>>3742943> but it's still entirely down to the characteristics of the lens and focusing distance.Yes, but that's a distinction without a difference. It's like saying jumping off the edge of a cliff didn't kill you, it's the rapid deceleration at the bottom. What I was saying is that we use "Sensor size affects depth of field" as a shorthand for "Sensor size affects your choice of focal length (if you want to maintain the same perspective) or your choice of perspective (if you want to maintain the same focal length) and changing either of those will affect your depth of field in the same way". Pedantically, the latter is more correct, but it's a mouthful, and "sensor size affects depth of field" is true for all practical purposes.
>There's no “look” to MF that can't be replicated with slightly faster, shorter FF glass. Prove me wrong (protip: you can't).Well, that's a different argument. I believe that MF has a slightly different look, but I think it's down to it being slightly sharper at a given depth of field, better tonality, more dynamic range, and other things that you get from spreading out the surface area your image is landing on and/or increasing resolution.
I agree with you that there's nothing really intrinsic to medium format that gives it a different look compared to, say, a FF system with the same resolution and faster, sharper glass to deliver that resolution to the sensor. I'm just making the argument--which you seem to agree with, so I'm not sure why we're arguing--that the "faster glass" part of that equation to give you the equivalent depth of field is an actual thing.
