noone

Agreed on that, all sensor sizes have their strengths and weaknesses. I have had a lot of fun using a lens like my old 85 1.2 on FF, APSC, M42 and even on a Pentax Q.

Just looking at prices for different lenses, Not necessarily. In general yeah but some of those faster M43 lenses are very expensive...even more than the 50mm f0.95 FF Mitakon. DOF is more down to subject distance and focal length i think (as well as lens speed) ...they did use that really fast FF lens at infinity and it looked terrible but that lens was never intended for that. I would still MUCH rather a 1.2 lens FF than a half stop faster M43 lens in low light as long as the camera has more than half a stop better ISO. I guess since I shoot a lot in low light, I have just been spoilt by the A7s even though it is getting to be an old camera now...i reached the point I don't NEED faster lenses with it though still have some....So much easier to get shallow DOF with really cheap ordinary lenses if you like and you can still stop them down. I find I use the same shutter speeds regardless of the format and with auto ISO it does not seem to matter to me. I loved my M43 gear but just not so much in low light.

Personally, I think FD lenses CAN be a bit of a pain due to the mount (same as some of the Minolta MC lenses) but optically they are fine, just as are all the old legacy lenses from Nikon, Pentax, Olympus and the third party lenses in those mounts as well as Minolta and Canon and others. The new FD mount lenses are better than the earlier ones (in ease of use). The FD lenses to get that make it worth while and a difference are the L versions and especially those that use a hand ground aspheric elements or Fluorite elements in longer lenses. The biggest factor in buying any old lens is how each individual lens has been treated as well as how it was made ....most likely more copy variation thirty or forty years ago plus many could have been dropped or thrown around ETC...has it got fungus ...all sorts of things.

That is possibly the best You Tube video i have ever seen as far as I am concerned. Mind you, If you want shallow DOF you are much better off using a larger sensor and the same if you want to shoot in low light. A longer lens also works though a "fast" longer lens is not THAT fast. I love using fast lenses on a decent low light camera. A 1.2 lens on an A7s at ISO 102400 will shoot in light lit by a LED on a small appliance. I remember when that Ibelux 40mm f0.85 first version came out under the Handevision name it cost a few thousand dollars but after not too long a time had dropped in price to about a quarter or so of its original price. Those f0.95 lenses seem to have a LOT of gimmick about them since that is like the difference between a f2 lens and an f1.9 lens...may as well call them f1 other than for marketing (most lenses are not exactly what they are sold as) Cheapest way to do what they did would be to get a cheaper old FF camera (original A7 maybe) and the FF Mitakon 50 f0.95 (that lens would have been great to see them use I think). EDIT UGHH or maybe not ince I jut looked at the prices of the Mitakon 50 f0.95 for FF cameras....I would rather get a Canon FD L 50 1.2 for probably less (A very nice lens I regret selling).

I am sure as technology advances it will all come together ...just might take a while. I have one of those old Sigma auto focus adapters for MD/MC lenses on A mount cameras. I tried putting it on a LA-EA4 and mountng it on my A7s but alas (aside from the large lumps on the adapters), I could not get it to work. If I ever get back to it, I would not mind finding a cheap A mount camera to try it on but I think it might only work on a couple of very early A mount DSLRs and my only remaining MD mount lens is a 50 f2 so probably not worth trying now (I just like playing around with gadgets),

The tech art pro needs a PDAF camera though doesn't it?. The original A7s is CDAF only so no adapter works that good for AF...It is ok for static things and people that can stand still for a few seconds but not anything beyond that. If I got a later model FE camera I would get it or a similar adapter. I have three different AF adapters, a Commlite that does not even mount on my A7s (old or new) probably will to an older NEX, a Metabones IV and a cheap Fotga ....I like the fotga the most because its AF works as well and it also has a little ledge that can take the filter glass from 43mm filters so I can use things like an IR filter of that size instead of spending a mint on one for my 17 mm TSE. My holy grail would be an apodization filter to go with a portrait lens.

Geez Andrew, don't wish THAT thing on them. Can not see them doing that because that was a Sony mount lens on Sony camera solution and even then it has a lot of limitations, it would be great for L mount users though if they did it and it was much better than the old LA-EA# adapters. They would/should be able to do a much improved version of those Sony type adapters by now I think but the ones that work for fast AF to get phase detect AF in a contrast detect camera need a mirror in the adapter. There are four LA-EA adapters, two for APSC and two for FF and only two of them had a mirror with the other two being slow contrast detect AF and only with lenses that have an AF motor. Ok, maybe the LA-EA4 isn't THAT bad and AF was ok for stills....was a bit more limited for video. I sold my LA-EA4 and A mount 85 2.8 lens (a surprisingly god lens for quite cheap) when my first A7s broke. I now have a second A7s but I would only get another LA-EA# if I came across a seriously under valued first class lens I needed/wanted (plus I still have a nice old Sigma AF 180 5.6 macro in A mount I can not use). Given just how much optics have improved over the last decade or so, I would also like to see something like the even older Sigma adapters from the film days that auto focused manual focus lenses on A mount cameras (Sigma made one for MD/MC Minolta lenses and another for Nikon F lenses on A mount...how on earth could they do THAT then without a lawsuit?) ...there were a few others for other mounts ....the Pentax 1.7x auto focus adapter turned my old ancient manual focus 300 2.8 into a fast AF 510mm 4.8 lens These old adapters used glass elements that moved to focus the lens attached and some had only small drop in image quality ....Nikon made a couple of them too that work almost as well as the Pentax one I think. I do get frustrated when using my EF mount Sigma 150 2.8 macro on the A7s when it comes to AF adapted as it is slow and stuttering as it racks back and forth but such a lovely lens I use it as MF mostly.

Drug dealers are becoming dog dealers now? Can you paint a couple of eyes on the hat and put it in a bag and call it Fido? (does the law say the DOG has to do the walking or is it just to "walk the dog")? Bloke here got stopped by the police and asked what reason he had to be out of home and he told them he had to visit his drug dealer!

In NSW, Australia we are not in lockdown.....it is just illegal to go anywhere! Nah, we CAN go for exercise by ourselves or with one other, we can go to work for those still working or for essential shopping...even though many of the business who still are open are not really essential we CAN still go to those shops but it would technically be illegal GETTING to them.....IE, if stopped by the police and asked what reason you have to be out of home, if you said going to buy a new camera bag because I want to add a twentieth, THAT would probably get you a thousand dollar fine (about 20 cents US I guess these days) but if you got there, that would be ok. There are a few other reasons to be out but can not visit friends ETC. I spend my days mostly on my bed watching TV getting fat(ter). Go for a walk with my camera daily and occasionally go to where i work as a volunteer at an op shop keeping an eye out out for interesting props for photographing and especially to use with a macro lens that i have not used anywhere near enough recently (yet).

My all time favourite lens. I actually got this lens to use for shooting full band photos from next to the stage which was made possible with FF mirrorless cameras but especially the A7s for me. Mainly stills but also the occasional video of a song (sometimes hand held in crowded pub rooms, sometimes seated near the stage, very rarely on a tripod). Last couple of years as I have gotten older and been shooting bands less...partly due to closing venues too, I have discovered the lens is not bad for buildings and architecture (who knew) and light projections and murals ...I REALLY have come to hate buildings that lean back now. On my A7s I also use it as a two times zoom with clear zoom (virtually lossless for Jpegs and video but not RAW). I love being able to use it handheld as a walk around lens at night. First photo is a snap from a video at Xmas a couple of years ago. Others are stills ...some years ago with my first now dead A7s last was from this morning.

Agreed. I loved using the GX7. I regret selling it but I needed the money and it was pretty much a third camera for me so it (and the M43 lenses) had to go. Stabilization was not its strong point and neither was high ISO but I had other cameras for that. The tilting EVF was brilliant as a daytime street camera.

How long did you use the Sony for? How long have you used the GH3? Look, Sony IBIS is NOT as good as IBIS from other brands but it is still not that bad (and for stills ok) but .....never mind, maybe I should start a thread about why is the GH5 so shit at even moderate ISOs...or the GH5s at higher ISOs and that does not have IBIS ....after handling my nephews GH5 for 5 minutes maybe I should do that?? (I do not actually believe that but it is nowhere near as good as even some older cameras). Or why camera X is rubbish at widget Z. I would not rely on IBIS (or in lens) with any camera really though it can be very nice to have.

Sure but why are people judging Sony on THEIR older cameras in many cases (people who have not USED the newer ones in many cases). The GX7 was the same age as the first (unstabilized) A7 cameras and I could hand hold an A7 better than i could the GX7 due to ISO (I got them on the same day)....since added an A7s (also not stabilzed and to ME it is better than the others). Another thing i forgot to say.....People should not really compare how well they can hold a camera they are familiar with of their own against one they just use for a few minutes (or even days). At least I know that I do better with a camera the more I use it regardless of how well its IBIS or in lens works or even if no stabilization.

I don't think it is that bad....sure it isn't as good as in the GH5 but the worst camera i have had for stabilization was maybe the GX7 (and it was ok). I had a couple of Pentax cameras that i loved but two of them probably died way too early due to the stabilization breaking and stopping the cameras from turning on. I have an old Fuji superzoom and it seems to be ok for IBIS but again, it has a tiny P&S sensor. I use one of the first version A7s cameras with NO stabilization and I find it does not NEED it (not for my uses anyway) and it just seems some cameras that have better IBIS are ones that seem to NEED it more. I used to have a really nice little Sony stabilized 50mm lens years ago ...does ANYONE have something similar yet? If you NEED the best IBIS, do not pick Sony but there are plenty of other reasons to use them (EG being able to use fast primes as zooms for video and Jpeg stills).

1) A7s and Canon 17 f4 L TS-E (other most used lenses FD 24 1.4 L, Sony Zeiss 55 1.8 and Sigma 150 2.8 APO macro) See below. 2) Barely functional human. I have had a VERY "Homer Simpson" life ...EG do not drive but managed a Motor Registry (DMV office), EG, qualified as an aircraft maintenance engineer (instruments and electrical) as well as a powerhouse watch keeper but can barely change a light bulb . 3) Love most types of music and my main interest has been photographing live bands and artists and despite being very average have gotten the best seat in the house for some wonderful (mostly Australian but a few from overseas) bands and had some very good bands have used my pics (videos less often but did not really do any until a couple of years ago but have been shooting stills since 35mm film days). Have been the/A official photographer at many festivals including Jazz/Blues, rock, pop, metal and others. Sports nut when younger (again some Homer moments)...the worlds worst Rugby player (both types) but I played with and against people who played for Australia at times (including some who beat the All Blacks at Eden park....yes they could once or twice). Competitive weight lifter (silver medal state championships) in school but have friends who's DAUGTHERS are stronger than I EVER was. 4) Just glad EOSHD is a thing....Thanks Andrew! 5) Not planning on leaving much (and currently can not due to you know what). 6) Can not remember but a lot earlier than I joined.

Not with an A7s it won't!

'Cepting Australia of course!

One last thing. Article II, Section 1, Clause 2 of the U.S. Constitution. Under Article II, a state's electoral votes must be appointed "in such Manner as the Legislature thereof may direct" When you make statements like this it important to get your facts correct. Regardless, I don't care. Just want to make sure that the history is correct. Neil

What part of what I said is wrong? That it is a joke to me is my OPINION. You are actually wrong on the electoral college though as yes, all states use winner take all at least in PART but a couple ALSO in part allocate some college votes by district...so yes, I stand by "more so that all states ETC". The states are each responsible for their own method of choosing electors and there have been a few different ones used over the years, so no, it is not a constitution thing and currently two states are different to the rest (Maine and Nebraska?) and I think another state is looking into it again. Feel free to show me where I am wrong but what would I know, I am Australian.

Yeah, nah! Depends on if you mean to say that trump is very popular or not (19% of Americans does not sound popular against 46% of voters for the winner does VS 48% for the main loser with others getting around 5% combined...46% also does not sound THAT popular for the winner in an effective two horse race). He IS popular with his base but he needs more than his base to win (also not an American but a political geek) and at the midterms they lost ground and at the state elections recently they did not pick things back up generally. You might think it a meme but it is FACT Clinton got more votes for president than Trump and anyone else in history except Obama. If you mean the election in 2016 was close, I agree as 4 states had margins of less than ONE percent and Trump won three of those and if just those states were reversed, Clinton would have won. (I do not particularly like her either). Trump still CAN win but he needs more than he is getting The electoral college is a bit of a joke to me (and more so that not all states use the same method to allocate the college votes). No matter, i look on it as an interested outsider but i do despise Trump for the things he has done and said.. I guess I better stick to cameras and lenses now.

Not quite. Not that many voted compared to how many Americans there are (and She actually got a few million more votes than he did which is something that seems just weird to me but , close enough). About 19% of Americans voted for Trump and about 20% voted for Clinton

Close to wide open. Can not tell what the aperture is because it is controlled via the adapter and clickless (just a normal FD to E adapter). With older FD lenses, the on-off ring is used to help keep the lens on and off the adapter but this is a new FD mount lens so clicks in place anyway and I discovered this by accident. I love a lot of old FD lenses though especially the L versions (only have three FDs now and only one that is a regular user). If you ever get the chance, pick up a FD 80-200 f4 L and compare that to your current lens..they are not THAT expensive if you are lucky. I do think a lot of the non L lenses are great but that applies to all the old legacy lenses (Nikon, Pentax, Minolta, Olympus ...I have had a heap of all of those and more). I regret having to sell my 80-200 F4 FD L as I did not get that much for it and it is the best of the old mid range telezooms i have had (along with the Tamron 19ah adaptall). This lens is the normal lens I have owned that I like the LEAST but optically, it is probably about the same as most from its vintage. Usable optically but not as easy to use as the others (though not that difficult), just that I would not use it normally. It usually lives on a Canon FD film SLR.

No!

While waiting to get my Sony Zeiss 55 1.8 back, I thought I would muck around with my old Canon 50mm 1.8 AC lens (basically an autofocus FD lens). In a pinch, if I had nothing else, it would even be usable though to focus, you need to turn it to manual and use a small notch in the front (not THAT hard) and to change the aperture, I have to turn the on-off ring on the adapter (no click stops). Yes, I BADLY need to clean my laptop. Used FF on an A7s.