David Mullen ASC
Moderator
There are some advantages to 2/3" -- I'm shooting right now on a 35mm digital camera (Genesis) for a TV series and find that I can really see how the focus pullers are struggling with the depth of field at f/2.8 stop, so when possible, I try to give them something closer to an f/4 just to speed things along (doing fewer takes due to focus).
When I shoot on a 2/3" camera, I tend to light closer to an f/2.0-2.8 split to reduce the depth of field closer to what I'd get at an f/5.6 in 35mm. So I then have the advantages of being able to use smaller zooms that open to an f/2.0 (rare in 35mm cine), being able to light to lower levels, and yet have enough depth of field to make focus-pulling easier. Of course, aesthetically, I still prefer the look of 35mm at near f/2.8 in terms of the focus dropping off around the actors, but from a practical standpoint of working fast on zooms in minimal light levels and having a workable depth of field, there are some advantages to using a 2/3" camera.
When I shoot on a 2/3" camera, I tend to light closer to an f/2.0-2.8 split to reduce the depth of field closer to what I'd get at an f/5.6 in 35mm. So I then have the advantages of being able to use smaller zooms that open to an f/2.0 (rare in 35mm cine), being able to light to lower levels, and yet have enough depth of field to make focus-pulling easier. Of course, aesthetically, I still prefer the look of 35mm at near f/2.8 in terms of the focus dropping off around the actors, but from a practical standpoint of working fast on zooms in minimal light levels and having a workable depth of field, there are some advantages to using a 2/3" camera.