Again, either you don't understand simply concepts or you can't read. I am not sure which. You do not appeat to know FF means Full Frame and F/4 on APS is NOT F/2 on APS.
Usually people who state "you can not read" show exactly that, they can not read. The title of this thread is "Four-thirds vs. APS-C", which is two types of cameras we are discussing, and that is what my responding post was mainly about.
Usually when people state - "Please go take a beginners photography class" show exactly that, they are talentless and incapable as photographer, and they have no real appreciation for what photography is.
We need to help you learn what RAW files are and that DxO measures their own definition of ISO rather than relying on the cameras or manufacturers.
Ok ..
We have tried to explain this to you before, but you never understand it.
I am not sure who you mean by "we", and what it was that "you" have tried to explain that is relevant to this discussion. You could not believe and agree that the images with more pixels do not need to have the same noise granularity (as they are simply easier to work with) to produce same or better results for the same size - yes, I remember that. Or that you argued you can produce the same blur as the fast lens does by simply adding blur in post-processing - I remember that also. But that is all quite irrelevant to this discussion, not? Or was there something more that you have tried to tell me in the past, and I did not understand?
I am not arguing that the smaller sensors show better read-noise values when filled to their maximum capacity. What I am questioning is how you get to that "better-ness", or how you really use it in practice.
What Olympus says the ISO is has nothing to do with the DxO measurements. DxO does show what Olympus says the ISO is, but they do not use it.
Correct, and DxO do not go by how the image will look like, they only measure what sensor can give back when fully saturated. Did I say something different to that point?
The base stated ISO 200 is in fact only ISO 122 by DXO measurements. So what it means is that even to get to that dr
Here again you are showing that you don't understand. The DxO graphs are NOT comparing Olympus ISO to other camera maker's ISO. If DxO measures the ISO to be 122 then they compare it to other sensor output also measured at ISO122.
Now, I am sorry, this start sounding like a complete mambo jumbo. Let's look at this graph again,
Manufacture's ISO in straight line (nominal), measure ISO in yellow dots
Dxo plot their graphs by the measured ISO, this is clear. Which also should be clear, I hope, that when your camera meters ISO 200, you use ISO 200, not what DxO tells you. And as you see from this DxO graph (aside from the fake ISO 100), the stated values and measured values are quite far off from each other. Which means, you need to use some sorts of exposure compensation to get to that optional (or measured at best) by DxO values. Which also means, at the end it will be way off from the manufacture's configuration for what they consider optimal for that camera, and that will produce the best looking image. So yes, I do know what RAW is, and I am quite aware that by "recovering" one element it will always offset some other, aren't you?
It is easy to say something like - "I go to the dark concert, and I set my camera to that, and you will have to do that, and by DxO graphs my camera will do better .. and blah, blah .." - does it really work in practice as you say? From what I see, it often does not.
After DxO makes their adjustments to account for differences in ISO you can't then double-dip and make the same adjustments again.
--
- sergey
After these 2 quotes from your post I find it really funny how you were showing in some other thread about software blur. 
