DPC

Full-frame isn't shallower depth of field. It is and increased possibility of obtaining shallower depth of field, which is not the same thing.
That and the possibility of having less noise in some circumstances due to larger pixels.
 

More, surely?
Smaller sensor, more depth (=deeper, = wider zone of acceptable focus).

blah blah blah blah blah.  If you're truly worrying about this kind of stuff, chances are you're not really MAKING anything worthwhile with any of it.

Of course you can. For MFT compared with full frame you need half the focal length and to open up two more stops. 

In Cinema 4D I set up 2 cams. A FullFrame Camera driving a Crop camera. I used releas 13 which is from around 2010, way before the whole Northrup discussion

The Xpresso above is based on Crop x Focal Lenght, Crop x Aperture and (crop)squared x Iso.
Resulting in for instance the properties below.

Three different points of view. 2 x a 50mm f1.4 and 1x 105 mm f2.8 lens in FF
 






You can check them in Photoshop, or better render them out yourself (file attached, Download the demo) but I'm pretty sure they are to the pixel precise.
Let me know how to contact you so I can give you my Paypal info.
CinemaFile.zip

Same findings here in VrayCam in 3DsMax. In real world images would always be somewhat different because we can't use the same lens in both bodies. So, the differences will be on the same level as the ones comparing a Canon 50mm 1.4 to the Nikon 50mm 1.4 one. It's each lens distortions and character making the difference rather than equivalence. But this is important because we may not be able to find a specific character of a full frame lens on a "equivalent" crop sensor lens.

I sold a 5D MK III for a Sony A7R II.
Despite all that is said, I reckon the Sony has only about 1 stop noise improvement in low light compared with the Canon. To get the most out of it you really need to be good at noise reduction techniques. Sony's low light focusing is very poor and you can't even use a focus assist red light, either on the camera or an external flash. Manual focusing in low light is pretty unreliable too. The build quality is much inferior to Canon and battery life is extremely low. For fast low light stills work, using Canon lenses on the Sony via an adaptor is a waste of time. I intended to do this but ended up having to buy three Sony lenses instead. The Sony is only really good in video in APSC crop mode and has strong rolling shutter.
That said, the A7R II offers plenty of video options and the quality can be excellent. The XLR adaptor (if you want to spend the additional money) is useful. The EVF is a wonderful improvement over an optical viewfinder and the main reason I wouldn't return to Canon.
But all in all my advice would be not to believe all the hype about the A7RII and to remember that theoretical resolution is not the same as real world sharpness. My Panasonic GX80, far cheaper, focuses better than the Sony in low light and, despite being only 16 mpx, produces files that can be printed very large indeed (like 100 cm on the short side at 300 dpi via Perfect Resize). 
After nearly a year of A7R II pro work, I'm thinking very hard about abandoning full frame and moving to micro four thirds completely. I've been delivering MFT stills and videos with supposedly more "pro" Sony files and nobody can tell the difference or even cares.

Holding cameras in the exact same position, you can take the same (framing, DOF) picture with:
a 50mm f1.8 on full frame a 35mm f1.2 on APS-C a 25mm f0.9 on MFT So there really is no specific aesthetic linked to a certain format, just math.

I can't see the video, definitely prefer Android to IOS, but there are real downsides to (trying to) use Android rather than iPhones phones for video. I've tried. There are fewer app options, almost no lens, case and grip attachments. I have an LG G4 which is great for stills but I can't get Filmic Pro, Cinema 4K or Cinema FV5 to work correctly and I get such awful burn-in when I try to do video with it that I can destroy my screen within a couple of hours of filming. Add to that the fact that in less than two years it has been sent back for repair (and away for a total of six weeks) twice... So I'm wary of getting carried away with enthusiasm this time. It's not because a phone can produce nice video that you can actually use it...

@Fredrik - Looks as though we've pretty much come to the same conclusion.
@Raafi - Were you starting from Standard or Neutral?

I'm wondering if there isn't a difference between the degree of stabilisation that is effective for stills and what you would need for smooth video movement. For a start, I don't think IBIS will help keep your horizon straight...
 

@mercer - Yes, I mean that at least for what I do where an edit can be made up of lots of shots made in very different (usually available) lights, having to regrade everything can be a chore that isn't always justified by the end result. I've got years of experience grading raw photos so I'm quite good at it, but still...
@Fredrik - I had seen that before and it looks very nice indeed to me. My only concern, as you mention yourself, is that your starting point is very flat lighting so I'm not sure it would always be a good strategy in documentary shooting conditions where you will probably encounter greater contrast.

With matrix metering, "correct" exposure in the camera looks about a stop over to me. Maybe more.

@mercer - Yes, I mean that at least for what I do where an edit can be made up of lots of shots made in very different (usually available) lights, having to regrade everything can be a chore that isn't always justified by the end result. I've got years of experience grading raw photos so I'm quite good at it, but still...
@Fredrik - I had seen that before and it looks very nice indeed to me. My only concern, as you mention yourself, is that your starting point is very flat lighting so I'm not sure it would always be a good strategy in documentary shooting conditions where you will probably encounter greater contrast.

I do a ton of corporate interviews, musing about some doc projects if I get some free time...
The #1, by-god awesome, holy-cow thing for me as an interview shooter and editor: freaking 4K. If you have a feel for narrative, human nature, drama, etc, you can guide and cut a great interview. But reframing has changed the game for me. You can hide cuts, and tighten up the shot for the most dramatic or impactful statements. When I come in tight, I can do subtle camera moves/pans which really just "work" subconsciously. I can shoot a little wider than usual for lower thirds or graphics and still have plenty of pixels for a wide range of shot changes, without moving the camera. That's my #1. I use the NX1 for all interviews now (the 4k footage is pretty astounding), with a Nikkor 28-70 2.8 zoom generally - that zoom looks fab and it allows me to adjust framing quickly, like I setup with a stand-in and then the subject is 7' tall. 
(#1-a? A morphing plugin for your NLE. When they work, they're lifesavers - get every f*cking UMM and pause and stutter OUT of your edit!!)(Unless those express the personality - for corporate stuff they're goners).
Other MASSIVE thing for interviews - if it's not "to the camera" (which I generally dislike) - who is the subject talking to? If it's me, I'm in a chair with a monitor on my lap, but I HATE looking down to check focus - people instantly feel like you've got something more important on your mind. So I have to go deeper with the DOF and if the subject is really active or excited - you'll lose focus. So I try to get someone to be an eye line. I QUIETLY whisper questions to that person - if you're behind the camera and you ask the question, even if you say "tell her...", their eyes will shift back and forth and it looks shifty. I'd much rather be riding focus behind the camera. With a follow focus and a 12" whip, so no jitters. I only wear headphones for initial setup and first roll with the subject, they are too "distancing" for me, unless I'm not the interviewer.
IF THE INTERVIEWER IS NOT IN THE EDIT - make sure they answer IN CONTEXT so the question is not needed. Most people understand this, and understand if you stop them and say "context, please" or lead them - "I'm sorry, could you start that with 'the reason I love what I do'..."
#3 major thing for a great interview - a third person with an eye for detail and grooming - most any lady or your gay buddy will do - (not trying to be sexist, just my hard experience) - even the receptionist - to keep an eye on hair, collars, lint, wrinkles, etc. There's too damn much to be focused on (for my tiny brain anyway) - most ladies like to be asked to be the grooming police and watch for that lock of hair that pops up halfway through, to watch for makeup issues on female subjects that guys don't even SEE. Have them look through the monitor for issues like shining skin, too. (I KNOW this sounds sexist and generalized, but I've found it to be true!!! If a lady looks decent in her clothes, she'll see what needs fixing.)
So for a doc, I'd think about your assistant - someone that can watch for those details, help setup and pack and carry, and either be an eyeline or can babysit focus.
I also use the NX for steadicam b-roll, I just stick the cheap little 16-50 OIS kit lens on it, very small and light on a Came steadicam, and I use the same QR on everything so I can be on the steadicam in seconds. From there, b-roll, establishing shots, whatever you need... lenses, tripod, jib, sliders, shoulder mount, etc. Have an ND solution if you'll be moving in and outdoors.
Good audio is a must, the DR60 is a great piece of gear, and the camera-out with its own level control means you can use it as a preamp and not need to synch (I use the NX1 and when gain is staged properly, no difference between the DR card or the camera). But you have the recorder files as a safety if you get an over (and the DR records a 2nd track at -6DB which can save your ass). Get some closed-back headphones (even cheap ones). You need a great mic, or at least a good one - Oktava, AT 4053, or at the least a Rode, but get a hyper, not a shotgun. For about $200 you can get one of the OST lav mics AND the XLR barrel converter, which converts phantom power to mic power. So you can use a lav and not mess with wireless and be all-XLR, no monkey-business 1/8 crap in the chain. There's a small OST that hides great in a tie knot.
LIGHTING - for a big window office where you want to hold the exterior, you generally need a 575 or 1.2k HMI par. And with many angles, your diffusion frame will reflect in the window, so you need strategies for that. Often a polarizer will knock down lesser reflections. Or you can ND the whole window if you have all day.
I keep a 575 in the truck, but I have a "one-rock-n-roller-cart" setup to make one trip in for most gigs. I TRY to use a quad biax - they're usually under $200, and I clip diffusion across the barn doors, instant softbox that's the right size for faces, small and easy to move, no cold-start issues, etc. I also bring an Aputure 672 LED for rim/hair, or background (probably will get another sometime)... usually a small 300 fresnel if I want warm BG light... I also have a 400 HID setup that works with all the photoflex softboxes, but that's a DIY grow light thing (it kicks ass and looks legit, about 1200 watts of nice daylight). I also have a 2" daylight fresnel with a 150 HID globe and ballast, again DIY but looks like actual gear, about 500 watt equivalent) handy little problem solver. And a bunch of CTB and CTO gels cut to size and ready in a big ziplock. Usually doesn't take many lights to get a nice looking interview setup. In a pinch I can be setup and ready to roll in 20 minutes, though that's kinda stressy!
For overhead mic, I use a steel roller stand - it's heavy enough to not need sandbags but easy to tweak the position. Those are pricey, $180 or so, but worth it. I don't bring c-stands to most interview gigs, too hard to pack, too heavy. Use good quality folding stands though, the Matthews steel kit stands are good. Find a good solution to pack all your stands in.
I generally bring the steel roller w/ arm - decent stands for key, LED, fresnel - I bring a couple black flags (18x24) for spill or if the hair light is hitting the lens as a flag; a cookie and grip stuff; a couple extra boom arms and heads. Usually 5-7 stands in a bag. An 18" and 22" popup reflector/diffusor, gaff tape, spring clamps, and A LINT ROLLER!!!
There are LEDs that would make a suitable key (the Aperture doesn't have the kick except for very dark setups), but they're a grand and up, the biax quad is still a trouper for me.
All of that on one cart - I use two motorcycle tie-down ratchets to hold it on the cart.
That's my business interview setup, but I'd likely use the same for a doc interview.
Last week, basic setup:
 
 

Google Ruslan Pelykh.
I have a Sony RX10 II which I use along with an A7R II. It has limits, mainly do to with Sony's menu and the small sensor. Deployment somewhat slow.Considerable advantages too: shared profiles with other Sony cameras, making matching easy; takes the same XLR attachment; good range fast zoom. (Most of) this was done with the RX10 II over the summer, testing out some of its features.
 

They're so clever at Panasonic and Olympus... At each iteration of the flagship model I hope I'll only need one, but every time I can see a good reason to buy both.

They're so clever at Panasonic and Olympus... At each iteration of the flagship model I hope I'll only need one, but every time I can see a good reason to buy both.

They're so clever at Panasonic and Olympus... At each iteration of the flagship model I hope I'll only need one, but every time I can see a good reason to buy both.

Google Ruslan Pelykh.
I have a Sony RX10 II which I use along with an A7R II. It has limits, mainly do to with Sony's menu and the small sensor. Deployment somewhat slow.Considerable advantages too: shared profiles with other Sony cameras, making matching easy; takes the same XLR attachment; good range fast zoom. (Most of) this was done with the RX10 II over the summer, testing out some of its features.
 

I bought an EM5 MK II based on the video specs as soon as it came out and, while it was a lovely camera for stills, never once used it to film anything other than tests because the moiré was so bad. This time I'm going to wait for real-life user reviews to come in first.

And having to leave movie mode if you want to set white balance manually, now that's just absurd (and very time consuming).

50 pages is a lot to look back through, but I don't remember seeing any settings posted here for a while.
After a lot of testing, I've arrived at Natural -3 -5 -5 -3, Highlights / Shadows -2 / +2 for video. iDynamic and iResolution off. Opinions? I reckon I'm getting better skin tones that with my Sony A7R II.
This is a great camera. The biggest problems are the (very) poor EVF and LCD and the lack of audio input.
Unexpectedly (I was a guest) I ended up having to shoot stills for a wedding with the GX80 yesterday. The quality of the images blows me away and being able to use a tiny MFT body is very liberating.

50 pages is a lot to look back through, but I don't remember seeing any settings posted here for a while.
After a lot of testing, I've arrived at Natural -3 -5 -5 -3, Highlights / Shadows -2 / +2 for video. iDynamic and iResolution off. Opinions? I reckon I'm getting better skin tones that with my Sony A7R II.
This is a great camera. The biggest problems are the (very) poor EVF and LCD and the lack of audio input.
Unexpectedly (I was a guest) I ended up having to shoot stills for a wedding with the GX80 yesterday. The quality of the images blows me away and being able to use a tiny MFT body is very liberating.

dahlfors - Next time I get robbed I'll make sure I'm in Sweden ;-) . I'm in France.