Enlighten me on this point Craig, your saying that the resolution of a format changes the perceived DOF?
No. I'm not saying that. I'm saying that (a) resolution requirements of the system impact the DOF achievable, and (b) the viewing perspective that defines minimum acceptable resolution also defines how we perceive DOF. If you increase resolution it's because you need additional detail. If you need additional detail, then your perceived DOF will be reduced. DOF and resolving power are interrelated and you can't compare different formats with different resolution expectations and then make blanket statements regarding DOF. See Clark.
So if I use a 24 mm lens on a 35 mm sensor at say F/5.6 and the sensor of that camera is 24 MP I will perceive more DOF than if I use the same lens and F/stop on a camera with a 35 mm sensor that is say 12 MP? I don't think so.
That would never be true but the opposite may be true. Is 12MP adequate for your final presentation? If it is, then there will be no difference in IQ or DOF for the two cameras. If the final presentation requires 24MP, then the 12MP image will appear soft in comparison and will have subjectively more DOF. How much DOF does a 1 pixel image have? How much DOF does a pinhole camera have? How much resolution does it deliver?
Most MF camera systems have macro lenses that reach 1:1, a fisheye (180 degree) lens and a W/A with at least the AOV of an 18 to 20 mm on 35. The problem is that these lenses have less DOF for the same angle of view just as the sub 35 mm cameras have more DOF for a given angle of view all other things being equal.
1:1 macro is not enough for larger formats. We don't care about macro ratios underwater, we shoot subjects of a certain size. A 4/3 system doesn't offer 1:1 but it doesn't need to because of it's sensor size. In order to shoot macro underwater with MF you would like multiple focal length options that natively offer more like 2:1 plus have a range of teleconverters. No MF system offers that.
For WA, MF doesn't have problems with angle of view. Instead, it has problems with port optics that can deliver the extra resolution promised and expected. Once again, MF wide angle lenses only have less DOF than 35mm at the same f-stop. You don't shoot different formats using the same f-stops!
The FF Canon people are routinely shooting WA at very high f-numbers. You would expect that same approach with MF, yet MF DSLRs don't have the same high ISO capabilities as 35mm. Because of that, larger formats will quickly become limited by the light available. That's not a problem inherent to sensor size, it's an issue caused by the intended use of the products that are available. MF could offer high ISO performance comparable to today's DSLRs but they don't because their engineers don't prioritize that.
I am not sure what "format-agnostic" means, nor do I remember ever bringing up the issue of ports, but I do know that its quite common to see better results from sub 35 mm camera sensors than from 35 mm camera sensors given the same port size and same angle of view lens.
Case in point the Nikon 14 to 24 zoom which started this thread.
It means that the performance of a dome port is not dependent on the size of the sensor inside the camera. That is trivially provable yet it is a very common mistake made here.
There are interactions between lenses and ports and that invariably means that some combinations will work best. Don't assume that's because large sensors are inferior to small sensors.
