Meh, I love my Olympus cameras, but I wouldn't call the latest models exactly small. The OM1 is pretty huge, even though it's smaller than the ridiculous Panasonic G9. I think it's close to the Sony a7 line and the canon r6, which are full-frame. Of course, if you're into long lenses, it wipes the floor with them, if the compromise works for you. On the wide end, the advantage isn't as clear-cut, though nobody else has anything comparable to the 8-25.

What I'm hoping to see is a new penf. When it came out, they somehow managed to cram into that small body almost everything the em1 had at the time. The om3 is pretty small, too, but for some reason they decided to keep the faux-pentaprism bump. It would have been great if it had the viewfinder to the side.

The Pen EP-7 is the same size as the older EP-5. With any of the Olympus prime lenses, it's about as small as you get (ignoring the Pentax Q, which was ridiculously tiny).

But 100% agree on the OM-1 and OM-3. They're smaller than many APS-C bodies, especially once you add a lens, but they're nowhere near pocketable, not even in a jacket pocket. And I feel like the OM-3 was a bit of a miss - it should have been a "rangefinder" form factor (no pentaprism hump) and a few mm smaller in each dimension. And marketed as a Pen-F. That said, the camera itself seems to be pretty darn good - basically a slightly smaller, vintage-vibe OM-1. Once used examples hit the market, I'll be tempted to buy one.

My parents both shoot Nikon DSLRs and I chuckle every time they break out their birding lenses (400mm NIKKOR of some sort). It's as big as my forearm and fills half a backpack. My Lumix 100-300 (yeah, not quite apple-to-apple) is minuscule in comparison. [I don't do enough wildlife to bother with a more expensive telephoto).