tweak

It seems to me like people are simply confusing things. "Look" is a pretty ambiguous word. If you want to argue, stop talking about "a look" and start talking about specifics. Arguing there is no "full frame look" (or any other format look) is silly, because clearly there is a look to different formats (whether that's due to the lenses alone, or a combination of sensor + lenses is debatable, but clearly there's different characteristics at play).

I assume what most people really want to argue here is a matter of "equivalency", which seems to be interchanged with the word "look" far to often in this thread for my likings. As such it seems (and reads) as though people are actually arguing about two or more different things whilst it's being taken as all one in the same...

It seems to me like people are simply confusing things. "Look" is a pretty ambiguous word. If you want to argue, stop talking about "a look" and start talking about specifics. Arguing there is no "full frame look" (or any other format look) is silly, because clearly there is a look to different formats (whether that's due to the lenses alone, or a combination of sensor + lenses is debatable, but clearly there's different characteristics at play).

I assume what most people really want to argue here is a matter of "equivalency", which seems to be interchanged with the word "look" far to often in this thread for my likings. As such it seems (and reads) as though people are actually arguing about two or more different things whilst it's being taken as all one in the same...

It seems to me like people are simply confusing things. "Look" is a pretty ambiguous word. If you want to argue, stop talking about "a look" and start talking about specifics. Arguing there is no "full frame look" (or any other format look) is silly, because clearly there is a look to different formats (whether that's due to the lenses alone, or a combination of sensor + lenses is debatable, but clearly there's different characteristics at play).

I assume what most people really want to argue here is a matter of "equivalency", which seems to be interchanged with the word "look" far to often in this thread for my likings. As such it seems (and reads) as though people are actually arguing about two or more different things whilst it's being taken as all one in the same...

Ok, just so we are on the same page.
You belive that if I take a paper magazine cover and cut out a x2 crop with actual scissors it will become 2 stops darker as I lift it of the paper?
Because right now it sounds to like you have empathy for me that dont belive in such magic.
Exposure doesn't change with sensor size = if you open up the aperture to get the same dof you also lets in more light and change the exposure = it wasnt an "equivalent" lens.
Imo applying crop factor to aperture is just confusing and has no meaning. I use it for focal length only when talking to beginners.
An experienced photographer wants to now what lens I used and dont care about a bunch of "equivalent" nonsense. He/she knows what a 20mm does to the camera and/or film we are discussing.

Annnnnd thread locked. 

To be honest I think the main reason that pros kept away from BM was the many issues with the first versions of their cameras, really a lot of problems, banding, low light performance, batteries, hot pixels, etc…..you named it and you can find it in BM cameras….the BM forum was certainly in fire those days with all the complains…...so now for a pro is really hard to trust in the new BM cameras, but the Ursa mini pro could probably change that perception, time will tell……..

My understanding is threads will be locked if they go political. I will say this and no more: do deep research about who's really pulling the strings, study history*, follow the money and who's pushing hate and division vs. love and unity. Look at the big picture, then I hope you'll be part of the solution of healing this planet ? vs. continuing the prior path. You can tell right from wrong based on messages of love and kindness vs. the opposite.
Anyone who wants to debate, PM me since we're not allowed in the public forum.
* take a deep look at the ancient megalithic structures (that we still can't build today!) dating back over 12,000 years that MSM and MS science are trying to suppress (Atlantis wasn't just an island). That's just the tip of the iceberg...

Not buying it for this reason would be the silliest thing I've read in a while. Most speed boosters don't boost back 100% to the optics original image circle, all are just shy of it usually.

Not buying it for this reason would be the silliest thing I've read in a while. Most speed boosters don't boost back 100% to the optics original image circle, all are just shy of it usually.

You get less crop factor than without. Its closer to medium format than full frame.
The Mamiya has x0.62 and the Sony + adapter x0.7. The Sony alone of course has x1.0.

I think what people fail to realise here is that for most people using MF lenses (or any vintage lens) I'm sure has nothing to do with whether you can get other "equivalent" lenses to match or do an "equivalent" job... it's all about the things that aren't supposed to be there, the "mistakes" if you will that make the image interesting. It's like playing music, jazz as an example, the notes you don't play and the unexpected notes you do play make what you are doing interesting to some people. If you just played a super predictable structured melody I don't know many musicians personally who would be overly impressed...
That being said not everyone may enjoy what you are doing (they never will in life) but if something has worth and merit to you don't let anyone tell you otherwise.

I will give you the big secret, everything you do in your day to day life is pointless, in fact life is pointless. There's no plan waiting for you at the end, no one there to pat you on the back and tell you did life right. Just do what makes you happy and help others where you can  .

Filmed with Panasonic Lumix LX100 4k 25p 3:2
with my baby Hypergonar anamorphic lens 1.75x
and SLR Magic Rangefinder Imperial
with Hoya ND filters
no CC slights levels
Filmed in La Reunion Island and Maurice Island
end of january and beguan of february 2017

It's a good theory, everything is a good theory.

Each of us runs a local simulation of reality- there can be a point if you want, or not. We are all the same

This.

Did you even watch the videos you quoted? The second is anamorphic  .

We're on the same page.

THE MASTER COPY! This is printed on B9Creator DLP 3D printer.
 

We're on the same page.

hahaha true.

Sorry, my sarcasm obviously isn't too obvious.

If I click this image and then click it again to zoom 1:1, wait until its loaded, I feel there is enough resolution to go around.
When I can see individual hairs on a horse nose on an already crops image I say its enough for a photo.
Let alone a simple HD or 4K image.

Here is a screen dump of the zoom on flickr. 
And this was at the lens softest setting. At f11 or even f16 the detail is insane.

Again, nobody has yet done a conclusive, worthwhile "equivalence" test.
 
I don't mean to sound harsh (nor to hijack this thread), but the pages you linked either lack actual equivalence tests or give dubious, useless results.
 
The first page linked doesn't seem to contain any equivalence test -- it is just an essay titled "Sensor Crop Factors and Equivalence."  If there is an actual test of DOF equivalence on that page, please point it out.
 
The second page you linked actually contains a DOF equivalence test that seems to demonstrate that optics for larger sensors yield  quite a significant difference in DOF when compared to the DOF of to smaller optic.  So, it seems to demonstrate that the equivalence principle fails.  I spotted the differences immediately, and I will point to some of the more obvious discrepancies.  Here are the two images flashed back-to-back in a gif file:

The bottle in the foreground stays sharp in both images, but look at how the sharpness of the bush and car dramatically change (red circle).  Look at how the sharpness of the cast shadow and grass change (yellow circle).  Look at how the sharpness of the building changes (blue circle).
 
Does the DOF in these two flashing images seem equivalent?  It doesn't seem the same to me.
 
Now, I am not very good at making gif images, and I apologize for the rough dithering, but you can further confirm these differences yourself by downloading the two images from the linked site and switching back and forth between them in your favorite image viewer.  Actually, anyone should be able to see the difference inside the red circle, merely by viewing the two images on their web site.
 
On the other hand, I have to confess that this test is worthless.  In the first place, it appears that the tester failed to eliminate the variable of in-camera sharpening, so it is very possible that one camera sharpened its entire image while the other camera didn't.  More importantly, the tester put a lot of air between the foreground and the distant background.  Some of the "magic" of larger format optics happens in that air between the FG and BG, but this comparison has no objects nor charts in that air to reveal what is happening to the focus there.  This fatal blunder occurs in almost every equivalence test that I see.
 
The third link that you gave is the Brightland Studios test which has been referenced by me and others on this forum in several threads.  I am afraid that this is yet another misguided experiment in which the equivalence principle doesn't seem to hold up.
 
The tester made two comparisons using the same camera and zoom lens in both tests.  First he compared the equivalence between camera's full sensor read-out and the camera's crop mode:

With the front of the subject sharp in both images, the apparent counter top (red circle) in the distant background,changes focus, and does not appear to be equivalent in the two images.  Likewise, there is another detail in the distant background (blue circle) lacking equivalence of focus between the two test images.  There seems to be other subtle focus discrepancies, that I will mention later.
 
The tester acknowledged that the camera might apply a different degree of image processing/sharpening in full sensor mode than it would in crop mode, which could make the focus/DOF of the two test images seem more similar.  So, he made another comparison, in which he shot both images in full sensor mode, but one of the images was shot optically as if it was in crop mode.  That "simulated crop mode" photo was then cropped to matching size in post. Thus, in this second comparison, there was optical equivalence along with no difference in image processing/sharpening between the two shots:

As you can see, with the difference in in-camera processing eliminated, there are significant areas of non-equivalence. In addition to the counter top changing, the bokeh changes size and softness (red circle), while the front of the subject remains sharp.  The Canon logos conspicuously change their focus (blue circles) which happened more subtly in the first comparison, while the top buttons on the camera (yellow circle) do likewise.  Part of the tripod head (green circle) also conspicuously goes in and out of focus, and it does so more subtly in the first comparison.
 
So, the equivalence principle certainly seems to fail here, as well.
 
However, there are serious problems with this test.  For one thing he used the same zoom lens on all images.  Not only does the character of the lens look the same in each photo, but aperture position (virtual/actual) doesn't necessarily change with the zoom's set focal length.  So the zoom lens' aperture position probably doesn't match the differing aperture positions found on a prime lenses of the same focal length.  This discrepancy could make the DOF appear more uniform than if the test were done with separate prime lenses of different focal lengths.
 
Also, these Brightland Studios tests suffer from the same lack of any objects/charts in the important long stretch between the foreground subject and the distant background, so there is literally "nothing to see here."
 
The fourth and fifth links you provided seem to go to different pages of the same earlier thread concerning the Kipon MF focal reducer.  I am not sure what you expect me to find on these forum pages, but I do not see any equivalency tests.  By the way, on page two of that very thread, I address the Brightland Studios test in several posts.
 
I am hoping that one day someone will do a proper equivalency test with charts/objects placed at regular intervals extended behind the foreground.  Ideally, one camera would use a tiny format (2/3" or S16) while the other camera would be a large format (Gonzalo Ezcurra's Mini Cyclops, the LargeSense back, or a shift/stitch adapter).  Of course, a full frame camera with this Kipon focal reducer would be interesting to compare, too.
 

Though question since I don't agree with your assessment of the advantages of Medium Format.
I still shoot film, both medium format and full frame (small picture). And I definitely don't use medium format to get faster films.
If anything I use the opposite. Thats why I kickstarter backed the modified Kodak Vison 50D from Cinestill.
A 56mm is till going to be a 56mm and nothing else. And if one likes the look of a 100mm one needs to use a 100mm. 
The DOF is identical on all formats but on the medium format you get more in the frame.

A good example is when I use a 17mm on APS-C. Its great for street photography with the deep DOF of a 17mm (on any format).
But I can fill the frame with a person without going as close as I would have had to do with FF. More like the distance of a 35mm on FF.
The problem is if I try to shoot a closeup of someone, then I dont get a look of a 35mm at all.
The person is all distorted with a huge head.
This is why medium and large format is nice and can't be simulated with equivalent lenses.
But I will test all this and this discussion is a never ending story so lets leave it for now.

If one only care about SDOF and firmly believe that a focal length can be changed with different sensor sizes. Then he/she can just settle with a 1" sensor like the RX100. Because with the "equivalent" theory thats just as good as FF, MF or large format. No difference at all.
But if one can see a difference between for example m4/3 and FF. Then he/she will see the same advantages and disadvantages between FF and MF.
And of course MF and LF.

MLVFS... as easy as anything else, can't really see an issue here.