noone

Oly has the 2 four thirds DSLR f2 zooms that can adapt to M43 14-35 f2 and 35-100 f2 Sigma has the 18-35 1.8 and 50-100 1.8 APSC lenses Tokina has the 14-20 f2 APSC lens. Sigma has the 24-35 f2 FF lens.

You can adapt the Oly bodycap lenses to Sony FF and APSC E mount too. I had the 15mm and it was a lot of fun though I never used it for video. Vignettes FF of course though you can get rid of it with a bit of clear zoom and in APSC mode you don't need much clearzoom. The adapters are cheap and sharp as they are very thin. If I get one of these cameras one day (would be in a year or two), it would be well worth getting another body cap lens though I think I would still prefer the 15mm.

Since I am probably going to have to sell my FE 85 1.8 to pay for fixing my A7s I was looking at sold prices for them on Ebay today. Dunno about the rest of the world but here in Australia, the FE 85 1.8 seems to be going for quite a bit more than I paid for it months ago. I guess that is down to popularity of Sony here now (lots of pros and semi pros and even just good Instagrammers have switched to Sony in the last few months) and the reputation of the lens. I considered it to be the biggest bargain going in photography for ANY brand and any system. While it still IS a screaming bargain and still an extremely good lens regardless of price, there is definitely a bit of a cult mystic about it now pushing up prices and maybe due to supply. I do think anyone even remotely interested in an 85 prime who uses Sony FF E mount should have it unless they want a different 85 for their taste. The FE 28-70 kit lens is also quite nice and well worth the money though there may be copy variation (I use it as a 5.6 constant aperture zoom for video though don't use it often). This is a screen grab from a video I did using the FE kit lens at some really high ISOs (on an A7s -was in a quite dimly lit beer garden in Winter a while ago). I love the video of this and would love to show it but I can not. Sarah Mcleod from the Superjesus playing solo.

No reason to doubt him. It may be as simple as two bins with sensors in them next to each other with sensors identical EXCEPT for the part number. He didn't say the SENSORS are different, just the PART number.

I liked 50mm with 35mm film but that was probably because there wasn't much choice and the 50s were maybe the best lenses optically as well as being the fastest and cheapest (primes). Changing to digital and most cameras were now APSC and I still liked the 50s and near 50s as they were now more of a nice portrait lens (and the same with them on M43). Going FF digital, I now had a LOT more choice of focal lengths so didn't use normal lenses anywhere near as much and by now, many other lenses were optically better than the old legacy normals as well so while I still had a heap of them and still liked them, I preferred others more now. After getting the Sony Zeiss 55 1.8, I have pretty much settled on that as being all I need in a normal lens and have come to really like normal again just because of that lens. I guess it now just comes down to liking a particular lens rather than a focal length. While that new lens looks massive, if it works great for its users, I can see it getting a large and or cult following.

So what you are saying is that it isn't even good enough to buy and return?

I think I would look on the camera as having been pretty much designed to be a EF mount camera and they will throw in a few exotic R lenses for bragging rights. More regular lenses will come but maybe not for a while. SINCE the R was announced, there have been more Sony E mount lenses announced than this camera will have in a year or more I think. Treat it as an EF mount camera and it makes a lot more sense to me.

I would expect it to sell better than the A7iii for a little while. The A7iii is already in peoples hands and the Canon is going to sell to the Canon hold outs who didn't want Sony. Once that group has mostly got theirs, then it will remain to be seen which sells better. I hope they BOTH sell well enough for the companies to keep going.

Or when lights are NOT there. To shoot a band live I will always take a sensor with decent high ISO over one that is less decent and that will usually mean a more recent FF camera (or my old A7s). When the gig is packed and I can pretty much only shoot from next to the "stage" (it is often just a corner of the room), and that means a wide angle which is also easier with FF. I really like that video the OP has done though.

I would think it will be ok but then again, the FE 85 1.8 is to me the best bang for buck thing going in photography. It will sell ok if it is good for its price point. The 20 1.8 on the other hand is not that much more expensive but has a lot less competition and might make a fair cheap astro lens for some.

I understand the new 24 1.4 is just what you are after. Yes it is a GM but is different to other GMs I think in many ways. The 55 1.8 is a bit out on its own now being Sony Zeiss as there don't seem to be any new ones like it and the 24-70 and 35 2.8. I would think there will be more lenses like what you want.

I don't need larger than FF. For most uses, for me, I have found APSC and M43 (and even Pentax Q) can be fine but FF is what I prefer. MF is too expensive and lenses to take advantage of the larger sensor to allow shallower DOF are few and far between (though adapting fast FF lenses on the current medium format digital cameras seems to counter that with little issue going by Andrew's use of the FD 85 1.2 on his Fuji MF camera). I want low light (walk around at night with any lens, not just a fast one) and I want wide angle done easy and including tilt shift. Current APSC and even M43 is much better than it used to be with the first lot of APSC DSLRs but FF is better as well. The old A7s can fit in a large building from up close using a wide angle tilt shift lens and if it has a projection running, use a higher ISO to keep a fast enough shutter speed for stills and I can shoot a band with whatever aperture I choose in a dark beer garden at night and have all the band members in focus from close to the stage. I can use a 300 2.8 AT 2.8 and with a person as a subject at a normal distance for that lens and have the whole person in focus but the background blurred out. just behind them.

Andrew, do many other FD (or other FF mount lenses) cover medium format digital without vignetting? Certainly would make a big difference if they do as FF generally has lots more faster glass available. I see Mitakon sells a MF mount version of their 85 1.2 as well. Would be nice to use my old FD 24 1.4 L (along with my 85 1.2 L) on MF though just wishful thinking for me currently.

It WOULD be easier to achieve shallow DOF with MF but only if you have the lenses available and currently, except for some very rare and very exotic (and very expensive no doubt) lenses for aerial photography, most MF lenses just are not that fast (compared to many available FF lenses). The MF current digital camera sensors are also smaller compared to film MF. A f0.95, f1 or 1.2 FF lens is still going to give shallower DOF than a comparable f2 MF lens and I would think a 1.4 FF lens would be likely just a little shallower than a f2 MF lens (on MF digital) as well (I stand to be corrected on that). I would still love to get a MF back to adapt to my old Polaroid 600SE (it would need a digital back on a MF film adapter).

Good point though it isn't the L mount that doesn't have PDAF but the Panasonic cameras. Sigma is also releasing a (foveon) L mount camera next year as well and that will probably work better with Canon lenses. I guess it will just be like the Sony CDAF only cameras working slowly for AF with the Sigma adapter and the newer hybrid Sony PDAF/CDAF cameras working much better. Edit, it can still be ok though since Canon EF lenses focus quite fast (for AFS at least) on the CDAF only GX7 and using a Kipon adapter. This should be better given Kipon is a tiny third party company against this first party coming adapter.

Just realised that Sigma is going to make an adapter for Canon EF lenses for L mount. If that works well (and based on some of their other adapters, no reason it shouldn't), then that brings it into play a lot more for some Canon lens users.

Maybe, maybe not. The Panasonic cameras are really just announcements of things to come next year. Sony may still surprise with an A7siii that slips in BEFORE the Panasonic cameras are actually released (if the Sony is coming at all that is)! The issue for me with the Panasonic cameras is that unless you are a shareholder in Panasonic, these new cameras will be as alien to M43 users as Canon, Sony or Nikon (actually for Canon even more so since Canon EF lenses can be adapted with near native AF at least for AFS). Think about it, a set of M43 lenses will not work on these new cameras and I doubt the Leica L mount lenses will work anytime soon on a GH5 or other M43 camera so you would need two sets of lenses if going with Pana FF and M43 but with Canon EF lenses you can go FF AND M43 (and Sony E can too and more). These Pana/Leica/Sigma cameras will want to be light years better than anything else to be successful since for all but a very small number of people it means an entirely new and expensive system aimed at pros and high end users and a VERY expensive switch. IF Sony puts out a A7siii, it will be usable along with all the other Sony stuff right form release so unless they stuff it up big time, I would think it is going to be good (again, assuming it does actually arrive). Choice is good and getting better but it is coming to the point there will be too MUCH choice for them all to survive.

Indeed, choice is really good right now. My preference in order is still (for now) Sony, Canon and then Nikon. Where Panasonic slots in remains to be seen though I can not help but think it will more than likely be aimed at video pros and way beyond me and not as good for stills. Having said that I just paid $10 (Australian) for an ancient Panasonic SD camcorder this morning. Hope it works.

Depends on your needs and uses. Some of my Canon lenses adapted work BETTER on Sony than on Canon DSLRs. It isn't so much a mount things as what features an individual camera has for me. I can not afford anything new right now but I would not mind a camera that has IBIS, great low light and plays well with my Canon 17mm TS-E. Having a good digital zoom is a plus. That is only Sony for now. If someone has lots of Canon lenses AND wants to stay with Canon, the R looks a nice start. Mind you there is less reason to adapt with Sony FF mirrorless every day (that new FE 24 1.4 looks fantastic and has me jealous).

There are smart adapters for E mount cameras that allow you to adapt Sony A Canon EF Nikon F there are even ones for Contax G (another announced this week I think) and other mounts too I think. And of course you can use a smart adapter to use almost any lens (with size and weight limits) to auto focus manual focus lenses. Sony will let you auto focus some of the Nikon lenses you can not currently with Nikon (inlcudng Nikon auto focus lenses). Sure most don't work well (or at all) for video and for stills it is camera/adapter/lens dependent. That Nikon mirrorless works so well with SOME Nikon AF lenses is great and it will sell very well. I just wish Nikon (and Canon) would play nice with third party adapter makers going forward like Sony does so you can adapt any lens to their mirrorless. I would love to be able to use my Canon lenses on Nikon ETC and if I could, that would bring Nikon into play a bit more for me but as it stands it is out for me. Those with lots of Nikon recent AF lenses will do well but it would be expensive to switch to Nikon from Canon or Sony. Sony is still (currently) the only one that will let you use EF and F mount lenses as well as E even if no or limited AF for video.

Sure there are lots of second hand cheaper Canon lenses and some great bargains nut you do get what you pay for. I don't find Sony lenses to be dearer than similar Canon lenses generally for what you get. The two most expensive lenses I have bought are both manual focus Canon tilt shift lenses (that work better on Sony FF mirrorless for me than DSLRs- they should be very nice on the new Canon but not necessarily better than on Sony), after that a Sony Zeiss 55 1.8, a Tamron adaptall MF, A Canon EF 135 f2, a few Canon FD L lenses and then a Sony 85 1.8 so all over the place. Yes, you can buy a cheap 50 1.8 for Canon against the price of the Sony Zeiss 55 1.8 but if canon made the 55 1.8 it would have an L red ring and be just as expensive (the EF Canon 50 1.8 I had was ok but just another normal lens). Metabones isn't the ONLY smart adapter for EF lenses on Sony either (I have four different ones that range in price from(well under $100 US for a Fotga to a MB iv). I own EF lenses many of which I got to use on Sony and for ME, getting the new Canon will be more expensive than getting a Sony (and besides the Canon wont take my three Sony FE lenses). My current Canon EF mount lenses include a 17 f4 L TS-E, 20-35 2.8 L, 40 2.8 STM and Sigma 150 2.8 as well as a few cheaper zooms. I have sold a 24 3.5 ii L TS-E, 135 f2 L, 100 f2, 100-300 5.6 L and some others. I am currently using an old Canon DSLR for stills (my A7s is out of action) so I am going to have to spend some money on SOMETHING (if not fixing my A7s). By the time I have saved enough, I still likely won't know what it will be but currently it is more likely to be Sony than Canon.

The Nikon Z cameras can currently take- Nikon Z lenses Nikon F lenses. The Sony E mount cameras can currently take- Sony E Sony A Nikon F Canon FD Canon EF Pentax K Minolta MC/MD Leica M Leica R Contax G lenses and many more besides. There will likely be adapters allowing MF for various mounts for the Z pretty soon but I am not so sure there will be AF adapters for them anytime soon.

He ALSO said that NO vloggers or reviewers were invited to that Manchester event but the YouTube videos from the likes of Cinema5d and others says otherwise. At the end of the day, Andrew does not NEED BlackMagic, I guess BM now thinks it doesn't need EOSHD. I think there are two separate issues. It is clear that John Brawley is NOT an employee of BM (not directly anyway) but it is clear that Andrew Reid WAS snubbed by BM (clear to me anyway).

They can invite anyone they want to their event but it seems they DID invite some Vloggers and reviewers to that Manchester event after all (posts by Cinema5d and CameraJabber on Youtube). Seems to me they SHOULD have invited Andrew. They didn't, so how he reacts is up to him. I did want an original Pocket camera when it came out but I only really heard about it on this site first and then only a little elsewhere after that. BMD seems to have grown up as a company and now seems to be after a market far beyond where it started so maybe thinks it doesn't need the likes of Andrew Reid, I would suggest otherwise. I would also suggest deleting the last twenty or thirty pages to this thread and starting again.

I don't see how (or why) that applies. Maybe it just SEEMS that way since global shutters have not been in the cameras with the greatest DR yet. Is there some science that supports that (I don't know either way, just how it seems)?