tweak

@mercer
The answer to the first question is: those are the most significant differences, as well as the fact that larger sensors generally have less noise.
The answer to the second question is: if the focal lengths and apertures are equivalent then the field of view and depth of field will match and the aps-c will not stand out. But the lens that will match the desired focal length and depth of field may not exist for aps-c or it may be more expensive than you'd like.
The take home message is: Use the laws of equivalence to decide if a given format's lens selection will meet your desires and budget for:
Angle of view - how wide or how telephoto you need to go Depth of field - how little or much of the image do you want to be in focus Light gathering ability - your preferences for depth of field in a given lighting situation with regard to the sensor's noise performance This will allow you to choose the best format for you, or to match one format to another within the limits of available hardware.

"When that happens the answer will be none", which means right now there's a difference. 
Lets not beat around the bush here, if there was no difference in FF or larger sensors Vs smaller ones then we would all be using S16 sensors or smaller and reaping the benefits of a more compact system. The truth is though, there is a difference in Aesthetics and even though all your CGIs don't prove it be so, it exists and it's known and telling people there's no difference at this point is just misleading.
Yes in time it could be that larger sensors hold no more value as sensor technology advances, but I'd also argue that as the technology improves to make better smaller sensors the technology will also progress to make better larger sensors... only time will tell us the outcome, everything else is just speculation, we live in the present.

If the film industry is anything like the rest of the world (which it has to be), it's all about knowing and meeting the right people.
Maybe you will have to move, or find a way to get closer to people who can help you achieve your dreams. Unfortunetly it's super rare that you will just be "discovered" in whatever thing you are into and make it work from that. All we hear about is the 0.05% of people in life who do make that happen somehow so it gives us unrealistic aspirations I think.
I'm not saying don't try, I'm just saying you need to be realistic and do what you can outside of being a great director to reach the point you want to be at some day.
 

True. The thing is who shoots a 50 2.8 on FF? Most people would have a 1.4 as a standard.
I also see this discussion working both ways, for example the "S16 aesthetic". You can't use say a 50mm on FF and have as deep DOF as on S16. If you tried you would be stopping down the lens to the point that diffraction is simply destroying the image. It's also true in reverse for M4/3 S16 vs FF, if you want that shallow depth assosiated with FF, using super fast lenses at their wide open apertures on these smaller sensors (to get anything close) usually gives you pretty crappy results (Bad CA, Bad sharpness, Bad MTF etc.). That's without even getting into the benefits a larger sensor can give.

Was he arguing that? I took it as he wasn't, but I don't really know haha.
I think I made this whole thing worse earlier by using the word "compression" which wasn't the right word. I mean if there's no difference between FF vs smaller sensors, why don't we all just have s16 sensors? Or even an Iphone? I thought that was what this whole thread was really about, camera "aesthetics" not whether or not your equiv framing/aperture is the same.

I'm not a troll .

I guess the missing part is actually the sensor equiv., as lens equiv. means nothing when the sensor is never actually equiv. 

I don't know if you've seen but Raf actually makes a 16-H clamp now that is exactly the same as a Redstan (but costs a 1/4 the price).

Yeah, this discussion... opinions on facts :-/
For those interested, the Northrup video comes recommended. He explains and proves his point.
For readers, Dpreview did an extensive piece on it as well, with 2250 comments full of confusion :-)

**** this discussion. Every time it's brought up people argue about it endlessly.

No you cant. Look at the Tony Northup frame I posted. It clearly proves that you can replicate the image from a large sensor in the way you earlier suggested.
I tell you what. Take the three lenses and sensor sizes you listed in your first post. Take three photos from the same distance of the same subject. A person with a background similar to the example I posted.
I will give you $100 it they turns out exactly the same. 

"So there are two types of people. It’s a big problem" 
There are not just two types of people (camera users), there are many many more. And that is not a problem, but an opportunity to make more money by targeting different needs. A company that came up with the Df should already know this. 

When people ask why not just "anafake" it, you send them this video. 

When people ask why not just "anafake" it, you send them this video. 

As expected, the Elmo II is SOLD.

Agree.  IMO, ELMOSCOPE-II has more value than KOWA B&H lens.

That's a super cheap price on the Elmo, it's worth more than those other two imo.

Apologies, that was my son typing, two of us use this account.

Tweak Senior.

I feel like I'm talking to a brick wall here so your "hammering" verb is fairly relevant in this case ... I don't actually want an E-mount or M43 on the Ursa, I meerly used it as an example of how a mount could technically be better than using a stock m43 mount. I don't expect that BM will do it and I understand it requires a lot of work, it was just a suggestion (which I know some people here would also like to see), if no one can understand this properly I don't really know what to say. 

Good day. 

hahahahaha funny indeed.
The graph made me feel better @Mattias Burling.

Im not a radiologist like Saadawi but I did some tests a while back.
 

The maximum DR I can get out of a BMPCC/BMCC is at ISO800. Thats what I compare to. Shooting a 5D at ISO3200 in daylight isn't very practical imo.
Shooting in situations requiring iso3200 is very rare for me and what the DR is then isn't as important.

But the 1080p on the A6300 isn't exactly amazing, I wouldn't buy that camera to shoot Full HD with it. We'll see if the A6500 has better image quality in 1080p but I wouldn't get my hopes up.
I tried to cut 1080p that I used for the lower RS together with downscaled 4k for a test and the quality difference was really showing, not yet convinced it's a viable solution. I didn't test them side by side but from my feeling the 120fps on the A6300 is also worse than on the NX1.

So when is someone going to make a seamless BMMCC grip that integrates smoothly with the body creating a DSLR type form factor and giving you new record and other important buttons? I thought this would have happened already. Surprised BM didn't release one themselves, also a slimmed down version of their new Ursa EVF, I bet they would sell a ton.

My tips (using 13inch retina second from top specs).

- Use Resolve, such an easy workflow, colour grading is awesome if you watch a few tutorials (as is editing). There's many hidden features you wouldn't know about unless you find a good tutorial.
- Use MLVFS if your comp can handle it, such an amazing concept. Mine is still too slow, so I use MLRawViewer to preview/select shots and then convert to DNG or Prores444, these edit and play easier in Resolve than any h.264 footage I edit. (there's also a few settings to make playback easier in Resolve that are a little hidden).
- Find good Luts that you like and tweak from there. If you get to a point where you know how to expose for your Luts with only minor tweaks it's very easy to get a solid look.
 
Here's a first quick test I did with 20mins filming 7D Raw. Obviously it's a bit harder when you need to film the action as well as nail the shot, but you get the idea of what your first attempts might look like.