[thxbb12]

Now, my idea of a poll is "would you buy a small FF body with some handicaps in usability?" and "would you buy slow but compact lenses if available - and why would you prefer them against moderate second hand manual focus glass?".

The result would still have to be larger than any µ4/3 combination. No one would save money - even if I consider that ML has to be cheaper than DSLR as a lot of mechanics simply doesn't exist.

The Canon RP is FF and quite small. I believe a ML FF body in a GX80 for factor could be a bit smaller than the RP while being fine ergonomically. SLR from the film days were small and nobody was complaining there were tiny. It's like suddenly everybody grew huge hands and cannot operate a camera unless it's large and weighs a kg ?

If you compare equivalent systems, FF can be made as small as MFT, especially from wide-angle to short telephot (~100mm). The faster the glass, the more interesting it gets to go FF.

Below, a few examples of equivalent systems using an Olympus E-M1 II and a Sony A7 III:

• Olympus 25mm f1.2 vs Sony/Zeiss 55mm f1.8: the Olympus system is equivalent to a 50mm f2.4 FF. Slower, yet larger.
  
• Olympus 45mm f1.2 vs Sony 85mm f1.8: the Olympus system is equivalent to a 90mm f2.4 FF. Slower, yet larger (you can also replace the Oly with the Panasonic/Leica 42.5 to get an exact 85mm but it's still larger).
  
• Olympus 40-150 f2.8 vs Sony 70-300 f4.5-5.6: the Olympus is equivalent to a 80-300 f5.6. Slower, yet larger.
  

There are other examples, showing even more difference. The recent Samyang and Tamron offerings (f2 or f2.8 lenses) are a good example of this.
Now, there are tiny lenses in MFT land which would be equivalent to f4 or f5.6ff lenses. I'm sure if such lenses existed for FF, they would be comparable in size. They just don't exist.
For example, some nice compact f4 primes would be nice. Already, the f2.8 ones are quite small and affordable. Their f1.4 MFT equivalent are always very large and expensive.