>>4095844I'm just gearfagging here but hear me out:
Because most M43 lenses are smaller overall and gather a little less light, which delivers a little less light to the already small sensor, resulting in a slightly worse signal to noise ratio. All that changes with the sensor size all things being equal is how far the image circle is projected and how densely, theoretically, the photosites can be packed. The larger photosites of a less dense FF sensor do not gather extra light if it's not gathered by a larger lens first. But, most FF setups have better overall light gathering ability due to larger lenses, resulting in a small uptick in quality, and the quality potential of the format is higher (you can get both a bigger lens and a bigger sensor, with the same pixel density, and a bigger image with the same amount of detail), which makes people feel good about their purchase. If M43 gets a bigger lens and a denser sensor, full frame can always one up it. By how much? You probably wouldn't be able to fucking tell unless you put your nose to it. In the near future I think we will look back and think full frame was only justifiable for huge landscape shots and massive prints.
Full frame = today's 4x5
APS-C = today's 120 film
MFT = today's 35mm film
On the other hand a worse photographer won't be helped by anything. A little less noise (literally use the denoise slider it's fucking nothing), but it's not in focus, or motion blurred, or the composition sucks, so no one cares.
