>>4176256>Micro four thirds is literally just cropped full frame.You can tell them this a million times but it insults their ego
In the already stated example the DOF of a 400mm lens is fixed, if you crop down to 25% of the field of view so it's an "800mm lens" the DOF remains the same and so the noise has more of an impact relative to the picture size. This is what micro four thirds does. You therefore have the option of any gradient between the wider FOV with less noise and more details, and the narrower, zoomed in FOV that also zooms in on the noise.
>inb4 pixel pitchMegapixel count must be doubled for a marginal improvement and quadrupled for an immediately noticeable improvement. You can not say, notice the difference between 10 and 15mp, or 26 and 36mp, easily. Professionals once shot editorials for major publications using 12mp lumix GF1s. This means that if you have a full frame camera with 42mp, you can crop down to that field of view and produce 10.5mp images as usable as the lumix GF1s output ever was. The detail definition will be slightly smoother at the GH6s 25mp, equal to a 100mp full frame camera, but this is only a slight difference when pixel peeping your already pixel peeped image. Using the common 62mp sony would be more than close enough to that slught difference. Pixel density isn't that big of a deal until you get into things like 20mp 1" sensors and phones. Then you can really see its benefits.
If you want to do an experiment to test this yourself, please remember that what you view on an average computer monitor when editing your raws is not actually representative of how a real photograph is used in a professional context. Apply noise reduction and print at 250-300 dots per inch or export at a lower resolution with output sharpening to see what the pros see.
The question you need to ask yourself is if you need to pack the weight and cost that comes with having the option to use that wider FOV with less noise and more details.
