[wim]

And did you see the same difference between the OM-D E-M1 mk II and Nikon D850, JoJu?

 

Of course, it is especially handy understanding lenses and how they relate on different formats to know which gear to get for a specialized purpose. 

200mm f2.8 on MFT is not that specialized, you do not HAVE to get an MFT body for that purpose if you already have a Nikon D750 for instance. Because obviously the Tamron and Sigma 150-600mm lenses and Nikkor 200-500mm f5.6 offer an equivalent for that. 

It will be hard to find an equivalent for the Nikkor 105mm f1.4 on MFT or for instance Sony APS-C, so for that specific purpose a Nikon FF DSLR would be a more obvious choice.

 

Nikon, Tamron, Sigma only offer theoretical equivalency, as you said, wrt DoF etc.

 

That is where it stops, however, the theoretical bit that is.

 

I could carry two MFT bodies, one with a Oly 300 Pro, one with the PL 200 F/2.8, have the same reach, at better IQ because we are talking primes here, while carrying less weight than a single FF or even APS-C dslr with an equivalent (zoom)lens, and not requiring a tripod thanks to IBIS, making it an extremely convenient proposition for e.g. wildlife and birding (and many other types of shooting).

 

This is where MFT stands out, portability and maneuverability.

 

Kind regards, Wim