There is no such thing as “full frame equivalent aperture”. The only thing that changes when using a lens in a smaller than full frame sensor is crop. It’s the same light, its the same aperture, just cropped.

People talk about “aperture equivalence” because to get the same perspective on a cropped sensor, you’ll need a wider focal length, and longer focal lenghts will have a shallower depth of field when compared to wider focal lenghts at the same distance. It’s convoluted and dumb.

For any given focal length, the aperture is the same on all cameras, the same light goes in, the depth of field at a given distance is the same. A 50 f1.8 is always a 50 f1.8.

And none of that has any bearing on ISO or the sensor’s performance.

First. The LUMIX uses quite a lot bigger sensor than 1”. It’s close to APSC.

The IBIS in the GX7ii is so insanely good that there is no real comparison to be honest. I switched from Lumix to Fuji, thinking that I really missed something. But soon went back to Lumix and FF as a combo because the Fujis just weren’t on par with build quality and user interface. And yes, I’ve used a lot of different Fujis. The sensor size difference betweeen MFT and APSC isn’t that big.

The greatest lens for lumix, to keep your Fuji experience a bit, is the Leica 15mm f1.7. It equivalents 30mm, so it’s a 20mm APSC field of view.

I myself use a GX7 mark i and the 14mm f2.5, 45mm f1.8 and 45-150mm R cheap telephoto