[popo]

This thread does seem to be falling towards a "this is the only solution, everything else is useless" type argument. To put a bit of perspective on this, FOR MY USES I'm going to give various bodies a relative score, taking the 7D mk1 as benchmark at a score of 100. It doesn't do everything I want it to do, so if I camera does more, it scores higher, and if it does less, I will score it less.

So where would I put other cameras on this score?
My shiny new 7D mk2, I'd score 105. Yes, it is a tiny bit better than the mk1, but not radically different. Maybe when I get to grips with the more advance tracking AF settings I'll rate it even higher, but right now, it is functionally near enough the same.
My old 5D mk2. It is full frame, but the AF system is rather basic, so overall I'd rate it lower, perhaps 95. Similarly I have a 600D still in regular use, which I'd give a score of say 90.
The original Olympus E-P1 I still have. It is really old in technology terms, and its current cash value is even less than some filters I own. I'd score that perhaps 75.
The latest mirrorless cameras from the likes of Olympus and Sony, without having used them, I'd guess they would score around 85. Panasonic and Fuji models aren't as interesting to me due to lack of IBIS so they would rate slightly lower.

My point is the overall ranking of the bodies above isn't important, but look how tight the scores are. For most applications, most cameras are good enough. I still need and want to cover the edge cases so I seek out that performance. If I only have a compact or smartphone on me, I'll use them to the best of my abilities. I might not get every shot chance, but I'll get something.

If Fuji deliver on their hints as given in the interview earlier, they have a chance at taking my cash in future. Then again it may still be challenging, as catching up in itself isn't going to make people switch, they need to offer something more.