The point I was trying to make is that, the best FF always have about 2 stops better DR and noise compared to the best m43, but this is just a potential and not a realized benefit. In order to realize this benefit, the FF body must also have a 2 stops faster lens. If you want to shoot fast action indoors with a Sony A7III coupled with a 28-70mm kit zoom, then your ISO, shutter speed and DOF are very close to equivalent to an E-M1II shooting with a 12-40PRO. The only difference in this case is that, optics on the 12-40PRO is better than optics on the Sony FE 28-70. If you look at BHPHOTO, that's how Sony now sells their body and lens and Olympus with the E-M1II kit (body + 12-40). So why is it that Sony is the #1 leader in mirrorless sales? It is the perception that these people were being fed -- full frame is better. And why would I compare a E-M1II with a 14-42 kit lens and give Sony about another 2 stops more advantage? Photography is about ISO, shutter speed and aperture to capture an image and how you can maintain those dynamics. If you're shooting hockey, IBIS isn't going to freeze the players and hence you need the same shutter speed with your FF camera body as you do with your m/43 to freeze the hockey players. But when you use the same ISO to get the freeze action; undoubtedly the FF camera will give a cleaner and more detailed image than the best m43, because the professionals know that you need FAST glass to achieve that. But these requirements are for professionals and people making ads and or promotional materials. Most consumers do not need these requirements, but they bought FF just so that they may become professionals or they may encounter the needs to become one. Again, it's all just an illusion to get people to upsize.But you were trying to make a point, which is fine, but let’s compare kit lenses with kit lenses.
Consumers, who are ok with the kit lens on a FF camera should be compared to consumers who are ok with the kit lens on an em1.