hyalinejim

Next time you're about to "lol" and "LYFAO" at people on the internet (and in real life) that are civilly attempting to clarify your misconceptions, it would be better for all concerned if you took the time to ask yourself, "Well, do I really know what I think I know?". This is good advice for everybody, me included, so don't take it personally.

Commander Reid, following your dispatches all these years has been like visiting the front lines of the DSLR community where shooting truly magical cinematic images is within our grasp. You were the first one to show it was possible to mount vintage LOMO anamorphic lenses on a GH2 and how to hack the camera. That changed my world. I quit my day job, bought a GH2 from Andrew via Japan, and went out and made a feature film with LOMOs that is now coming out worldwide on March 20. Yep, that's a plug for the film, but it's also a testament to what Andrew has started and achieved here. You'll find him thanked in the credits. Can't wait to get my GH5 and get on with the next film.

I vote for @Aghori Tantrik Baba
 

I vote for @Aghori Tantrik Baba
 

"Like I say, I have loved my time writing EOSHD but I am thinking I might soon stop. What has tainted it has been the sheer snobbery of some of that pro-video industry. The poor attitude so many pro videographers in particular seem to have towards newcomers and enthusiasts and artists."
For what it's worth, yours is the only website that feels authentic.  We all know the internet is now just a brown stream of corporate content, so to have a place where things are real is welcome.  Enthusiast used to have places to go in the past untainted by monied nonsense.  
Through a confluence of timing, ambition, and opportunity, and attitude, yours is a place that's remained "clean" from all of the corporate PR clutter.  No small feat in this modern life.
I'd suggest that if you decide to bow out as a guy writing content, maybe become the creative director --and then bring on board a select like-minded-few that might be willing to provide the same ethos that makes this place so special.  Or curate the more interesting organic bubblings that arise from the forum and turn those into front-page blog entries featuring input from the main players of the thread.
As for crusty snobby "pros" that bitch about people with "toys" that "don't know the first thing about making a film"... well, that sort of curmudgeon is a scared little snowflake because they rest their ego on the tech, which is always getting easier to use and better.  Not exactly the best foundation in the digital world.  There's enough of them to make a blizzard sometimes, but ultimately snow melts, doesn't it?
 

Please don't stop the blog! You are the anti-snob and we need a healthy balance of the forces. ?

Do the experiment properly and you'll find that the perspective is the same.  Surely you must have heard countless times before that perspective depends only on the subject distance.  This is a truth that you shouldn't ignore.  More precisely, perspective depends on the distance from the subject to the entrance pupil of the lens.  For this reason, the entrance pupil is sometimes called the center of perspective.  I suppose you could call it the "point of the wedge" in your language.  FYI, technically, the entrance pupil is the image of the aperture stop as seen from the front of the lens.  So, in your experiment, just put the entrance pupil of both the 24mm and 36mm lenses at 10 feet from the subject, and the perspective will be precisely the same.  There are some easy techniques for finding the entrance pupil location with an accuracy of about +/-1mm that stitched panorama shooters use all the time - if you need help just ask.
The subject-to-image plane distance is not what matters.  Its the subject-to-entrance pupil distance that does.  So, this notion that full frame will be "further inside of the wedge than in the APS-C format" is just another way of saying:  "oops, I goofed, and didn't keep the subject distance constant".

You're not making sense, Jon. From an epistemological point of view if it's unacceptable, as you claim, for people other than you to make inferences regarding a camera they haven't used it must logically be unacceptable for you to make statements about another camera that you haven't used. I'm not being nasty here. Putting feelings and emotion aside, this is rationality.
Edit: And you're right, I do actually have nothing useful to offer here in terms of a Fuji - Panasonic comparison. This is just a point of order.

Well then, don't be condescending.

I did. From what you've seen of:
Please use logic.

Well, by the same token unless you've shot with the GH5
 
 

Could you guys continue your cocksword fighting elsewhere? This is a thread dedicated to the kipon speedbooster review by mattias.

Well, sorry, but you're not correct on this. If the camera position is the same on both cases (actually position of the entrance pupil) then perspective will be the same on both cameras. Field of view may differ depending on focal length and sensor size. Maximum field of view will be limited by the image circle size.
Try sitting in a chair and staring straight ahead. Now try to change the perspective of the scene in front of you. You can't do this without moving your position, or moving the position of objects in the scene. Neither can a camera. 
 

Adding to the post from @jcs:
The FoV (or angle of view for photography/videography) relative to the sensor size and focal length is given by the following equations:
Horizontal FOV = 2 * arctan( SensorWidth / EffectiveFocalLength)
Vertical FOV = 2 * arctan( SensorHeight / EffectiveFocalLength)
Here is what happens when you move the camera relative to an object (Changing the FoV only keeps the transversed magnification constant to make the perspective changes easier to spot) : 

 

'Look' works as it captures any possible effect at all. The argument has been: does sensor size, by itself, create any specific visual effect or look, whatsoever, or not.
Do lenses made for different formats have any special characteristics related to the intended capture format? One could argue size, however some full frame lenses are bigger than some medium format lenses. I had asked Brian Caldwell if he'd be making a medium format Speed Booster and he said no. There are now many very high quality full frame lenses and medium format lenses have no unique properties, so there was no point. A lens is defined by its optical transfer function, that's it.
In this thread we learned that some medium format lenses can be found for very low cost. Combined with a focal reducer for full frame bodies that provides a cost effective way to get shallow depth of field, swirly bokeh, or other desired artistic looks. That's cool and useful info, thanks again @Mattias Burling!
In summary, what we have been discussing is the notion that any format has any special and unique look or characteristic: 'full frame look' and 'medium format look' really mean a 'shallow depth of field look' or in some cases 'swirly bokeh' or other lens artifacts, which aren't specific to any sensor size or any lenses designed for a specific format.

All yeses so far!!!
No, that's not possible. The only thing that influences perspective is subject distance. If the image circle is smaller or larger you get less or more vignetting, respectively, for a given format. Perspective doesn't change, not even if you add an anamorphic adapter. You're probably misunderstanding the term "perspective" - it has to do with the spatial relationship between objects in the scene. It can only be altered by moving objects, or moving the camera. 
 

Again perspective depends only on the distance from the lens. It does NOT depend on the focal length and it does NOT depend on the sensor size.

I Love it, every single post is wrong.

Jonpais when the moderator starts to post sacarcasric comments about several forum members it sets the wrong tone. Are you sure this  is the example you want to make? I really hope that this just reflects a bad day. And I hope that you soon feel better 
 
 

The concept of equivalence is a technical one, math and physics. The perception of specific looks is an artistic one. Here's APS-C, full frame, and medium format compared with equivalent settings (thanks @BTM_Pix , from https://***URL removed***/forums/thread/4125975 ):

Are the 3 shots pixel perfect? That's not possible 'in the real world' (via simulation it is easy if we don't simulate truly random noise). Consider that if you take two consecutive shots 'in the real world' with the same camera and lens and change nothing, the two shots can't be pixel perfect because of noise alone. The Earth rotates, clouds move, wind blows, etc. However as the photographer who did the test states, the images look more alike than different, and share the same look or character.
The argument has been that sensor size alone, which gives rise to special looks, such as 'the full frame look' and 'the medium format look' and 'the large format look' are specific and real, where the sensor size alone gives images a unique, identifiable character and specific look.
The actual looks or characters that people are really referring to are:
Shallow depth of field Lens artifacts, including bokeh 'style', highlight behavior, contrast, sharpness, color, distortion, defects, etc., as the lens is a kind of optical transfer function or filter, ranging from clinical and accurate such as Zeiss, to something wild like a Helios or Cyclop That's it, there is nothing more. Even with different cameras and lenses, when set up for equivalence, as in the above example, the average person can't tell which camera shot which image as they all have a very similar look or character when using lenses with similar characteristics. The fact that a focal reducer (Speed Booster) works as expected should be sufficient evidence that sensor size is not responsible for any specific look or character.
Photography and filmmaking are very technical forms of creating art. Everyone on this forum has the ability to do the simple math and set up their cameras for equivalence:
To get the full frame camera equivalent to the crop sensor camera:
Multiply the focal length of the lens by the crop factor Multiply the aperture by the crop factor Multiply the ISO by the crop factor squared. Example from my website http://brightland.com/w/the-full-frame-look-is-a-myth-heres-how-to-prove-it-for-yourself/:
Let’s do one using the A7S in FF and APS-C (Super 35) crop mode. The crop factor is 1.5. We’ll set up the camera as follows using the Canon 70-200 F2.8L II and the Metabones IV Smart Adapter:
Super 35 (APS-C mode on): 70mm, F2.8, ISO 800 Full frame (APS-C mode off): 70mm*1.5 = 105mm, F2.8*1.5 = F4.2, we’ll use F4, ISO 800*(1.5*1.5) = 1800, we’ll use ISO 1600

Can you tell which is full frame and which is crop without cheating or using a blink test? At the pixel level the images are different, however the overall look or character is considered the same.
Here's a friendly challenge to @tupp, @Mattias Burling, @Andrew Reid, and anyone else who feels that each format has a specific look which can be characterized:
Do your own equivalence tests Share the results online Do not label the images or filenames (so people can't cheat) See if anyone can identify which images are what format, and what are the specific characteristics which allow them to tell the formats apart If anyone needs assistance with the math or settings I can help and I'm sure there are others here who can as well. Remember I used to believe in the full frame look too until I did these tests.
Anyone wanting to continue arguing without doing these tests for themselves is either lazy, blocked by their ego, or just enjoys arguing. Nothing wrong with being any of those things, it's part of being human, however we won't be able to take you seriously in this scientific debate  

With the C500, at least, the gain is applied on a per-channel basis, so even the RAW footage has a set white balance. The advantage being color is retained in the highlights (but not clipped as saturation is rolled off appropriately). 
It's not a big deal, though. Rarely a deal killer. The C series suffers from worse color rendering under tungsten than under daylight, anyway.

This sums up the post-fact world we are currently living in beautifully!
 
No, but you'll more easily see the half tone pattern if you fill your field of view with it. Or, to put it another away it captures less ink. I don't know why you're getting into this analogy as what you're getting at relates to the explanation of why smaller sensors tend to be noisier. I don't think anyone has suggested that exposure changes with sensor size.
Well, it's not confusing or meaningless to me and to others who understand the principle of equivalence. I use it to calculate what focal length and aperture will be required to match field of view and depth of field when moving from one format to another. For that reason alone, it's worth developing a coherent understanding of it.
@tupp all those small differences in your AB comparison are of course accounted for by the things that you mention, entrance pupil distance, diffraction, etc. etc. These factors don't enter into equivalence calculations, nor do they contradict them. Their effect is so minimal as to be altogether invisible to the average viewer, despite their dramatic apparence to you. Relative to the changes in image wrought by changing focal length, aperture, or sensor size, their effect is negligible.
Equivalence is theoretically sound and empirically verifiable. I would encourage dissenters to investigate it more closely and carefully. What does it predict? Do the results match the predictions?

This sums up the post-fact world we are currently living in beautifully!
 
No, but you'll more easily see the half tone pattern if you fill your field of view with it. Or, to put it another away it captures less ink. I don't know why you're getting into this analogy as what you're getting at relates to the explanation of why smaller sensors tend to be noisier. I don't think anyone has suggested that exposure changes with sensor size.
Well, it's not confusing or meaningless to me and to others who understand the principle of equivalence. I use it to calculate what focal length and aperture will be required to match field of view and depth of field when moving from one format to another. For that reason alone, it's worth developing a coherent understanding of it.
@tupp all those small differences in your AB comparison are of course accounted for by the things that you mention, entrance pupil distance, diffraction, etc. etc. These factors don't enter into equivalence calculations, nor do they contradict them. Their effect is so minimal as to be altogether invisible to the average viewer, despite their dramatic apparence to you. Relative to the changes in image wrought by changing focal length, aperture, or sensor size, their effect is negligible.
Equivalence is theoretically sound and empirically verifiable. I would encourage dissenters to investigate it more closely and carefully. What does it predict? Do the results match the predictions?

I learned still photography on 35mm film, and that's typical of what people often talk about regarding "equivalence" online; which makes it easier to grasps from the get go the whole debate about it all.  If you came into the camera enthusiasm/hobby these days, god help you.  Ignorance mixed with all the jargon and all the different sizes of things?  Yeah, we can understand why it'll make one's head spin.  Mine still does because the maths on all this are not symmetrical.  Sliding scales, expotentials, and numerical gradients.  Physics stuffs. 
But here's my rather redundant summation and basic understanding: shooting a 50mm lens set to f2 on an M43 is "equivalent" to what would happen (circle-of-confusion-depth-of-field-wise -- not exposure-wise) if you put a 100mm f4 on a full frame sensor.
Here's where the frustrating part comes in, I think.  Folks use f-stop to generally talk about what it take to achieve a certain depth-of-field.  You know if you're shooting glass wide open, you're going to be increasing the out-of-focus stuff in the frame, 'kuz that's how lenses work.
Director: "Hey, we need shallower DOF on this shot, go to a f2.8"
DP "Got it."
Those folks ain't talking directly about how many photons the want passing through the lens.  Rather, they're talking about creating a visual look.  So "f-stop," becomes an easy marker to achieve a certain visual result.  That term can get convoluted in the broader technical consideration.  
(And, hoo boy, let's not even bring in t-stops to this part of the discussion, lest brains start to implode)
The thing about full frame sensors, and even larger sensors, is that you can achieve the very shallow depth-of-field easier and with wider lenses than you can if you have a smaller sensor.  So, when doing a portrait shot, one can whack some back ground out of focus effortlessly and rather affordably with a cheap 50mm f2 lens on a full frame.  
Yes, you can get such "equivalent" DOF with something like M43, but then you're spending a lot of cash to get more exotic lenses that'll shoot f0.95 or something. 
The good thing about full frame, pragmatically speaking, is that you can easily get shallow DOF while closer to a subject.
This is cool because when you have a wider field of view and shallow depth-of-field, the visual creates a sort of 3D pop.  The in-focus bit separated easily from the background.  Not to mention that motion in wider field of view has a different visual quality.  I believe this is referenced as "parallax," which can also has a quality that should be taken into account.
Also, again, FF lenses cost less to accomplish the same shallow DOF/FOV than M43 lenses.
Other than that, I think a lot of people on-line in camera forums maybe don't have comprehensive wisdom, (including me) but certainly have a lot of notions they want to assert.  More often than not, it seems like those assertions are wrapped up in some rhetorical ego.  Seems like people want to hear and write affirmations about their current version of reality rather than actuality.  So it's easy to understand why it's all a mix-up for readers of these words.
The phrase "circle-of-confusion" is apt, in more ways than one ain't it?
For me, I have a general knowledge of what stuff looks like simply because I've played around with this crap for decades.  All one really has to do is put their eyeballs on results they create themselves and it's all obvious.  It may remain inarticulated, but it does become obvious.

Here's a screengrab of an ISO200 chart shot in daylight balanced lighting I found at this link:
http://www.drewmoe.com/digitalnoise.shtml

Here's a shot I took of a chart in sunlight on a 5D3. Brought it into ACR, applied Cinelog C profile, brought it into Rec709 After Effects and exported as RGB TIFF:

I brought them in to Photoshop and blurred both shots to eliminate noise and masked off the squares. I placed Cinelog behind Arri and used a quick curves adjustment to match the exposure using the bottom squares (because the Arri shots had a Rec709 lut applied and the Cinelog is still in Cineon gamma). This is the result, Arri is the set on top and 5D3 ML Cinelog C is the set underneath:

It's not an exact match, but it's not bad considering these are shots from 2 different cameras from 2 totally different shoots... and also when you consider the price difference. I'd love to get both cameras side by side to shoot the same chart at the same time.