noone

In FD mount the L versions are usually sharper (I had the 80-200 f4 L and it was the best of those sort of lenses I have had). Another I have had and loved would be the Tamron SP adaptall 70-210 constant 3.5 model 19ah (you can use any adaptall you want including FD), Be warned though, it is quite big and heavy. Then there is the Canon EF 100-300 5.6 This is one of the oldest EF lenses and some are older than some FD lenses but it is a nice enough lens with the added bonus it can auto focus on your GH5 with an adapter (for stills anyway) though it can be slow depending on which adapter and your camera (my experience was with a GX7 and Kipon adapter and the Kipon as sold was horrible but after it got a firmware update was much much better). One I have not tried but wanted to is the Tamron SP adaptall 80-200 2.8 though that might be more expensive than you want to pay as well as being rare As with ANY of these old lenses, how each copy has been used and abused CAN have a MUCH greater affect on results than how it was new. I kinda disagree about sports and zooms VS primes. A faster lens is much more important to me than being able to zoom unless you only shoot in bright light (then again, I can zoom my primes with my camera). Why dumb adapters? SOME AF adapters are quite cheap now (I just got a cheap adapter for 43s lenses on M43 cameras ...I just need a M43 camera again now).

They DO on Ebay if you are not careful!

Yeah it does seem to have caught up. Just be careful accepting Photons to photos at face value. Some serious photographer/scientists on DPR have issues with how Bill Claff comes to his settings ...Something about using what the manufacturers use as the setting for their cameras (so a Canon camera is using Canons. ISO and comparing it with (say) a Sony camera and what Sony uses) so not necessarially apple to apples. That and what is acceptable DR is a bit subjective.

Noise reduction?

Its all good! MOST concerts i have photographed I could have done with ANY camera made just about. The difference (for me anyway) is when I am at a really low light one (I would have LOVED my A7s when at a gig in club in Brisbane a few years ago that was lit by shaded table lamps. I got a Canon 17mm tilt shift lens to use at gigs so i could get a shot of every band member in focus and covered by DOF from right next to the stage and because it is f4 and stopped down sometimes even to f8, when I am in a lower light gig all the other cameras I have used would not be much use. I used my (now sold) GX7 alongside my A7s at a few gigs and it did ok but only with faster lenses. I also use the camera and 17 tilt shift for walk around at night and for things like light shows and light projections (that can need faster shutter speeds while still being quite dimly lit). There is no other lens i could use for that (Nikon 19 PCE maybe excepted) and not many cameras i would want to use it on either (have to be FF with decent high ISO). Also from time to time for low light sports with a faster shutter speed needed. The projection isn't the best shot (just one I had handy) but is ISO 51200 and at 1/30 and 5.6. Because the lens is shifted, it would have been better stopped down a bit more and I could not really go below 1/30 because of the speed of the moving projections. The four photos range from about ISO 2000 to ISO 40000 (this was used by a newspaper when that place closed down...it had a brilliant stage that bands from everywhere loved). The Kasey Chambers (and band) shot is ISO 25600 and f7.1 to get them all in focus and at a fast enough shutter speed and remember I am very close to the nearest guitarist.

If you never go above ISO 3200 (or even ISO 6400 and rarely 8000), an A7s (1,11 or 111) is not needed by anyone I would think (unless you want it for some specific feature) but that isn't really what I would call "low light" camera performance (maybe unless you use slower lenses in that sort of light). That is not to say the R5 (and R6) are NOT any good in what I would call low light....that is what I want to see.

Yes, he purchased it to USE and as he says, he may have to go back to a 5Div but is hopeful they will fix it somehow. Even that latest DPR video has Jordan talking about his FRIENDs (Gerald Undone) test and seems to have come around almost exactly to Andrews points (while toned down slightly but still the same nonetheless). PHOTOGRAPHERS love it, more serious and pro VIDEO users are increasingly saying they love what it CAN do but the overheating just renders it either unusable for them or nearly so.

Looks ok but never got above ISO 8000 (and even then only once I think) and most was at ISO 6400 and below. Is there anything available in lower light than that (or in that sort of light with slower lenses)?

That 17-55 2.8 is great but it would not be able to be used on your 5dii. What about the little 40 2. STM? Slightly shorter "normal" on your 5d, slightly longer on your C100 and is cheap but still a nice lens. I used it for stills though (on M43, Canon APSC and Sony FF).

To each their own. Canon R and RP are much higher MP cameras than my first version A7s but for me, while the Canons ARE nice cameras (I almost got an RP recently), I think I would still MUCH prefer the lowly 12mp camera for photos, for a start the (older) A7s has a stop more DR at base and it is out to a stop and a half at ISO 25600 and the photos I take would be used at the same size from any of them and would print equally well at any size I would use and if I ever DID need larger, there are plenty of software programs I could use to upsize. Yes, i would have more limited cropping in camera choice and APSC mode is a bit lower than I would like. Both those Canons would run rings around my A7s for auto focus (AFC anyway) and the A7s iii fixes that (not that it has been an issue for me). I hated the Canon 7D as a camera and the 24mp A7 was nice enough (and better at base ISO for photos) but not nice enough against the A7s for me to keep them both. A modern 12mp camera is NOT the same as a 12mp camera from 2009 (EG Leica M9 which is already more than 2 stps of DR behind an A7s even at ISO 1600. Again, I now I am hardly going to convince anyone but I suggest there will be a fair number of people who will be surprised by this new camera for photos (especially if their main use is video but they do shoot a lot of stills) and also for low light photography.

I would also take Photons to photos with a grain of salt as he uses the manufacturers ISOs for his charts I believe ( 200 ISO in one camera when a different one might be using 400 ISO for the same setting. There was some discussion about it on a site that must not be named. I would rather go by DXO (which i understand is where Bill Claff gets his data from?). They might not always get it right with the subjective stuff but as a guide i think it is fine.

To up load to YouTube I would just shoot whatever was highest/best looking to my eyes. To WATCH stuff on YouTube, unless it is something i want to see clearly, I will choose one of the LOWEST settings to keep my data usage low (in some cases even SD uploads would be overkill for me to watch)! I doubt I am alone. That said, great work Kye!

What is "decent resolution"? Why is it so many people would rather have a (say) 24mp camera just because it has more MP than a 12mp camera when (in the case of the A7s cameras) they may well be a better choice for some people as a stills photo camera? If this IS a better camera at high ISOs than its grandfather, there will not be a current camera with greater DR once you hit around ISO 25600 and it will also be the first Sony with 16 bit stills. I would also not be surprised if a lot of people who get it DO suddenly think it is pretty good as a hybrid (video and photos) as I think the CDAF of the mk i and ii was a far bigger limiting thing than the pixel count. I do agree that it will be much more thought of as a video camera but that it may surprise a few people.

I meant to add, (to keep it relevant) that I am not sure the A7s iii will meet any of the current requirements other than maybe externally.

It seems to me the S1H is approved only for 422 all I 400mbs. The only cameras approved for Anamorphic capture are the Canon C500 ii, the Canon C700 FF, and the Sony Venice. It looks like Netflix approves camera modes generally rather than cameras.

I thought if Netflix is making it or having it made for them, THEN you use from their approved list but if it is something you make/have made, if they like it, they will take it??? Mind you, I do not think i have ever watched Netflix at all (yeah, I am the one).

I think for a couple of reasons. The Canon IS shaping up to be a wonderful, stills camera and has really nice video but it was sold as being a lot more for video than it may well be (if only due to the heat). Main thing is that it seems (could be wrong but that is what it seems) that the Canon WILL overheat depending on mode while the Sony will also overheat (and when it does, overheat quicker) BUT the Sony seems to overheat in hot environments. I hope both the Canons and the Sonys are complete successes (my favourite camera is a Sony and my favourite lens is a Canon).

Yeah I was kidding about drilling holes yesterday but not about the mark ii should have a weather sealed door to open up (and the larger the better). Today though, the more I think about it IF (big IF and would not be me) you MUST have the camera NOW as it is AND you do not need the weather sealing then I think it might be a thing. Would not be many people that would want to do that I would think but maybe for use as a hollywood 8k crash cam? I am sure there would be some that would be wealthy enough to try it and not bat an eyelid.

Maybe the Tilts company was set up by a bunch of Canon R5 engineers? I said yesterday that drilling a few holes in the R5 might help and if you are not going to use it in situations that need weather sealing if you MUST have the camera now, it might help. My other suggestion that a R5 ii could have a weather sealed door that could be opened up could come true fairly soon.

Still, if you NEED a solution then may as well try. While I think the Tilta would maybe work better on the Sony than the Canon, it would probably not be often needed on the Sony but the Canon might need it even in winter.

So what have we learnt? Seems to me the Canon WILL probably over heat due to internal camera generated heat and outside temp may not make much difference at all. The Sony will overheat quicker when the outside temp is high enough to make a difference but might not at all otherwise. That makes me even more sure that Tilta thing would actually work BETTER on the Sony than the Canon. I stand to be corrected! Guess we are all still looking for this (even if only for down the track).

I thought he was sort of saying ignore the test (as a test of WHEN the camera will overheat) IF it has the camera imposed limit set. To me that would indicate it is doing what it is supposed to do. IF it overheats when it shouldn't then of course it should be called out as any camera should be.

I think I could of predicted on various forums which (some anyway) members would have negative comments on Sony colour about the camera before any shot was shown. The colour looks fine to me generally (though just a bystander), When it is at ISO 51200 and up, most of the time the DR will be much less than otherwise (but still more than most cameras at much lower ISOs. When light does get that low, the human eye does not see colour the same way. The only thing I want to know is if the camera has an issue in auto WB like its grandfather does?

One thing I find interesting. It seems this is the first Sony stills camera that can shoot 16 bit RAW photos. Not sure it will make a huge difference (if any). I often just shoot jpegs with my (first version) A7s as they are to my mind, quite similar to straight processed RAW and Jpeg and video lets me use clearzoom but if it DID make a big difference, that is something worth noting.

But I AM crazy so I doubt anyone is gunna bat an eyelid. If it turns out it is a limiting thing in a lot of cases we will know soon enough. I just do not think it will be all that much of a problem (even in a place like here that has many days in December/January/February over 38 degrees C or 100 F) while the Canon it seems WILL be a problem a lot of the time for many. even below that.. I could be very wrong and they both might suck for pro use more than they should.