Those films had a lighting budget that is waaaaaaay more than what the full frame camera will cost you. The reason you should get full frame as a small filmmaker is because it makes your life way easier. just shoot with both and you will see how you will go for the full frame whenever is possible.

Agree, esp. when it comes to video production. Many of the people I see steadily arguing "FF or die" tend to be photographers who relish the shallow field and ISO performance for still images. It is technically harder to duplicate easily with smaller formats. Aside from the cinema-grade sensors in Arri, etc., most of the FF sensors OFTEN have better DR than their smaller counterparts. However, FF simply can't reproduce the deeper-DOF-to-light gathering ability of smaller sensors, esp. with dual native ISO. The quality of the creative BEHIND the camera matters most, and that person should choose the right tool for the job.

This is a great take! So many classic movies were shot on super 35 and when people talk about the "cinematic" look they are usually referring to movies shot with a crop sensor.

i’ve shot on aps-c/super 35 my entire career. i have loved the sensor size and the lightweight compact sizes that comes with that smaller sensor. that being said, at the end of the day it is what you need for your project and the look you are going for. a lot of hollywood productions haven’t used large format because technology has not really gotten that far. as in, there are a lot of quirks that come with, let’s say an Arri LF. I think we are now getting to point where we are going to see that change. as tech develops and improves i think we’ll be seeing large format become much more normal and widely accepted. for now, follow your heart. choose what is best for your project and what you can afford. your story is key and sometimes a larger format helps tell that story better and sometimes it doesn’t. all love👍🏽

Agreed. From a technical standpoint, technology has made the differences marginal. Brands like Sony who strip features from their crop bodies (joysticks for AF) have more of an impact in deciding which camera is best for the individual. 3rd party lens selection and better crop sensors in Fuji bodies have made the transition easier. I've recently sold my GFX and Sony FF sensors to be content with Fuji APS-C bodies.

I shoot mostly stills over video. I switched from a Canon EOS R to a Fujifilm X-H2.

Thanks a lot for this one! It is very true that the APS-C vs FF debate tends to repeat the same story without really checking. Really glad to see your video with a much more balanced and informed view. Personally, I would go even one step further and claim (with evidence) that when people notice differences in DOF, noise, or dynamic range, it's mostly because of lens and f-number. There isn't any meaningful difference between modern FF and APS-c cameras, when using lenses that deliver the same amount of light to the sensor: same angle of view, same aperture diameter, and correct illumination circle (FF lens on FF camera; APS-c lens on APS-c camera). With that, anyone can use an online calculator to compare, for instance, a FF 80mm at f/4 with a canon APS-C 50mm at f/2.5. They both have an aperture diameter of 20mm, both have an angle of view of 30 degrees, and both have a DOF of 10 feet at a distance of 30 feet. Similar observations also apply to noise and dynamic range. Anyone who has both an APS-C and a FF camera can easily get the same exact images on both systems simply by applying the crop factor correction to both the focal length and the f-number (and use whatever ISO is needed for correct exposure). That said, lens selection is usually way better for FF than for APS-C. For some genres, it doesn't make much sense to use anything else than FF. just because of the available lenses.

the best gear is what you got

Classic clickbait video. Tell your "friend" to shoot 16k ISO on that gh5. It's a grainy mess.