New Fujifilm Eterna Cinema Cam.

[Ilkka Nissila]

12 hours ago, ND64 said:

Not trying to jump into your apparently long discussion, but EXACT look of Full Frame can be achieved on M43, but you need faster lens, and once you go that fast, the lens becomes so big and heavy that the size advantage of the M43 format loses its relevance at that point. But the difference between 44mm wide sensor and 36mm wide sensor is far less than FF and M43. Its basically f/1.2 vs. f/1.4. And at the same time, lens makers of the two systems went opposite direction. FF lenses are now bigger and faster than 44mm MF lenses, cause FF systems want to differentiate themselves from low end cameras, even at the expense of size/weight, while MF systems want to break the collective mindset that MF=Bulky/Inconvenient. 

Depth of field wise 35 mm full frame has more options (on the shallow side). However, the "look" has other characteristics including tonal and color quality and richness. If the MF sensor is used at base ISO and given as much light as it can hold, the SNR, tonal range, color sensitivity etc. are better than the MFT. Since most of these sensors and cameras were mainly developed for stills, these characteristics may or may not translate into video image quality. Also shooting at base ISO for stationary subjects is always possible when shooting stills (using a tripod) but because of shutter speed requirements for video, and the ability to process consecutive images and merge information from them to improve SNR, things get more complicated for video. If similar interframe/dual-gain-output strategies are used across formats, if there is enough light, and if the processing power is adequate and read time can be minimized then the MF image should be superior at base ISO. However, these things are very implementation-specific and so video image quality differences between formats do not always mirror still image quality differences.

[Ninpo33]

3 hours ago, Django said:

This is getting tedious, you’re over-correcting things I never claimed. I didn’t say FF magically changes lens physics, just that for equivalent framing it naturally gives shallower DOF compared to S35, which is why focal reducers even exist in the first place. You basically repeated that back to me, so we actually agree there.

This right here… 

Don’t waste your time trying to have a normal debate. Instead of admitting you were right about exposing more lens character at the edges with MF sensors he moves the goal posts and still says you’re wrong because “not ALL FF lenses look good on MF” You obviously never said that or claimed that but it’s a tactic people use to find ways to “correct you” after making a valid point. eatstoomuchjam won’t ever admit the might not know something and always needs to maintain the belief that he’s right. Either self esteem issues or simple EGO. 

It’s the same tired argument with the “MF Look” or something being “Cinematic”. Terms many of us understand and use but these idiots want to argue on an internet forum about how these aren’t a thing. Yet they’re on a full frame camera talking about how “technically” you could achieve the same look with Super 16. 

I’ve given up with most of the characters here, big waste of time.