mercer

I just had a look at my GH6 footage that I took before selling it and I must say it looked great! It has a super organic feel to it and loved the colors in just Standard profile. I also tried shooting in Vlog quite a bit, but Standard really did it for me. I took it to the French Alps last summer and it performed so well for photos and video. Sure, it didn't have PDAF, but when you learn to work around it, it's really no big deal. Honestly, I hope to have a similar opportunity with the GH7.

To add, in this instance, the GH7, a smaller sensor camera, has a few major advantages over any larger sensor camera in its price range... internal ProRes Raw and ProRes HQ, 32bit float audio, a LogC curve, probably the best IBIS, and the best tilting/articulating LCD mechanism that I have ever used.

So... the GH7... yeah... a pretty cool camera...

Obviously, I must take the blame for this since it was my comment that started this off topic discussion. But my original comment wasn't meant to say that smaller sensors were inferior, just that larger sensors have some advantages.
Sometimes those advantages can make comparisons slightly unfair. As I have already stated, my original comment was intended to give the GH7 some leeway in a video where it didn't fare so well.
Everything I stated after that was probably an exercise in futility where I didn't speak eloquently enough or I was full of shit...
Probably a little of both.
But there's still a medium format look.

Obviously, I must take the blame for this since it was my comment that started this off topic discussion. But my original comment wasn't meant to say that smaller sensors were inferior, just that larger sensors have some advantages.
Sometimes those advantages can make comparisons slightly unfair. As I have already stated, my original comment was intended to give the GH7 some leeway in a video where it didn't fare so well.
Everything I stated after that was probably an exercise in futility where I didn't speak eloquently enough or I was full of shit...
Probably a little of both.
But there's still a medium format look.

Obviously, I must take the blame for this since it was my comment that started this off topic discussion. But my original comment wasn't meant to say that smaller sensors were inferior, just that larger sensors have some advantages.
Sometimes those advantages can make comparisons slightly unfair. As I have already stated, my original comment was intended to give the GH7 some leeway in a video where it didn't fare so well.
Everything I stated after that was probably an exercise in futility where I didn't speak eloquently enough or I was full of shit...
Probably a little of both.
But there's still a medium format look.

FWIW, I've been arguing exactly the opposite of that.  There is no special look intrinsic to larger sensors.  😃

All part of the look.
Can you prove it doesn't exist?
Perhaps your style of photography doesn't lend to the look, so you haven't been able to adequately capture it?
Valid point.

Then why spend tens of thousands of dollars, and hours, on a format that doesn't offer any advantage, if it doesn't exist?
Anyway, the GH7 seems like a very capable camera. One thing I learned from that video, in the comments section, is that Panasonic changed their color science recently, is that true?
It does make sense, when I used the GH6, it did seem to lean toward green a bit but then the S5iiX definitely had more of a magenta look to it and it seems that the magenta has carried over to the GH7. So the LogC profile could possibly work better with the GH6 since the Alexa is known to have a green bias straight out of camera.

Then why spend tens of thousands of dollars, and hours, on a format that doesn't offer any advantage, if it doesn't exist?
Anyway, the GH7 seems like a very capable camera. One thing I learned from that video, in the comments section, is that Panasonic changed their color science recently, is that true?
It does make sense, when I used the GH6, it did seem to lean toward green a bit but then the S5iiX definitely had more of a magenta look to it and it seems that the magenta has carried over to the GH7. So the LogC profile could possibly work better with the GH6 since the Alexa is known to have a green bias straight out of camera.

Some times, some things, have a certain kind of magic.
You can’t always quite determine or define why, but it exists.
It’s usually a sum of it’s parts that combines to more than something else/less.
If you can see it and feel it, even if those around you do not, it exists.
Anyway, GH7 colour science…
It does look quite different to the GH6.
If…IF, I was to move back to M4/3 for video, I was thinking to help keep the costs down, to pair a GH6 (because they are fairly ‘affordable’ used now) with a GH7 but nah, could not be bothered dealing with that difference.
Though possibly could tweak the hue & sat in camera to make them match and then, SOOC, they would be as close as you would not notice.

it’s a trick to understand optics and basic math?
jesus fucking christ man
if any of you gave as much shit about making, or working on interesting art on here and sharing it instead of jacking off your lil dingdongs over new gear, resolutions, different starting point looks of shitty fucking sensors, or being mentally insane about 24 fps this place could actually have interesting discussions. 
 
I fucking hate gear. i fucking hate lenses, cameras, shitty lights, cables, rigs etc. Sadly its necessary to understand at least some of it, as it is a means to an end to create what i actually want to create. i suggest others to view it same way. Or learn color grading, like kye said. That has generated a bit of income for me from time to time.
 

I'm not proving your point.  The picture is fuzzy, and there isn't a single definition, but these things do exist.
Take "the film look".
If you ask people what the film look is, you will have arguments until the end of time.  Any attempt to define the film look will fail.  However, that doesn't mean there is no film look...  imagine two scenarios:
Scenario 1: I shoot images with an 8K sensor at base ISO, Zeiss Otis prime, sharpened h264 codec, 709 profile, and I edit in a 4K timeline without colour grading, and upload to YT.
Scenario 2: I shoot images with a 2K sensor at ISO 800, Contax Zeiss prime wide-open, in RAW, and I edit on a 2K timeline and in post I apply a Kodak 250D and 2383 colour transform, I add grain, I add gate weave, and I upload to YT.
I then show both videos to 100 people.  Probably all of them would say the second has a "film look" to it.  
Just because you can't define it doesn't mean it doesn't exist.
If I then shoot images and I add a film-like contrast curve, some grain, some subtractive saturation, soften the edges slightly, and do a warm/cool split-tone, people who saw it might start to say it's got a "bit of a film look".
It's the same with the medium format look.  Or the Kodak look.  Or the S16 look.  Or the Technicolour look.  Or the Wes Anderson look.  Or the Tarantino look.  Or the VHS look.  etc.  
These things don't have a single precise and universally agreed definition, but it doesn't mean they don't exist.
Or it might be that you're not seeing it.  That's fine, no-one here is even remotely close to seeing everything in the images. When the top cinematographers, colourists, editors, production designers, etc all look at things they all see things we don't.  I mean, if interior designers can walk into a room and see the influence of late-18th century French sensibilities in a room, that leaves the rest of us practically blind by comparison, right?

There are no definitions of looks.  You can't assess if something has the medium format look with a checklist.  Ask different people what the look is and you'll get different answers, because people notice different things.  There are commonalities, sure, but it's not a precise thing.
Also, not all lenses have the same character.  Your Noctilux 50mm F1.0 lens might have completely different optical aberrations than the average vintage MF lens, so the feel of it would be very different.
It's like cooking.  If two people make cakes with the same ratios of flour and water and sugar and eggs, and then all add "flavouring" then will they taste the same?  Of course not.  The "flavouring" matters, and can vary hugely.
Imagine comparing 8mm film and iPhone 4 video.  We could go through every category of image assessment and rate them and maybe we'd conclude they both had video quality at 5/10.  Do they look the same?  Of course not, because the individual characteristics that make up the "8mm look" and the "iPhone 4 look" are very different, despite the fact they've both got a similar amount of imperfections / character / aberrations / etc.
It's like if you're making a horror film vs a rom-com.  In the horror film you don't just use "horror lenses" or "horror angles" or "horror lighting" or "horror music" or "horror dialogue" or "horror sound design" or "horror colour grading" etc.  The horror in the film comes from using all of them.  Hopefully the rom-com uses completely different elements in all departments too..  the "look" or "feel" of the final film comes from the combination of many subtle elements combined together.  Same with images.
People that are into lenses look at sample images and can read them like a book.  Some people can even tell what optical formula the lens uses from looking at a single image.  The clues are very subtle, but they're all there.

It's wrong to assume that just because a person is famous that they're immune to "big = better" hype. 
Larger sized film stock was an easier way to get better technical performance, they didn't have 6400 ISO cameras back then

There is absolutely a difference of looks between the formats, but it doesn't mean lens equivalency is false.
Lens equivalency says that "all else being equal, a 28/2.8 will look the same on FF as a 14/1.4 on MFT" but the thing is, actually making a 28mm F2.8 lens and a 14mm F1.4 lens would end up with subtle differences in how you would do that.
The "look" is really a combination of the subtle differences in lens design.  The MF look is probably just as much an artefact of history and would incorporate the lens design quirks of the time.  A modern MF camera with optically pristine lenses wouldn't have as much of the look as an MF film camera with vintage MF glass.  A FF camera with a super-fast lens that has the same design flaws as the common MF lenses would have a lot of the MF look.
Lenses aren't perfect, and much of the "look" is due to the imperfections.  Reducing the discussion down to FOV and DOF is throwing the baby out with the bathwater.

The Tokina 25-50 F4 zoom and the Canon FD 35-70 F4 are tiny and optically nice zoom lenses for video. I own both. The former was a recommendation by our friend Andy Lee btw. The latter has the typical problem of ageing Fd lenses with dissolving rubber ball bearings, unfortunately. Both are nice and fun for video. Without mount adapters they would look tiny and tidy on the S9 or on any S camera.

I know you are but what am I? Hahaha.
I should probably be offended but like me, you're just some guy on the internet.
Actually... I feel kinda bad for you. Everything is so binary. You don't believe in a medium format or large format look, yet you own a MF camera. I can only assume you don't believe in movie magic or how a cinematic image can transport an audience into another world.
You seem like the type that probably rooted for the government in E.T.

First off, I don't know why you're getting so angry? I'm just another dipshit on the internet. Who gives a fuck what I think?
Secondly, I also wrote, "for lack of a better phrase" after I wrote "dumbing it down" and I'm sure you're well aware that you can shoot wide open in FF at infinity focus without having shallow depth of field.
Honestly, I find it quite odd that as a medium format shooter that you're ignoring the spatial, 3 dimensional quality, a larger sensor offers.
I made a statement on a forum and if you think it is such a "dumbshit" point... you could always ignore it.

No, you refer to having to stop down the lens on FF to achieve the same DOF as on M43 without a focal reducer and you call it "dumbing down."
But please, don't let actual facts get in the way of whatever dumbshit point you seem to think you are making.

Moving the camera towards a tasty cocktail would merely give us the viewpoint of a drunk fly drooling over alcohol soaked cherries and mango.😊

The point was that the filmmaker in that LF vs. GH7 Arri LogC3 comparison test had to dumb down, for lack of a better phrase, his LF to get the two cameras close to matching. I mean, Jesus Christ, he had to set the shutter angle to 45 degrees on the GH7.
For a color difference/matching test it seems like it wouldn't matter and my point was that even the slightest of differences in the frame could leave a perception that benefits the LF in that test, when in fact it was just a byproduct of the inherent differences in sensor size and needing to use two different lenses, with two different lens designs, to match the framing.
The reason I even brought it up was because it was pretty obvious the colors didn't match too well until he tweaked them in post.
One of the things I hate the most about new camera releases are the inevitable YouTube videos about how this new $2000 camera is better than the Alexa. This test clearly shows it isn't true.

The point was that the filmmaker in that LF vs. GH7 Arri LogC3 comparison test had to dumb down, for lack of a better phrase, his LF to get the two cameras close to matching. I mean, Jesus Christ, he had to set the shutter angle to 45 degrees on the GH7.
For a color difference/matching test it seems like it wouldn't matter and my point was that even the slightest of differences in the frame could leave a perception that benefits the LF in that test, when in fact it was just a byproduct of the inherent differences in sensor size and needing to use two different lenses, with two different lens designs, to match the framing.
The reason I even brought it up was because it was pretty obvious the colors didn't match too well until he tweaked them in post.
One of the things I hate the most about new camera releases are the inevitable YouTube videos about how this new $2000 camera is better than the Alexa. This test clearly shows it isn't true.

After Moonlight James Laxton was again Dop for Barry Jenkins. He photographed "Beale Street", which was filmed with an Alexa 65. He must love the look of a 50mm lens on a larger format.:) There are some desired qualities of larger formats for the look beyond the logic of focal length and f-stop equivalence.

The ifs only have a grammatical function if all else is equal, which they are not, so some aspect of the image, no matter how small will be different.
I understand the optics element of your point. This argument has been around forever. What I am saying is the problem with your argument is that it requires all elements to be equal to be valid but they seldom are... if ever.
Sure you can create a similar image with a crop sensor camera, but something in the image will be different. Or you'll have to make a compromise with the larger sensor camera to get them close to matching. Which you wouldn't do if you were using the camera/lens in a practical way.
But even if you look at Yedlin's example, the subject's face is slightly thinner in the Imax and slightly fuller in the Alexa. Obviously, Yedlin went to great lengths to prove his point... that's the point of his article. And I am not saying you can't get it close, I'm saying that something will be different.
As I said in my previous reply... use a fast 12mm lens on mft and then a fast 24mm lens on FF and tell me that they have the same separation.
With that said...
I thought it was clear, but my apologies. My point is that even if you use the same lens, on the same camera, and take a single step forward or backwards, you can hit a sweet spot of the lens and have more pop or separation.
In the Yedlin article, it is clear that he stopped down the lenses to create less shallow depth of field. In fact, in one of the images, the bookshelf is almost in focus with the subject... so again not the same.
In my original "nonsense" post, I was suggesting it was difficult to make these comparison videos because the LF would always have an advantage. Not only does it have a bigger and better sensor, better color science, it has a lens advantage as well... which is obvious since he had to stop down to f/4 or 5.6 so he could get a match with the lens on the GH7. That guy did a good job making them pretty close, but the GH7 looks more compressed and her face is slightly less angular. Is it enough to affect his test... not at all.
You are correct though, I mistakenly referred to the 21mm lens as a wide angle on M43.
I'm a fan of them as well. I haven't used the Super Speeds, but I had a small set of the Zeiss Rollei lenses which were supposedly modeled after the Standard Speeds from the late 60s. The 3D pop from Zeiss lenses is something else. Some say it's micro contrast and others say it is more obvious with larger formats... all I know is that it looks amazing when you pull that focus and hit it.
Not moving any goal posts and probably not relevant, I was just curious if you were a believer/practitioner in his resolution theories.