>>4215674>Worst possible glassIn the center, stopped down, basically every modern lens on earth is at, very near, or far beyond the resolution limit of the sensor behind it, and the only reason you aren't aware
of an official figure for that is because field curvature makes getting perfect focus on a frame-filling test chart a few meters away impossible. In real photographs it doesn't matter because real subjects are not a wall a few meters away. This is nerd shit but you gotta know it, lens sharpness does not matter, at least not in the way gearfag review sites test it, unless you are exclusively using a lens to scan film or do art reproduction. The real way to review a lens is much more complex/expensive and the only valuable bit of info you get out of it is copy variation.
>ut you also don't get nice compact lenses on those are other sensor sizes like you do on m43, and you don't get ibis like that either.You kind of do, fuji and canon have oodles of small sharp primes and very good IBIS and IBIS+OSS until you get into macro and telephoto shit. In the normal range even sony with their larger lenses is close enough to a point. MILC M43 vs. DSLR FF isn't a fair comparison at all dude.
M43 sales are dying off fast because unless you're 5'4", or a wildlife photographer, the size advantage is extremely small. And if absolute size is all you're after, literally nothing beats phones. Current phone sensors are nearly the size of 1" PNS sensors, but much more advanced, and the software and optics sandwiching them is lightyears ahead. If you shoot 28 to 85mm there's very little M43 can offer over your phone except a little extra bokeh and slightly better dim light performance, and people outside of bird nerds would be better served by saving up for fuji APS-C or sony APS-C+FF and adapted lenses for a more noticeable advantage.
