noone

Just be careful with the various 19-35 plastic lenses. There are a couple of them under lots of names I think. I had one branded Soligor in Pentax mount and while it was sort of ok optically on 6mp DSLRs and maybe my 12mp KX when i had it.....It was labelled AF but was MF only (just dummy electronic contacts) and had VERY lose play mounted on any camera. Tamron 17-35 2.8-4 was light years better (and I understand there is an even better newer one now). These days, I love my old ancient (and certainly NOT plastic) Canon 20-35 2.8 L on the rare times I want a short, wide zoom)

I do not have it anymore but the Canon 40 2.8 is one of the best value for money lenses going in any system for me (I think only the Sony FE 95 1.8 is better value and i do not have THAT any more either). The 40 2.8 works great adapted to M43 as a portrait lens, is nice on APSC and I like it as a slightly wide normal on FF. It even works ok on Canon DSLRs (not that i used it on mine much).

Anyone know anywhere that repairs FD lenses? I have an old FD 85 1.2L that has the dissolving bearings problem. Preferably in Australia and any idea on cost? I have looked into it previously but never got anywhere other than a couple of email enquiries.

What a choice, so jealous. Since you are not going to use it for action much, that says the Fuji to me....the Canon for action or newspaper reporting. Canon tilt shift lenses work great on it too I understand and the 17mm becomes a ultra wide (I would love to try mine on that camera though i would need a whole new computer to cope). I really have to get my FD 85 1.2 fixed now (somehow), it has the dissolving bearings problem but is too nice a lens to trash or let go.

I have always looked at it that there are some brands that if you want and can afford, price does not enter into it (EG Leica). Other than that, you pay a premium for the latest spec but if you can live with the previous generation, you can save a bundle and if you go back another generation (or two in some cases) you can have still highly usable gear for a fraction of the price. With video I guess there IS a point at which if you go too far back you get stuff that does not compete. I can not afford anything new now but I mostly have the stuff i always wanted and will do me for a while. I am having a lot of fun buying lots of little cameras (mostly point and shoot for less than the price of a coffee in many shops. My latest is a little point and shoot Nikon that cost $4 (Australian). Way to slow and only HD video but is ok for that and still better than the video from SD cameras that cost far more not too long ago. Its still are actually quite ok (in good light and its slow sync flash is quite good (though not stabilized). My latest A7s will do me with some half decent lenses.

That may well be the case for the 50 1.2L as that is a lens that would not have sold in huge numbers (there are many on Ebay but not really compared to other lenses) so they likely made it in batches and had enough in stock to meet the demand (I wish I had noted when mine was made before selling it). Looking at other forums around the net, I see some people have FD lenses made as late as 1994 for a 100 f2 and 1993 for 80-200 f4 L and 50 3.5 macro. The rare FD 200 1.8 was not even produced until November 1989 a couple of years AFTER the EF mount had begun and it seems there was a five year overlap period from FD to EF.

Canon (probably most makers) often makes lenses in batches (especially the ones that do not sell in huge numbers) so might not have made some FD lenses for some time before they stopped altogether but others would have been made for years after introduction. Remember, they introduced a NEW model FD camera in 1992 so they would not have stopped FD lens production at the time they did that.

Not so sure that is correct. My FD 85 1.2 L was made AFTER some of the first version EF 85 1.2 L lenses were I am pretty sure. I think there was a couple of years overlap. EF mount started in 1987 and the last FD camera was introduced in 1992 with lenses made for a few years after that it seems.

I think a lot of people expect more from this (a7s update) than what it is. Not really made to be a camera for shooting in well lit studios or sets (though you probably could). Sure it is a camera for video and stills but the S stands for sensitivity and I would expect it to have a noticeable improvement over the earlier version at higher ISOs (which are already excellent). The small jump in pixel count will give it a rise in stills shooters too and the faster FPS for stills (with possibly actual tracking AF in an A7s version ????) It might be an excellent camera for sports pros too for really low light (as a second camera). Seems like a pretty big upgrade for an A7s to me

The only video i have left from my Pentax Kx is Australian blues/rock legends Spectrum playing their song "I'LL be gone" (one of very few blues songs to get to number one on the Rock/pop charts). Not sure I can post it though for a number of reasons (I have a couple of versions over a three day festival) and one is way to dark but the other is ok i think if not quite complete...I forgot about them but thanks to the thread I went and watched again....how i wish I had a Sony A7s back then!

I will always have a love for Pentax (not so much Ricoh though they are ok). I still have a Pentax SLR and have had a few of those, I had a IST*D, K100d and a KX as well as a Pentax Q (the K100d and Q both died before their times due to me overloading the stabilization I think by using silly long lenses with it). Video on the KX I thought was ok even though the camera got very hot very quickly. I wish more ILCs still took AA batteries like my three Pentax DSLRs did (I know it limited life but was great knowing they were easy to get and easy and quick to charge).

I think they will make the currently available EF lenses for as long as they make EF cameras (and some years beyond too maybe) but this just means they will not be developing any future EF lenses (there are likely some still yet to come though). I guess it just means the next round of tilt shift lenses will be RF mount and not EF for example. The replacement RF lenses will probably mostly be better so the value of the EF lenses could well drop fairly quickly once there is a decent supply of new RF lenses.

I used to have four Camera stores within a couple of hundred yards but now the nearest is hundreds of miles away I think. BTW, Thanks for the site! Working great for me.

Andrew I do not think anyone is arguing he (or anyone) can not have an opinion that "Sony sucks" but it is when he says rubbish like no serious photographers/videographers use Sony that his "opinion" takes a massive credibility hit. Even that thread of yours on Canon and Netflix had Sony actually equal second that seems to have been missed by some. That SI cover has band skin tones? OK, what about looking at all the previous ones, I am sure there would be flaws detectable with them too (still no way I will ever have a SI cover no matter how much I tried). For ME, the worst camera I ever owned was a Sony but so was the best one. It is great we are all different.

Camera shop? What are those? ?

At least with Sony You could buy something like a Sigma 16mm 1.4 and use clear image zoom and you have a 16-32 1.4 zoom in effect with little loss of image quality for video and jpeg stills. I have it set with the down button on my Sony A7s and then use the left/right buttons to zoom in and out (on the little NEX-3N it works from the zoom switch like a P&S camera) Works great with all lenses but with things like the 55 1.8 and FD 24 1.4 it is fun. On really fast lenses like an 85 1.2 at 1.2 it is too shallow to use while filming (for me anyway) and even 1.8 FF would be something i would zoom first then use rather than zoom while shooting. I wish all manufacturers would allow something like this.

Not sure I would say TOTALLY abandoned the video side but yeah, it is a bit behind some of the opposition now (they only really had the A7s pair and a few odds and ends before that in the ILC space that were more video centric though). I would just say NOT class leading and they still make great hybrid cameras with excellent stills and decent enough video for many serious users. They are due for something soon I think (as are some others). Great time to like and use photo/video gear.

Right now though the Sony A7iii is the most popular single model FF camera. (If the Canon 5Diii was listed it might give it a close run still). I think it would be very telling if it was also broken down into what class of video (and stills) user we consider ourselves. I think Sony would tend to be more stills first users so around 10% on a video forum seems fair.. I consider myself to be an enthusiast photographer who dabbles in video (mainly just recording a few songs at pub/club gigs i photograph).. I shoot a lot in low light and I still do not think there is any other camera I would want over my A7s as I am often at ISO 25600 or even 51200 and at those ISOs its DR is a little better than even the three cameras rated by DXO as better for low light now because they drop away a little quicker. At light levels low enough to use that, the DR I am seeing with my eyes is not huge anyway. I do not need a huge pixel count or tracking AF

Again, you can hold whatever opinion you want but when you make a blanket statement about Sony not used by serious photographers, as far as I am concerned your opinion is as valid as if you said your "opinion is that one plus one equals three". I AM a fan of Sony (because of the A7s and Sony Zeiss 55 1.8 among others) but equally i am a fan of Canon (because of the 17mm TS-E for example) and there are things i like in most brands. I see great work from Sony users and Canon users and Nikon ETC ETC ETC if you don't that is your problem.

I did address it to you. Just pointed out that part is what i objected to. Look, you can have an opinion that YOU do not like Sony (or any camera or brand) if you want but to say that a brand is not used by serious photographers or videographers (and especially one that is selling quite well) is simply trolling as well as being absurd in my opinion as well as being insulting to the many people who make their living using such gear. You don't like it, fine....others DO. I like all the brands of photography gear I have used and just occasionally do i not like a piece of equipment. I never got on with a Canon 7d for instance but that does not mean others did. I almost never watch Tony and Chelsea and have not for a year or so and last I was aware of there were just a few more Sony Users than the Northrup's. No gear is perfect ...for ME, the A7s (first version is still the camera I want and use), for others it would be the last thing they want...same with the newer higher FF Sony's and all those cameras from any brand. Yes, Sony has a colour issue for many people (not all) but equally, other people find greater limitations with different brands. I think the main issue is AWB for Sony and I mainly use Jpegs and do not grade the songs i video....I do not consider myself to be anything but an old amateur but my photos and (odd video) do get used by newspapers, councils, record companies, bands and others from time to time. I have to use RAW with my old Canon DSLR as there is a noticeable difference but with my A7s, not so much.

Andrew, I agree that there ARE a lot of stills pros STILL with Canon and Nikon (I actually do not think the number with Leica is huge at all and many of those that DO actually use dual systems) but there ARE an increasing number using Sony (or rather an increasing percentage in a shrinking market). I also think a LOT of Pros that use Sony are also dual system users including quite a few Canon users who investigate Sony (while keeping their lenses still though that is dropping off a bit now maybe or some have settled on Sony and selling off their canon gear). Again though there is an increasing number, at least around here. It also depends on what you mean by "pro" as around here at least there are a LOT of people who hang out a shingle and shoot weddings on the weekend...many of those are still "serious" photographers and seriously good. Then there are those using APSC cameras to take Santa pics/portraits at the mall. I would also take the work of many high end "enthusiasts" over many pros too and are clearly "serious photographers". This is the bit i objected to especially... "Most of these users are not serious photographers or videographers either. If they do video then they know how much work goes into fixing Sony color. I've seen professional photographers that use Sony and post work with horrible unnatural skin tones that can't be fixed by shooting RAW. Sony is not being used by serious professionals." And THAT is as ridiculous as it would be to say that ONLY Sony users are serious photographers/videographers....it is rubbish!

So far I have looked at a total of one lens for this. For stills jpegs (I did shoot a video of the band but I deleted it by accident before I could look at it). An ancient Canon 20-35 2.8 L (probably the most updated lens around with 17-35 2.8 L, 16-35 2.8L 16-35 2.8L ii, 16-35 2.8 L iii all following on). This battered old thing is something I love more and more even though I usually prefer primes. It might not hold up for high pixel count cameras now or for 8k video. Both these are f4 (24mm and 35mm) I do like how this lens renders at f4 to f8.

Yeah that is why most of the video pros i see with a "proper" camera and not a DSLR or mirrorless ILC are actually using Sony. As for not being serious photographers (and increasingly serious hybrid shooters) You really need to get out more....there are more that i see with Sony than other brands around here now with quite a few who switched from 5D mk whatevers. Again, to many there IS an issue with Sony colour and its seems I am not alone in thinking a LOT of that is due to auto white balance but it is hard to take you seriously with what seems an extreme bias against Sony.

Seriously? MOST Sony shooters have come from other brands as photographers. Many are not JUST Sony shooters (I only have cameras from Canon, Fuji, Sony, Panasonic currently but have used Pentax, Nikon Olympus and more...many of those are little P&S rubbish but i am on my 14th ILC currently and only four have been Sony. Sure there must be Sony users NOW that have not used anything else but that aint true for all. That said, colour is subjective and many have grown up with Canon colour and that is pleasing to many people even if it is not accurate (again, I set my canon cameras to vivid for video and jpeg usually if not using RAW for stills). Andrew DOES have a point though I look on it as mainly just being still a bit too red in AWB Many Sony users can download the Live view grading app and have greater colour choice in camera than probably anyone (not the newer highest end cameras that can not use apps though for some reason).

Turn the laptop off? I do think generally Sony colour is more accurate but i love the colour from my little point and shoot Canon (set to vivid) and it seems others like that colour too (I can get more likes on Instgram from the old P&S Canon with bright vivid colour than from a FF Sony with a decent lens). Regards WB, I think for video and Jpegs with Sony just not relying on auto WB and setting what works by switching and looking (ignoring what the setting name is). In some cases auto WB is just too red (A7s) and I was just experimenting with that. I do have to remember to set the WB to incandescent for the streets at night here. I do use auto for pub gigs as the lighting varies so much and often is not static.