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. 

 

[eatstoomuchjam]

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.

Good, I'm glad we agree.  Sorry if I misunderstood you to be arguing with me instead of agreeing with me.

3 hours ago, Django said:

Same with open gate: yes, 17:9 is technically “open gate” on many cinema sensors, but when filmmakers talk about open gate they often mean 3:2 / 4:3 full-height readouts because those give more latitude for aspect ratios and anamorphic use. That’s all I was pointing out.

Good.  I was mostly responding to the comment about "true" open gate.  I just prefer to use the ratios for clarity.

3 hours ago, Django said:

As for “character,” I never said every FF lens suddenly blooms with quirks on 44×33, just that bigger sensors can reveal parts of the image circle not usually seen, which some DPs (like Fraser) like to exploit. Whether that looks beautiful or boring depends on the lens and the shooter’s taste.

Yes.  For shooting landscape/wildlife, I tend to prefer sharp modern glass, but for portraits/video, I like vintage stuff and for my vintage lenses that work on GF, sometimes the ragged outer edges of the image circle are really nice.  I already said that Fraser's comment was based.

3 hours ago, Django said:

At the end of the day, people are going to pick whatever tool makes sense for their workflow, budget, or taste. I never claimed MF was a magic bullet, just that it offers options and aesthetics some shooters care about. You prefer the practicality of the Raptor, others might be drawn to the Eterna 55. Both views can be true.

Agreed that people can choose whatever hammer they want - and I've also said that I'd consider renting the Eterna for a project if it made sense.  I'm not, in any way, saying that people shouldn't buy or use it.  I'm more suggesting that it's overpriced and that I think most people who are looking in that price range are going to choose an FX9, V-Raptor XE, or UC 12K LF - and that with a somewhat bigger budget, the UC 17K 65 also becomes an option.  Fuji would have a lot more sales (and still plenty of profit margin) if they dropped the Eterna at $9-11k.  Still plenty of competition in that price range, but then they're undercutting the 41mm wide sensor of the raptor.  Since the XE was announced almost in tandem, I am guessing that Fuji's pricing was determined before that announcement.
Suspect it will drop a lot after a little while, but at $16k, Fuji also have to be careful not to anger early adopters by dropping the price too soon.  Maybe 1 year.

[eatstoomuchjam]

34 minutes ago, Ninpo33 said:

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

Huh?  It's not moving the goal posts to assert that the fact that some 35mm lenses expose character, but not all - and it's also not moving the goal posts to point out that the same statements are true if you use an S35 lens on FF or a S16 lens on M43.  I don't need to maintain a belief that I'm right when I am, in fact, right.  In fact, I was the one who brought up Fraser's quote and said that it was based and that indeed, for the lenses that he was using, he was getting more character on a larger sensor.

37 minutes ago, Ninpo33 said:

Either self esteem issues or simple EGO.

Which of us does that apply to, again?

38 minutes ago, Ninpo33 said:

t’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.

Physician, heal thyself.
Terms with no actual definition are useless for discussion or debate.  The true idiots are the ones who say that the music ain't old-timey enough. 😉

39 minutes ago, Ninpo33 said:

Yet they’re on a full frame camera talking about how “technically” you could achieve the same look with Super 16.

That is technically true, yes, but as ND64 pointed out, radically impractical if you're shooting wide open.

But you can very easily achieve the same look with S35 and many people do it by using a simple focal reducer.  And if you don't insist on shooting at T1.2 for maximum toneh all day long, you can also get a similar look on M43, even more so if using a focal reducer.  If you're shooting a 50mm at f/4 on your FF camera and shooting a 25mm at f/2 on your MFT camera, they'll look pretty similar - with the main differences relating to the character of the specific lens in use.  But the FOV and DOF will be similar enough for it not to matter much - and the gradients/falloff/etc will probably look better on whichever camera is capturing at higher resolution, not the one with the bigger sensor, also assuming that the scene is well-lit since the smaller sensor will probably start to get noisy sooner.