8) Macro: 120mm, 15mm, auto bellows ... m4/3 sensor is also very good for macro, due to it's high linear resolution, so the system should support advanced macro capabilities.
It captures less detail per frame, which after stopping the lens down and losing a good chunk of the information to the diffraction (on any system) is the only thing that counts. Tighter packed pixels do neither save nor bring back any of it.
We have already established in other threads that you don't understand why higher linear resolution of the sensor is advantageous in situations where magnification is important.
You mean the crop is important? That is if you start with 1:1 lens to begin with, but then how about Canon MP-e 65 then, as an example, or those tamrons with the native extensions in between, would those be comparable?
You can use all of them on Olympus. Macro is often done with manual focusing anyway. In any case, limiting factor is lens and how close you can come to the subject, and sensor with higher linear resolution will resolve smaller details.
It will not resolve smaller detail at the same framing. It's just that, there is no magic in it.
Sure, you can attach 3rd party lenses, done that too, would take AF any time over the manual setups these days (That's why I never bought Zeiss, however good they are).
It's the same when using extreme tele, or even telescope. You can use virtually any lens or telescope with a m4/3 camera (so the limit is the lens), and the higher linear resolution of the sensor will get you a little "closer" to the subject. Not 2x closer, because full-frame has higher overall resolution. You would need a full-frame sensor with 80 mpix to produce equivalent results.
That lens you are talking about mounting must have an aperture ring on it and not focus by wire. Not interested.
