noone

While I do agree (in part). with Australian football, unless the player is following the ball, most players are (sort of) playing in a smaller area of a huge ground. You CAN be a very long way from the action a lot of the time and at times even 200 can be far too long. I am not shooting any particular player and so I would often get somewhere not too far away from the goal posts and often the action gets close enough to use a 300mm lens FF or a short AF zoom at other times when the action is only metres away. If I had a kid playing, I would find the spot that best suits the position they are playing and just shoot them when they were in range of my lens. In other words, a LOT depends on the particular game and with some games, 200mm might be perfect and at others you might get nothing because it is too short and still others it might be too long. A game like cricket on the other hand and you really need a longer lens as much of the action is in the middle of the field (often the same ground used for Australian football). Even an old Canon EF 100-300 5.6 L would be ok for daytime games I think and can be found fairly cheap.

Well, they ARE ten percent the size of what they were not so long ago! Just sayin'.

I have had a few Canon cameras and never really thought they were any better than others and think that in many ways are not as good. I am still using an ancient Canon DSLR but out of necessity more than anything and I do have a Canon superzoom point and shoot I love (only HD, not even full HD) but it cost me very little (I also still have a Canon FD film camera). Canon lenses on the other had I DO love in many cases but particularly some of the L lenses and both EF and FD. Very adaptable to other systems and some are still fairly unique (my all time favourite is still the 17mm F4 L TS-E). Some of the other makers have caught up (at least) for lenses in many instances (the Sony Zeiss 55 1.8 and FE 85 1.8 for example) but I can not adapt THOSE to Canon or others yet. The little 40 2.8 STM is also a cheap lens that surprises (and not an L). My Sigma 150 2.8 macro in EF mount is also very adaptable.

Kipon makes both focal reducer and non focal reducer adapters that work ok and a lot cheaper than Matabones. I had one of the earliest non focal reducer ones (serial number was 77 form memory) and it worked fine for electronic aperture (and AFS too) after a couple of firmware upgrades (was terrible as sold but very quickly became very useable after a couple of upgrades).

I wonder how something like this would go for sports video? I have never used this thing (have to try and find a tape for free or very cheap to use with it). It seems to work. Pity it is so low resolution now.

I can not imagine trying to shoot sports video with prime lenses or even manual focus zooms. Easy with still photography (I would much rather a fast manual focus lens on a good low light camera than the latest greatest not so good low light and/or slow lens for stills) but for video? I think I would need/rather something like a decent AF point and shoot with a long lens for that (and just realise evening sports will suck). For pro use it would be more. That said, I have never really tried to video sports (just an old amateur but have had sports shots in a national greyhound racing paper and football shots in a decent size daily newspaper). Shot with my long dead A7s (may it rest in pieces) and my old Tamron 300 2.8 MF adaptall lens (that has followed me for decades between systems).

A couple of stills resized only from the little SX410IS. I am looking for something to video with it to post frame grabs from at various points along its zoom range. Not that old but probably has a sensor a few years older (20mp CCD). A LOT more useful to me (and most people I think) than an Alexa, even for video and even though it has little control and only 720 HD.

Maybe two threads in one here, Cheap old pro gear and old consumer cameras for stills and video. Poverty limits me now to old cameras as my main ones. I still have my A7s but it will be ages before I could get it fixed and even then it might cost more than getting another one would. I do think the first version A7s will be considered a classic in future (if it isn't now). There is no Alexa in my future. I am shooting with an old Canon 450D and the jpegs are absolute rubbish but if you put a good lens on it, the RAW files are ok still (luckily I still have some good lenses). I have started getting old cameras from the charity shop I work at. Many can not be sold for various reasons and I have upgraded my point and shoot cameras as I can. Currently my video needs are met by a) Canon SX410IS (not too old- from 2015) and love it, 24-960mm FF angle of view excellent stabilization but crap at high ISOs and no RAW for stills and not a huge amount of control and 720 HD only, b) A Panasonic FX700 this one is from 2010 but is one of the earliest with full HD I think and while it doesn't have a lot of control for video, it has PASM rec modes for stills and can do 15/30/60 sec exposures (which is great because it is also crap above about ISO 200- which I can limit it to in auto ISO). All in all a wonderful little camera (for its age). Pity it doesn't have RAW stills either. c) The third I have is a Panasonic little underwater P&S, not great IQ or video (HD only again), this one is from 2012, but something for wet days or to use in water. The little Canon SX410IS really is a useful little camera for daytime use and the old FX700 is great for use with flash or on a tripod for long exposures (it does have ok stabilization though). I do want a cheap Sony so I can use my Sony lenses as well as keep using my old FD lenses as well as my Canon EF L's.

Actually, using copyrighted music like that without paying for a licence would STILL be a crime in many jurisdictions, it just means since it isn't going online, it would be much less likely for the copyright owner to know they were being ripped off. If that is fine with people, ok, but then I would hope people who do that are also happy for their photos and videos to be used in a similar way.

I keep getting point and shoot cameras from the Op shop I work at quite cheap. I pay for them even though in many cases they would just be thrown out for various reasons. The last few I have got have been quite surprising. A little 16mp underwater Panasonic (this does use folded optics for its four times zoom- starting at 25mm FF angle of view). Image quality is not the greatest but is ok but I will certainly keep it for when I need an all weather/rugged option. Only HD video. My favourite so far is the Canon superzoom I posted about earlier (newest so far with a 24-960 lens and great stabilization but poor battery life and again, only HD video). This week I got an older one (oldest lately by far) but was quite expensive new, a little Panasonic 24-120 but with full HD and manual control and touchscreen. Image quality is not as good as the newer canon but still much better than other older P&S cameras I have had. I am so happy with the three that I threw two other cameras into a bin on the street today (no chargers and each had a minor fault, otherwise I would have given them away). One actually had half decent image quality (for a P&S from a few years ago- A Canon with HD video), the other was another underwater P&S but older and not as good/more limited. I am waiting for someone to donate a C300 or A7Riii or the like. Back more on topic, I keep seeing fewer newspaper photographers out and about and more likely a Journalist with a phone. The TV stations are not quite using phones or even mirrorless cameras YET.

While it would never be possible for me to live with just one lens, generally for me it would have to be the Canon 17mm TS-E as I can not stand buildings and trees leaning backwards now. Used on a FF Sony it also is usable as a 17-35 FF zoom and an 25.5-52.5 APSC zoom. Then again, it can never replace a 150mm 2.8 macro or 300mm telephoto. I am having a lot of fun playing around with a little super zoom Canon point and shoot with a 24-960mm equivalent FF angle of view (If I could put a lens this size with that reach on an interchangeable lens camera, I guess THAT would be the ONE- when I don't use the tilt shift lens).

Almost. Not the greatest at low light (ok At the short end), Terrible battery life (around 200 shots) but great IS for such a long zoom. Limited control but enough. Very nice for the Reall cheap price I got it for.

To me, the latest phones are now as good or even a little better than DSLRs from around 2006 or so but only in their natural range. Being poor now, I am reduced to using older stuff for my main cameras though still with some wonderful lenses. I never use a phone for photos or video (geez, being antisocial, I hardly ever use my phone). I keep getting cheap cameras from an op shop I work at, mostly little rubbish point and shoots. SOME of them are OK to use now (some get donated because they don't work but sometimes that is because the battery is in the wrong way or they have a corrupt card only). I have now got two that I like, an underwater Panasonic and a super zoom Canon. I am on a trip to my family now and have only taken the Canon superzoom and it is the first P&S I have really been happy with. A phone MIGHT be better than these two in a limited range but it will be a while before one I van afford will go underwater of be able to do 960mm equivalent. The canon is not very big either (SX410IS) Only 720p but is OK for my needs.

Being an amateur with access just means I sometimes get to be in front of the barrier with only a handful of other people at most (around twenty or so from memory for this Australia day concert in Canberra in 2006) instead of stuck back in this crowd or waiting at the front for many hours. It doesn't mean I WANT to take away money from working people but If someone wants me to shoot something and it suits me, I will happily do it.

I guess I was lucky being older as I got some great gigs as an amateur years ago as few were shooting live music then years ago (starting with film). I got some support from the local paper and all the venues and then sent samples to band managers and they were all fine with it and then I shot FOR a few smaller (and some slightly larger festivals) and had no problems getting photo passes to most gigs (up to and including the Dixie Chicks at their height- they had really horrid conditions but I was still fine with that as it was a hobby- I got very sick on the way and could not do the gig though and have stuck to mostly more local stuff since then). Many of the smaller festivals didn't have any real budget for photos anyway. As far as video goes, it is really only since having an A7s I did video of some songs at gigs and then I just do it for me though send the better ones to the bands. Just means I have a few videos from some favourite bands of mine that I can watch whenever I want that very few others will see unless the bands use them (US Foghorn string band did with one). Just a lot of fun for me but I doubt I would get close to the access I have had if I was starting out now.

No I don't have (or NEED a licence) and would not if I did earn income from it but I don't. It is purely a hobby for me and I do it because I WANT to. I have been offered money from time to time but always turn it down as I do things (mostly) on MY terms and so I don't have to pay taxes either. Again, in my city there are far too many trained and well equipped professionals for many to make a full time living and many of those would still be too expensive for many people with small jobs/short hands and deep pockets. Years ago I WAS going to sell shoes (well clothes anyway) on Ebay by buying more expensive brands second hand cheap from the US (reversed seasons). I actually had a reasonable small stock of cashmere jumpers but ended up giving them away to friends and family as I couldn't be bothered in the end but it is always something I COULD do if I wanted. So, what crime have I committed?

I am sorry but I don't get this. No one OWES you (or me or anyone) a living. What if there are dozens of people in your area who have more training, spent more on equipment and time? Are THEY then MORE entitled than you? Do you need a licence to work in photography/video? I don't want to see anyone not being able to live doing what they want but if someone wants to offer to work for less than someone else and they produce stuff acceptable to the people paying, so be it.

That test is not using an FD L 50 1.2 but a non L which is like many other make old fast 50s I think. Out of all the 50s and near 50s I have had I rate the top four being Sony Zeiss 55 1.8, then the FD L 50 1.2 and the Pentax K 50 1.2 a distant third and the Nikon 50 1.8 AF (non D made in Japan) after that with all the others (and that is a few) following. That said, I have never had a BAD normal lens but most of the non aspheric normal lenses from all makers are pretty similar (other than ones that have party tricks like bubble bokeh or what have you). I was also wrong about the older 55 FD 1.2 AL lens (if THAT is the one the expensive lens is based on) as that one DID have an aspheric element (which is THE main difference between the Canon L FD primes - 24/50/85 at least and "normal" normals). Those aspheric elements also account for a much greater price tag (like the Noct Nikkor 58 1.2 which is about the only other aspheric fast normal from the old days. I find my old 24 1.4 L to be quite good wide open and one of the best older lenses I have owned. Mine is rather beat up externally but the glass is good. I listed it on Ebay a couple of years ago for a low price but had no takers. Never being sold now. I would have thought they would have started coming down in price now that there are lots of other 24 1.4s around (until recently there were only around a half dozen makes ever made in 24 1.4 which and the FD version could be used on many mirrorless cameras is why they were dear). This is an old lame video I posted before using the 24 1.4 (used as a zoom on my dead A7s).

It can be both or either or neither I think. There are lots of amateurs who are GOOD enough to sell their work and there are some mediocre pros who are good business people and or who know the right people. Plenty of really good amateur photographers make far more money doing other things though (EG some doctors). I think it also depends on local conditions and market. I live in a small city (of around 60,000) in the middle of nowhere. This place has a University and a couple of hospitals and some defence bases. That means the pro photographers here are a mixture of students, graduates, spouses of army/navy/air force personnel and others who have moved here as well as a few ex newspaper shooters (they use a lot less these days). On top of that there are plenty of amateurs who offer weddings (Instagram etc). Bottom line is there are far more people offering photos for money than there is a market to keep them all employed at it and some of the most successful are not necessarily the best photographers but are the best at selling themselves. Gear also really DOES make a difference (a good photographer can use anything but they will still do better with better gear). It has been obvious when some have upgraded their gear to see the improvement in their Instagram shots). The video market here is a lot smaller but many of the players are some of the same photogs (often some of the better ones). I am just an old amateur who gives away my photos to anyone who wants them (often the council). I stopped providing stuff to the paper when they would not support me when asking for access to a national level band (that had used one of my photos at the entrance to their photo galleries). When the current deputy Prime Minister ran the paper, he did give me access that the current lot said they couldn't and yet they used my stuff shortly before and since on one occasion. It is just fun to me and has gotten me the best seat in the house as well as walking in stage door for free instead of lining up with the punters.

The FD 50 1.2 L has an aspheric hand ground element. I don't think the 55 FL/FD does (the older aspheric lens is a 50 1.2 as well). That makes me think the K35 55 might be a little bit of an odd man out compared to the others (if they are based on FD L's) since both the 24 1.4 and 85 1.2 have hand ground front aspheric elements as well. Just seems a bit strange to me that they would do that. I sold my 50 1.2 L FD (wish I hadn't) but still have the 24 1.4 L and 85 1.2 L and all three (along with the 80-200 f4 L also sold) were/are some of the nicest old lenses I have used. I really should get my 24 1.4 converted to EF. My 85 1.2 still needs fixing as it has the dreaded dissolving bearings issue that certain FD lenses can get (very loose focus throw now) but I can not use them at present. Still keeping them for when I CAN use them again.

Again, I don't see it and I am not a member of or want to be a member of that group. All that bringing that here does is show a bunch of people whinging about some people on another site. I see the same people on DPR (another, another site) posting anti- Sony stuff regularly. Even on THIS forum, it seems I can be pretty sure what some will be posting about a particular brand on a topic when I see the name. I still want to know if someone who uses a Sony camera but also has cameras from Canon with lots of Canon lenses (also used on Sony) is a Sony fanboy/troll if they post negative stuff about Sony or are they a Canon troll when the do the same about Canon? Of COURSE there are Sony trolls but there are as many for other brands (maybe proportionate to user base size) and after all the Sony users had a few years of enduring posts against Sony that when now made against the likes of Canon and Nikon get howled down as trolling. I don't currently have a working Sony camera but I do have Canon, Olympus, Panasonic, Fuji and other cameras currently I do want a Sony camera but only because I still have a couple of really nice Sony lenses and I like how Canon lenses (EF and FD) work on Sony cameras. I guess people will keep whinging about others here, dunno what they says.

What camera? I wish all brands had a lossless (or virtually) digital zoom like Sony does. Means you can use any lens as a zoom including Canon EF primes. When I had a working A7s I even used my Canon f4 L 17mm TS-E as a 2x zoom. Wish I could do that with my Canon camera.

Don't see any Sony trolls there, just some people whinging about others. I guess maybe this thread should become a" post evidence of troll posts" thread (not just Sony) if it is going to keep living.

You ain't seen my ancient Promura 135 1.8. Impressive lens to look at, big, heavy and solid. Was ok with film and 6mp DSLRs I guess. Mine looks like someone tried to clean it inside and ended up smearing things a bit but it has remained the same since I got it when there were half a dozen bricks and mortar camera stores in Wagga (and I got it from one of them). The EF Canon 135 f2 L is a nice AF lens still Used on M43, APSC and FF and I regret selling mine when I needed the money. I kept my Sigma 150 2.8 instead though and I am glad I did though still miss that Canon (plus they can be found pretty cheap these days since they have been around so long).

Again I am seeing NOTHING different to trolls AGAINST Sony. Sure there are Sony trolls but no different to Canon and Nikon trolls especially. I just see some Sony users posting about "issues" in the Canon and Nikon mirrorless FF cameras that are pretty much the same as was posted against the first Sony mirrorless FF cameras for the same things. This thread should be deleted. At least a great many Sony users used to BE (and often still are) users of other systems including lots of Canon users who still have many Canon lenses. I would go so far to say that for many Sony users that have Canon lenses, the CAMERA can be from anyone as long as it takes their lenses and does what they want at a price they can tolerate. That means if Canon (or Nikon) releases a camera that doesn't meet their needs they can and many will whinge about it. Are those people SONY users (because they have a Sony camera currently), or are they Canon users (because they have a shed full of Canon lenses)? People are seeing what they want to see, nothing more.