>>3432034>For that reason, a high resolution m4/3 camera can easily outresolve a low resolution full frame body.Ehhhhh. Barely.
>>3432047> Photons are tiny, right?Yeah, they are, so you need a shit-ton of them to make an exposure. If you have a significantly larger number of photons hitting your photosites, it's generally better--i.e., a reading from that photosite is more likely to be based on the actual photosites that hit it rather than on random electrical noise in the wires.
Attached is a screen shot comparing:
5D Classic (12MP and ancient, full frame)
iPhone X (12MP and brand new, but a tiny cellphone sensor)
OM-D E-M1X: (20MP, brand new, 4/3)
5D Mark II: (21MP, medium ancient, full frame)
To my eyes, the iPhone is obviously blown away by everything (I just threw it in to show how bad a small sensor can be. And keep in mind that the iPhone X has one of the better phone cameras out there), the 4/3 holds its own against the 5D, but only just barely. Like, the level of resolved detail is pretty close to the same. 14 years worth of technological advancement plus eight megapixels gives it a little bit of an edge, but not one that you'd actually notice in real world shots.
Here's a link to the comparison if you want to play around with it yourself:
https://www.dpreview.com/reviews/image-comparison?attr18=daylight&attr13_0=canon_eos5d&attr13_1=apple_iphonex&attr13_2=olympus_em1x&attr13_3=canon_eos5dmkii&attr15_0=raw&attr15_1=jpeg&attr15_2=raw&attr15_3=raw&attr16_0=200&attr16_1=32&attr16_2=200&attr16_3=200&attr126_1=1&attr126_2=1&normalization=full&widget=1&x=-0.4604090217062894&y=-1.0154765439880342 