You've scaled the Focal Length by the ratio of the Crop Factors (for FOV), but haven't scaled the F-Number by the ratio of the Crop Factors (for DOF). "Twice as soft" is a vague phrase. The spatial frequency response of subject-matter across the image-frame is different than Depth of Field.
Shutter Speed is what you want equal. Exposure/Total Light are not functions of ISO Sensitivity.
The poorer quality of the 35mm-format lens will reveal itself quite clearly compared to the M43 lens. I've checked this stuff out under real-world conditions.
A native 300mm m4/3 lens has exactly the same narrow angle of view as a 600mm lens on a full frame camera.
No, the angle-of-view most certainly *does* change. This is due to the 35mm and M43 formats being different in size. A lens has no particular built-in angle-of-view. The thing that *doesn't* change is the size of the image circle projected by the lens. The smaller M43 sensor sees less of the image circle projected by the lens, and thus gives you a narrower angle-of-view than the same lens does when mounted on a 35mm camera.
Interesting point about light bouncing inside the camera body. Everything there is black, at least on my camera, but in high contrast situation there will have to be some reflections.
Right, I see what you mean. But what if I mount the MFT lens on an MFT body and the FF lens on an FF body? Will the IQ be compareble then?
I think this is where people get confused about equivalents. You are right, the actual aperture does not change, BUT NEITHER DOES THE ACTUAL FOCAL LENGTH. What we are talking about when comparing to FF is the equivalent field of view and depth of field that results form the smaller sensor size. A 300mm f6.7 lens is always a 300mm f6.7 lens, but the equivalent FF lens would be 600mm f13.
I am not sure exactly what you are getting at here. But as far as resolution is concerned, an MFT lens mounted on an MFT camera has to have twice the resolution per mm on the sensor as an FF lens on an FF camera in order to yield an equally sharp image when the two images are displayed at the same size. This is because the image from the smaller MFT sensor has to be magnified twice as much to reach the same display size as the image from the FF sensor. In this regard, the MFT lens faces a tougher challenge than the FF lens. On the other hand, the FF lens faces the difficulty of having to cover an image circle with twice the diameter of the MFT lens. This evens out the score.
apples and oranges, because you don't have exactly the same lens on both bodies, lens from different manufacturers will have different qualities and different variables influencing the IQ
Sorry. You're right.
F doesn't stand for focal length, although it has something to do with the focal length. The F number is a ratio and like all ratios also a dimensionless number, unlike the focal length which is measured in mm. It is the result of the focal length divided by the diameter of the entrance pupil of the lens. In fact F6.7 is a shortening of 1/6.7, aka the F number is the denominator of a ratio whose numerator is reduced to 1; this is why a greater F number corresponds to a smaller aperture and a small number to a greater aperture; F6.7 is an indication of the density of the light which will be allowed on the sensor ; it will remain the same for any sensor because it is a density. Here is what Wikipedia says about it : http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/F-number.
rrr_hhh
The color inside body cameras is said to be black. But actually, it's dark a grey color in North America (and a dark gray colour in UK). In order to appear so, that means that light is partially reflected. That explains the "halo effect" that I was talking about (on and around very pale objects).
Let me disagree. At the same ISO setting, the image shot by a 300mm m4/3 lens on a m4/3 camera will be exactly the same as the one taken by a 600mm FF lens on a FF camera when both apertures are set to F/6,7.
There is a relation between sensor size and IQ. Everybody knows that large-sensor compacts and mirrorless cameras take better images than compacts with tiny sensors.
