Ok Marc. I understand now. I guess the real catch is that every sensor size brings with it its own advantages and disadvantages. Assuming equal technology, the larger the sensor the better the resolution, noise performance, dynamic range and so on. But increasing sensor size has big disadvantages too -- more power consumption, larger camera bodies, bigger heavier lenses to cover the larger sensor area, slower data streams (assuming it is higher resolution), more difficulty storing images and so on.
For what it's worth, we had the EXACT same issue with film, and the fact that we are now getting there with digital is a testament to digital's maturity. You have to pick your poison -- do you want compact with good results but difficulty doing certain things (shallow depth of field, large optical VF's etc), kind of bulky and heavy with very good results and the best flexibility, or absolute best quality with quite big and heavy camera systems, less flexibility, extreme prices and complicated workflows? That is the 4/3rds, full frame/ MFD market choices for the moment anyway.