Are smaller pixels/sensors better for macro.

There isn't really any disadvantage for smaller sensors for macro with significant DOF, because that DOF means that you are operating within the range of practical equivalence. Many FF sensors do have more pixels though, than the typical smaller sensors used for macro (excluding things like 108MP cellphone sensors). Pixel size is only relevant in context. If smaller means more of them on-subject, then that is a plus. If one system has smaller pixels but puts less of them on-subject, then it has no advantage; just a resolution disadvantage.

That all assumes equivalent usage (same entrance pupil size and distance from subject).

There could only be more DOF possible with smaller sensors if the lenses used with the smaller sensors had smaller minimum entrance pupils.

To a person who thinks in terms of f-ratio, then certainly the same f-ratio (when AOV is the same) will give more DOF with the smaller sensor, but that is not a logical way to approach needed DOF; it should be based on the entrance pupil size; not the f-ratio. That will be lens-dependent.

Some great pictures Don!

there is always a disadvantage to smaller sensors apart from usabillity.

Those are not the same photo. What is the point of comparing so many arbitrary factors?

No they arnt one is taken with the fz150 and one taken with the em5.

Stunning images, congrats on that amazing job!!

had a play with my a74, sensor needs cleaning ,but i ran out of wet swabs 😒
image is impressive though.

That‘s a fantastic capture! Well done. 👍 Is it on a dandelion?

Yes, i always let them runaround on flowers and get covered in pollin . 😁

these are in the field. once in a life time shots.

Excellent shots Don!

did some tests and i was correct my a74 larger sensor/pixels can easily out resolve my old em12 ,the pixel size plays a big part . ive been saying it for years.

amscope.com/pages/camera-resolution

From what I've read so far I think so as well. Pixel size/pixel pitch matters.

Here's a short thread on it on photomacrography:
www.photomacrography.net/forum/viewtopic.php?f=8&t=45894

As stated before, I'm sure there are significantly more detailed explanations and examples with specific cameras/camera-lens combinations there or elsewhere, but given that I'm not very interested yet in those specifics (I might be at some point in the future, I guess), I can't name exact links.

On a different note:

Inspired by the beautiful recent ant shot by @DonaldB with the pollen, I decided to shoot some flower details up close as well:

Full Res: live.staticflickr.com/65535/53016634724_e6c2e7e56d_o.jpg

Full Res: live.staticflickr.com/65535/53016957178_27b02990fd_o.jpg

All of a sudden, this tiny creature (being around 1-1.5 mm in size) appeared out of the flower:

Full Res: live.staticflickr.com/65535/53016635724_e444e52b97_o.jpg

Of course my setup isn't made to capture such a tiny creature running around. I was lucky that it stopped a couple of times, because I wouldn't have been able to capture it at all (with my continuous lighting setup) if it wasn't for that. I've no idea what kind of creature that is... doesn't look like a typical aphid to me.

Image quality is not quite where I'd want it to be yet, but it was fun using my 16 mm Luminar again... such a nice little lens!

ive been thinking of buying another olympus 4x microscope objective, i bought a 40yold 10x olympus and is great.

another fav shot

You can say it for centuries, but it will still be wrong. All that larger pixels are better for is smaller files and faster rolling e-shutters, due to less pixels to read out. And maybe a little less light loss at very low f-numbers, around 2 or lower, but BSI is reducing that issue.

Your so-called "tests"; did they use the same sensor area on both sensors so that you're really comparing pixel size/density, and not sensor area? Same optics, so that you're not comparing optics? Same subject and distance? Your claim should stand when everything else but pixel density is the same.