>>4236708if smaller sensors were free lunch they wouldn't be 2% of the market.
this is a micro four thirds crop of a 50mp ff camera (12.5mp) to achieve an 800mm FOV vs 25mp on an 800mm FOV. there are more bayer problems on the 12.5mp (wavy lines), but no additional detail with 25mp and actually less texture. because more pixel on the detail, also equals more pixels on the aberrations.
i am not going to buy my own micro FOOL thirds camera to redo this test on varying subjects for you, i dont really have to because even though the guy who did this test is a literal paid panasonic shill, he BTFO himself by showing this smudgy mess. a skewed test like 12.5 vs 25mp and saying BUT LIGHTER AND CHEAPER BUY BUY BUY (because its a fucking ad) should not be conducted, because they are self discrediting on principle, but being self discrediting with the results is kinda sad
this smudgy mess is why the ILC market is slowly trending towards larger sensors.
more pixel density does not equal worthwhile reach for a camera that costs nearly $2k. this is a high end point and shoot. pixel density has sharply diminishing returns if you are a photographer rather than an automated license plate reader.
if you dont crop for reach/pixel peep i dont recommend you even waste your time with micro FOOL thirds. just buy a 1" sensor camera. they are even smaller, more convenient, and cheaper. whatever specs lumix offers dont really matter if the IQ is crap at pro gear prices.
