MFT lenses, on average, are FAR more expensive than any other system up to full-frame. I don't know what goes on in medium format, and I probably don't wanna know.
You can get a Nikon Z8, which is indeed QUITE expensive, but you won't have to update the "body" for many years, the lenses are the real expense. You can get lenses that have the SAME focal length and aperture specs as the MFT lenses, usually for less. You can also get lenses with the same focal length but less bright, if you want to save a LOT of money, get a significantly lighter lens, and still get similar or better signal to noise ratio than MFT (because it's full-frame). AND you'll still get higher resolution than OM-1 when you crop to the same field of view, because it has a 45mp sensor. You get "only" 20 frames per second with full auto exposure and auto focus, while with OM-1 II you get more, so if that's very important to you (I can't imagine 20 FPS being too slow...) then OM-1 II indeed wins. If you want to get more than TWICE the resolution, then indeed you have to buy lenses with twice the focal length. But that's an entirely different comparison and definitely not "apples to apples".
MFT is VERY expensive, PERIOD. I would NEVER recommend anyone to get into MFT if cost saving is very important to them. They could end up paying a WHOLE lot more than they'd pay with APS-C or Full-Frame systems. I just really like some of the lenses and cameras in MFT, and the IBIS, and especially my darling E-M1X. Don't delude yourself, you're NOT saving money on lenses.
