sizifo, no doubt, these cameras are amazing and relatively affordable, but how amazing are they, practically, if the cameras are never good enough for the companies to stand pat? If the cameras are so good, why are they constantly upgraded? I think up until recently, we've been paying for research and development by buying products that haven't been good enough, despite the electronic wizardry. It's kind of like the consumers have been paying beta testers.
It seems it's getting pretty close, or it's at the point where the cameras are better than the required usage, and now might be an ideal time for the camera companies to let us off the hook and to create their ultimate camera bodies (sensor/ chip upgradable in case a lens development requires it) in the two sensor sizes (cropped and FF) and then get to work on their lenses to further improve photographic quality.
What happened in the computer world? The intentional bloating of software, in which Microsoft played a huge role, to require the users to purchase faster and faster computers, ram, hard disks, and everything else. It was all planned. In the early days the software was lean and functional and operated fine on less horsepowered computers.
Do we really need even faster auto-focus, more or "better" exposure modes, even higher resolution sensors? The companies will continue to do their damndest to convince us that we do, but the requirements for image quality (the intended usage) hasn't really changed all that much since the film days, and manual focus, and hand-held light meters, and aperture rings. And the irony of all ironies is that that era produced the greatest photographs ever created. And film can't hold a candle to todays digital IQ, but it certainly was good enough. Why isn't digital good enough? Because the cash flow stops once it is, or it's preceived to be by the majority, and acted upon accordingly. Then the jig is up. But the reality is that the majority of photographers love technology more than they love pictures, and so it will go.