Timotheus

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 :-)

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.

Well that settles it then, moderator please delete this post or close it for further comments... ?
But seriously, yeah there should be a D760 announced, but I assume it will be $2000 plus for body only... The 750 can be had refurbished for less that $1500.

Holding cameras in the exact same position, you can take the same (framing, DOF) picture with:
a 50mm f1.8 on full frame a 35mm f1.2 on APS-C a 25mm f0.9 on MFT So there really is no specific aesthetic linked to a certain format, just math.

Exactly correct.
F-stop is a measurement of exposure - the amount of light hitting the sensor is the amount of light hitting the sensor. However aperture size as related to depth of field is a different thing entirely - not related to exposure but image character. Of course the two things are interrelated as one affects the other, but they should not be confused. 
There will always be real-world advantages to larger sensors, but all things being equal (on paper / mathematically) you can always re-create the "full frame" aesthetic on smaller sensors. 
THIS IS SERIOUS!!!! STOP BEING TRIVIAL!!!!

Idk, to me the full frame example clearly pushes the woman's hair off her right shoulder, whereas the m4/3 leaves it draped over her right shoulder. Damn distortion...

Ahhh Mattias I'm disappointed in you! I am quite a fan of your YT channel but you are WRONG here!
As @Timotheus says you are actually using an example that disproves your own point! Those two images ARE identical (within the realms of reasonable difference - of course you can never replicate the EXACT same look with two different lenses on different cameras). There is no significant difference between them. Background separation, compression, bokeh, etc are within the realms of "the same". 
This is a very confusing subject, because all the terminology gets messy when talking about equivalencies. I made the mistake in my earlier post of refering to "equivalent" F-stop, which you rightly took issue with, but I was only wrong in the terminology I used. What I should have said is "aperture size" (which as we know is a different thing). I absolutely do think there is a use for talking in terms of equivalents when discussing f-stop/aperture on different sensor sizes, but only when thinking about DOF. It makes sense to say F-stop should remain the same because that tells you about exposure/ the amount of light getting to the sensor - but it doesn't tell you about Depth of Field  image characteristics. Here you can talk in equivalencies.
Again, Timotheus is correct: 50mm 1.8 on FF = 35mm 1.2 S35 = 25mm 0.9 MFT
Of course in the real world you have to give a little room for error but in theoretical terms there is no difference in DOF characteristics. Forget about exposure - that is different. This is about depth of field and focal length.

Well actually you can notice it on every type of screen unless it's so small that everything is in focus (google circle of confusion), actually it's easier to notice on smaller screens (contrary to what I thought) the real limit on percieving this is the resolution of the camera,1080p nikon stuff is soft enough to make it unnoticable to most. Anyway mercer, don't think about it :p If anything, just find two lenses that match color,aberration and flare/glow wise if you want to be anal about it.

Theoretically, yes. That's why I like the Sigma APSC zooms (yes I know I keep going on about them) on my C100 - because you can see the corners/edges. However different lenses have different corner characteristics. Some are not so nice.

Given equal quality of the footage (say, not a really soft 1080p output from one of the cameras): if you match exposure and colors of footage, very few will notice - even if given the task to spot the differences. Low-light footage will be an exception, where footage from smaller sensors will be noisier (if they're from the same generation of sensor technology).
One aspect I find important with full frame, is that I can easily find wide lenses with very little distortion for full frame. With the 28mm f/2.8 AI-S Nikkor, or with the 16-35mm f/4 I can shoot wide shots with very little distortion. The smaller the focal length, the harder it becomes to design lenses with little distortion.
 

@Mattias Burling we seem to disagree, so let's explore this al little bit, because I think understanding equivalence is useful for anyone, especially when juggling camera's with different sized sensors.
You didn't respond to what I said, i.e. you can get the same framing, same depth of field, shooting from the same spot...with different sensor-sized camera's. The key is using lenses that compensate for the differences in sensor size. The math concerns using crop factors for both focal length and f-stop to estimate the effects on framing and DOF. The physical f-stop obviously does not change. You show a screenshot from a Tony Northrup video that proves exactly these points! In the example using 100mm f5.6 on full frame yields the same framing and DOF as a 50mm f2.8 on MFT (2x crop). You can hear Northrup explain from 16:06...your example shows up right at 17:18 :-) Obviously there are limits as to what is currently possible. Getting the same framing and DOF as a fullframe 50mm F1.2 on a MFT camera would mean using a 25mm F0.6, which doesn't exist (yet!).

Holding cameras in the exact same position, you can take the same (framing, DOF) picture with:
a 50mm f1.8 on full frame a 35mm f1.2 on APS-C a 25mm f0.9 on MFT So there really is no specific aesthetic linked to a certain format, just math.

@Mattias Burling we seem to disagree, so let's explore this al little bit, because I think understanding equivalence is useful for anyone, especially when juggling camera's with different sized sensors.
You didn't respond to what I said, i.e. you can get the same framing, same depth of field, shooting from the same spot...with different sensor-sized camera's. The key is using lenses that compensate for the differences in sensor size. The math concerns using crop factors for both focal length and f-stop to estimate the effects on framing and DOF. The physical f-stop obviously does not change. You show a screenshot from a Tony Northrup video that proves exactly these points! In the example using 100mm f5.6 on full frame yields the same framing and DOF as a 50mm f2.8 on MFT (2x crop). You can hear Northrup explain from 16:06...your example shows up right at 17:18 :-) Obviously there are limits as to what is currently possible. Getting the same framing and DOF as a fullframe 50mm F1.2 on a MFT camera would mean using a 25mm F0.6, which doesn't exist (yet!).

But then we're talking $900 (G85) vs. $4000 (c100 ii)...

But then we're talking $900 (G85) vs. $4000 (c100 ii)...

There is another fact though, Nikon eas aleays a photo company, and photo isn't equal to video. Until very recently in time, pbotograpby and filmography (or videography) were completely apart in theory and practice.
Nikon's perception of the truth that says "there are two kinds of people..." shows that for them this is an issue, not an opportunity, as they are excelled in making photo cameras (look how much better results are squeezing out of the same Sony sensors) and the negative accent of his replies show the "agony" of a craftsman of the past that is not willing, or able, to follow the modern world's reality.
Electronics companies like Panasonic, Sony and Samsung are more adaptable of what people need, and the market can do to people like these, so it is normal to see the most innovation (so much, as it becomes gimmicky), features, and marketing tricks out of these companies.
I have the outmost respect for Nikon, and if I was a still photographer it couod have been my bramd of choice but soon it will be number 3 (Sony is already eating up its sales) and the future is not that bright.
Fuji (another traditionalists and photo experts) with their interviews of the last 2 years, are declaring that video is number one priority for the evolution of their system and that they have recognized the need of the market for hybrid cameras.
Honestly, last year's rumor that Samsung could give Nikon the NX system was the best thing could happen to Nikon. Imagine a NX1+D500 = NXF1 Nikon mirrorless with all the innovation and technology of Samsung, and all the right decisions and wisdom (and lenses!) of an image specialist as Nikon.

"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. 

Just put my preorder down for the G85 kit at B&H. Something to hold me over until the GH5.  I got it primarily for the stabilization.  I don't mind carrying my gimbal, but it doesn't work when you don't want to bring attention to yourself such as a wedding when you're a guest, not the hired videographer.  I understand it's not going to provide the same level of stabilization but I think people are getting used to the jerky movements in vlogs where a lot of camera shake during walking has become the norm.  I think I can sell the 12-60mm (unused) lens and the G85 (US import) body separately after 6 months of use and get pretty much all of my money back.  As much excitement there is for this camera, if the GH5 comes out with the same IBIS, this camera will be barely mentioned in this forum after the GH5 is released.  Whereas the GH5 will be talked about for many years after it's release.

Just saw that this afternoon on AV Watch Japan http://stkb.co.jp/info/?p=4356 That really cool... I wish Metabones could do something similar for M43.
 
 

The Helios 44 lens sits back and if far away from the rear anamorphic adapter lens. But still gives best results
It depends mainly of what is the "quality" you're looking for.
But yeah, pancakes are great with anamorphic adapters

Hey man. Check out Tito's FOV calculator; it lets you know whether a lens will (probably) vignette or not: http://www.tferradans.com/blog/?p=8615
wider than 50mm on S35 is difficult with a 2x stretch; 1.5x or 1.33x will give you more options (but obviously less oval bokeh unless you use an oval aperture). the larger the anamorphot's elements, the wider you can go with your taking lens. Hence the popularity of Kowa B&H/8Z/16H/Elmoscope II (all the same build and size). The SLR Magic anamorphot 2x-50 might also get you wider than 50mm but it's expensive and flares blue like crazy. to get a feel for flare colours, try to look up video examples online. The Sankor 16C you mention is nice and sharp, but has mostly blue coatings and thus blue flares. Also, you can ask a seller to take a picture of the lens under an angle with light source overhead to get an idea of the colour of the coatings. the coreDNA will introduce extra vignetting; ask around in this thread for user's experience listed mininum focus distance for the coreDNA is 0.7m; if you need more you can add a diopter in the mix or set both taking lens and anamorphot to minimum focus distance

Thats about what mine cost. Bought it on a photo forum. It was the oldest add there, zero interest for such things in Sweden.
When I sold it I had the same problem. So I switched the title from 1DC to 1DX/1DC. My phone almost exploded. Felt like every photographer in the world wanted a 1DX but none of them had ever heard of a 1DC.
So the camera now lives with a sports shooter. It will never capture a frame of video again. I told him it was a great video camera, he couldn't care less

It would kill the 80D and GH4 for stills. 
Check that, murder the 80D and GH4 for stills.
Scratch that, kidnap and torture, preform experiments and then make a 4K snuff film of the murder which it sends to the 80D and GH4s families.

Some photos of current construction. Beautiful body for single focus in progress.