These idiots are trying to bait you into spending a bunch of money you don't have. This is how commodified hobbies work, especially photography. They live in a world of stats and specs. It's completely divorced from taking photos. If you're interested in actually taking photos rather than endlessly purchasing camera equipment, then I recommend getting a camera you can afford. Having a camera is better than not having a camera, if you want to use a camera. A cellphone is not a camera - there's no tactility, there's no interchangeable lenses, there's no consideration for the mechanics of photography.
Perhaps in snapshit logic, the tool makes the man, so you need the best tool you can because it's the only way to increase the quality of your poor photos. You need 40MP photos of city buses and tree branches, which are objectively better than 16MP photos of city buses and tree branches. "Better" means you are a "better" photographer. The megapixels transmute money into the appearance of personal achievement. Pointing your Samsung in the general direction of a city bus and hitting the big white circle is "better" than any "poor person" camera, because of megapixels. Ignore that you didn't engage in any photography.
M43 is fine. There are some really cheap lenses. Like the Olympus 40-150mm F4.0-5.6 and various primes which can all be had for <$100. Quality be damned, you need low barrier to entry and access to variety once you figure out what you are trying to do. Because it's not "just" $1250, unless you are going to rawdog it with 1 battery, no tripod, no filters, no flashes and lighting, no straps, no bags, etc.
