noone

ALL dedicated camera companies are in trouble. Canon just show it more because of their aging sensor tech. Each month, the reason for dedicated cameras gets less and less. I still want proper cameras because I am anti social and hardly need a mobile phone but I can see the pace of phone camera progress Is light years faster than "normal" camera progress. Things like low light ability and specialty lenses (EG tilt shift, macro, long lenses and ultra wides) still have an advantage for cameras over phones but even some of those advantages are being overcome for phones. Give it a few years and it will be more than Canon in trouble as the market will simply not be big enough other than some very good (and very expensive) gear sold in small numbers. When a phone CAN do what my 17mm tilt shift or 150 2.8 macro or 300 2.8 or even my superzoom P&S can do (and they will at some point), the gfame will be over.

Well a large percentage of people are using APSC and on those 50mm Is pretty close to 80 (75mm FF angle of view for most and 80mm for Canon 1.6). I guess they just made a lot more 50s for a lot longer and it used to be people got a 28mm a 50mm and a 135mm with 85s becoming a thing after that. I have just got a cheap little APSC Sony and my only AF remaining E mount lens Is the Sony Zeiss 55 1.8 which I am going to be using pretty much AS an 85 (well 82.5) and it will do better than many of the real 85s I had on FF (Sony 85 1.8 FE possibly excepted) and will be a hell of a lot easier to use than my old FD 85 1.2L FF.

On the 28-70 kit lens, it I actually a pretty good lens and including for video (at least with an A7s). I used it pretty much as a constant f5.6 and it is close to parfocal, focuses silently and reasonably quickly (in a limited range for video) is stabilized and light so a good choice for the A7 and A7s. It is very good in the centre and ok at the edges. Apparently there is some copy variation but mine was quite good.

I had both an A7 and A7s. I loved both but not the A7 for video though it was just ok for my limited video needs. I ended up selling the A7 as it was not being used so much and I love taking low light photo and occasional video and the A7s was my all time favorite until it died.

GH5 does not have APSC or FF sensor. Dare I say the A7sii? Ok the AF tracking may not be the best (or exist at all) except in a limited range like a band on a stage. The original A7s as well but no IBIS so you would need a stabilized lens.

I do not see how they are any different to any other camera company. Sure there Is a bit of sameness about the cameras but that applies to just about everything and if they added too many things different to previous models rather than incremental improvements you would either get a much longer time between models or people would abandon all their previous gear (and possibly the company) especially with cameras that have few add ons like the RX100 series. I think Canons issue is they reiterate the same camera but at a point that was long passed by others many models ago (with sensors) while Sony has not reached that point (yet).

Damn! Just emailed them and they have no plans for an Apodization filter. Oh well, my search continues.

Some wide angle lenses have rear filter holders or you can buy purpose made adapter filters now or kludge together the glass from various filters into the space in some adapters (see the thread on the new filters for adapters).

I was wondering when some company was going to do that. Some time ago, I found that some adapters have a small ledge in them and in one case, found it had a circular edge that almost exactly fit the glass from 43mm filters. I had been playing around with filters of that size to fit into the rear slot of my ancient Tamron 300 2.8 but to get it to fit, I had to file some of the metal edge off and then after realising it was about the same size as the space in one of my adapters, I filed the rest of the rim off (was just a cheap IR filter to start) and it fit very well with most lenses (some were a little long against the glass) as the depth was almost the same as the ledge depth as well as being the right size. I started looking for an apodization filter which became my holy grail. I stopped when my A7s camera died but have just got a cheap little Sony APSC camera so will start trying it again. If anyone knows of any (cheap- I know, I know) apodization filter, please let me know. I had found a few companies that did make them but not in the size I needed (some might have made me one but it would have been cheaper to buy one of the few lenses that have those filters built in and I can not afford those). Maybe this company might start doing that? I have posted about this before. This is the IR filter glass in the adapter and showing the bare ledge and a photo taken (as taken) using the filter behind my Canon 17mm TSE (a IR filter for my front filter holder would be huge and expensive for the lens otherwise).

Depends. IF it works seamlessly and with a particular lens for a particular purpose, AF, otherwise I am fine with MF. EG of my favourite lenses, AF almost exclusively with the Sony Zeiss 55 1.8 but with my MF tilt shift 17mm, well I do not get a choice but it would not be needed anyway.

I like trawling YouTube for live music videos. This is one of my favourite bands And being without any shred of shame those songs are from their Album "Snow White" and a few of my photos are used (at very small size) in the collage on the album . They never sold that many records but would sell out live shows and became the first band in the Australian Live music associations hall of fame. They were the next big thing in their youth, got a two record deal with Warner's USA, made the first album but Warner's wanted them to change some things, they didn't so the record was not supported and they got paid out for the second without having to make it. Snow White is a later album from Warner's Australia but because of a little swearing from the lead single, it got little airplay except on a few stations and late night TV (it was a few years ago).

That band is just crazy. I don't mind the Dandy's.

It is all good! Musicians can be a funny bunch too (Shanul Sharma was the singer for a regionally popular metal band who became a well renowned opera singer). Some of the gigs I have enjoyed the most have been unexpected ones I thought I might not have liked so much. It would be a boring world if we all liked the same stuff.

Ahh I can enjoy pretty much any live music from country bumpkins to metal heads. I really liked that Foghorn stringband gig I posted the video of (it was a new experience for me but they are really very good). I also have a video I would love to post I took of a duo called Semen and Garfuckel of a song I think Is called "functional fuckwit" but not sure I can. I very rarely have to be listening to something else while shooting a band. I just bought an old NEX camera so I can shoot a International Blues music day gig next month I have been asked to do. Multi day, multi band Jazz festivals can sometimes throw up some "interesting" takes on jazz tunes (I can hear the same song played by three bands and one will be great, one will be just ok and the other will be like finger nails down a chalk board).

I have had a LOT of prime lenses in the range 85-150 as well as many old zooms. I would strongly suggest you save jut a little for a more recent lens in that range (some of them are getting old too but will hold up for year to come). Something like a Canon EF 85 1.8 or EF 100 f2 (I have not had the 85 but loved the EF 100). The 100 can be found for a couple of hundred dollars and I well worth it and Is not huge. I was spoilt by the Sony FE 85 1.8 which is about the biggest bargain going in photography (though still not dirt cheap) as it Is relatively small and light while being as good as many more expensive lenses. The EF 85 1.8 still seems quite good though and there is a Chinese knock off that is even cheaper (there is one for the 100 f2 as well. I also loved the EF 135 f2 L but that is a bit larger and heavier (but a very nice lens if you can afford it. I do still have a FD 85 1.2 L and that IS pretty heavy and large (for an 85) as well as being a bit expensive still (has come down in price a bit in the last few years now that there are many more 85s available in many mounts and even the MF Mitakon 1.2's. I had to sell the EF 135 f2 L and EF 100 f2 and FE 85 1.8 (wish I hadn't) but I do not have a camera to use them on now. I have kept a sigma 150 2.8 APO macro that I had at the same time as the 135 and when deciding which to keep, I thought the Sigma was a bit more versatile while being as good (an ok middle distance tele, a great portrait lens and an excellent macro lens). I have had an old Nikon 85 1.8 and an old Minolta 85 1.7 and they were not bad, just not as good as many more modern lenses. I hardly use the old FD 85 1.2 L (it does need a fix due to dissolved bearings though works for now) and I have an ancient Promura 135 1.8 I almost never use as the more modern lenses are so much better. I think I will get an older Sony E mount APSC camera this week to use with some of my remaining lenses but I also will not have any focal reducers for a while and my 85 "needs" will be met by using a Sony Zeiss 55 1.8 on APSC....Maybe look for some shorter lenses without a focal reducer? Will till be quite fast (I usually use 85s stopped down a bit no matter how good they are wide open with just a few uses wide open). My kit has pretty much stabilised now and will be 17mm tilt shift lens (EF), 24 1.4 (FD), 20-35 2.8 (EF), 55 1.8 (FE), 85 1.2 (FD), 150 2.8 (EF), 300 2.8 (adaptall) with a few other odd and ends but I will need to add a couple of focal reducers. These are from the Sigma 150 2.8 on an old Canon 450D 1.6x crop sensor camera.

I dunno, I seem to prefer just to see music videos of bands playing live. I love shooting them though most are just for me (and sometime the venues and bands). I would often just video a song or two while shooting stills. I get permission for stills and often just try and hold the camera steady enough for a song though will use a tripod from time to time. I shoot everything from metal to jazz. Have not had a camera good enough to shoot live music for a while but hope to get something this coming week (have just been asked to photograph a small music festival soon..it has been a while since I did that). This was one of mine (posted by the band). It was a seated show but was hand held with a non stabilized A7s and old Nikon 85 1.8 MF lens. The lens has gone, the camera is broken and the venue has closed....the story of my life I guess!

Well you can always buy a receipt book and get someone to "sell" you "your" existing camera if "you" need to cheat!

I often carry a camera in my pocket but it is usually just a very cheap little point and shoot. On wet days I carry a little Panasonic rugged camera (FT20) it is not the best image quality but ok for stills and video (only 720p). When it is not wet I currently carry a Panasonic FX700, again, not the greatest IQ but at least does full HD but has a LOT of control including manual and touch screen. Neither is much good at night but they cost me around the price of lunch at a fast food diner so no great loss if anything happens to them. Both are fairly old now but are upgrades from what I used previously and I will replace these as I find better ones as long as they are cheap (usually get them from charity shops and pawn shops very cheap since phones have replaced cameras for most people now). Actually, a phone camera might work too if it is a recent one. I find small ILC's to be a bit cumbersome to use as daily pocket cameras (while still somewhat pocketable). I have used a Pentax Q which works with the right lens (though used that very little for video) and M43 cameras but prefer the size of compact cameras. Geez I even used to fit a Pentax KX DSLR into my (baggy) jeans pockets and in winter a A7/A7s in coat pockets but not as daily drivers so I guess it depends on your level of need versus comfort. Video from any of these P&S cameras is not going to win any prizes at least from me but are handy to have.

So you enter two, one to win and one to lose and you have to send a camera to yourself!

Not entering cos I suck at video regardless of camera but may I suggest that people might get better value away from things like like Sony A mount cameras might be found cheaper? The other ones that could be great bargains include the A3000 type Sony's. They look like DSLRs and are cheaply made with small EVFs but are actually quite decent mirrorless cameras from what I can see ( I want one but even $200 is a bit steep right now as is the original $150 sigh!). Besides my ancient Canon 450D does not even have video and if it did it would no doubt stink since the jpegs do (RAW is ok with decent lenses like L's). If I was going to enter it would be with a point and shoot I got from a Op shop for around $10 but only has 720p.

I usually try and get between the 50mm and behind post (about halfway or slightly to the behind post). Reasons for that are the action has to get closer due to the smaller width and that is were they are converging on so you can often get more action. Means I can also get away with shorter lenses too (a short zoom often as well as a longer lens) If the game is one sided, it is easy enough to just go to that end (and switch each quarter). I would often go that position (switching at the quarters) but might have one quarter experimenting elsewhere. Again, being anti-social taking photos helps.

That is with a Canon 1.6x crop camera, you get different results with different formats and more particularly, changing the subject distance from 100m also changes the DOF a fair bit even 10m either way and the greater the distance away from that, the bigger the variation in DOF. I have an old Tamron adaptall 70-350 constant f4.5 lens. This was a very expensive lens in its day but does not use any ED/LD or fluoro elements and so is not as good as modern lenses but while rare, can be found pretty cheap on Ebay if you are lucky (and don't mind the occasional purple fringing). I hardly use it though as the Tamron adaptall 300 2.8 is much better.

Somebody put a long lens on a Pentax Q and try it for sports video? My Q is long dead (I really should throw it out).

Lucky for me I am anti-social! At least when it comes to photo ops anyway.

Yeah, cricket is a pain even with 300mm on APSC let alone FF. I don't have many cricket photos (for major matches, Cricket Australia doesn't allow lenses over 200mm unless you have accreditation though I have been allowed in with my 300 2.8 at the local ground and only searched once when I didn't have anything longer than 200mm). Even here (not the biggest of grounds), for cricket 300 is way to short more often than not but it is the same ground I shoot Australian football at. Not a great photo but to show the reach limitations for cricket. (The batswoman is the only person, male or female to have topped the one day international batting AND bowling lists- Stephanie Taylor, the West Indies captain). Taken last year.