noone

4K? HD ok? Lower? If full HD is enough a used A7s will give you the low light but you would need an A7s ii for IBIS and 4k in camera though Sony IBIS is not as good as others. Also, while I do not have an issue with Sony colour, some do. There are some stabilized lenses for Sony too.. Canon ME20F-SH would be even better but only 2mp and probably way too expensive.

Vintage lenses can be fun but having had a bit of money a few years ago to get what I wanted (within reason), well unless for something very specific, I would take the modern lens every time... Just using this 135 as an example, I had the Canon 135 f2 L and it shits all over this old Promura ...and that Canon while current is getting on a bit now too (wish i still had it but i kept the Sigma 150 2.8 macro instead when i had to sell one and the Sigma is a better for for me). As for cheap adapters, I guess it can sometimes come down to luck and for the prices we pay, we should not expect too much given the tiniest difference in making it can mean a huge difference in how it works. I had two M43 to E adapters and they are just very thin sharp metal rings....they do not let all M43 lenses fit and one would not let the M43 to E adapter I got recently to fit either so i just threw it away. I love to experiment but on the cheap these days and keep a few good lenses as my main users. Buying the Canon 17mm f4 L TS-E was a cost but is by far my favourite lens ever. Buying my ancient 300 2.8 manual focus Tamron was a cost (at the time though not really THAT much) but I have had it for years and across systems and there isn't another lens I would want for portraits IF I have the space and the time.....I should have got a 200 f2 when I could have though.

I usually spend about $20 on dumb adapters but in this case, i just know the lens (it is the lens I have owned the longest that i still have) so cheap as possible it was...Turns out there IS a small screw on the side of the adapter. I have fond memories of using the 135 with film and having fun with it autofocusing on a Pentax DSLR with a 1.7x AF adapter (i had to use a bit of aluminium foil across the adapters contacts). Now. it is not something I want to use anymore. I have settled on my lens kit pretty much (AF portrait lens excepted). I only have one other M42 lens left and that is a 28 2.8 used mainly as a bodycap on my Spotmatic (come to think of it, that is ALSO a Promura). I do not want to sell the 135 for sentimental reasons. Yes, the previous adapter that fits inside the K adapter did have some play, the one with the flange did not (but no infinity).

Yeah I think so. I think there will still be a few more EF FF and more advanced APSC DSLRs but Canon's problem is going to be which way do they send the current buyers of the Rebel cameras...Do they send them to M mount or do they send them to R? Until now it was looking like M but if they are going to introduce a R mount crop sensor camera (even if a cinema camera) it would make more sense for it to be R for two reasons. A) Lenses ...little point putting out an R crop sensor video camera if there are no native wide angle lenses for it (unless the lenses are very expensive and for a small market) and putting out some wide angle native crop lenses I would think they would want to make that work from an economies of scale point of view. B) They are not putting out an M mount cinema camera and there is not such a huge demand for them with no more serious cameras for the mount and limited native lenses. I see the R mount gaining fairly quickly, the EF mount continuing for quite a while yet (who knows, Canon might keep selling them so users of other mounts can adapt them) ...why should they care WHY someone buys them as long as they buy them), but the M mount dying a slow strangled death from lack of options and upgrade path.

Right now, IF investing in lenses for most systems, I would make it Canon EF mount because they are so adaptable and usable on so many cameras and lets face it, with a good set of lenses that can be used across systems it hardly matters if you do change or add cameras so much now (unlike the old days when if you changed system you pretty much had to change everything). "invest" also has many meanings but very few are going to appreciate in value but if they make you money or you get enjoyment out of them, then that makes them a worthwhile investment in my book.

Does Neewer put out a cheaper Godox clone in lights like they do in flashes? I love my Neewer flash when i want a bigger flash (I just use a little flip up flash most of the time if not using available light).

I just got the cheapest M42 to E adapter I could find ($6.99 Australian posted). Previously I have used a Pentax K to E adapter with a M42 screwmount adapter slotted into the K adapter (I have both the one that focuses to infinity and sits fully in the mount and the one that loses infinity by having a flange that sits on top and both had their uses). I sold my Pentax K adapter when i sold my NEX-3N. I really do not care for this lens much now so not something I want to spend any more money on and it will likely just go back in its case in my box of wounded and orphaned lenses for another decade or so

I went for none but that is because my actual answer is "it depends". If you already have the lenses you want and anything news is just incremental, i think you could benefit from a camera upgrade but otherwise it would be lens for me almost all the time. I only want one more lens really (a longer AF portrait lens for FF Sony E but for photos more than anything). Otherwise I have everything I need from a wide angle tilt shift to a 300 2.8 (if I need longer I would use my superzoom). Camera can also make a difference if you do something that has suddenly had a decent advance (EG A7s and low light).

A) The Sun B) The Moon Seriously though I do need something cheap but ok so thanks for the thread!

Canon R5 8k DCI all I and UHD all I both 10 bit in log and 8 bit in standard profiles. This is all WAAAAYY above me though.

Does shooting in C log or not make any difference to overheating (10 bit in log VS 8 bit otherwise)?

So someone who does not colour grade and just uses what comes out of the camera would be better off with the Sony?

Question from the clueless! Is the A7siii 10 bit only in log (like the Canon R5 which is otherwise 8 bit 4:2:0 when not in C log) or is it 10 bit in standard picture profiles too? Does it make a difference anyway?

I have the Rx100 iv and I think it is better than a phone still for photography at least, may be not video and the phone would have some advantages. There are some comparison videos around comparing RX100 cameras to phones. I watched one that compared the Pixel 3 to the Rx100 v and his verdict was the RX100 v was still the better camera for photography but the Pixel did beat it in many areas (stabilization especially). It looked really close to me.

My M42 to Sony E adapter turned up today (a lot quicker than I expected after the long delays for the last couple of things from Sydney). Just a quick photo snap at 1.8 (the mesh window screen is almost touching the back of the rabbit). I am not sure I will be able to post a video but I will at least try and post a couple of snapshots from video. The lens is very heavy and does not have a tripod mount and I do not want to put the camera on a tripod with this lens out front. The camera is not stabilised so any video I take will likely be very shaky. Other issues (all coming back to me now), minimum focus distance is 1.7 metres and being m42 it just screws in but that means it can also just screw out when focusing that direction and you reach the end. It also does not end up with the lens at the position I would like when mounted and screwed in.

I can understand that but put it this way. It IS just a tool for photography and video, the video side is being crippled (either by lie or by stuff up or both). IF the aim is to make the best video you can, surely you would want the best equipment you can get and IF that best equipment was from a company that lied to protect their OTHER equipment, should they turn around an fix the lie so people DO get the best equipment doing what it was sold to do, what you are saying is you think people should not get it and buy second best? Who is that going to hurt? You, or them (or both)? Human nature says a few will not buy it on principle but plenty of others will and that will include people who would never have considered the camera before. Personally, I would still prefer the Sony A7siii but that is because it suits what I want but I can appreciate what Canon has done in building the R5 while reviling them for crippling it.

Nah, it is just a company that makes toys for us to play with after all. If the toy is really really good and more so after they fix it to work as it was originally sold, not that many will care. A few Canon haters will continue for decades with a new version of "Sony root kit" Not saying it is right, just how it is... No matter, Surely this needs a public response from Canon now. Silence will prove what Andrew is saying. How about they put out a white paper on the R5 heat "management" if they say he is wrong and they have not crippled it really badly (probably because they made it so good, they kinda thought they had to). It will be interesting to see just how they handle it and it is not like it will just go away.

I think it is more likely a combination of massive cock up (and maybe more than one) as well as a bit of cripple hammer. Truth is they might just have made TOO good a camera for video and thought that it might kill some of their "proper" video cameras and the premium those bring.

The thing is, if they DO fix this and own up it will be a fantastic camera and many many people will instantly forgive them.

Used on?

This is a page I saw years ago. https://www.pentaxforums.com/userreviews/porst-135mm-f1-8-tele-mc.html

I saw that new Sigma and it would be very nice but is out of my price range. I do not mind Sigma and when I needed to sell a lens it was either the Canon EF 135 f2 L or Sigma 150 2.8 APO macro and I kept the Sigma because it is more versatile and a lens I love (if it autofocused properly on my A7s it would be my longer AF portrait lens). Years ago I did have a weird Sigma prime lens that was horrible and the Pentax distributor in Australia was also the Sigma distributor so Pentax cameras often came with Sigma "kit" lenses here and I had a 28-200 as my kit lens with a film SLR. It was ok for that but not so good on a DSLR. Sigma have come a LONG way since then and there are lots of Sigma lenses I would not mind trying (24-35 f2 FF and the 18-35 1.8 and 50-100 1.8 APSC). If money was not an issue it would almost certainly be the Sigma 105 1.4 as my longer AF portrait lens. I may try and save for one as it is.

I think there are about two or three different 135 1.8s but they do go under multiple brand names. I can never be sure which one is which. I will see what I can do once my new adapter gets here though it will not be pretty (both image quality and my "competence").

Here is a size comparison of the 135 1.8 Promura against a "small" more "regular" lens.

My old Promura 135 1.8. It lives with a protective filter on it and in its own case so it has hardly been out of the case for years. The layer of crud is not anywhere near as bad as I remembered and I guess the lens is just not so great to use. Excellent poser value though!