You said that you need to have wider apertures for same exposure earlier, and that's not right, and in this case light density over a certain region of film is determinant to set all the camera settings(believe me, I know, I'm a physicist).
I was just pointing out th mistake, sorry if it sound insulting or something.
Signal noise ratio and stuff are the limits of the designs and technology applied to it. Some day it may or not be overcome. And that's not the discussion. Finally these data don't apply here. Small sensors limits are true and might disappear, but, in any case, the OM-D sensor has a much better noise signal ratio, and likely dynamic range at high ISO, compared to the M9, to the point that it's images are cleaner.
Also, It's not correct for us to say about lens designs. For instance, the article says that glass' refractions index can't be change. Yet, glass has no crystalline structure, and likely to be sensitive to manufacture condition such colling and pressure that may change it's macro properties, such refraction index. Also, glass is not the only nor the most transparent medium. It's just abundant and cheap(to make). Since we don't know the first thing about it, we can't really say anything. Another conflicting data, is that small image circles lenses are smaller and easier to make, to the point that voigtlander to make three 0.95 lenses for m43.
The thing is, market(us) choose properties that sounds better and chooses certain qualities over others, and manufactures here us, but it's hardly the only way to make things better. For instance, go back a few years, and no one would choose a CMOS over CCD. Now, any new camera uses CMOS or variations of it, exactly to overcome problems with small photocell designs. So who are we to say?
