>>3596247Whoops I clicked wrong. Looks like they haven't actually added this one to the comparison yet.
Also I'm gonna drop the typical 4chan hostility here to say this.
Long telephoto scales very heavily und unfavorably with sensor size. Which is why bridge cameras can have such long FF-equivalent lenses, and a smaller lens is just cheaper to produce. Then comes MFT, APS-C and finally making a long tele on fullframe is just very expensive, and big and heavy.
Yes it will give you the best image quality but it will also cost disproportionately more, it doesn't scale linearly at all. Pros are on FF with these lenses because...well they're pros. They're either not buying their own gear or can afford it.
For a hobby shooter that wants long tele ZOOM at good quality I think FF is the wrong choice.
Go for the MFT camera, you can always return it if it turns out you don't like it, idk why people get so assblasted over this. Personally I'd get a newer (used) FF body, a decently long prime, a tele converter and a standard zoom. This will be more expensive for sure but also be better in low light and have better quality at both the short and long end.
I'm still very confused by your noise levels though. Then again it is an older camera.
