This is an extremely approximate answer, so I won't follow up. > Yeah, just 4K at 200mbps (GH5 and co) and 10bit color, 6MP snapshots from video, 5 axis image

This is an extremely approximate answer, so I won't follow up. > Yeah, just 4K at 200mbps (GH5 and co) and 10bit color, 6MP snapshots from video, 5 axis image stabilisation that's rock solid, sensor-shift 40+ MP images, much better low light, and so on. None of them has nothing to do with the sensor quality in a strict sense (dynamic range/color resolution/low light sensitivity). I've personally done real-world tests with old and new sensors (difference of more or less 5 years), and the generational advantage has been significantly lower than the previous 5 years. In particular, the "low light" is far from being "significantly better". On paper, in best cases, the best sensors from each mirrorless, including Fuji, have gained more or less one stop. In real world, less, and I've tried it. > Analog cameras image quality didn't have ANY difference in a 5 or even 20 years timeframe, so there's that... Irrelevant. > Err, Panasonic for one has several cheap models with essentially the same sensor as GH5. They're not the same. With the vague term "essentially" one can make any argument. > MFT does not exhaust mirroless (which is what the parent spoke about). This is a fair point, but the slowdown applied to all the other mirrorless as well. Probably the most interesting/significant improvements have been the X-Trans sensor, and the A7S; the former probably made, in the respective segment, the largest difference.