I just hope it won’t be made by stopping the progress with ISO 100 quality. Honestly I’d prefer ISO 64 or lower camera with uber-details over usable ISO 102,000.

Quite usable under the right circumstances. Give it a couple years and it will be completely usable.

The reason is the compromises inherent to lens design. With lenses longer than the camera’s register, you can use symmetrical or telephoto lens designs. Symmetrical designs have the optical group’s centre at infinity focus located the focal length from the film/centre plane. Telephoto lenses have the lens group located closer to the film plane than the focal length. This results in a certain lower limit to lens size for a given focal length and as these designs typically have much more coverage than needed (most 35mm SLR designs for 300mm lenses will cover MF if the appropriate mount were attatched) so you don’t get a size advantage from reducing coverage.

With lenses shorter than the register, with SLR’s you need to use retrofocal designs, which result in lenses which are physically longer than the focal length, and the lenses tend to grow as focal length gets shorter. With mirrorless designs you don’t need to do this and the lenses can stay very compact unless other considerations (usually the combination of large apertures and small diameter mounts) force you to use retrofocal designs. Also coverage is much harder to achieve so smaller formats allow less complex designs at a given focal length. This means that the wider the lens, the larger the size advantage for m43 cameras.

It’s M mount which is the real question (and one place where Samsung blew it). If you can adapt M mount, there’s a huge ready-made market, if not m43 will continue to dominate for adaptation.

Besides, some of the zoom lens made for m4/3 body are anything but small.

C-frame is a good beginning, I hope they create a true hybrid—like the Panasonic GH1.