>>3223841> Part of what i think hes trying to say is that you can have shallower depths of field at the same aperture size as you increase sensor size.We were talking very specifically about perspective.
If he's talking about depth of field, then yes, you'll get shallower depth of field with f/2.8 on a medium format camera than with f/0.95 on Four Thirds.
But the argument went like so:
>Anon 1: "perspective of lens (how far objects look away from each other) remains true to its respective focal length.">Me: "Nuh uh; Perspective is based on subject-to-camera distance. Here's some proof I went through in another thread">Anon 1: "Oh, huh, I guess you're right">Anon 2: "That Anon [presumably referring to me, even though I'm a tripfag] is a moron who doesn't understand the laws of optics"And as his evidence he suggests handling a medium format camera or watching an IMAX movie. The IMAX movie one, in particular, is telling, since the shallower depth of field of medium format wouldn't be on display there--filmmakers shooting in IMAX generally go for about the same depth of field as filmmakers shooting 35mm.
(Additionally, you can't actually get shallower depth of field on medium format than you can with full frame/35mm, although you can get shallower than four thirds' maximum. I can run you through the math on that if you don't just want to take my word for it. So shallow depth of field is not an intrinsic advantage of medium format)
So, the argument was specifically about perspective, and his reply only really makes sense in the context of perspective. Therefore, I'm pretty sure he's talking about perspective, not depth of field.
