ThrillaMozilla

Really?  What do you think it will show that you want to see?

If you actually do the comparison on an equivalent-image basis, I think you might be surprised.

Fine, but that's what this thread is based on. I note that you omitted prices, sizes, and weights. That doesn't make it easier for someone to compare. You might want to do the comparison yourself ...

It's relevant if you look carefully and are interested in DOF and image quality. But your argument seems to be that the same settings give you the same photos with different size sensors, and ...

A couple of nits to pick: Actually, that's not necessarily true.  If you have the same field of view and choose the same aperture diameter, the shot noise will be the same for any size sensor.  ...

Darned if I know what you want to know, but you seem to think you should use the same settings on both.  You also seem to think you can't get as much DOF with FF as with a smaller format. These are ...

Actually, no.  Just as different sensor sizes require different focal lengths, they also require different settings for equivalent results.  If you move from MFT to FF, for example, you'll want to ...

Next time try La Jolla Cove under water if you get a chance.  You don't need a camera.  Just go see it.

I think it has more to do with the pixel count of the camera it's tested on.

True, but what is often unsaid is that at the same depth of field and the same field of view the FF camera doesn't collect any more light than any other camera. In other words, FF cameras have a ...

Point taken. I do sometimes wish, though, that people wouldn't argue with such certainty about subjects they don't understand.  it's exasperating at times.

Yes, well stated. What is not commonly realized, however, is that at the same depth of field the larger sensors have no advantage whatsoever in terms of light collection.

Yes, of course. Actually, I would say, for the same field of view it requires a longer lens.

Bob, I think he means it's the larger lens that gathers more light, not the sensor, so the explanation and conclusions are muddled if you say the extra light is due to the sensor.

OK, look, guys. The amount of light taken in by a lens is proportional to the area of the front pupil. A ratio of areas can be expressed in log2 units, or stops.  One stop smaller is double the ...

Very nice.  Well done.

Probably. The OP is referring to Canon cameras. For Nikons the answer is about 1 1/6 stop. This is not an arithmetic class, but log_2(x) = ln(x)/ln(2) = log_10(x)/log_10(x). And wasting people's time.

OK, to be precise, the ratio between two exposures is usually expressed in logarithmic units, i.e. stops.

Thanks for reminding me.  One is a notorious troll, and the other one I'm not familiar with.

What in the world are you talking about?  Stops are logarithmic, base 2.  Exposure is measured in stops.