stand by my statement.
It has always been my understanding that 4/3 standard was designed around a fixed sensor size. I accept I may be wrong in this preconception, but until i understand otherwise your original request for a bigger sensor makes as much sense as asking that 120 film fit in your leica m6
peace and goodwill in the spirit of debate
K
It is time to refresh the lineage and the time line:
Olympus introduces the 4/3rds (all from my memory, there could be errors):
The 4/3rds white paper emphasizes 3 things:
1. The large size of the lens mount.
2. The long camera registry.
3. Tele-centricity of the lenses for the 4/3rds.
When Kodak stopped supplying their ITO based CCD sensors for 4/3rds, the new sensor supplier (now owned by Panasonic) introduce NMOS sensors.
Live view (as opposed to the hybrid live view found in E-330) come into play.
M4/3rds debuts. Two of the 3 corner stones of the original white paper on 4/3rds become obsolete with a smaller mount and very short registry.
Panasonic have already said that the tele-centricity requirement has become less of a requirement due to new developments in micro-lenses technology.
By your own analogy, with the M4/3rds there is already 120 film in an M6!
When the sensor was shifted from CCD to NMOS, it was a compromise in terms of DR for a gain of power consumption. The active pixel site area went down. Though not as much as it would have had it been a CMOS sensor, according to the 4/3rds consortium and the neat little diagram they put up to illustrate the differences. Now, live view CMOS technology has developed to such an extent that the D3 with its huge low light capability and DR uses a CMOS sensor and not a CCD or an NMOS sensor.