>>3575635>What I'm saying is, if you try to normalise the systems, you end up losing the unique qualities/advantages of each.That's fair, but I don't deny that mft can have weight/reach advantages. To act like the mftards I would have to trash every single thread ranting about how gravity changes for FF lenses so they're not as heavy. In fact, they're 8x more "weight efficient" then mft because of some bullshit pulled out of someone's ass.
>Of course it matters. It's the only thing that matters.Pic related. Top two are FF with different pixel pitches. Bottom two are FF and crop with same pixel pitch. Pixel pitch is not what determines high ISO performance.
>The microlenses are not the issue. The photosite size is what determines the noise level per pixel (given same sensor technology).It literally does not. High ISO images are dominated by photon shot noise, not read noise. And read noise differences are very small between different pixel pitches.
>My point is, if m4/3 cameras were low MP count, say ¼ of a full frame MP count (and effectively the same photosite size as the FF camera), then it becomes a simple question of how large you print.You would still have the same photon shot noise as any other mft sensor. You can have one single mft sized pixel and the photon shot noise will be the same.
>Also most are stuck at 2k (~2MP) displays, In absolute numbers globally that might be true, but the everyone is moving rapidly to 4k.
