noone

NSA agent here, can confirm: @Orangenz's body is a flawless Greco-Roman specimen that would make any Renaissance artist worth their salt spontaneously break out chisel and hammer to immortalize it in marble glory. 
 
Also, he carries his keys in his front right pocket.

GOOD satire.
He's too busy at the DPReview forums

I have different systems BECAUSE they are different.
I didn't buy them to try and get the same result and often use the SAME lenses across systems as it saves me buying more lenses.
  That said, IF there is a lens available, then you can match them all else being equal***
Trouble is, there are no 12mm f0.7 M4/3 lenses that would be needed to match a 24 1.4 lens FF or 42.5mm f0.6 M4/3 lens you would need to match an 85 1.2 FF.     You would probably need to be shooting in something besides air to be able to match a FF f0.95 lens with M4/3 (though an f0.5 lens would get close).      Using focal reducers with the fastest lenses doesn't get you any benefit in speed either as there seems to be limits.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lens_speed#Fast_lenses
If you have a faster medium format lens, the same also applies against FF but again, apart from some rare and expensive mostly aerial lenses, that isn't going to be available and wide angle lenses in particular are not going to be (easily) matched (let alone beaten) by what is available for FF.       For me, "equivalence" favours smaller formats for telephoto use (as long as it is "good enough").
*** The day M4/3 can match my A7s in low light/high ISO is likely still quite a way off though wouldn't it be nice to see and of course by then FF low light cameras will be better still.
The Government does create jobs!

I have different systems BECAUSE they are different.
I didn't buy them to try and get the same result and often use the SAME lenses across systems as it saves me buying more lenses.
  That said, IF there is a lens available, then you can match them all else being equal***
Trouble is, there are no 12mm f0.7 M4/3 lenses that would be needed to match a 24 1.4 lens FF or 42.5mm f0.6 M4/3 lens you would need to match an 85 1.2 FF.     You would probably need to be shooting in something besides air to be able to match a FF f0.95 lens with M4/3 (though an f0.5 lens would get close).      Using focal reducers with the fastest lenses doesn't get you any benefit in speed either as there seems to be limits.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lens_speed#Fast_lenses
If you have a faster medium format lens, the same also applies against FF but again, apart from some rare and expensive mostly aerial lenses, that isn't going to be available and wide angle lenses in particular are not going to be (easily) matched (let alone beaten) by what is available for FF.       For me, "equivalence" favours smaller formats for telephoto use (as long as it is "good enough").
*** The day M4/3 can match my A7s in low light/high ISO is likely still quite a way off though wouldn't it be nice to see and of course by then FF low light cameras will be better still.
The Government does create jobs!

I have deleted and blocked 4 spammers in the last 2 days ! They do seem to be trying it on !

My eye was particularly taken by his post about promising to cure relationship problems using black magic.
On the basis of that, I've ordered an Ursa Mini Pro. 
I'll keep you posted on whether it does indeed stop the missus nagging me about doing more around the house.

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 suppose you could call it the "point of the wedge" in your language.  FYI, technically, the entrance pupil is the image of the aperture stop as seen from the front of the lens.  So, in your experiment, just put the entrance pupil of both the 24mm and 36mm lenses at 10 feet from the subject, and the perspective will be precisely the same.  There are some easy techniques for finding the entrance pupil location with an accuracy of about +/-1mm that stitched panorama shooters use all the time - if you need help just ask.
The subject-to-image plane distance is not what matters.  Its the subject-to-entrance pupil distance that does.  So, this notion that full frame will be "further inside of the wedge than in the APS-C format" is just another way of saying:  "oops, I goofed, and didn't keep the subject distance constant".

"Right -- it becomes a 56mm FF lens, with the properties of an 80mm lens on MF."
No, it becomes a 56mm lens.
Adding the speedbooster changes the lens, not the camera.        Some lenses are designed by using a focal reducer internally I understand.     All you are doing here is adding it externally.
 
"Why not just design a simpler lens with the desired focal length -- without any focal reduction stage?"
Perhaps he should.    Maybe something like the Coastal Optics 60mm for instance?   Oh wait, he did??

Sort of HDR on Steroids! That video was a waste of 2 minutes of my life. And I am running out of minutes! 

Well, the combination of an 80mm lens and a 0.7x focal reducer does have a focal length of 56mm.  After all, focal reducers really do reduce focal length.  You could prove this to yourself by measuring the separation of photographed stars or I could prove it to you in my lab using the nodal slide on my optical bench.  And if you use that 56mm lens on FF (24x36mm) format, then *it is* a FF 56mm lens.  In this case, the use of a focal reducer together with an 80mm lens is a perfectly valid way of designing and creating a true 56mm lens.  As I mentioned in my earlier post, the only possible reason it will look different from any other 56mm lens will be due to lens/reducer aberrations and other flaws. 

Even crappy jpegs look decent pretty much straight from camera.

@tupp the equivalence equations and test images don't claim to be pixel perfect, only a tool to set up cameras and lenses as equivalent as possible. You've looked at them all and proclaimed, "ha HA! The two images aren't perfect so it's invalid!", right? Then when shown pixel perfect computer simulations (which can in fact model any defect/transfer functions you'd like) you proclaimed, "simulations aren't reality so it's invalid!". I was providing information I thought would be helpful. If it doesn't work for you, no worries.
If anyone can show that any specific lens has special properties only available for the format the lens was designed for, I look forward to seeing the results.

'Look' works as it captures any possible effect at all. The argument has been: does sensor size, by itself, create any specific visual effect or look, whatsoever, or not.
Do lenses made for different formats have any special characteristics related to the intended capture format? One could argue size, however some full frame lenses are bigger than some medium format lenses. I had asked Brian Caldwell if he'd be making a medium format Speed Booster and he said no. There are now many very high quality full frame lenses and medium format lenses have no unique properties, so there was no point. A lens is defined by its optical transfer function, that's it.
In this thread we learned that some medium format lenses can be found for very low cost. Combined with a focal reducer for full frame bodies that provides a cost effective way to get shallow depth of field, swirly bokeh, or other desired artistic looks. That's cool and useful info, thanks again @Mattias Burling!
In summary, what we have been discussing is the notion that any format has any special and unique look or characteristic: 'full frame look' and 'medium format look' really mean a 'shallow depth of field look' or in some cases 'swirly bokeh' or other lens artifacts, which aren't specific to any sensor size or any lenses designed for a specific format.

I thought if a movie was cinematic or not depended on if they used the same gear as "you" do or not?
It seems the better the film maker, the less the need for expensive gear (I need as pricey as it gets).
Just about all cameras have some things they do well and others not so much though so there is still a place for choosing the right gear for the job from what is available to you.
I  was photographing a band last Friday night and as an afterthought recorded an original song they have and I started late, was hand held and not stabilized and out of focus for the first few seconds.      I shot in both XAVC-s and MP4 at the same time.       Looking at the results, the MP4 is terrible.     Horrid ghosting and just an ugly mess (was using auto ISO and was varying up to around ISO 51200 I think), the XAVC-s was actually ok (apart from the issues that are all from ME) and good enough to give the band at least so it just means that me plus a reasonable camera for video is ok sometimes, me plus a lesser camera (or shooting a lower quality anyway) is unwatchable.
Skill and know how matters most of the time, gear matters some of the time.      Skill AND gear together is almost always going to win

I think in this day and age Gear matters a Hell of a lot because, just like your A7s, there is a lot of cameras that can be bought for less than 2000 bucks, that a skilled person can make a film, documentary, Band video that you can look back at 5 years from now and say damn, that is really not too bad.
This crap where you use a piece of shit camera is just that, crap. If you want to do this stuff pony up 2k for a camera rigged and just do it. There is too many great used cameras for 2k to make excuses. You are wasting your friends, paid actors time, and yours with a friggin Canon T3 in this day and age. Make a commitment to do the best you can do gear wise, give up smoking, drinking, eating out ,and buy a camera that stands the test of time. OK, off my soap box LoL.

I've always loved and believed in the idea that we can do amazing things with nothing. This is probably a little bit of a tangent, but I've been so depressed lately at how few people around you will see things the same way...
The filmmaker will say "I love filmmaking, and this film will only cost me $500 out of pocket!! I'm in heaven."
My friend is a composer and keeps posting about how terrible it is that people want him to work for free. There are also very few composition competitions that charge a fee for submissions, which is apparently completely evil... Every film festival charges a fee.
I look forward to meeting actors and collaborators at my next film festival, but I dread hearing what they cost.
Out of frustration of it all, I played two parts in my last film, and I'm slowly and painfully learning to draw and animate so that I can be all the actors in anything bigger down the road. My own time is worth nothing, or less... I do it because I want to.
I mean, I probably hate money more than the average person, but where the hell is the passion? Where's the fun?

You may like to see these pics of the new Fujinon 50-135mm Cabrio in E Mount - yes E mount !! - WHY OH WHY  !!!!
This lens is causing quite a stir since it was announced , Fujinons legendary Cabrio quality in an affordable lens - Mathew Ducclos is going to mod it and hack an inch off the back and add a Canon mount - now that is interesting now its usable by the masses !
I did speak with Tadashi Sasaki of Fujinon who said they MAY offer this lens in Micro 4/3 as it is possible to make without a huge retool - Now this lens with a GH5 would be a killer indie feature film makers dream !
 
Also the SLR Magic 8mm was at the show on the Holden stand on a GH5 - see pics ....approx £300 - available now

@tupp, while we agree the two images are not exact, it was acknowledged that it was not possible to make the settings exact for equivalence. I don't see anything significantly special or magical about the full frame image, and most people cannot even see a difference without a blink test:

The simulations showed a perfect match, hopefully this simple diagram will show why:

If we take a movie projector and increase the distance from the projector to the screen, the image grows larger and vice versa. Does the image significantly change other than size? This should make it clear that sensor size by itself does not do anything special for the projected or recorded image. Are we in agreement?
Now does the size, shape, curvature, and number of lens elements make a difference with respect to DOF, bokeh, and overall image character? Of course, no one has argued that point as these changes occur between lenses designed for the same format, for example the Canon 50mm 1.4 vs the Canon 50mm 1.2. The 1.2 has a much larger lens and of course a larger aperture. What happens when we set both lenses to F1.4, or F2.0? Is there still something 'magical' about the 1.2 lens with the much larger glass?

Are they different? Sure they are. Is it significant? Does it matter- we're using the same sensor size?
Much more comparisons here between the 1.8, 1.4, and 1.2: https://www.slrlounge.com/canon-50mm-prime/
We haven't changed sensor size, only lenses, and the bokeh and character is quite different, right?
Want crazy/weird/artistic bokeh on full frame? Here you go ( http://allphotolenses.com/gallery/item/c_7319.html ):

Everyone agrees that lenses make a huge difference and some full frame lenses have bigger optics than some medium format lenses, right? If you still feel that sensor size affects the final projected/captured image, can you provide supporting math, physics, diagrams, and real-world examples supporting your hypothesis?

Hey, just sharing some images I took with my adapter and camera. These are shot with my A7s or A7rii + Pentax 645 Kipon Speed Booster + Contax 80mm f/2 (Modified)
A7s

A7rii

A7rii

A7rii

Well I'll be!
I destroyed the filter.     The edge was soft aluminium so was simple enough to file the edge off and have the glass just fine.
This is going to be fun.     The filter fits right in.    It might be a little loose but once you put a lens on it seems ok.      An EF-S lens doesn't seem to fit (probably for the same reason Canon FF cameras can not mount them).     That means my 18-55 APSC kit lens is out but my EF 100 f2 is ok (for fit at least).
Sticky tape would work well to hold the filter in too I think.
Amazing.     With my A7s and Fotga adapter I am getting auto focus indoors with a 750nm IR filter and can see easily in the EVF!
OP, This will easily take two filters (one inside, one on the lens front though if it is any good or not is another story.
Two snaps.    The filter glass sitting loose in the adapter and one taken with the lens and filter in place auto focused.
This calls for more 43mm filters for me!
Thanks for the thread, this will be fun (though add to more cost I can not afford).
As for the IR image, remember it is just a first snap in the excitement and is with AF at ISO 51200 and 1/15 with a 100mm lens at f2.
Have to check it with my 17 TS-E too!

So was the NX1
Not saying they are going to close shop or go under just yet. But getting awards doesn't always help.

Sounds to me like you might be one of those that couldn't tell the difference and is a bit upset about it...

Open question to all,
If film was so bad why do many of the best film makers still use it?

And no no no, don't give me the old "they don't know better" or "they are idiots", "just nostalgic"
Anyone wanting to make such a claim must first present us with evidence to the multiple Oscar statues they have won.

I sometimes cant believe that there have been people from this very forum stating that a guy like Stephen Spielberg would have used the Samsung NX1 because of its technical superiority instead of film, but choose not to because he is a "hack" or because he doesn't know the NX1 exist...
Give me a fu..ing break!

I will be spending $10 (Australian) on an old super 16 (I think) movie camera tomorrow just because it has a roil of (long expired) film with it.
 
After that I guess it will sit in a large box with all the other old toys.

Well I know I will be burned at the stake here, but shooting real film in this day and age I think is, well a waste of good money, if you ask me. With so many high end and low end cameras that have raw I see no need to go that route anymore. Most people alive don't care about film anyways. The film look maybe, film nah. And heck a BMPCC can get that look.
I am sure as hell not buying a film movie camera, or film photo camera if they give me one. Those days are done. Give me a 8k Red Weapon, not a Bolex!