hyalinejim

So UK got S5 body already.. first in the world?  The kit lens will be shipped next month ughh.
 
How many S5 owner here going for Anamorphics?  I had my ISCO ready!  Gonna miss the 6K anamorphic from the GH5 though.
 
 
 

Keep us posted! ML needs interpreters for us plebs as it's a bit esoteric 😂

Well, I think that DOF as defined by circle of confusion etc can be matched because equivalence theory states that you can, if the lens for the smaller format is bright enough. However, I would expect to see a considerably softer image with lots of vignetting as you'd need a very fast lens to replicate the narrow DOF of this shot, and that's how lenses behave wide open. So although the DOF might be technically the same, the images will look different. But this is caused by the glass, not sensor size.
And yes, the selection of lenses available for different formats is different. So your choice of format will have an impact on the look of the image. But I think a lot of people are making the point that those differences are derived from the glass and are not inherent to the sensor size.
So theoretically, sensor size makes no difference to DOF. But in practice DOF is rendered qualitatively differently because the lenses are different / behave differently / must be set differently for different formats.
If true, it's an interesting dichotomy. But it does suggest that any equivalence test is really just a comparison of two different lenses. In the same way that one of my 50mm lenses looks different from the other 50mm lenses I have for the same format. So would you agree that once you match focal length and aperture for the same shot on different formats, you're comparing lenses?
 
 

On the contrary, the last few pages of discussion gets right to the heart of the question raised. And I think many people would agree that the answer is:
The necessity or desirability of a format size depend on whether the lenses available for that format will give you the visual qualities that you value.

On the contrary, the last few pages of discussion gets right to the heart of the question raised. And I think many people would agree that the answer is:
The necessity or desirability of a format size depend on whether the lenses available for that format will give you the visual qualities that you value.

Hmm, tastiest of all threads! Besides the Eos M Super8 one or the lens thread or the BW on 8bit, of course.:) In the same league as the best of Eoshd classics. Anyway, such a fun thread. I love the  these kind of youtube links, to some cool characters who provide great knowledge in an enjoyable way. Zeeks channel is really cool and fun! Thanks guys, for such great reading and viewing pleasures, nerdom and education!

https://www.magiclantern.fm/forum/index.php?topic=23041.msg216899#msg216899
Background: user TheBilalFakhouri has unlocked correctly framed real time preview for EOS M and Danne has ported it to 5D3. Previously, Magic Lantern high res modes had a preview image that had either correct framing but in unusably slow frame rate black and white or real time colour preview with wrong framing. 
Now, however there is high res, real time preview with correct framing.
Kind of fun to try if you already own one of the supported cams 😁

One recent development that is of particular interest as @stephen mentions above is card spanning to CF and SD cards on the 5D3 to allow for higher write speeds, therefore higher resolutions and/or longer record times.
I may have jumped the gun here though, claiming real time correct framing for the 5D3. 😳
But if it brings people's attention to the fact that Magic Lantern is still alive and delivering the goods then that's a good thing I guess!

I was the same when I got mine. I don't understand how people can enjoy using those modes... Maybe if you had an optical view finder it could be fun.
 Now though, I never shoot more than the 1080 Rewire option. It's non-crop (other than the aspect ratio) and realtime live view. If you shoot this way, it's basically the og BMPCC with a bigger sensor and much better audio / battery. If you run through MLV APP and convert each clips to DNG frames, there's barely even any extra steps in post.
As far as my test of the new builds goes, the live view in the higher resolutions and crops is getting to realtime, but they're refining it. Give it a few weeks and come back to it.

I'll just repeat what has been mentioned in this thread.
 
The lenses for the smaller formats have to use larger apertures to match the DOF of larger format lenses.  So, if one is shooting large format with shallow DOF (as in the above photo), matching that DOF with a with a smaller format lens will require its aperture to be wide open, which not only affects the overall sharpness (As you surmised), but it can also produce a difference in the relative sharpness between center and edges of the frame.  This characteristic with the smaller format lessens as the aperture is reduced.
 
The above 8"x10" photo was shot with a roughly 600mm lens (not sure on the aperture), and the closet lens match that I could find in a smaller format is the Nokton 42.5mm f0.95 for M4/3.  Here is a test of that lens set at f.0.95 that not quite as close/tight as the above photo, but it gives a rough idea of how it might behave close and wide open.  It doesn't seem as sharp wide open as it does at smaller apertures, and, unfortunately, the DOF isn't quite shallow enough to match that of the above 8"x10" lens.
 
In addition, at wider apertures,  there generally seems to be a faster transition from sharp to soft at the rear DOF limit on lenses made for larger formats.   This quality might relate to why the plane of focus seems more solid, more well-defined and flatter on larger formats.
 
Also, the softness/bokeh outside of the DOF seems cleaner and less mushy.
 
Here is a photo shot with an 8x10 camera that shows that shows a solid, flat focus plane (although the lens appears to be swung slightly to the right), with the subject nicely separating from the clean and not too mushy background.

Can you link to those posts?
I'm still no clearer on what the differences in DOF rendering due to large/small format lenses actually looks like in an image.

https://www.magiclantern.fm/forum/index.php?topic=23041.msg216899#msg216899
Background: user TheBilalFakhouri has unlocked correctly framed real time preview for EOS M and Danne has ported it to 5D3. Previously, Magic Lantern high res modes had a preview image that had either correct framing but in unusably slow frame rate black and white or real time colour preview with wrong framing. 
Now, however there is high res, real time preview with correct framing.
Kind of fun to try if you already own one of the supported cams 😁

Can you link to those posts?
I'm still no clearer on what the differences in DOF rendering due to large/small format lenses actually looks like in an image.

Well, I think that DOF as defined by circle of confusion etc can be matched because equivalence theory states that you can, if the lens for the smaller format is bright enough. However, I would expect to see a considerably softer image with lots of vignetting as you'd need a very fast lens to replicate the narrow DOF of this shot, and that's how lenses behave wide open. So although the DOF might be technically the same, the images will look different. But this is caused by the glass, not sensor size.
And yes, the selection of lenses available for different formats is different. So your choice of format will have an impact on the look of the image. But I think a lot of people are making the point that those differences are derived from the glass and are not inherent to the sensor size.
So theoretically, sensor size makes no difference to DOF. But in practice DOF is rendered qualitatively differently because the lenses are different / behave differently / must be set differently for different formats.
If true, it's an interesting dichotomy. But it does suggest that any equivalence test is really just a comparison of two different lenses. In the same way that one of my 50mm lenses looks different from the other 50mm lenses I have for the same format. So would you agree that once you match focal length and aperture for the same shot on different formats, you're comparing lenses?
 
 

Actually, that's not quite the point I was making. I don't know much about large format lenses.
My point was that any observed differences might be due to the difference in aperture required to maintain equivalence between formats. But I'm certainly open to the idea that there are other factors that also contribute. 
Are there any conclusions you would draw on the pros and cons  of large formats versus small in terms of the qualities of images afforded by the glass associated with each? For example, are large format lenses well suited to narrow DOF pics that maintain sharpness and small format lenses well suited to deep DOF without suffering as much from diffraction?

Agreed (except for the smaller format having more vignetting), and I think that you have hit upon a prominent general difference between larger and smaller formats.  However, I think that there are other general differences between different sized formats.
 
 
Of course, but, again, cropping into the image circle of a lens reduces the visible lines of resolution (which are related to focus/DOF).  So, a lens and it's format are integrated in that sense.
 
 
Regarding points in this thread about lenses having their own particular look, many of those arguments are attempts to dismiss the idea that lenses made for larger formats generally share characteristics that are lacking in lenses made for smaller formats (and vice versa).
 
Again, it is obvious that optical characteristics are inherent to the lens, but the camera lens and its format cannot be divorced without affecting the look/sharpness.
 
 
Yes, unless one crops too severely into the image circle of a lens.
 
 
Agreed.
 
 
Not exactly.
 
Of course, different lenses of the same focal length made for the same format can have differing looks/sharpness.  However, as you have noted, there are general characteristics inherent in lenses made for larger formats that are lacking in lenses designed for smaller formats (and vice versa).

I would say that this is very likely.
It still sounds intriguing though 🙂 You misunderstood my proposed comparison though. The simulated crop on the 50 would simulate a notional sensor 1/4 the size of full frame. But I suspect that any differences observed would have more to do with the glass involved (and the necessary apertures) than the sensor size. Perhaps this is what accounts for your observation that the differences in rendering of DOF are greater when the disparity of sensor size is increased: to maintain equivalence, one lens is quite wide open and/or the other is quite stopped down.

I would say that this is very likely.
It still sounds intriguing though 🙂 You misunderstood my proposed comparison though. The simulated crop on the 50 would simulate a notional sensor 1/4 the size of full frame. But I suspect that any differences observed would have more to do with the glass involved (and the necessary apertures) than the sensor size. Perhaps this is what accounts for your observation that the differences in rendering of DOF are greater when the disparity of sensor size is increased: to maintain equivalence, one lens is quite wide open and/or the other is quite stopped down.

Well, you've convinced me that there's something worth considering there for sure. I had always conceived of the equivalence debates as being along the lines of flat-earthers etc 🤣
But now I see that for some it's just about a level of complexity and possibly even bokeh connosseurship.
For my purposes, these differences are so rarefied as to be irrelevant. However, the idea of testing for them is interesting. How about a test where you simulate a small sensor by using a center crop from a full frame stills camera? Like this:
Full frame
200mm, f7.1
Simulated 4x crop sensor
50mm, f1.8
These would be different lenses. I could do this (when I have time) with a Canon 50 1.8 and Sigma 70-200 f2.8 and use ACR to correct for lens aberrations. Or instead with an OM Zuiko 50 1.8 and OM Zuiko 200mm f4 (possibly similar primes? But can't correct for aberrations)
Would 4x be enough to show a difference?
I realise you're dealing with a lower megapixel image from the central portion of a wide open lens for the simulated 4x so the image will be softer.  Would these variables make the test invalid?

The quotation marks that I employed imply something else.  I'm saying that refractive optical elements can affect focus and the focus range, and, additionally, that there are general tendencies, advantages and problems inherent in refractive optics designed for larger formats and likewise with refractive optics designed for smaller formats.  Of course, there are exceptions and some lenses for smaller formats possess some of the qualities generally found in larger format lenses, and vice versa.
 
 
There is consistency, but there is also seems to be more than one variable at play, so there is some complexity.
 
I would describe the look of larger formats as generally having a flatter and more "solid" focus plane with a faster "rolloff" at the DOF limits, but with a smoother and better resolved "macro-contrast" outside of the DOF limits.
 
 
There is not a huge difference between FF and M4/3.
 
Using a speedbooster or focal reducer can allow the qualities of the larger format optics to be captured on a smaller format.
 
 
The dramatic discrepancies between the two images shown above are not due to any tendencies inherent in different sized formats.  My guess is that the DOF was not equivalently matched, plus the 1-inch camera likely had a built-in zoom lens (which can look/behave different than a prime) and excessive in-camera sharpening could have been enabled.
 
There are a lot of variables that need to be controlled in such comparisons, otherwise the tests are invalid.

This implies that you maintain that there is a look inherent to a format, independent of variations between lenses. If so, it should be consistent as format size changes and it should be describable. How does the look of small format compare to the look of a larger format, at equivalent focal lengths and apertures?
I'm just interested here, as I use DOF calculators to help my understanding when moving between FF, micro 4/3 and speedboosted micro 4/3. But I also see a huge difference in the images posted, which I would not have expected.
 

I certainly can see what you're talking about in the areas you've highlighted. It's very clear.
But if you plug equivalent settings into a DOF calculator you get the same amount of DOF for both, according to the calculator. This is the theory, and it depends on certain assumptions regarding circle of confusion that I won't pretend I understand in depth.
So is it fair to say that your position is something like this:
"Even though DOF calculators show that the theoretical DOF of equivalent shots is the same, in practice there is an observable difference in how DOF is rendered between equivalent shots"?
If so, and if I understand you correctly, that would mean that a DOF calculator is showing us 2 points on the DOF continuum, the point of near focus and the point of far focus, and these are the same for both formats if the focal length and aperture is equivalent. But it's not telling us anything about the DOF characteristics elsewhere on the continuum, which is noticeably different.
That's certainly very interesting and worth investigating. I think for most people it's enough to know that they can match the field of view precisely using equivalence theory, and that the DOF is "the same" according to its assumptions. But others may notice and be very interested in differences in DOF behaviour that's not described by equivalence theory... if what you say is true! So we would be talking about a kind of DOF rolloff, which is shorter on larger formats and longer on small formats, according to equivalence sceptics.
Is this understanding correct @tupp?
 

It’s not surprising is it? Everybody wants full frame look, full frame low light, full frame image quality. Influencers scream it at the top of their lungs. “Great camera...but its not full frame.” So I’m not surprised at all. Sony asks a lot of money for their ASPC cameras. I’m not surprised they are moving their FF into smaller and smaller bodies.
I recently picked up a used Pentax K1000 for cheap and bought some film and have really been loving it as an escape from the optimum capture settings mini-game we all play with these digital cameras.

Good news in 2020???
Is this a dream? 

Is this just fantasy?
Lockdown in pandemic
No escape from reality...