Does it make sense to study algebraic geometry by Grothendieck's EGA?
I know French and I want to know whether I can read a treatise Grothendieck to explore this area.
I am familiar with the abstract algebra, commutative algebra, algebraic topology (in the amount of Bourbaki's books), and differential geometry.
If you are thinking in reading all pages from the first one, I don't know. But if you skip some parts, I think yes. Even to study commutative algebra, EGA chapters $0_{III}, 0_{IV}$ are a good sequel to Atiyah's (even today with Bourbaki's Commutative Algebra chapter X, I like much more the exposition of EGA $0_{IV}$). Does it consume more time than other texts? Probably yes, but it depends on the reader. I think it is not so unusual to move from Hartshorne to EGA I and II when learning scheme theory in order to avoid so many noetherian hypothesis.
Shall I understand that you have studied these topics from Bourbaki's books? In some sense EGA is close to Bourbaki in style, and since I think it is mainly a matter of taste to start with EGA, Harshorne, Liu, Mumford-Oda, etc., if you like Bourbaki, probably EGA is a good choice. In this case I would recommend you to start with chapter I (after learning basic sheaf theory from any short source), and only read chapter $0_I$ as needed.
Having said this, I have not yet read but a few pages of Vakil's book, but with this caution, Vakil's book seems to be a good text, in some sense not far from EGA in style, and it was written as a textbook, so it is probably a better choice to start. I hope it will be soon in print form, but at least we have an e-reader version.
Sorry for writing all these comments as an answer, but it was too long for a comment.