>>4200237>LiarNope.
>the lenses are cheap and smallThis is aboslutely true especially if you compare them to APS-C and FF lenses, ESPECIALLY if those lenses are for DSLRs, as mounted on DSLRs. A canon rebel is the size of a full frame sony MILC, for reference, You're not getting better cheaper without a large clunky DSLR with fewer software features (or as the poorfags stuck with the 5dIIs call them, crutches). The equally small lenses like f8 equivalent zooms simply don't exist on full frame and APS-C.
>The bodies are cheap and smallEven at their largest, with the dimensions of full frame for ergonomics purposes, they are still lighter, and cheaper unless you are comparing a brand new top of the line panasonic to a 5 year old camera that can't do shit for video. . An olympus e-m1 II is a very good camera even by today's standards and is $500 and you can buy older ones that are gudnuf for $250 and less. Sometimes packaged with a lens and a flash.
>The quality is not as good as a full frame cameraThis is true. Obviously full frame can have advantages just like medium format is better than FF - extreme oversampling, faster lenses, less noticeable noise, subjectively better looking detail out of cheaper glass, much wider lenses are more plentiful and cheaper, etc. But micro four thirds is good enough for the average person.
>And more than a phone can achieveEven when artificial "intelligence" is abusing your photos to denoise, paint in missing details, and stack exposures it only looks good on a tiny phone screen. Maybe in good light, the best available phone could be very close to micro four thirds, but MFT is still higher quality.
Micro four thirds is simply the most sufficient camera system you can get into today. As a bonus, you can effectively get more focal length out of whatever optics you attach your camera to, because the smaller sensor has a cropped FOV but still has the same density as a larger camera.
