noone

Ouch. He probably just voided the warranty on them all (if any still had one) unless some of them do not specify a temp range. NX1 and A7iii operating temp range 0-40 c 32-104 f, so most likely the same for all of them. Be interesting to know which ones (if any) had usable files after they cooked.

BM is an Australian company and the Australian government has just poured a lot of money into getting more of Hollywood (and Bollywood ETC) here. It would not surprise me if BM got just a little bit of that along the way. They might not have been playing on the same fields as Red but I think that they just might be with this camera (if it lives up to the specs).

Portrait lenses, Pre and post CoVid!

While I do not think that of lens as a real "leica" (any more than that Sony is a real Zeiss) or all that special, it does seem nice enough and while I do not think much of the new Panasonic camera (especially for what it is being promoted for), anyone that does have that lens WOULD be better off with this new camera than a camera like the GM5 simply because the sensor will be much better and the results will be far sharper. It is a lens i considered when using M43 nice enough but decided against it for other reasons. Just look at DXO on it and compare how it rates on the various M43 cameras. It is only really the 20mp cameras that it shows as being much good (once you stop down to 2.8) so yes, it should be a nice match for this camera though not for me (lens or camera now). I have a little point and shoot camera with a "leica" lens and it is crap.

This is a pic at 200mm in APSC mode ... no vignetting. Imagine if I can use this with aperture control (and bonus points for AF) on a body like an A6400 (or a lens like the 150 f2). This lens still sells for several hundred dollars on Ebay. My 50-200 has a common known issue as does my 12-60 Olympus 43 lens though a different issue (that makes the 12-60 pretty much unusable to me). Oh and the lens is 50-200 f2.8-3.5 (not 4).

After my post about the Olympus 43 lens (50-200 2.-4 )in the lens owning plans thread, I had the thought that with a smart adapter for 43 to E lenses some of the lenses would be perfectly usable on the APSC E mount cameras. I doubt if ALL four thirds lenses would cover APSC without vignetting like the 50-200 does but i would think that many would and some of those lenses are truly first class (at still often higher than first class prices even with an otherwise long abandoned mount). I just got a quite cheap AF smart adapter for 43 to M43 and mount my thin dumb m43 to E adapter to use the 50-200 so it is MF only (even if AF worked on the lens) but the other issues is that the Olympus 43 lenses are electronic aperture so used wide open only (unless I can use a 43 camera to change aperture and have it hold if removed without turning off like some other system adapters do). I found a direct 43 to E adapter but it is dumb too (not getting it as it is dearer than the AF adapter I just got). Anyone know if there are any 43 to E AF adapters? I would get one just for the 50-200 but lenses like the 150 f2, 90-250 2., 300 2.8 and the two f2 zooms would have a new lease of life (these are all still hideously expensive though). I would LOVE to have an Olympus 150 f2 on a camera like a NEX# or A6### with AF and aperture control.

15mm. Yeah it is not great (this is the second one I have had that I just got for cheap as it is fun to use). I think it is actually BETTER used on my A7s than it was on my M43 camera though I have to use a bit of clearzoom for jpegs stills and video to remove the vignetting.

I have two of my late dads four thirds DSLR lenses. A 12-60 2.8-4 high grade lens and a 50-200 2.-3.5 high grade lens (Olympus had three grades super high grade (SHG), high grade, and standard. The super high grade lenses included some very expensive kit (300 2. that cost more than anyone else's though with the FOV of 600mm, a 90-250 2. 8, a 150 f2 and two f2 zooms among others. The high grade ones were expensive but not even close to some of the SHG ones. Both of these lenses came with a Oly 43 DSLR but I traded that a while ago. I kept these lenses as they both have issues...the 12-60 auto focused on the DSLR but can not shoot other than stopped down to its smallest aperture and the 50-200 did not AF but otherwise seems to work ok for MF. Today, I got an adapter for 43 lenses on m43 cameras and put the lenses on my m43 to Sony E adapter (I got the adapter in case I can find a cheap EM1 and if not, I can give the lenses and adapter to my nephew for his GH5). The adapter (M43 to E) is dumb (no electronics) so no AF and I can not control aperture even if the 12-60 worked so it is useless to me currently (and maybe for all) but the 50-200 is quite a surprise. Since AF does not work anyway, no issue and while I can not stop it down, it is fine (quite good actually) wide open. In APSC mode on my A7s it has NO vignetting really at all at any focal length and in FF mode for video and jpeg stills, vignetting can be removed with 1.5x clearzoom which puts it as a "75-300mm" lens instead of the "100-400 EQUIV" marked on the lens (or I can use it as a 100-400 with 2x clearzoom). In APSC mode that would be 75-300 equiv as well or even up to 150-600 in APSC with 2x clearzoom (these are all equivalent FF angle of view anyway). It would be more useful on a proper Sony APSC E mount camera or a FF camera with a larger pixel count. This is taken with it at 200mm FF. Both APSC and FF with 1.5x clearzoom and this lens would be fine by me for MF stills or video in a pinch. I would love to see what the 150 f2 could do on Sony (and a pity they do not have manual aperture rings). Still probably going to go to my nephew (since it will work fully except maybe for AF) but it might be a while before he gets it.

That Canon has put out a "media alert" now on this says it all. All these times are based on a cold start at 23 degrees C (73f) Seems a wonderful stills camera with some highly desirable video specs and when it CAN record better than anything but will be useless for what many would WANT to use it for. It seems they want you to turn it off when not using it and have it in the shade with a fan on it in even mildly warm weather. It will not be the "star" sitting on the chair under the umbrella being fanned by some assistant but the camera.

In an ad for Canon, all they could find to give the woman was a KONICA film camera? They could not find a Canon one?

A7s APSC mode is only 5.1mp. I hardly ever use it but that is still more than enough for web use and even a good 8x10. I would rather use clearzoom and turn that 35mm 1.4 into a 35-70 zoom at 12mp with little loss of image quality (jpegs and video). If shooting RAW I would just have another lens. I can see that the A7siii would need amazing continuous auto focus to get people to think about it as a hybrid rather than video only camera. This is one of my entries in a photo contest and I had to downsize it to enter.

That is very good and all IF you want to carry all that weight and size of the 25mm. Me, I will stick to more normal lighter smaller and lighter lenses.

A photo quality print at 300dpi at 12mp would be about 9x14 or 11x14 (depends on what site you go to) and at 250dpi and 200dpi and maybe even 150dpi much larger and still be ok I have an (old) book by a well known photographer saying 10-12mp is good for 24x36 inches but the various sites with how large can you print charts typically say you can print a good quality print from 12mp at around 20x30. I would not print that large (24x36 or 20x30) without upsizing from it but certainly have more than 4x6 and had larger than that in newspapers (at high isos too). Again, I get that there is a perception 12mp is not enough for photos and that there ARE some users and uses that would find it not so good a fit but for the vast majority of photos taken is more than enough.

https://www.*BAD_URL*/forums/post/64136336 Posted two days ago and still there.

Just followed a thread on DPR that has a link back here. Have they changed policy or it just has not been shut down yet? In the R forum on the R5.

Is it normal in reviews when showing graded and ungraded footage to use DIFFERENT footage? I would have thought you show the same video ungraded and then graded. Is that what every reviewer does?

Fair enough. Thanks. You CAN print at that size from even a 8mp camera though with decent upsizing software though yes, if you do print that large, more MP to start helps. Not sure that would apply to many people though. My photos are mainly just for me now and family and friends but have had normal photos (IE not something unique) from the A7s taken at isos like 102400 in newspapers, something I would never have imagined even sending them with any other camera I have used even if they COULD have taken it. Pre Covid, I have had a lot of bands using my photos and in the last few years, mainly just for the likes of Facebook or website use and for that a 4mp camera would possibly be overkill. Photos I had on a major label CD years ago where tiny (taken with a 6mp DLR...would have LOVED an A7s back then). Even things like most photo contests when asking for entries will usually have a size limit (often something like 2500 pixels on the longest side) so even A7s files have to be downsized to enter and for judging. Ye, we all have our requirements.

While I agree that there are a few cameras now better at isos like 12.800, those are still few and far between and plenty of other cameras used for photos are behind in noise terms and at 25,600 and up I still do not think there is anything better for dynamic range. The A7s against the A7iii and A7Riii starts a stop and half behind those cameras for DR but by ISO 12800 is marginally in front and at ISO 102400 is about a stop ahead of the R and half a stop ahead of the iii (not much admittedly but it is still there) and against OTHER photography cameras IE cameras people never say are not good for stills photography) starts ahead and stays ahead all the way just getting further and further in front. The Olympus EM1 ii has some of the best DR for a m43 camera and is a stills camera and it starts just behind the A7s at base and by the time it finishes at 25600, it has the same DR as the A7s does at 102,400. 102,400 is what i often have as my maximum with auto ISO though I would like to have something like 80,000 as max but I am fine with 102,400 or even a bit above if that is needed (at those ISOs, the light is usually low enough that the human eye is not seeing a huge DR anyway so a DR of 8 stops or just under still looks real...something to do with rods and cones in the eye). Sure there are OTHER reasons for not choosing an A7s for photos (mainly for AF reasons for those who use AFC) and again, i do understand people do not THINK it is enough now but again, other than if you crop a lot or for big enlargement, what is wrong with it? IF (big IF), the A7siii gets 1) AF right and 2) improved low light still,AND 3) it gets professional level video right without overheating in something like 4k 120, THEN it will be hit for video AND photos....still, I would not be surprised if it only gets 2 out of 3 right.

A7 iii is 24mp. Honestly, while I know people are SAYING 12mp is not enough for stills, I just do not get why (unless you crop a lot or print large and do not use upsizing software. It has greater DR at base ISO than many cameras with larger pixel counts and at higher ISO greater than just about anything, it has still competitive colour depth and excellent high ISO. It would only be a dumb move for marketing if it is not as good as it should be for video I think (if it is improved in low light for stills, that would sell a lot of them too to low light low life types like me!

Interesting. The Canon graded footage seems to have managed to add a car from the ungraded stuff and remove one going the other way. EDIT, Never mind, the Nikon added one too! These cameras are better than I thought they were. .

I had a 24mp A7 alongside my (first) A7s for a couple of years and for stills in good light, the A7 was better but i shoot a LOT in low light and I still think there is no better camera generally available for stills in really low light than the A7s. Yes, there are better ones at ISO 12800 and many about the same at even 25600 but above that, I am yet to be convinced. Even in good light, the A7s is not shabby for photos either. That I can just mount a lens like the Canon 17mm TS-E and walk around shooting hand held (and even shifted/tilted) at night is what i was always after and I use the same combination to shoot bands from next to the stage often in low light pub gigs. You can shoot a billboard with pretty much any camera, even much lower MP ones than an A7s though the more mp, the easier. That the A7s can not track focus to save its life is the biggest draw back for most people for stills I think (not an issue for me) as i use either AFS (where it can focus in almost no light) or MF but I do hope this new camera does have PDAF for better AFC (my A7s CAN sort of focus track a singer who is seated or barely moving but that is about it). I do accept that many would THINK 12mp is too low but i would bet that would hardly really be the case and the lack of AF tracking would be a MUCH bigger issue if they do not improve it. If they do NOT go to PDAF then I hope they can at least get it to the same sort of AF as the RX100 iv (which has quite decent AF but only CDAF). I do not print large (or often at all really) and i do not crop all that much...I would rather use clearzoom if shooting jpegs instead.

I think Sony menus are great (picked up an RX100 iv and could work it instantly as the menu is effectively the same as the A7s and you can set it up to not even have to go into the menus for most things. There menus are large because there is a huge amount of stuff to put in them. As for 12mp, I think that is great for stills. Just means not so much cropping or big enlargements (without upsizing help).

Yes. Canon has had ads in camera magazines for months where video was the first thing listed. This was from the May issue of Australian Photography. So even in a magazine aimed primarily at amateur stills shooters, video gets first billing.

So it is a given it is PDAF/CDAF and not CDAF only like 1 and ii?

12MP is enough for stills for me anyway (still using the first version as my main camera and it is my all time favourite camera). I would also not mind if the DR is a little lower at base ISO than some others if the DR stayed higher longer as you ramp the ISO up (which is what the original does).