noone

Maybe just blame Sony since the camera seems to be actually made using at least one Sony part! This is really a horror story of a great camera for some almost useless for others and it was sold as being for both groups.

I just realized I do not even have an adapter to use my 135 1.8 anymore so i have just ordered one from Ebay. M42 mount. It is not a lens I will ever use again seriously (I remember using it to photograph Jimmy Barnes with a Pentax film SLR years ago). Regards coverage of the f0.95 lenses on My A7s, my guess is none of them would fully cover it but one or two might fully cover APSC. It is hit or miss and as i said, my 43 50-200 DOES fully cover APSC at least and in either case, using Clear zoom will get rid of the vignetting ...I just wanna know how MUCH vignetting with either the 17.5 or 25 (those are the only two real candidates). I could always just get one of the cheaper f0.95 brand M43 lenses though if doing that, I might as well get one of the E mount APSC ones Unfortunately it has to be a fully mechanical M43 lens as there are no smart adapters for M43 lenses on E mount cameras. The one fully mechanical M43 "lens" I have used is the 15mm body cap "lens" and it has a huge vignette FF, an almost but not quite usable field of view APSC but with 1.9x clearzoom FF is ok (for what it is) Adapting lenses made for smaller formats is always very hit and miss and some sort of work for coverage and most do not but at least with Sony there is always clear zoom.

The Canon 135 f2 L I had was wonderful (and even though it is an old lens, auto focused ok depending on camera used). I actually still have one of those old 135 1.8 lenses (mine is a Promura) and it is a very impressive lens to look at and hold...using it? Not so much (though mine seems to have a thin layer of gunk on an element inside probably because I think a previous owner tried to clean it). I have had it for decades but not used it for years now...will have to see where it is. My pathetic little brain has actually started thing I might try and get one of the f0.95 Voigtlanders just to try and use on my A7s both FF and APSC with clearzoom if necessary.......does anyone know how much of FF they would cover? (my 50-200 four thirds lens covers apsc entirely). This ancient battered 20-35 2.8 L Canon lens would need a 10-17.5 1.4 lens to give a similar look with M43 and it is coming up for its 31st birthday in January (from the date code on the lens). Despite its looks, it still works fine (even AF) though I use it MF on my Sony).

Yeah that is a very nice review of a good lens. There are plenty of options for FF though. Deleted the rest of my post as i do not want to start an equivalence type war here.

Don't forget they are still putting out EF mount cameras and lenses too (and more so than M mount) so I can not see how they will manage THREE current mounts in a (rapidly) shrinking market. I guess the test will be how long it takes to put out RF mount APSC stills cameras and appropriate RF crop sensor lenses.

I still need a longer auto focus portrait lens for Sony FE. Probably going to get something in about 4 to 8 weeks (if I do not try and save for a really good one). I have my Tamron 300 2.8 adaptall MF lens and 60-120 2.8 Tokina MF lenses which are wonderful portrait lenses but manual focus only and I have a Sigma 150 2.8 in Canon EF mount but AF is so slow adapted I just use it as MF. Also still have my FD 85 1.2 L but it has the dissolving bearing issue and of course is MF. MY Sony Zeiss 55 1.8 IS a nice AF portrait lens but I still want something longer. IF I buy it soon it seems to be coming down to Viltrox 85 1.8 (added bonus this lens seems to be able to do 1.6 with an unauthorised firmware). Tokina 85 1.8 (might be the Viltrox with a different name?). Sony Zeiss 24-70 (maybe a bit short and does not have a good reputation but I quite like it) Tokina 100 2.8 firin (doubles as an AF macro lens though I have lots of ways of doing macro including that 150 Sigma). FE 85 1.8 (would be used most likely but i had this lens and loved it). Maybe if cheap enough I might just get another FE 28-70 kit lens (which i found to be ok if a little short and slow in aperture sometimes). Most likely one of those but if the FE kit lens I might also get another Canon 100 f2 and use it MF as well or even a knockoff of it...just because i like the lens and think i should have a faster 100. If I was to try and save, then it would bring lenses like the 100 2.8 STF, Sigma 105 1.4 or Sigma or Sony 135 1.8 lenses or 90 2.8 macro or possibly the 24-105 f4. into it I am sure by the time I actually get one I will have changed my mind dozens of times.

I do not think the A7s iii NEEDS a fan. At least not for the vast majority who will use it and especially if all you have to do is keep it out of direct sun in hot environments as much as possible. Not much different to weather sealing. I would not rely on Sony weather sealing in pouring rain but there are work arounds (I have used an A7/a7s in rain but not for longer periods and not in a downpour). I am not sure I would want a fan in a camera unless it really was needed as it just adds more complexity and something else that can break as well as an increase in size. Others will differ.

HMM does that mean they are going to have to abandon the M mount or are they going to have to develop some native crop sensor lenses for both R and M mounts?

Ok, Tell me what the internal temp of an A7s iii is cold? Take it into the hot sun (still cold) and what is going to happen do you think? Will it stay the same or will it drop (or as I think, warm up inside)? How about taking it into a cold climate, will the insides stay the same or cool down if the exterior temp is colder? I guess we should be talking about if it is European or African A7siii no?

Of course no cameras are insulated like a thermos. And of course a glass bottle will allow heat out with an internal heat source but put it this way. Which would have warmer water in it, a glass bottle with an internal heating element in a snowy winter environment or one in direct hot summer sun? Cameras are NOT glass bottle and they are NOT a thermos but it seems to me that the Canon is closer to a thermos and the Sony is closer to a glass bottle (even if both only minimally so). I would bet that if Canon just added a weather sealed door that could open up, the Canon would cool a lot quicker most of the time. That Sony camera from a cold start left in the sun in a very hot environment WOULD be getting heat into it (the exterior could well be hotter than the internals so that means it CAN build up to the temp it overheats at faster).....Isn't that what they both said they did in those tests? If heat can get out, it can get in.

To be fair, the bride prep would just be a few photos and maybe some non heating low res footage. The drive to the next location should be ok for cooling it IF you turned it off. Then you just hope no one is late or maybe you can ask the wedding party to rearrange the schedule to get the important stuff over first. Maybe catching the bouquet before the walk down the aisle?? Either that or tow or three cameras should work.

Yes and no. As I have said before on this issue. Think of two bottles one made of glass and the other an insulated thermos. Pour boiling water into both of them and come back in an hour, the water in the glass will be at room temp but the water in the thermos will still be hot. Now put them both out in the direct warm sun and I will bet you the water in the glass bottle heats up again while the thermos will not be affected. Now if there was a heating source IN both bottles, AND in the sun, the glass would have the heat from the sun AND the heat from within while again, the thermos would only have the internal heat. Think of the Sony as being the glass bottle and the canon as being the thermos. The Canon will never overheat because of external factors but seems it WILL overheat due to internal camera generated build up. The Sony seems good at heat management at least from internal heat and maybe in part BECAUSE it can get out of the camera but that ALSO means it can get in in some cases. That is why I think it is possible that the Tilta thing might actually work BETTER on the Sony but will also hardly be needed on it. Remember too that all those peltier type coolers that are insulated boxes can be reversed to warm food as well as cool it.

MC: Would guests with 4k and 8k phones please report to the photographer please!

Agreed! Even if thanks to overheating it is unfortunately, only slightly better for video!

Kye, this thread just reminded me I have a FD mount Vivitar 2x macro focusing teleconvertor with 7 elements I think and when the helicoid is not wound out, it acts as a 2x teleconvertor and when wound out it is a 1:1 macro convertor with some 50mm lenses (even greater with a shorter lens or lower magnification with a longer lens). I have not used it for ages but just trying it with my Tokina 60-120 2.8, it gives me a 120-240 5.6 fully wound in and I actually think it is better than my old Tamron 80-250 at or near 250. I might be completely off and just a feeling but a GOOD teleconvertor can still be ok and some of the 7 element ones are ok (I have three of these things, the others being a 2x 7 element in Pentax mount and a 3x one also Pentax that does degrade IQ a bit more due to being 3x rather than 2). Macro is an added bonus with them and a further bonus is you can reverse a lens onto them for even greater macro including some quite ridiculous magnifications but as teleconvertor they can be ok and they can be found quite cheap now. There are also 5 element ones but I would tend to avoid those.

Many fields used for Australian football in winter double as cricket grounds in Summer. The difference is the action tends to flow from one end to the other (unless a game is lopsided but even then they change ends each quarter) while cricket action is mainly centre based.

Rather than cover the whole field, I think you are better off just shooting shorter (I know you sit with your people though while when i do this just change ends when I like).

The 100-300 5.6 L has a fluorite and UD element while the two older versions of the non L do not have either. Same applies to the 80-200 f4 L. Don't know if you have seen it but MIR.com.my is a great FD resource.

Do you NEED the camera?

That video by Gerald is excellent and to me sums things up perfectly. It should make many of the Canon fanboys (especially those on the DPR R forum) a lot happier and maybe they might not think he is evil and anti Canon now? One thing, did I get it right that the cameras are only 10 bit in Log? So someone who does not grade and just shoots standard is going to get 8 bit video only?

While I am sure that phones will be all 90% need in five years time and by ten years probably (almost) everyone, I am still a luddite. I only just upgraded my phone to one that I might actually use to make phone calls (flip with big old fart numbers for fat fingers), I doubt I will ever use its pathetic little camera. I guess I use my RX100 iv as many would use a phone camera (it is often in my pocket when my phone is left at home). GX7 was a brilliant camera for stealthy street shooting thanks to the tilting EVF so no one knows you are taking a shot since you are looking down when it is tilted.

HUH? CANON said it could be used as the LEAD camera and also it can COMFORTABLY be used on set, they did NOT say it MIGHT work or it might NOT. Look, IF they can fix it, it will be superb for more than stills but as it is???

The A6## cameras are not aimed at video users any more than the Canon and Nikon apsc DSLRs are. Video is an important part but not the most important in those cameras. The vast majority of them are just going to be family videos and stills. Sure Sony does not put as much effort into APSC as FF but the 24mp Sony APSC sensors are still very good (and especially for stills that they are more aimed at). Remember some of the others ALSO use the Sony 24mp sensors and the M43 cameras use Sony sensors as well.

Searching "adaptall lens" (previous i used "FD lens") Brings up a couple more A couple of 70/80-250 both 4.5 at the long end lenses including one very cheap. I have an 80-250 3.8-4.5 adaptall lens in really good condition and it is ok but nothing outstanding (beautifully built and cased) and also I still have a adaptall 70-350 constant 4.5 these are rare and they cost a mint when new but since it does not have any special elements (EG no ED glass) it is not that great compared to modern lenses (again really good condition really well made and kept in its own lockable trunk). I could not recomend either unless you could find them really cheap (I have had both for years bit they were not expensive for me. I rarely use them as my old abused Tamron 300 2.8 is light years better. If you look internationally, there seems to be some reasonable bargains for adaptall lenses in the US and other places.

Just looking on Ebay Australia right now (I did not look at any of them, just the listings). FD 800mm 5.6 $1100 or offer (That is a lot but it is a LOT less than these things used to go for) FD 200mm f4 macro $699 plus postage FD 300 2.8 L This one is an auction currently at $500 plus postage with 2 days left (if you got it for just a bit more that would be my pick if it is in good condition). Tamron SP 200-500 5.6 adaptall with FD and Minolta adaptalls $450 or offer free postage FD 200 2.8 $400.05 free postage That might be a good choice FD 200 2.8 in good condition...Auction starting at $375 plus postage FD 80-200 f4 L $380.05 free postage FD 200 2.8 $350 or offer plus postage Then from $250 down to $200 is a FD 70-210 (at $250) and some 100-300 5.6 lenses (at around $200) Then another FD 100-300 5.6 at $155 plus postage (that might be a good buy as it seems to have a box and case so might have been looked after) A couple more 100-300 5.6 lenses cheaper still One oddball Sigma 50-200 3.5-4.5 though I would pass and below that slower lenses and one Tokina 60-300 though that is 6.3 at 300. That is not a huge selection at least from Australia only (would be a lot more from japan). I would spend just a bit more for a lens that is better (individual condition considering). I love spending your money!