>>4176275Megapixels are a confounding factor and if we're talking reach it makes zero sense not to crop the full frame sensor so whatever is on the edges of the frame is literal refuse.
To say that MFT is literally just cropped full frame is akin to saying full frame is literally just cropped medium format. MFT is a smaller format and people talk about it being "crop" because it is like cropping from a larger one, 35mm having been the standard since the film era for reasons that have to do more with 135 film than with some magical property 36x24mm has.
All this talk of quadrupling megapixels is just a distraction when it comes to reach. What is quadrupling the megapixels without changing the sensor size? Effectively halving the pixel pitch, or doubling the reach. The pixel pitch-reach equation is one of inverse linear proportion. You have 50% bigger pixel pitch, you have 50% less reach (things are 50% smaller when measured in pixels). The Sony 60.9 (not 62) megapixel sensors have 3.76 micrometer pixels. Same as 16 megapixel MFT. Same as a Pentax K-3 III. Same as a PhaseOne IQ4. Same as a Fujifilm 100S. Barely larger than Canon 24MP APS-C (just 1%) That's as far as you can get with any given focal length on full frame. You want to get closer? 20 MP MFT has 3.34 micrometer pixels. That's a 13% reach increase. Closer yet? Enter 32.5MP Canon. 3.2 micrometers, 17.5% more reach. Even closer? 25.2MP MFT offers 3 micron pixels. That's over 25% increase in reach, nothing to sneer at. Closer yet? Nikon has you covered. The Nikon 1 J4 offers 2.5 micron pixels. That's a 50% increase over the best full frame has to offer. Still not enough? Enter Pentax Q10. 1.54 micrometer pixels. That's effectively 144% more reach. The final image is just 12.4MP, but the equivalent crop from full frame would be just 2 megapixels. You tell me pixel pitch doesn't impact reach all you want, all the reach monsters out there will just keep packing more pixels in the same area.
