So here are a couple of crops, both exported at the same resolution (3875 x 2503 as that was the size of the EM1 after cropping, the D850 was 6852 x 4568) and then 1:1 crop. I'm not saying if they're in the same order as above or swapped round yet. However, I think the difference is much more apparent at pixel peeping level (maybe not on here, at least not on my screen, but certainly on the originals and on Flickr). Excuse the over sharpening artefacts, I hadn't intended to post crops and were sharpened for the original smaller files. But the point is, if we have to go to this level to see the difference I think it's fair to say that M4/3 is more than good enough for most people and most applications when shooting the 'right' scenario. Obviously in low light etc things will be different.
/proxy.php?image=https://farm2.staticflickr.com/1857/30646066548_9b3e2d5847_c.jpg&hash=28744ba235514f5c145ee84742f00ffe
Screen Shot 2018-09-06 at 16.47.56 by TDG-77, on Flickr
/proxy.php?image=https://farm2.staticflickr.com/1863/43798155754_2cf49da1b3_c.jpg&hash=1c2f36531df7a37dc5e9781593831874
Screen Shot 2018-09-06 at 16.48.10 by TDG-77, on Flickr
Now I think the top crop is the FF one.....
It’s a great point, M43 is very good! Presumably you still use your FF when you need it’s advantages?
TBH I didn't take these to make a point etc, I did it out of my own curiosity. However, after doing so I thought I'd share the results.
If I only took landscapes at base ISO and never wanted to print large and only view at normal screen size then it would be hard to justify the cost and weight of FF. However, I know in high contrast scenes such as sunsets I'm going to get better results with the Nikon due to the DR and ability to push the files hard in PP. Also, I shoot wildlife where I need to crop a lot, I shoot sports in which I push AF systems, and I shoot in low light. Plus I love shallow DOF. All these things mean that I still need/want FF, but I'm obviously not disappointed when I use my m4/3 
All the reasons I like my FF options... plus Astro
Ok so 80% are saying the bottom of the first two shots is the FF one, well I can tell you that 80% of you are wrong 
And for the record both images were cropped by approximately the same percentage, PP was not the same but I pp’d each to get them the best that I could. I’m not saying I’m a PP expert, but I’m pretty proficient in LR and without spending hours on them this is as good as I can get 
Woot!//static.avforums.com/styles/avf/smilies/clap.gif
FWIW I thought the lower picture arguably had better colours and looked better as a whole. I went for the top photo on the basis I thought there looked to be more detail in the far corners / edges of the frame.
TBH on the originals the m4/3 actually shows more detail at the top edges as on FF it's just starting to go out of focus due to the narrower DOF, even though it was shot at f22 
But another good example how we perceive things, and also how viewing sizes play a part 
On my phone can’t tell apart
Although I love my gx7 as a casual day out camera, I find the image quality and colours are noticeably worse than my nikon equivalent