I think I'm going to jump m4/3's ship because of UltraWideAngle

Davud wrote:

I get it that m4/3 is good, very good but that doesn't mean I am going to close my eyes on other options. I contemplate a lot on trying and buying other brands and systems. Most of the time I'd see there is not enough benefit from spending more and getting more. I wanted to buy Sony A7 but I ended up with Oly E-M5II because of glass not the sensor. It is no secret that when the sensor shrinks, so does the effective field of view for a given focal length. It is also true that APS-C and M4/3 are not that different in dimensions but we are talking about the limits of physics and that difference is going to show up. Pana 7-14 has more elements and groups because it is more difficult to project the same view on a smaller sensor eg. NIKKOR FX 14-24mm f/2.8 has 14 elements in 11 groups compared to Panasonic's 16 elements in 12 groups and that is constant aperture.
After all maybe I end up getting Olympus 7-14 for the same weight and price of the mentioned combos.

Yes, your first post indicates this predisposition:

I contemplate a lot on trying and buying other brands and systems.

The three Nikon 5000 images that you submitted for challenges would all have benefited from a wider lens. The Paris at night shot reminds me of work by others with the Voigtlander 10.5 f/0.95.

I don't think that the responses you are getting indicates love for any system, it just indicates that "jumping ship" to a new system for a specialty lens might be myopic GAS.  You are not alone.  Lots of folks think that equipment makes the photograph(er).

I find that the P 7-14 f/4 works fine as a UWA.  So, apparently, does Yaelle and many others. I haven't tried the Oly 7-14 and cannot advise on that lens.

Have fun on the other ship.  Let us know where you end up.

Cheers,