noone

There is one GH2 on Ebay Australia, no bids , just over a day to go starting $214.61 plus $20 postage (charger, 4 batteries and flash).. Tempting.

Found my Varicross filter (this thing retailed at $52 Australian when that was worth something around the year 2000), then I realised I had sold my 52mm filter thread lenses so a quick trip to a pawn shop and I found a Tamron adaptall 70-150 3.5 for peanuts (i need another old lens like i need a new hole in my head and had also just purchased another old lens on Ebay a few hours before ....I must be nuts having just got rid of a heap lately ). Anyway, the little Tamron seems a great lens if not something I will use, much..very clean and clear glass and barely marked exterior for the price of a decent takeaway lunch but the filter makes it quite veiled (the filter has only been used once or twice in the more than 15 years I have had it so is effectively as new). Very disappointing but that was in the daytime with a torch as the light source so i will try later tonight with the filter on the lens (the lens has 6 blades itself but the filter works wide open too). As the name implies is variable in the direction of the rays.

Andrew normally i would never bring this up but you have "This is something I am NOT regretting because"... Sorry about the camera, Hope it works out for you in the end.

I SHOULD have paid a lot more attention to "sunstars" since I love shooting at night (irony?) but it is something I have only really started thinking about lately. Just checked my lenses and of the ones i use regularly, they mostly have 8 blades with a couple of 9 blades. I do have a Canon EF-s kit lens that has 6 but not something i use much. Some do get quite nice stars and others not so much. I will have to try them over the next couple of days. I used to have a Zeiss Jenna Biotar 58mm f2 with 18 blades (they also made some with over 20). I also have a Hoya varicross filter around here somewhere I should find and try (came with a job lot of filters i got for sorting out a camera stores old stock of filters) and I have hardly used it in all the years i have had it.

I am after a better remote control for my A7s. I (finally) got one mainly to try and use clear image zoom for video especially with fast primes and my 17mm tilt shift lens (on a tripod).. It was really cheap ($8.50 Australian posted so about $6 US) but it does actually work except when zooming, unlike doing it on the camera where if i keep my figure on the left/right buttons it will zoom smoothly, on the remote I have to keep lifting off and on so it is very jerky. Any one know if any better remotes will allow for smooth zooming with the likes of my FD 85 1.2 L?

Well I guess I have never had a Tamron lens that stood out for any particular really notable reason (like soap bubble bokeh, or really soft wide open or veiled or what have you. The old adaptall (interchangeable mount) lenses were very mixed so in general I consider them just like FD, Pentax K Minolta MC/MD, Nikon F lenses of similar age and build. Used to be lots of discussion on all the forums i haunted about them (they were usually cheaper than camera maker brand lenses of the same type but still ranged from cheap to very expensive with some pro grade lenses). They made the Adaptall 2 lenses from about 1980 to 2006 (and before that adaptall and adaptamatic lenses are similar) so I would put them just like other manufacturers from then. The SP lenses are the better ones (and more expensive) and that still applies today. A lot of the consumer Tamron lenses at the time (just like the consumer lenses from others then) did not often include aspheric elements or ED glass or other special elements but they could use other glass types to what they can now. Some of the better Tamron adaptall lenses might have been better because they were bigger so the elements spacing MIGHT have made a difference (just my opinion). One reason I prefer Canon FD L lenses to other similar aged legacy lenses is they often DID include exotic elements and not just the longer telephotos. The model 19ah 70-210 3.5 was quite large for what it is but was very highly regarded (especially on Pentax 6mp DSLRs because Pentax did not get a 70-200 2.8 type lens for a while and the lens could be auto focused with a 1.7x auto focus adapter). Was sharper to my eyes than the various similar lenses I had including a few cheaper tamron adaptall and others. The 300 2.8 I have, does use LD glass (model 60B, there was a later better model too) was regarded as about the same as the Nikon and Canon 300 2.8 of the time ...maybe a fraction behind but cheaper ( NO bad 300 2.8 lenses have been made). I still use my 300 2.8 and love it even though as i said I dropped it and have had photos from it in a few newspapers including a national greyhound racing paper where I also used the 1.7x afa t get a very fast focus AF lens (centre point only) 510mm 4.8 lens on Pentax...Now i use it for mostly outdoor concerts and portraits. it is still probably the smallest and lightest 300 2.8 made (though still over 2kg) I have an older Tamron 70-350 constant 4.5 lens and it was VERY expensive in its day (came with a lockable case) but cost me very little. A nice enough lens but this does not have any special elements so its performance today would be below that of the cheapest modern consumer zoom at 300mm (though 4.5 at 350mm would be more expensive and harder to find). http://www.adaptall-2.com/ The later 17-35 2.8-4 i had (Pentax mount) was a nice enough AF lens that was often compared to the Canon EF 17-40 f4 L in photography forums.

I like Tamron lenses or at least most of the ones I have owned. I loved a 17-35 2.8-4 AF lens I had when i used Pentax but otherwise they have all been old manual focus adaptall lenses with interchangeable mounts. The SP lenses in particular are nice Some of the non SP 70/80-200/210 type lense have only been average though even they were not much different to similar lenses from others. My favourites are my ancient 300 2.8 (been used and abused a lot for decades and dropped onto the ground from a fair height but still works),the 70-210 3.5 (model 19AH).....big and heavy but I love that lens, wish i still had it and the 28-80 3.5-4.2 I got fairly recently for almost nothing (do not use it much as I mainly use primes but am keeping it). They are all SP lenses No experience with any shorter Tamron primes but i would be happy to use them based on my general experience with Tamron.

The A7s ii was the companies he worked for I believe. Now with his own business it is not just real estate (that is probably not a huge part of it now ..will ask him next I see him). He was working at a major electronics retailer part time too and had nice discounts on some gear.

Mostly agree except there is still a place for the S series for low light over the other A7 cameras even if it is only at very high ISOs that very few use. The first version A7s is to my mind STILL better than anything for ISO 51200 and up even if only slightly now over the A7iii. (for stills and my video full HD SOOC use anyway).

Tilt shift lenses are great but more for architecture photography rather than real estate. High end real estate shooters do use them sometimes but usually you do not have enough time. My nephew used to shoot real estate video and i loaned him my 17mm TS-E while I was without a camera but it is not something he used very much (using an a7sii). He now has his own company using a GH5. 17 TS-E can work for interiors too but again, often there would not be enough time. Many people just use wider lenses now with high MP cameras and crop. I will still use my 17 for this and lots of purposes though.

I have never had any issues with ergonomics of any camera from any manufacturer and I have owned,used or tried dozens and dozens from just about everyone from tiny P&S (still have four of those) up to medium format and a huge professional Polaroid interchangeable lens instant camera (600SE). I actually LIKE the ergonomics of the first version A7 cameras (had an A7 and on my second A7s). I also like my old Fuji superzoom bridge camera (evf is a bit blah but it is older). The thing I like about cameras the size and shape of the A7 first gen cameras (and same with GX7 I had) is they are similar to many of the old 35mm film cameras i used.

Oh I read them, you just confirmed to me you are either a very low level Canon paid shill or a young Canon fanboy. No matter, carry on.

AAANNDDD there you go again!

Already did! (well Mamiya 6 anyway). Someone (I think it was in korea) modified and sold them on Ebay though not many. It was hacked to take digital backs. Must have been about ten years ago maybe a bit less. Can not see any reason you could not do the same with the Mamiya 7.

I gave my opinion about my A7s which happens to BE made by Sony but I would have got it if it was made by Lego if it was the same. The best camera I have used (my opinion) IS my A7s (on my second one) the WORST camera i have owned was ALSO a Sony. I have a heap of little P&S cameras from a range of makers and the Sony I have is the worst of them with a Nikon the best (none are great)....I am no Sony fanboy, I am an A7s fanboy if you like because i can use it walk around at night with a Canon f4 TS lens and just shoot among other things The A7s WB is easy to change (who would have thunk it). I love Canon gear (MOST of my mainly used lenses are Canon) and i am considering getting an RP for using some of them with AF over MF on my A7s (either that or an AF Sony portrait lens) but if I DO get the RP it will NOT be because "Canon colour is more accurate" because i do not think it is. As for the R5, it may well be what it is being hyped as (I hope it is) but on past history I can understand people being sceptical.

There is a reason why people (real people not on video/photography forums) say they like Canon for VIVID colour. The same with Fuji and Velvia and it was the same in the film days

Original A7s. It has issues with WB in auto but otherwise (and especially since I shoot in low light a LOT at higher ISOs where the extra DR over other cameras) is nice to me (see that is my OPINION). Again, I do not colour grade but a few years ago I downloaded the colour grading app for it but gave up on that since could take years looking at combinations to find and I realised I was happy with it from the camera as it was. I had a Canon 7D and i hated it and i also had an old lower end Canon DSLR that i HAD to shoot RAW stills because the jpegs were horrible (colour was ok though again not as accurate as others to me)..

Indeed but ONLY if you were able to see with your own eyes what was shot at the time it was shot in the light it was shot (and probably the same angle it was shot at). Otherwise, yes it IS subjective.

Did ANYONE said that? What people ARE saying is that GOOD colour is subjective. As for ACCURATE colour, well that is an ENTIRELY different argument and to me (my OPINION) the cameras with the most ACCURATE colour that I have used (accurate to what I saw when using them and not grading) was Sony and Canon has been close to the LEAST accurate (especially since people seem to like vivid colours from Canon..I pretty much always put lower Canon cameras into vivid mode) though no camera has had BAD colour. I keep looking for high end colourists saying what you have been but can not seem to find any. Lastly, I find it funny you say you think people should use what they want, then in the next breath putting down their choices.

I just want Pentax (Ricoh) to put that sensor in a Pentax Q. One of the most fun camera I have ever used. Mine died way too early.

My mistake, it seems that the camera can TAKE one which the review said but Sigma did/does not make one (and I just saw the rear loupe shows as a viewfinder in some places so it might have just been that they referred to. Your shots have really got me interested in this camera (though a bit beyond me for the next few months). There MAY be some that will work with it but i have not yet found any direct evidence, just suggestions (like trying the one for Sigmas DP cameras...don't know if that would work...probably not or someone would have said)

Which brings us back full circle. It is YOUR subjective opinion, while others have different opinions and if it was all that mattered, the DPs WOULD all be listing it as a reason for choosing what they do. Some of those reasons were very interesting with some using the best gear they could find (or even having stuff made for them) while others went almost the other way (one matching the film as close as possible to an original using SD and as they put it, barely HD footage alongside modern stuff. Look, no one is saying your OPINION is wrong (opinions can not be really), but let others have their own different opinions without proclaiming they are wrong. I use a variety of cameras but since I am a low light low life, there is NOTHING I would still take over my original A7s and (apart from auto WB issues), I find the colours to be great (out of the camera where i mostly just shoot bands for stills and the odd song) and especially in really low light when it still has greater DR than just about any camera. In light that low it looks great even with lower DR than in good light because the human eye also has much worse DR in really low light (something to do with rods and cones). I also like that i can use fast primes as zooms for Jpeg stills and video. I find I have to put my Canon cameras in vivid mode for jpegs and video.

Andrew, I was just reading another review of it (I had not seen this camera much before) and it seems there IS a EVF that can be added. Those look beautiful to me. EDIT I would love to see how that camera would go with your FD 85 1.2 L

Geez, the budget of some of those Oscar nominated films. Going back over those films, some of them even had their lenses custom made (one of them custom made using Arri master primes as the BASE!!!).

I found this interesting regards Oscar nominated films. https://www.indiewire.com/2019/11/cameras-lens-2020-oscar-contenders-best-cinematography-1202187839/ Most are not going to be using small hybrid cameras that most of us here use and they are going to be using full size large rigged cameras for the most part which means those sort of things (especially if they have multi million dollar budgets....their funders no doubt EXPECT them to be using high end stuff in many cases). Very few of those DPs even mentioned colour (one did that I noted) and it was lots of others things in why they chose their cameras....a LOT of them used film!