>>3438901You have less depth of field on smaller sensor. Meaning you won't need to worry as much about how narrow your field is, and you will need to focus stack less to get usable results.
Normally, for something like portraits, shallower/less dof is a benefit, you want your background to blur out. For macro you're so close to the subject that dof will be extremely shallow even on larger apertures. No matter the sensor size. The closer you are to the subject, the shallower dof you get. Basic optics, it'll be always like that. And at macro you're so close to the subjects that you'll always be fighting dof not going for it. For getting higher magnifications than 1:1, you'll need to focus stack, no matter the equipment you'll be using. Dof will be so small you won't get full eye in focus, but that's another macro area already.
Sample;
Quarter of a nail sized spider. Uncropped and selected since it shows what kinds of dof you get on m43 format. I can go up to f8 and not get into diffraction problems for this lens, but I think I needed a bit of light, so I shot lower. No flash. Handheld by resting tip of the lens on extended hand on the plank. Shutter speed is very low, ibis helped a lot, but still image would be blurry without rest. Now observe how shallow focus plane is. Legs at front and whole back is out of focus. Even at f8, where it would be wider, I'd need to stack at least two images to get whole bug in focus. Franky I'd have to be lucky to do that handheld on my cam, I'd need tripod. On a larger sensor, tripod/focus stack would be only way to get anything useful. That's the benefit of 43 sensor.
Not saying it's the best thing ever for macro, there are drawbacks as well. At times you won't be able to fit whole bug in the frame at 1:1 where you could do that on larger sensor, you could just move a bit back, but it's not the same, but overall, macro is one area where you'll not see many differences along the sensor sizes. Each has benefits and drawbacks.
