halfmac

I must take exception with the statement, "The problem is, F2.8 on Micro Four Thirds is equivalent to about F5.6 on full frame in terms of depth of field control and low light performance, so the 12-35mm F2.8 and Canon 24-70mm F2.8 is not really a like-for-like comparison, and a 24-70mm F5.6 for full frame would be much smaller than the Canon 24-70mm F2.8."  Yes, in depth of field control.  No, in low light performance.  F2.8 is F2.8 on any sensor, Period, end of discussion.   Some sensors do have more sensitivity to light.
 
http://frugalfilmmakers.com/2013/08/11/21st-century-camera/

I must take exception with the statement, "The problem is, F2.8 on Micro Four Thirds is equivalent to about F5.6 on full frame in terms of depth of field control and low light performance, so the 12-35mm F2.8 and Canon 24-70mm F2.8 is not really a like-for-like comparison, and a 24-70mm F5.6 for full frame would be much smaller than the Canon 24-70mm F2.8."  Yes, in depth of field control.  No, in low light performance.  F2.8 is F2.8 on any sensor, Period, end of discussion.   Some sensors do have more sensitivity to light.
 
http://frugalfilmmakers.com/2013/08/11/21st-century-camera/

The most important thing for me in cinema is the story.  If the filmmaking gets in the way like 48fps, then the story is secondary.  I do not like these newer TV's with the higher refresh rate.  Makes everything look live.  I don't want to go to the cinema to watch TV.  The cool thing about the cinema is the suspension of belief.  Making a Fantasy Video just does not cut it.  I would rather see a Fantasy Film.