noone

The other thing is I wonder how many of thee would be sitting in camera bags with ancient FD mount film cameras in closets and attics? It is a rare lens but geez there must be a few!

This is just nuts! From time to time I look up the prices of the old FD 24 1.4 L on Ebay. It is now at the point they go for $4000 plus (Australian) even for ones that seem to be in worse condition than mine (mine looks a bit ratty but the glass is fine). For that kind of money I could get a used A7Riv or Hasselblad digital camera or a Canon !DC ETC ETC. Wonder when the bubble will burst?

Don't get me wrong, I agree with you. I love doing stuff no one else does or trying different things. Most reviews though are not aimed at that.

I love the idea of a modular camera and these look great. I would love one if I needed it. That said, I am not so sure there is a huge market for it and to get it to do those things you do have to add the costs of the add ons to the camera price (still great value no doubt if you need/want it). I also think there is still the hangover view of Sigma as a maker of middling to average (and even poor) third party lenses and many will not even try some of their fantastic newer stuff. One of the worst lenses I ever had was a Sigma prime from the film era and another Sigma zoom was ok on film but much less good on digital for photos even on a 6mp DSLR. I love my pre art Sigma 150 2.8 APO macro though. I also have an ancient Sigma adapter that allowed MD/MC manual focus lenses to auto focus on Minolta A mount cameras so Sigma have always been willing to try stuff (that lousy Sigma prime was a failed experiment by them i think).

Not worth bothering with, just like equivalence arguments Kye. Like hitting your head against a brick wall.

DOH! Of course I missed it (forgot about it actually). I had it set to auto mode in the movie menu and so that is why I get the shutter speed set to the selection (IE 1/50 for 50p). I also can not change aperture when I use a lens that communicates electronically (like my Canon 17 TS-E). Movie setting choice is page 7 of the (first) camera menu. You can set PASM ias a movie mode different to the PASM mode dial....You have to set the camera to movie on the PASM dial first (the movie mode on page 7 is greyed out otherwise). THEN you can change it (PASM in movie mode). THEN you will get the same shutter speed in either stills or M mode on the PASM dial.

Interesting! I just checked again (first version A7s version 3.20 firmware). Currently set to video mode on the mode dial, XACV-s 100p and the shutter speed is 1/100. Change to 50p and the shutter speed is now 1/50 Change to 25p and the shutter speed is now 1/25. Change to M mode on the mode dial and the shutter speed is 1/320 (that i had just set it before starting). Manual focus Tokina 60-120 2.8 lens attached at 2.8 and using auto ISO. Hit video button while still in M mode and I am shooting at 1/320. I wonder if there os some other setting I/we have missed? Again, I almost never use video on the mode dial (I can not remember ever doing it with this A7s but i did with my previous one (both first versions).

You can not shoot photo and video at the same time with an A7s but if I just checked and if i change between M mode for stills and video mode on the mode dial (using auto ISO and a manual focus lens), the camera drops to whatever shutter speed I have set for video (1/50 for 50p 1/25 for 25p). I usually just hit the red record button in M mode when shooting video having manually adjusted.

A charity shop I work at has an excellent condition Contax CZ 50 1.7. What would you pay for such a lens? I do not need it but if it sits there for a while, I might have to adopt it and give it a forever home. This was "the" standard lens many testers used in the end days of film photography with magazines using it as the comparison (at last some) and in the arly days of the internet too i think. Sure there are better lenses now (I love its grandson in my Sony Zeiss 55 1.8).

I just find it unusual. The camera specs state a base ISO for stills anyway of 100 but ISO 50 has that big increase in DR over ISO 100 (14.5 VS 13.66 on DXO for print). Drops to 12.07 at ISO 400 and then the second boost due to the dual gain sensor (12.58 at ISO 800). Most cameras with extended ISO like the specs state 50 is are not much different from their base in terms of DR. In any case, it would seem that for video, the S1 is mostly not going to get anywhere near 14.5 stops in general use though still be very good and better than the vast majority. The dual ISO gives it that boost at ISO

Any idea what the minimum ISO would be for the RED cameras? I see the S1 gets its 14.5 stops at ISO 50 but it takes quite a dip at ISO 100 (though still very good 13.66). Are people shooting videos with the S1 at ISO 50? Just curious.

Nah. I watched it out of curiosity. Those two just looked nice to me in that setting. I do not need any new lenses and non I really want in that focal range. I have gotten rid of a lot of gear lately (given away) and have come to realise I could be very happy with just a handful of lenses for my (mostly stills but some video) uses. I could probably actually do 90% of my shooting with just my 17 TSE and 55 1.8 and 75% with just the TS-E (or at least almost all of my photos used by others are with the 17 TS-E). I do still want an AF portrait lens of some description (85mm plus). My little RX100 iv has taken care of a lot of other use now.

Two stand out lenses for me in that test (the 40mm Baush and Lomb and the Cooke ....then i looked at the prices... OUCH!

Sony A7s ii is only CDAF (as are the first version A7s and first A7R though that was not so much a camera for video).

Probably. DOF depends on distance to subject though as much as anything (plus how much space is in the back ground). It can be very thin or infinite depending. You would need to see shots taken alongside with another camera with a similar sensor size.

A bit off topic but since I am unlikely to be able to buy the latest greatest (barring a lottery win that will come any day/month/year now), given that up rez in photos has gotten very good recently (not perfect but very good), are there any standard definition video cameras I should be looking at to buy cheap (SD card or hard disc or even record to CD) on the chance that video up rez will be great in a few years? Something that has a really nice look to it even though only standard def? Probably CCD? Old pro or hobbyist? Some prices on Ebay are ridiculous though for many Handy cam type cameras even for mini tape machines. Just curious.

Depends on at what ISO. The A7s sensor does not have a particularly large DR range at base but it slopes down a lot less steeply than other cameras. Its party trick is still having a high DR at higher ISOs though even at 12800 and maybe 25600 others are at least about as good. Over that though and the old first version A7s still does very well (for those few of us that want it).

If that is correct, that is fantastic at higher ISOs. 8 plus stops at ISO 102400? Seriously? Even the original A7s only has around 7.5 stops of DR at that ISO. Others A7Riv about 6.5 stops, A7iii just over 7 stops, Nikon Z6 and Panasonic S1 and Canon R6 all about 6.5 stops and those are the better cameras at that ISO. I am happy to have that as the highest setting on my A7s but would prefer to go lower than about 80,000 when possible. Am I missing something with that chart?

For Leslie it is probably more important if it is wether resistant?

I guess there are a couple of different segments. At his level, I guess you can pick and choose your camera for each job so to me it would be something like.... Choose resolution as an easy first step for the required job, then pick the lenses and the rest to achieve that and not worry about resolution any more. For most amateurs who are going to own their gear and for who it will be a major purchase, I guess many will want the latest, greatest they can afford and latest greatest for many will mean higher resolution as a by product (though many will chase the more is better thing). Full HD is still all I need for video still and 8mp for photos is just fine most of the time (which means 4k video too when I need it). I have just got rid of most of my cheap cameras (film and digital) and am down to just three digital cameras... 20mp, 16mp and 12mp and they all have their uses ... A superzoom 1/2 inch 16mp used at 8mp most of the time....(only full HD video), 20mp 1 inch sensor (has 4k but i never use it) and my 12mp A7s (lovely full HD and has 4k to a recorder but I have never tried). I can not afford anything else now other than cheap fifteenth hand stuff from Ebay. Most of my videos will never be seen by an audience not held captive though.

More so the more pixels = stills camera thing. Even in this forum I have been told many times my (now aging) A7s is not a photography camera. To me as long as you have ENOUGH resolution for either stills or video, that is all that matters. My best photos have been taken with the A7s including reasonable level photo competition (highly commended) shots and use in newspapers, and now by the Australian national portrait gallery (not portraits). Enlarging software for stills has also gotten very good lately not that I have had any need for it to date (is there such a thing for video using AI yet good enough to end this debate?).

The lenses I like to shoot portraits with are generally older than the (adults) I like to shoot!

Yeah, sort of anyway. Again, it is all relative as the S5 is still heavier than some other FF cameras WITH a lens. It is not so heavy (or large in dimension) that i would baulk at taking it though.

It is all relative. I would ask how come the Panasonic S FF cameras are all so heavy! I put up with two lenses that are heavy (to me) simply because they are as light as they can be for what the are really (Canon 17 TS-E is massive for a 17mm f4 lens but nothing else like it really (ok the new Laowa 15mm shift and Nikon 19mm PCE are similar now) and my ancient Tamron 300 2.8 which I am starting to grumble about do I take it at a bit over 2kg (though I think it is still the lightest 300 2.8 made). Other than that, I can have my 55 1.8 Sony Zeiss AND 24 1.4 FD L AND a small hotshoe flash and my (now aging) FF A7s and be about the same weight as some of those FF S Panasonics with one lens. SOME Canon lenses I have had are pretty small I really liked the little 40 2.8 which is a decent little FF lens that weighs next to nothing and of course the APSC kit lenses are very light but then they are pretty much all plastic.

Fun for me is low light shooting and especially light projections (as well as live music gigs but not so many of those lately. I also like shooting people (portraits) but do not get to do that enough. From Enlighten Canberra recently. This is the Australian National portrait gallery. They are going to use some of my shots.... Maybe it will be a very slight "in" for me (but I doubt it).....Before I die I would love to have a portrait in the gallery...Probably never going to happen though.