noone

Regards DXO, also note that the transmission for those lenses varies with the camera format used. They also actually measure a few lenses with the SAME F stop as T stop (probably down to correcting in camera or maybe just so little loss as to not matter...maybe both). Some Sony lenses in particular when used on FF cameras are rated by DXO as being the same (55 1.8 for example).

I guess I see it as a kind of we built it because we can kind of thing (maybe they do not expect to sell that many but built it to hold off more defectors now salivating over when they DO make that mirrorless version).. Biggest segment is not just enthusiasts but wedding shooters and mid level pros/part timers who increasing do video...many of them would want this but most will get a 5Div (or lower) or Sony A?? or Nikon D780 or mirrorless whatever and this would be too big for a lot of that crowd anyway. Its size will limit one less lens in a carry on bag too when traveling VS some of the smaller mirrorless FF cameras.

A very nice camera but I am still not sure who is going to buy it. Canon will sell a thousand 5Div for every one of these they sell. Ten years ago, this would have sold like hotcakes to larger Newspapers and TV stations for their photogs pool to use but most of those people have been replaced by reporters with phones. They will sell to a few higher end sports photographers but by the time you add the lenses needed (or justified) with this just to shoot stills you will be at around $20,000 and up and most free lancers are going to find that hard to come by especially if it is just going to be replaced by the next big thing in a year or two....Paid shooters are fewer and fewer and only the biggest employers are going to get these. Larger sports events like the Olympics are hardly going to use these for video for the TV coverage. SOME will be used for a while for feature films/shorts ETC so there will be some to rental houses that will be very popular at least for a while (until something else comes along or the novelty wears off...or the media cost makes people cry) If you are not going to use those rates that no other camera has currently, why would you get this over something else far cheaper? A lot of money just to have it just in case as well. A few rich amateurs will want them just because and some pros who can afford them but are there really THAT many of those? I agree this SHOULD have been mirrorless (oh and no tilting screen??). If i was rich enough, I would buy one and likely use it for a few weeks before selling it (too big for me). Funny thing is about the no AF in RAW (at the highest rates), I would want to try that most with my manual focus Canon 17mm TS-E to shoot bands in pubs but it would still be way overkill for me.

Very good question. Not just in phones. A built in ND filter is not something I ever really wanted but since inheriting my Dads old Canon G10 point and shoot camera, having a built in filter that can be turned on and off at the touch of a button is something I now think ALL cameras should have.

One nice thing about the Canon 17-40 L is it has a slot for rear filters (the thin ones you cut to fit I think).

I think it is ok (never used it though). Not the greatest but if it is cheap enough. I used to use a Tamron 17-35 2.8-4 that was often considered (depending on who was posting) as good or better or not quite as good (the Tamron has been updated fairly recently too and there is a similar Sigma. These days I use an even older Canon EF 20-35 2.8 L which is again, not the greatest but still quite nice for the price (there have been four replacement models since). One thing with all these old lenses, there is often copy variation when they were new let alone not knowing how hard a life each individual lens has had (been knocked around? dropped? Was it decentred in the first place? ETC ETC. Try it if you can and if you like it, buy it...Good luck.

Ahh the G10. My all time favourite point and shoot camera. More control than many DSLRs or Mirrorless cameras, a tiny CCD sensor but at ISO 80 or 100 STILL takes photos competitive with many DSLRs (but rubbish much above that). Video is very limited SD though. Canon did this one quite well.....Keeping it as it was my late fathers oldest remaining camera. Sorry, I could not resist. If I can afford and find Pana G10 , I might give it a go just for the name.

Personally, the Canon 7D was about the worst value for money in an ILC I ever had. I just didn't get along with mine. I agree about what was available before. This little camera cost several hundred dollars when new a (couple of years before the start of this decade but still not THAT long ago). It had barely acceptable SD video when it was released (there were a few full HD cameras around at the time already then). So now it is not something i will use at all except out of curiosity from time to time. It cost me all of $5 (Australian...about $3.50 US) and I overpaid! Never mind the poor shmucks who paid retail for this POS. Since I got it this year I guess it is part of MY gear of the decade but in last place (out of hundreds of things).

Ok, An old pic from the A7s using my runner up 17 TS-E taken before dawn at f10 and iso 12800 4 seconds (this was one of the rare times I used a tripod with it). Nothing special, just one I had handy.

Can be anything you want..lens, lights, memory card if that floats your boat. Just curious about what people love Things have come a LONG way with digital in a very short time. I do not mind if you stretch the time line either. My runner up was not designed this decade though just before but it was made this decade and I got in in this time too so it would be the Canon 17mm f4 L TS-E. Everytime I see a building leaning back now, I cringe. and it plays very nicely with the A7s as a bonus.

Mine has to be the Sony A7s. I have had a LOT of cameras this last decade (and a lot including old point and shoot cameras just this year). I am now on my second A7s (my first broke after years of solid daily use but I was recently given a new one by my family). After being without one for a year or so, I appreciate being able to put pretty much any lens on it and simply walk out the door and shoot it at any time of the day or night. I do not need a huge pixel count or tracking AF but being able to put the ISO on auto (currently max 25600) and not worry is wonderful...with almost every other digital camera I have had (A7, GX7, 7D, Nex3N. several Pentaxes a couple of Olympus digital ILCs, a Nikon and more as well as many P&S, i HAVE had to worry about the max ISO (A7 was almost worry free for me) and in some cases, simply not shoot at night without flash (or light for video). It isn't JUST having decent high ISO, it is the dynamic range that goes with it too. The A7s is stilly pretty good for DR at base (still equal or better to ANY M43 and most APSC and many other FF cameras but it does not drop away anywhere ear as steeply as other cameras (I have some cameras that are about the same at their base as the A7s is at ISO 12800). I am also finding that simple things like the horizon level in the EVF (that does pitch as well) is a godsend for walking around. Sure the camera has many flaws but the things it does, it does very well. Your choice?

Can not come quick enough for me so i can pick up a 4k external recorder for my first version A7s cheap.

If using jpegs and video with Canon, set it to vivid if the camera has that and if that is not enough, vivid red (my little point and shoot Canons are set to vivid....The sun has been really red here to last few days first thing and just before going down with all the smoke...even though I am hundreds of miles away from major fires, I woke up smelling a LOT of smoke a couple of days ago to the point I thought there was fire here or next door. I was going to walk up a hill early yesterday to get a photo of the sun coming up with clouds and smoke but the forecast when I looked said no cloud...so I never went and then there was the most magnificent red sun with nice cloud that i missed (42 degree day). This was one of the much better days last week and just after this the sun went really bright red but only when it got down to the far tree level. With Sony I sometimes just underexpose a bit to bring out the cloud colour so maybe that might help with the suns colour....One thing i do like with Canon ...the colour is not realistic but it is nice using vivid settings.

I should also mention I have a little Sony hard disc drive camcorder that has a 48-1920mm equivalent optical zoom (with a 2000x digital one added) but I do not use it much because it is not stabilized and even when it was released years ago was only rated as barely passable video for a standard definition camera (HD cameras had been out for a little while by then anyway). It cost me $5 Australian and I overpaid.

I used to try anything for stills shooting at least....I would put a 300mm 2.8 lens with 1.4x, 2x and 3x convertors in various combinations on APSC DSLRs and even some combinations of that on a Pentax Q for ridiculous focal length equivalents....there gets a point it is just too much. These days, With ILCs I will use around 300 2.8 at most with APSC or FF and use clear zoom for up to 2x more in a pinch. I also rarely use an old Tamron 70-350 4.5 as well. If I need any longer I use a P&S Superzoom like the little Canon SX410IS (24-960mm equivalent)...it only has HD video but I love this little camera when I want something longer for day time use anyway. I have also now got my late fathers Fuji HS30EXR (24-720mm equivalent) but still have to get a battery for it to use it....with full HD at least and some (small size) fast frame rates, it might be fun plus the EVF will be a godesnd in the harsh Australian sun (if the smoke ever dissapears).....so much more control and usability than the little Canon though the Canon is tiny and the Fuji is the size of a small DSLR with 50mm lens.

Fred Miranda? https://www.fredmiranda.com/

https://www.rokkorfiles.com/24mm VFC.htm

https://www.premiumbeat.com/blog/just-how-expensive-are-real-cinema-lenses/ Quote from the above link... "Panavision does not sell any standalone lenses. If a studio wants to purchase the lenses, they are usually restricted to purchasing them with a camera like the Panavision Genesis. For this bundle, one would be looking at shelling out $500,000-$750,000 to purchase or $4000.00/day to rent."

https://www.lensrentals.com/blog/2019/11/practical-use-of-field-curvature-graphs-the-50mm-primes/ From that article.. "Zeiss Otus 55mm f/1.4 Distagon T* So why would anyone pay that much money for a lens, you might ask? Let’s see if the field curvature offers a bit of explanation. Wide-open you probably noticed the field is really flat; totally flat in the sagittal, a very gentle “W” curve in the tangential. One other thing I might mention: notice how sharply the field falls off; it goes from yellow to purple in a narrower range than the other lenses. So we have a very flat field, excellent sharpness even wide open, and a lens that goes from ‘in focus’ to ‘way out of focus’ in a short distance. Some people will pay a lot of money for that." Combine that fast transition from in to out of focus with flattering field curvature in a lens IE for particular subjects??

I have only used it on an A7s where it worked great for AFS in ANY light (AFC on that camera is almost non existent). I would think on an A7iii it should be fine but others who have used the combination might want to chime in. Sold the lens when my A7s broke but I wish i had it still now I have another.

Regards lenses. Whatever you do, if 85mm is a thing for you just, get the FE 85 1.8 as it is a excellent lens and an absolute bargain. Bonus is you can use it as a 85-170 zoom FF for video on Sony without much of an IQ dip (also for jpeg stills) and use it in APSC mode for even greater range.

Field curvature can make a big difference I think and some subjects it would be a pain with and others maybe just what you want. There was an article i saw recently (might have been Lens Rentals?) where I saw it mentioned some lenses transition from out of to in focus very sharply (which would more likely be better more expensive lenses) and that might account more for "3D pop" so a lens that does that AND has field curvature flattering to a subject might be gold (and cost its weight in it). Still trying to find more mentions and uses for the Minolta 24mm VFC lens that actually varies its field curvature....they go for ridiculous amounts on Enay.

I will never understand the complaints about Sony menus and UI. Sure they are big but then there is LOT in it on a camera like an A7s. I have cameras (some P&S and some ILCs) from Sony (2), Canon (3), Fuji (1), and Panasonic (2) and have had lots from Pentax, Nikon and Olympus and more and I do not find Sony all that different to any of the others.

Yeah, was disappointed with the vignette in that....is at 28mm I am a low light lowlife so I am often up early for a walk long before dawn. I wish you all the water you need! I did not take the lens to the party but swapped adaptalls using the same adapter and it now works just fine and the lens is a keeper if only going to get sporadic use.....NO vignetting now and no play with the adapters. The lens has a minimum focus of about three feet at 28mm but beyond that gets much shorter ...down to about a foot....a bit strange but I do like it.

Took it for a walk this morning. Seems very nice but there is play between the adaptall and FD to E adapter so sometimes it does not focus to infinity (or at all). Going to be hard to use for video but some stills use (I will just have to try other combinations of adaptalls and adapters before knowing if it just joins the junk lying around). This beach is hundreds of miles inland but was just named as the ninth best in Australia for 2019! Jpeg as taken (resized only). A7s and 28-80 Tamron (model 27A).