Exactly. For about the same money you can put together an m4/3 system that is far more capable and versatile.
But is "versatility" something that the average consumer really cares about?
Last week I happened to be browsing in a camera store (imagine that!) and overheard a young woman talking to a sales rep about which camera she should buy.
The prospective buyer was looking for something small. Her primary concern was image quality. Whether it had detachable lenses or not was irrelevant.
For the casual shooter, it may be that the G1X (ugh, "X" again!) is a far more attractive purchase than something with lenses that you can or need to change.
In terms of compact size, when the lens is all folded away, the G1X is not that far off the size of other mirrorless cameras with a pancake lens. The ability and need to change lenses on other mirrorless cameras is both a positive and a negative: extra lenses for extra reach need to be placed somewhere. And then there's dust.
There is no free lunch.As it happened, whilst I was in said store, I was able to get a first hand look at the various NEX cameras and the bulk associated with them once you've got a lens attached and needless to say, whilst the body has gone on a very effective sliming diet, the lenses have not (and more or less, that's the way it has to be.)
The lack of detachable lenses is also an important for the price point. For example, Fuji's latest mirrorless that has an APS-C, is at least twice the price of the G1X when similarly equipped. For the budget conscious buyer, this is not a trivial amount of money that is involved.
Now it may be that Canon's market research tells them that all they need is "big sensor with more MP than a phone and IQ that is better than a phone", rather than detachable lenses. Time will tell.
