>>4248835Undeniably wrong. Noise is determined effectively by sensor size, not pixel size. More pixels just means the noise is also smaller, you're looking at sharper noise with a higher intensity, but the matter of fact is that noise is physically smaller on a per pixel scale, and ultimately it's very similar to noise of different MP counts for the same sensor size. The MFT shot has way more noise. Even when you UPSCALE the mft shot to match.
The 61mp will make a large print with far better IQ due to more sharpness and less noise. Despite your deception of trying to look at the 61mp at a bigger scale. It maintains this sharpness advantage at high ISO even when ISO is impacting sharpness on lower mp bodies - they're all unilaterally in terms of sharpness and all suffer loss there. The 61mp just doesn't lose so much as to drop down to or below the lower mp's level at high ISO. 61mp does just as well at high iso as 33mp, 24mp, 12mp etc in the same sensor size.
Sensor size and not pixel size is ultimately the IQ filter. Modern MF sensors experience the same thing - an uptick in SNR and sharpness at the SAME ISO, the caveat is that the lenses may force the use of a higher ISO.
That caveat would also apply to MFT and make it equal in SNR to FF, if.. IF it had lenses 2 stops faster to compensate. Eg f/0.7 primes or even f/0.9 primes and f/1.4 zooms. They don't exist.
Or in this case there is 1 that exists - the 150-400mm 4.5 will be just as good for SNR as this new Canon lens but only at the long end, but that's the important part of a super telephoto zoom anyway.
It just costs 4x as much
