noone

I would say that this is very likely.
It still sounds intriguing though 🙂 You misunderstood my proposed comparison though. The simulated crop on the 50 would simulate a notional sensor 1/4 the size of full frame. But I suspect that any differences observed would have more to do with the glass involved (and the necessary apertures) than the sensor size. Perhaps this is what accounts for your observation that the differences in rendering of DOF are greater when the disparity of sensor size is increased: to maintain equivalence, one lens is quite wide open and/or the other is quite stopped down.

There is an interesting post from cinematographer Steve Yedlin talking about this exact issue. As far as he's concerned, there is no unique 'look' to larger formats unless using a different format somehow forces you to set up your camera differently. https://www.yedlin.net/NerdyFilmTechStuff/MatchLensBlur.html
 
He has some pretty rigorous testing to go with it.

I feel like you are kind of moving the goalposts. This guy has a use case where he has shot hundreds of shots on cameras with all kinds of film backs (for camera comparisons), and somehow this does not count because his lenses are too wide? This is based on real-world experience with everything from an IMAX down to a super 35 camera. He even admits in the article that his matching is not perfect due to practical limitations (t-stops and f-stops not aligning, lenses not matching exactly to their equivalent counterparts, etc.), but his argument is that the likeness between shots is so convincing and consistent that the sensor size obviously does not play a role in the actual image, and that any perceived difference is due to bias or particular (non image circle-related) lens characteristics, not due to the size of the film back. In fact, where you have been previously arguing about recognizing a larger format due to increased lens blur (in your examples where you are circling a number of shots), the Alexa 65 actually seems to have slightly LESS lens blur in the examples provided by Steve Yedlin, likely due to my aforementioned reasons. This, again, seems to provide an argument that any perceived differences are more likely to be due to individual lens characteristiscs or other uncontrolled variables which are not related to the film back size.

EDIT: I hope this does not come off as argumentative, as I do appreciate -and enjoy- the discussion!

The differences are quite minor to the point of it proves theory and practice match to me, even in my crappy comparison between a more than 35 year old FF prime and a much more modern 1 inch sensor zoom.   
That you can not seem to understand that tells me you have visited that river and drunk from it way too many times!
Unless you CAN post proof that to setups to match exactly will not give the "same" photo, there really IS no purpose in continuing and if you do want to post more, just imagine me posting a reply that says I disagree.
Thank you.

Sony is just covering all bases with this new camera. It was not intended to be the latest and greatest. It will appeal to those that are looking for a more compact rangefinder form factor/aesthetic and combines a lot of very dependable tech from Sony’s current parts bin. If you need 10 bit video, look elsewhere. Sony and others have this covered. As it stands, the A7C will likely sell well offering ample stills resolution and video IQ with unlimited uncropped 4K recording (able to run for hours without overheating) as well as exceptional AF in video. Focus peaking is also exceptional (possibly one of the best implementations) and the A7C may prove to be an exceptional M mount body for a fraction of Leica’s ask.

Thanks for the reminder of that thread.
That thread alone is reason enough to not proceed any further since people would argue with the bloke who designed the Metabones speedbooster as well as one of the best lenses ever (Coastal Optics 60mm f4),there is zero point in a non entity like me trying any further..
 

Well YOU are taking it personal it seems because MFT is necessary to you.
FF is necessary (CURRENTLY) to me.    No big deal.
I disagree about why it gets singled out.
 
I am done with this thread (I am sure I will WANT to respond but guess I better not).
 
To all, enjoy what you have, use what you want.

The Sigma Fp and even Canon RP is lighter than the A7C
In some of the marketing Sony outright say "smallest and lightest full frame camera" as if their own RX1 series never existed.
So much for honesty

To test this you could use:
standard 16mm, Bolex (Kern Paillard 10mm at f/1.8
4/3rds, 17mm at f/3.2
APS-C (Nikon DX), 22mm at f/4
Full Frame, 34mm at f/6.3
8x10, 256mm at f/45
The 16mm would have to be wide open and the 8x10 would have to be completely stopped down (my 8x10 270mm is f/4.4 - 45)
This is according to this calculator:
https://www.pointsinfocus.com/tools/depth-of-field-and-equivalent-lens-calculator/#{"c":[{"f":13,"av":"8","fl":50,"d":3048,"cm":"0"}],"m":0}
Damn it you’ve got me doing it now!
Like Oliver Hardy and his taxi driver getting involved in Stan Laurel’s jigsaw puzzle,
and they miss his wedding ceremony…

On the UK Sony site the small print is:
"The α7C is the smallest and lightest full-frame digital interchangeable-lens camera with optical in-body image stabilisation"
A weird confusion going on in the heads of marketing people there of optical IS and mechanical IBIS.

All I will say is if you want to prove an exact match would not give the same photos, do it yourself but again, when YOU do, make sure you have multiple lenses and cameras for each format otherwise I will just point out the differences why the equipment is not going to be an exact match and say it is invalid.
ALL the photos I have seen about this prove to my satisfaction the theory matches reality and even my crappy photos are close enough to prove that.
Beyond that I disagree.
Thanks for playing,.

That would depend on the lenses but if someone really went to the trouble of trying for an EXACT match they would need to take into account everything including each individual lenses characteristics, and that would be almost as difficult to do with two M43 lenses of the same focal length as it would with a Pentax Q and a Mamiya 7 with a digital back (assuming you can find lenses to match).
I am satisfied the photos I posted show enough similarity to prove my point and just to satisfy myself I DID test with my Sony Zeiss 55 1.8 VS the RX100 iv Sony Zeiss lens  and it is as i suspected a closer match still.....now since it is not an EXACT match and was also just a quick and dirty comparison, there is zero point posting because you would just say it is different.
Feel free to set things up to match theoretically lenses of two (or more) different formats but include a couple of lenses for each format used....If you do that, I am sure the photos would be the same, if you are not, then maybe you should disprove it...
Lastly regards Dr Caldwell,
"Do the experiment properly and you'll find that the perspective is the same.  Surely you must have heard countless times before that perspective depends only on the subject distance.  This is a truth that you shouldn't ignore.  More precisely, perspective depends on the distance from the subject to the entrance pupil of the lens.  For this reason, the entrance pupil is sometimes called the center of perspective. "
I disagreed with you in that thread and I disagree with you in this one hence why this is pointless now.
Enjoy what you use and use what you want!

Yeah, the problem with equivalence tests is finding or having the equivalent lenses to not prejudice the FF camera.
Having to have the FF at f4 because the APS-C had to be at f2.8 and the MFT with the SB could be f2  is not doing the FF any favours.
Matching the focal lengths also make it a challenge without using a zoom as well of course as at least they maintain the same contrast and colour for each camera.
I'm trying to think about which set of cameras and primes that could be used for be a totally accurate test if someone wanted to do it properly and its a tricky ask to get exact matches.
 

Thanks for the reminder of that thread.
That thread alone is reason enough to not proceed any further since people would argue with the bloke who designed the Metabones speedbooster as well as one of the best lenses ever (Coastal Optics 60mm f4),there is zero point in a non entity like me trying any further..
 

IF I spent ages and ages, setting it up and trying for an exact match, the photos WOULD look extremely close (24 at f4.8 vs 8.8 at 1.8) even with this apples to fish comparison.
Again though why on Earth would I want to?
Given I used a more than thirty year old prime against  a much more modern fixed lens zoom on a tiny 1 inch sensor camera and to me, the photos are pretty similar (with errors down to me), I think I proved my point.     I could have also used my Sony Zeiss 55 1.8 (at f8 VS 2.8 also a Sony Zeiss lens) and it would be a closer match.
Lastly, if you compared different M43 lenses against each other at the same focal length and/or different M43 cameras the look would not be the EXACT same as no two of ANYTHING will be exactly the same.

Sooner or later EVERYONE is in trouble I think.
I just got an old Australian photography magazine from Feb 1988
I opened it to a random page and it was
"Video news" The three stories listed....
Sanyo Vision-8, 8mm camcorder
VHS-C- The future of video cameras
Polaroid aims to be Number one.
 
 
 

So I was bored enough this afternoon to shoot a quick comparison using 3 different formats and a couple of lenses.
Representing full frame,APS-C and M4/3 we have my battered Nikon Df, slightly less battered Nikon D500 and criminally underused Panasonic GX80 respectively.
Lenses are my - even more battered than my Df - Nikon 24-70 2.8G and Nikon 70-200 2.8GII with an original Metabones Speedbooster for the GX80.
A multitude of caveats for this quick comparison are 
The 24-70 shots are a bit soft but its the same for all cameras (mis focused on the Df then it was left in manual for other bodies so error followed through to them) so doesn't really impact the results. It was quick so a couple of (minor) crops and exposure adjustments were done in Aperture. These were corrective for uniformity where I was a bit sloppy with the setups and again do not change the spirit of the results. Included in number 2, because it was a quick comparison, I've took a slight rounding liberty with the speedbooster calculation to make it easier to 'centre' the tests around the APS-C sensor. By this, I mean the 24-70 should really have been shot at 23mm on the APS-C to match what the M4/3 was doing at 24mm with the 0.71 Speedbooster but, well, that would've meant a different lens and I was already losing the will to live. Everything was shot in jpeg with standard profiles and then mangled into these lowish res comps so pixel peeping is moot but, again, it doesn't impact the spirit of the results. For everything else, did I mention it was a quick comparison ? The first comparison is at 24mm on the 24-70 and is 'centred' around the D500 at 24mm/f2.8 so the GX80 is 17mm/f2 and the Df was set for 34mm/f4.
The second comparison is at 70mm on the 70-200 and is 'centred' around the D500 at 70mm/f2.8 so the GX80 is 52mm/f2 and the Df was set for 105mm/f4.
My conclusions are :
With the same (high quality but pretty soulless) lenses on three different sensors representative of popular formats there is not enough difference to be losing sleep over. I need to have the Df serviced. I need to pressure wash the patio.  

I know I know (here I am again).
Three quick and dirty photos 24 1.8 FF, 24 equivalent at 1.8 1 inch camera (funnily enough the camera said 24mm the exif says 8.8mm), 24mm ff at 4.8.
Close but not quite exact and the 24mm lens is more than 30 years old and manual focus (though still a very good lens) while the 1 inch is a very good zoom lens that is aprox 4.8 equivalent at 1.8.
All at 1/25 auto iso 1000 for the RX100, 4000 for the 4.8 and 640 for the 24 1.8 (again, close but not exact matches.   Errors are down to me, not equivalence.
All resized to the same size.     BTW, to match or better the little RX100 to M43 at 24mm equivalent I woud need a 12mm prime and even a 12-40 2.8 pro zoom would not beat it at the wide end (but pass it from 26mm equivalent and up).
I just thought i should give samples ...now I am out , really, truly well maybe , ok probably.

Sooner or later EVERYONE is in trouble I think.
I just got an old Australian photography magazine from Feb 1988
I opened it to a random page and it was
"Video news" The three stories listed....
Sanyo Vision-8, 8mm camcorder
VHS-C- The future of video cameras
Polaroid aims to be Number one.
 
 
 

Sooner or later EVERYONE is in trouble I think.
I just got an old Australian photography magazine from Feb 1988
I opened it to a random page and it was
"Video news" The three stories listed....
Sanyo Vision-8, 8mm camcorder
VHS-C- The future of video cameras
Polaroid aims to be Number one.
 
 
 

Sooner or later EVERYONE is in trouble I think.
I just got an old Australian photography magazine from Feb 1988
I opened it to a random page and it was
"Video news" The three stories listed....
Sanyo Vision-8, 8mm camcorder
VHS-C- The future of video cameras
Polaroid aims to be Number one.
 
 
 

Equivalency is such a silly topic, especially with mirrorless. Who actually walk around with a MFT, APS-C, or medium format camera and says: what would this look like on FF? That person is missing the point IMO. Is it really that hard to understand that 24mm f2 is a 24mm f2 regardless the size of the sensor or lens? The only question that comes into play is: does the image produced by the lens cover the sensor or not. This is easy to know because we now have mirrorless  WYSIWYG.

It is not just "theory".   
A 50mm lens is a 50mm lens no matter the format but if you are multiplying the focal length to get an equivalent focal length, you should ALSO multiply the f stop.....if for some god forsaken reason you actually wanted to shoot two cameras with different size sensors alongside each other (and everything else was equal), you would need (aprox) a f1 lens on a 1 inch sensor camera, a 1.4 lens on a M43 camera, a f2 lens on an APSC sensor camera and a 2.8 lens on a FF sensor and a f4 lens on MF (though MF sensor size varies). 
A 50mm f1 lens has a aperture of 50mm, an f2 50mm lens has an aperture of 25mm.    If you use that 50mm lens on M43, you are using it as if it was a 100mm lens but it still only has a 50mm aperture and 100/50 is 2...hence f2.
 
That said, I have NEVER chosen a camera lens based on equivalence but again, FF is no less necessary than ANY other format so those saying it is not necessary should also be saying M43 is not necessary or APSC or anything.
If I want a similar photo using my RX100 iv against my A7s with 55 1.8, I have to use f8 on the FF and 2.8 at 55 (equivalent...the camera even says 55 but it isn't) on the RX100.
There are advantages to all systems.
Now, that said equivalence arguments belong on DPR, not here.

It is about getting the "same" photo (DOF, noise levels ETC).     If you just want it as the same focal length, then that is a different story but a 50mm f1 lens on M43 does not make a 100mm f1 lens, it is still a 50mm f1 lens but is equivalent to a 100 f2.   
If you took three photos..
50mm f2 on M43, 100mm f2 on FF and 100mm f4 on FF (all things being equal) first and third will look the same second will not.
That is how it works.....Now why on Earth you would want to or need to do that is an entirely different issue.
As for getting as much DOF as possible, you do realize that even with an 85 1.2 lens FF you can have infinite DOF wide open?   Otherwise, just stop down or use a different shutter speed.
I have not been DOF limited yet with any system really (used many P&S including a Pentax Q. 1 inch Sony, M43 mirrorless, 43 DSLR, 1.5x APSC mirrorless, 1.6x APSC DSLR, several APSC 1.5x DSLRs, several FF mirrorless and larger format with film).
I only need FF because it gives me what I want that is not available with smaller formats and when/if they ever do, I will always go with smaller where possible.

Sooner or later EVERYONE is in trouble I think.
I just got an old Australian photography magazine from Feb 1988
I opened it to a random page and it was
"Video news" The three stories listed....
Sanyo Vision-8, 8mm camcorder
VHS-C- The future of video cameras
Polaroid aims to be Number one.