That Full Frame Look is so much better than MFT....
 

Ah but is it!

Full Frame vs Micro Four Thirds Sensor Size - Can You Spot the Difference? | 4K Shooters

Now it has to be said, I did guess correctly, but only down to colour. Worked with Panny for too long not to see their signature. But if the shot had been in black and white. Well....

Re: That Full Frame Look is so much better than MFT....
 

Well, I agree you can make a "cinematic" film with MFT.... But the test has two kinda giant flaws - one, using that metabones effectively alters the size of the sensor (x .64), not to mention that that piece of kit cost $650...

Second, and this perhaps and even bigger issue, he said he changed the shutter speed on the GH4. While that's fine for shots of desks and car bumpers, it likely wouldn't be an answer for most narrative work.

It does show you can get a narrow dof, but heck, you can do that with a cellphone camera too.

I think the more interesting question is whether or not shallow dof is something a shooter wants or not. Generally speaking, I think it doesn't matter much to audiences, esp those watching on cell phones and tablets.

Still an interesting test - thanks for posting it. BTW, I guessed completely wrong (I thought the B shots were creamier).

Re: That Full Frame Look is so much better than MFT....
 

APS-C / MFT all the way for me ...

I've spent half the money on an arsenal of lenses / bodies sticking to APS-C / MFT than I would have with Full Frame bodies / lenses.

My customers can not see the difference and nor can I ...

Having said that. If money were no object I would stick to Full Frame. Not because I can't achieve a certain type of image. Just for bragging rights.

Re: That Full Frame Look is so much better than MFT....
 

I wouldn't say flawed, more than some compromises had to be made to produce an image of similar FOV and exposure. I could achieve similar results using MFT lenses set to a lower aperture, but that would be considered equally a flaw in the test. If using the same lens and aperture value, you immediately have the fact that on a MFT sensor, 50mm becomes 100mm equivalent and aperture value gives a different exposure and Depth of Field. Hence the Speedbooster I imagine.

As for shutter speed, I imagine the adjustment was slight, simply to make sure the images had a similar look straight out of the camera. In the real World, you wouldn't be adjusting it to match another in order to fool people on a test piece like this. Post Production would take care of any inconsistencies. So settings here are really unique to the test and not essential to achieve that look. If I put on a Panasonic 25mm and bring aperture to 1.4, I could maybe achieve something similar.

Re: That Full Frame Look is so much better than MFT....
 

I too can easily pick out the Panny grabs immediate because of one factor: Color. Before I landed on the GH5 I tested almost all the other 4K-capable DLSR's and nobody came close to the organic and nearly natural look of the GH5 chip.

I forgot where I saw it, but someone put the GH5 against the Sony A7R/S models in studio and location scenes and the Sony color was *horrible* against the GH5 - most especially when you put the GH5 in 10-bit mode... holy cow.

Color aside, it absolutely doesn't matter what format the sensor is. If you understand how to compose with a good lens lineup - regardless if it's zooms or primes - you can achieve a cinematic look every time. My own experience with the GH5 proves it. To me the only obvious drawback is ultra-wide shots, that's where you really have to dig-in with good glass, adapter or not.

As as for adapters, I only use pass-through types, not the "speed-booster", specifically because I've put money into top-notch glass with superb coatings and elements. I absolutely don't want a relay lens screwing up all that goodness I paid for.

If the GH5 had a global shutter and a slightly better noise footprint at ISO's over 2400 I'd be in heaven. (sigh)