that. Kill Oly, and it most likely will cause a huge loss at Panasonic and might even kill 4/3rds.
As Panasonic is also not profitable, one wonders how this will end up effecting Panasonic. Say Fuji buys into Oly, and they make Oly's sensors and Panasonic then takes a huge loss in their sensor business.
Even worse, say someone else buys Oly, and just kills the camera division (which would make great sense, as Oly's camera division has been loosing money)?
Panasonic would be hit with huge losses and might also be out of the 4/3rds business.
For Panasonic to not be interested in investing in Oly can only mean they have some other plan.. wonder what it is?