rethinking Micro Four Thirds in 2016

Alex Notpro wrote:

When I got into MFT in 2012 the following cameras did not exist:

- Sony A6000, A7 series

- Canon EOS M series (M1 had been announced but had no lenses, M3, M10 came later)

- Fuji X-T1 and serious Fuji lenses (56mm f/1.2 came later)

- Samsung NX1

Does MFT still make sense for me in 2016?

These are my requirements for a camera system:

- There should be at least 2 cameras, one pocketable (like E-PM2) and one high-performance ergonomic camera (like E-M1)

- All lenses and flashes should work well on both cameras

- Would be nice if both cameras could take the same batteries (Olympus fails here)

- Lenses must include a fast normal prime (50mm AOV), ultra-wide (14mm AOV) zoom, a fast normal zoom, a longish macro (105-120mm), a classic portrait prime (fast 85mm), a super-telephoto zoom, and a 35-50mm fast pancake prime. Nice-to-have a pancake normal zoom and a travel zoom (28-300). (MFT is king here)

- Would be nice-to-have access to 35, 50, and 85mm prime f/1.4-equivalent apertures for special situations (MFT comes short here)

- Must-have precise fast AF with C-AF and face/eye detection. (MFT very good)

- Option to use high shutter speeds when needed (high ISO)

- Option to use low shutter speeds and low ISO when needed (OIS/IBIS)

- AF during video (E-M1 is ok)

In particular, I'm wondering about A7II + A6300 or Canon 5DIII + M10 to replace E-M1 and E-PM2 respectively.

Thoughts?

As no system is perfect, what do you want to improve over your current m4/3?  You've listed hardware reqirements that are mostly met by m4/3, what photographic advantages do you want from making a change?  What shooting situations are you not able to handle now?