andrgl

@tupp I know you say you're serious however I've been saying it's the optics, and only the optics for this entire thread (this a quote of what I wrote from your post quoting me):
Are you even reading my posts lol?
So now we're in agreement that it's not sensor size, great!
Let's get on with debunking lenses designed for a certain sensor size format have special properties not present in lenses designed for other formats. You're going to need a large format camera vs. Super 16 in order to demonstrate the effect your propose is real? Why not use a cellphone vs. the World's Largest Camera? Yes I'm joking, to demonstrate the absurdity of all this
There are no significant looks or special properties for lenses designed for a specific format either. With the lens somewhat close to the subject I suppose size could matter, however there are full frame lenses bigger than medium format lenses so that's not it. What is it about medium format lenses (or large format lenses) that make them produce a unique look only available to those lenses? Can you show us examples demonstrating these unique qualities? That also means strapping a focal reducer to a medium format lens captures these special properties and makes them available to a full frame sensor? Any examples to share? (swirly bokeh as shown in this thread is also available with full frame lenses).
As with the sub-debate with @tupp, I've been saying it's the optics, and only the optics, for this entire thread. The debate was sensor size having an effect, or not.
Now the debate has moved to lenses designed for a specific format have some kind of unique properties only available to those lenses. What are these special properties, and where is the proof supporting this claim?

LOL what? So many contradictions.
 
You rig the bmpcc, a camera that literally fits in a pocket, and then complain about the size.
You rig the camera with a third party battery and then complain about the camera when the battery fails.
You use a camera that's purpose is 100% to produce raw DNG or ProRes, formats that everyone knows are data heavy, and complain about file size.
You think a production camera around the same size as the FS5 is somehow more portable than the bmpcc.
 
Your complaints smack of self inflicted trauma. You picked the wrong camera to shoot with. The gear is fine... you can't blame the camera for your mistakes.

Do you realize that what you are saying is that the lenses are alive and sentient and direct photons differently based on the physical sensor size? Everything that Mattias posted here is a collective hallucination and focal reducers don't actually work? Or are you just messing with us for kicks? If not, I look forward to your equations and examples showing your concepts in action.

@tupp, while we agree the two images are not exact, it was acknowledged that it was not possible to make the settings exact for equivalence. I don't see anything significantly special or magical about the full frame image, and most people cannot even see a difference without a blink test:

The simulations showed a perfect match, hopefully this simple diagram will show why:

If we take a movie projector and increase the distance from the projector to the screen, the image grows larger and vice versa. Does the image significantly change other than size? This should make it clear that sensor size by itself does not do anything special for the projected or recorded image. Are we in agreement?
Now does the size, shape, curvature, and number of lens elements make a difference with respect to DOF, bokeh, and overall image character? Of course, no one has argued that point as these changes occur between lenses designed for the same format, for example the Canon 50mm 1.4 vs the Canon 50mm 1.2. The 1.2 has a much larger lens and of course a larger aperture. What happens when we set both lenses to F1.4, or F2.0? Is there still something 'magical' about the 1.2 lens with the much larger glass?

Are they different? Sure they are. Is it significant? Does it matter- we're using the same sensor size?
Much more comparisons here between the 1.8, 1.4, and 1.2: https://www.slrlounge.com/canon-50mm-prime/
We haven't changed sensor size, only lenses, and the bokeh and character is quite different, right?
Want crazy/weird/artistic bokeh on full frame? Here you go ( http://allphotolenses.com/gallery/item/c_7319.html ):

Everyone agrees that lenses make a huge difference and some full frame lenses have bigger optics than some medium format lenses, right? If you still feel that sensor size affects the final projected/captured image, can you provide supporting math, physics, diagrams, and real-world examples supporting your hypothesis?

The images look so 3D 

It isn't so much about "affording decent lighting equipment". if you're shooting run & gun, events, weddings etc.. you don't have time to set up lights on every shot.. that's where Canon/Sony cams come in handy. I don't see those type of shooters switching over. For all the marketing, BMD cams are still mostly cinema cams in their ISO handling. They're trying to compete with Red/Arri on a budget. Amazing for studio & narrative with controlled lighting or sunny california outdoor shoots but for other types of shooting or low light conditions they're far from ideal. You'll get all kinds of noise & block artefacts that Da Vinci for sure can't solve..
Also I hope they've fixed that magenta cast issue the 4.6K sensor had!

LOL what? So many contradictions.
 
You rig the bmpcc, a camera that literally fits in a pocket, and then complain about the size.
You rig the camera with a third party battery and then complain about the camera when the battery fails.
You use a camera that's purpose is 100% to produce raw DNG or ProRes, formats that everyone knows are data heavy, and complain about file size.
You think a production camera around the same size as the FS5 is somehow more portable than the bmpcc.
 
Your complaints smack of self inflicted trauma. You picked the wrong camera to shoot with. The gear is fine... you can't blame the camera for your mistakes.

Just look how close we are to continuous 5K RAW on this $2000 camera...
Read the full post here

People who can't adapt are dinosaurs. Your skills should be platform agnostic.
I still remember using iMovie on a Bondi Blue Mac. Anyone remember lusting over the XL-1s? <3 MiniDV and so many CCDs!
Now I couldn't give a shit if I'm using FinalCut, have a rig with RAID SSD scratch discs, or use MS Paint to quickly build a matte for tracking.
Fuck it, I'll cut a video on my phone.

Egads. This is a great video to show why EIS is terrible for movement. You've got motion blur galore (from excessive camera shake) and yet the software has aggressively locked off the frame. It looks completely unnatural and the human brain can pick it out without any knowledge of why it looks "wrong".
You should read up on some technical papers on how OIS works. The TLDR implementation of most manufacturers is that it offers 1-2° of correction, which means you have to keep the lenses pointed in the same angle while capturing video. Even excessive handshake will cause the OIS to hunt and create that ping-pong effect you see from most people who complain about OIS not working.
This shit ain't magic. At the end of the day it's using data from a gyro and some code to predict what should be happening. Plop a clueless human into the equation and you end up with...

People who can't adapt are dinosaurs. Your skills should be platform agnostic.
I still remember using iMovie on a Bondi Blue Mac. Anyone remember lusting over the XL-1s? <3 MiniDV and so many CCDs!
Now I couldn't give a shit if I'm using FinalCut, have a rig with RAID SSD scratch discs, or use MS Paint to quickly build a matte for tracking.
Fuck it, I'll cut a video on my phone.

Mmm 14mm adn 135mm sound interesting

Am happy with 18-35 & 50-100 
love sharpness it gives and colour

It's not so much about IQ, it's about the overall rendition, pop, texture, bokeh etc... I'm not at all saying the A7s/II is a bad camera with bad IQ, it's a great camera by all means. 
There's an early Jon Olsonn  vlog where they go on about gear, and they compare the SL and an A7 Marcus used to have, and they clearly state (and you can witness it as they show comparative footage)  that the SL overall rendition is nicer, more appealling to the eye. and it does a great job with skin tones also.That and the Leica glass were a great combo. I just think that when they switched to an A7s + Sony Zoom (and it's a great zoom) the image lacked that extra pop, so it's not about IQ which is still great. 
 
Edit: check out Jon's Vlog 22, 10min00 in, there's the comparison, the combo of SL imagery + Leica 35mm 1.4 Summilux ASPH FLE is just great IMHO.

Jon's Vlog 22 https://video.search.yahoo.com/yhs/search?fr=yhs-mozilla-005&hsimp=yhs-005&hspart=mozilla&p=Jon%27s+Vlog+22#id=2&vid=06b517c25802699ee0bf6bb3f4e36981&action=view

If you cant tell, I'll take your F65. Who wants that heavy, expensive old thing anyway. In trade, I'll take you out to Walmart and let ya pick out whatever camera ya want and then I'll buy ya dinner at Applebees.

I saw a film,
swore to myself it was shot on 16mm
nope it was shot on the red dragon.
(Dayveon)
Then I thought it was shot on zeiss ultraspeeds.
Nope it was Canon K35s, which I think are similar to Canon FD glass.
 
I saw another film,
swore to myself it was shot on the alexa,
nope it was shot on the c300 mark i
(motherland)
 
I was sitting 30 rows in the back, in the front, all over the place.
I couldn't tell anything
After all that,
after everything we do, and say,
at the end of the day,
none of us can tell.

I have been using windows for exactly 20 years now, and the secret is I believe to get a monster hardware under it. Especially because of that I would never judge OS performance if it runs on a laptop. They have all sorts of crazy resource management solutions built into them, thermal throttling, shit bios etc. Who knows what trickery they had to employ to get that 18mm thick Razor Blade 1 degree cooler than lava..

When this thing was announced it totally blew my mind.
And I have been wanting one ever since the first time I read about it.
If you don’t know what this is all about just think of it as a Speedbooster.
But instead of turning an APS-C into Full Frame it turns a Full Frame into a Medium Format Camera.
And as you may know, medium format in digital is pricy to say the least.

I will have more info and go deeper into this later on, this is just my first impressions.
Opened the box literally just a few hours ago.

Its very sturdy and all metal. It balances well after putting on a hefty lens.

The lens I tested tonight was a 80mm f4 Macro. I have others but wanted to see some closeups to check sharpness.
Its much sharper than I expected. Sharp enough I guess...
Also Ive seen no excessive vignette. Any vignette in the samples are added in post.
I also added grain.
Portrait of GP

Closeup 

Selfie

Closest Focus

With vignette and grain.

Without vignette, still grain.

Here are some screen grabs. I did not bother to cut it to cinemascope, you get the feel. Note the bokeh on the last picture.
All shot with Sigma 18-35, Lens Turbo 0,72x and GH4.
I tried to cut a vertical line in to the front filter but it did not work as expected, than I tried to sandpaper it, but it was visible on this short focal length. I thought that faking anamorphic will be easier, but it is not

I made one from black cardboard and used a fishing line. Obviously, the oval shape could be nicer, but at least I know that this anafake does not worth 50 bucks. You get the fishing line in your bokeh, the lights will be clearly divided in to two and the "waterfall bokeh" will have a fishing line like horizontal line. You can get rid of this by using a thiner line, but it will kill the flares. Check the cinemorphs characteristics, it's the same, anyway, the cardboard will definatelywork with your speedbooster  

I was sure the price of NX stuff would tank completely by now... 
I hunted down a perfect NX 50-150 (no box) for $800 about a month ago... and was kicking myself thinking by now on the eve of the "ALL MIGHTY" GH5 it would be like $700-$650 today...
But nope the price of NX gear is Spiking again!?  I could sell for a $150-$250+ profit right now... Crazy...
I got my NX-1 body used from BH photo over a year and a half ago and I could sell it for the same or a little more...
If anybody is in a NX dumping/Selling mood the time is now... seems to be a sellers market....  may be the last peak before it falls of a cliff...
Im still on the fence... Looking at Blackmagic Cameras with rose colored glasses at the moment.
 
I need to watch this every day till it becomes my mantra. (this only applies if your not losing gigs because you don't have the right gear)
 

It's simply a matter of time before Canon, Sony, Panasonic, as we know them today, will cease to exist. Will take less than a decade, guaranteed. Market for cameras will become extremely niche and majority of consumers will have needs met by next gen smartphones with better optics and sensors.
And that's just the tip of the iceberg as changes go. We're living in the twilight of captilism. Enjoy it while it lasts.

It's simply a matter of time before Canon, Sony, Panasonic, as we know them today, will cease to exist. Will take less than a decade, guaranteed. Market for cameras will become extremely niche and majority of consumers will have needs met by next gen smartphones with better optics and sensors.
And that's just the tip of the iceberg as changes go. We're living in the twilight of captilism. Enjoy it while it lasts.

It's simply a matter of time before Canon, Sony, Panasonic, as we know them today, will cease to exist. Will take less than a decade, guaranteed. Market for cameras will become extremely niche and majority of consumers will have needs met by next gen smartphones with better optics and sensors.
And that's just the tip of the iceberg as changes go. We're living in the twilight of captilism. Enjoy it while it lasts.