I always hear Micro Four Thirds can't do low light, but then I take a (bad) picture like this, and I think it's a massively exaggerated "weakness" of the system.
This pic was taken in conditions that were so dark, it was difficult to see the boy running across the wall with the unaided eye. Not only did my EM1.2 focus immediately, but the noise is absolutely acceptable to me, especially for a scene darker than anything I'd ever shoot at professionally under any conditions. This picture has ZERO PERCENT NOISE REDUCTION. Nada. None. And I dropped the sharpening to zero, and just added a little clarity and slightly boosted the vibrance.
I kept it at ISO 200 and was able to almost totally freeze his motion at 1/125. He was running along that wall quite fast. How often would anyone ever need to capture someone running at that speed in nearly dark conditions professionally? I'd say essentially never.
I honestly think that the "MFT can't do low light" meme is just that, a meme. My opinion is that there's basically 1% to 5% of photographers that actually need better than MFT performance, and they're pushing the limits of imaging technology purposefully. Certainly close to 0% of anyone who's ever posted in the entire history of this board genuinely needs better than MFT performance, unless they're printing larger than poster size, which I bet is extremely rare.
I've come to the conclusion all the MFT hate is just post-purchase cope by low skilled, trend following, meme sucking togs that think a bigger sensor makes up for their innate lack of skill as photographers. Why worry about composition when you can just completely destroy your background details with "creamy bokeh" that we've all seen done a billion times to death? Just keep saying MFT can't do low light, even though 99% of togs never shoot professional stills in conditions dark enough for it to ever even matter one bit.