tweak

What's the first song?

This is where the problem begins I think. As I don't really think of a "look" only based upon sensor size, more so as a combination of format size and the rendition/ characteristics of the optics made for that format. This focal reducer simply allows you to use a MF lens on a FF camera and use its full image circle (containing all the things you like or dislike about such a lens). A focal reducer imo (and for what I use them for) simply allows you to use a lens as it was designed to be seen on a smaller format. If you understand this as a theory, you understand why people would bother using them on any format small or large. Where the whole thing goes wrong imo is when people look at focal reducers only as means to getting specs they cannot otherwise obtain (such as focal lengths and light transmissions etc).

To me this would still mean the same thing. The two are just different levels of the same principle, it makes as much sense to do either or as is your perceived return from doing so. If you see no intrinsic value in using a speed boosted lens on a smaller format then logically it would make little sense for you to do it. If you see some worth or value in using a speed boosted lens then it makes as much sense as using any native lens for similar reasons.

I don't understand the argument generally but I do understand it in some cases.

It's a good theory, everything is a good theory.

I think what people fail to realise here is that for most people using MF lenses (or any vintage lens) I'm sure has nothing to do with whether you can get other "equivalent" lenses to match or do an "equivalent" job... it's all about the things that aren't supposed to be there, the "mistakes" if you will that make the image interesting. It's like playing music, jazz as an example, the notes you don't play and the unexpected notes you do play make what you are doing interesting to some people. If you just played a super predictable structured melody I don't know many musicians personally who would be overly impressed... That being said not everyone may enjoy what you are doing (they never will in life) but if something has worth and merit to you don't let anyone tell you otherwise. I will give you the big secret, everything you do in your day to day life is pointless, in fact life is pointless. There's no plan waiting for you at the end, no one there to pat you on the back and tell you did life right. Just do what makes you happy and help others where you can .

Best thing to make judgements on is the devices that your media is most likely to be viewed with . There's a reason music artists release "radio only" mixes and edits.

Pretty sure you need a monitor to de-squeeze (you did with GH4).

Did you even watch the videos you quoted? The second is anamorphic .

This is looking epic!

We're on the same page.

hahaha true.

"Equivalence" is relative, relativity is based on perspective, I feel this is where the problem lies.

This talk of lens "equivalence" reminds me of childhood physics where you compared things as if they were in a "perfect vacuum" hahaha.

Sorry, my sarcasm obviously isn't too obvious.

Yes, the problem is lenses... no options at all, the mount is very un-adaptable.

What is the card write speed of the 77D? As all this talk is very meaningless if that isn't high enough (which I highly doubt it will be given the cameras specs and price).

You're right, lenses don't have any unique characteristics. Buying old lenses and adapting them makes no sense.

I hope everyone knows that in part modern lenses are far superior to equivalent vintage lenses. Thus you must throw all your old lenses away as they are worthless and there is no point to shoot with them .

MLVFS... as easy as anything else, can't really see an issue here.

Compressed 8-bit is no match for the power of Raw!

5D2 is a waste of money, 5D3 is a lot better and worth the extra from what I've experienced and read. The shots weren't so different until you shot the anamorphic stuff, then the 5D3 looked noticeably a lot better. I'm also trying to get the cash for my own 5D3 at the moment, like you I think it could be a great all round performer. I'm shooting 7Draw all the time at the moment, but I can see how the 5D3 is a lot nicer (also for pictures, especially the DR).

Never heard of a Yi case costing 200dollars... I'd say for regular people 300 vs 500 is a fairly big deal (for me it is).

No doubt. But those techniques also help to replicate/alleviate the two things I mentioned when shooting on lesser cameras.

I think it's true that you can almost work any image in a way to look or feel "cinematic" but in the end technology plays the biggest factor in making that an easy/simple experience or not. If you've got the right tools (or close) to do the job you're going to have to do far less to make it a reality. For me Dynamic Range and Motion Cadence are the quintessential "cinematic" traits for most viewers (whether they understand those terms or not).