noone

Maybe, but many of those that have been switching lately I would have called DSLR diehards too. There will be some who get dragged kicking and screaming (maybe due to the cost of the "last" DSLRs VS mirrorless by then) but I think many may say they are but will come around. Some of course are just plain Sony haters and will say how wonderful FF mirrorless is once it is made by Canon and Nikon (even if it is identical to something Sony). Still, all just speculation and I do hope they arrive soon and are good.

They really do need to get a wriggle on with FF mirrorless (Canon too). Around here (middle of nowhere Australia), Canon and Nikon reign supreme with the pros and have done for years. That said, in the last few years there have been a few pros switching to Sony and a growing few more adding some Sony gear . Just yesterday, one of the better semi-pros with a decent local following started posting with an A7Riii and one of the leading local pros stated Sony is sending him an A9 and A7Riii to try out. Every passing day means a growing number of defections.

Thom Hogan might have an idea in regards to Nikon's management. Nikon is owned by the banks and financial institutions effectively. http://dslrbodies.com/newsviews/nikon/about-nikon/nikon-in-2018.html

There are still an awful lot of people who want what Sony offers but will not buy a Sony and many are (still) die hard loyalists for both Canon and Nikon. That is why I think it doesn't have to be BETTER than Sony but just has to be competitive (but does have to be SOON - for both of them).

It doesn't have to beat the Sony's to be successful, just "good enough". The one question I am waiting is the flange distance and regarding adaptability (I expect it to be reasonably adaptable for most Nikon lenses* but I mean OTHER lenses IE Canon EF). I also would not be surprised if THESE are the cameras the sensor is from Tower Jazz and not the D850 (and the timing of release could be down to how quickly and how much output from them). I hope it/they are great, can not have enough competition. * Then again, Nikon doesn't even make its latest lenses compatible with even some current or recent cameras!

Bokeh refers to quality of blur really, not how blurred something is (IE you can have something very blurred but with horrible bokeh and something lightly blurred but with nice bokeh). Most people would probably not go to the lengths required to use a variety of lenses for different bokeh and blur effects in a film. At least it is something way beyond me and my limited video use usually involving just one lens (maybe to shoot a song live). If I was capable of making a decent film using a variety of focal lengths, I might use a long lens to isolate an individual (300 2.8 at a normal distance gives plenty of DOF for a person with a highly blurred background) where you JUST want them in shot and with wider lenses, I doubt I would want too much blur at all. Depth of field isn't just a property of f stop and focal length but distance as well (IE you get infinite DOF with an 85mm 1.2 lens with enough distance). I do think different formats have different focal lengths that work best for people at usual distances for depth of field (IE FF seems to work best for longer lenses in the main and M43 for normal lenses- other subjects and it might be different lenses). 300 2.8 covers a person body at 2.8 fitting them in frame but with a well blurred background.

I think you are right about the car makers. I do wonder if they would have at least offered it to Leica though unlikely. I do think it is just about them making sensors for anyone and everyone they can flog them too and staying well clear of making cameras themselves now.

Interesting they showed it in Germany. What possible camera company could they have been trying to interest? As for sensor sizes, and is it or isn't it medium format, well while it is certainly not medium format FILM size, it is about all we have for medium format DIGITAL so I am fine with it being CALLED medium format, it is just a name. Surely they will make any sensor they can for anyone if there is interest so maybe they wont make a new camera but I would guess Fujifilm would be the likely candidate for new sensors so they don't rely on Sony (Nikon seems to be going with Tower Jazz in FUTURE maybe - NOT the D850).

Other times to use clear image zoom. When you want to "zoom" with a prime and including fast and unusual. I would also think that a lens like the Sony Zeiss 55 1.8 zoomed to 2x would be as good at least as (for example) 55mm setting on the FE kit lens or most old adapted lenses and maybe even some of the better native zooms. Also being variable, you can use any zoom setting from 1.1 to 2x with clear image zoom (and if you have to, can also "zoom" to 4x with the digital setting). It also allows you to use smaller sensor lenses in a pinch adapted (IE M43 lenses with mechanical focus and aperture - the adapters are dumb and thin metal rings so most AF M43 lenses are not practical on E mount). It also means APSC lenses can be used FF with less vignetting and sometimes you might only need a little zoom.

To set up clear zoom, (hoping the menu is similar to the old A7s), Find the "zoom setting" tab, choices are optical zoom only, clearimage zoom and digital zoom. I set it to clearimage zoom. From there in the "custom key settings" tab, I set the down button to zoom. (and left/right buttons to use the zoom). That way, with whatever lens I am using zoom or prime, AF or MF, I can use it variably. Clear zoom goes to 2x but if you do set it to digital zoom you get the same sort of thing and it goes to 4x but over 2x it does start getting noticeable. It isn't perfect but if you start with a very good lens, it can actually still be better than a lesser lens used optically. Doesn't work for RAW but works for Jpeg and video. Some people are using it effectively with remotes (something I am really want to try some time soon). Good luck with whatever you end up with.

I like my 28-70 FE kit lens and it is a lot better than some people think and if the trip calls for small(ish) and light should work. I would see if you can try the new Tamron 2.8 first though for those extra stops at the long end (and around half a stop at 28mm).

I have not watched his stuff for ages but that is one strange person. I watched a dozen or so just now tyring to see if there were ANY that made sense to me (there are not). He seems to get more anti Sony by the day (if that is even possible). Has he acknowledged he was wrong about the sensor anywhere?

Well you can always use that 28 f2 AS a zoom for video and jpeg stills too with Clear Zoom. I could NEVER go with just one lens unless it was just a very short trip/day trip and which lens would depend on WHERE I am going. For the most part, the first lens in my bag (with A7s) is the Canon 17 f4 L TS-E, after that probably the 85 FE 1.8 or (and) 24 1.4 FD L and/or Sony Zeiss 55 1.8.

I would just get the 16-50 OSS kit lens rather than the 18-55 (Sony has two). Should be able to find one cheap. It has its detractors but there are plenty that like it too. You can always sell it for around what you pay if you don't like it.

What sort of musicians? Drummers in metal bands or classic violinists? Perhaps ask THEM why they think they need it.

I find Sony lenses to be not that much different to Canon and Nikon when it comes to prices. It is just that there are so many older ones from Canon/Nikon that you can get things cheaper and to be fair, there are some more cheaper models too. My most expensive lens is a Canon and the biggest bargain I have gotten is the Sony FE 85 1.8 I think (second biggest bargain is the Canon 40mm 2.8 STM for me). Some Sony lenses are expensive for what they are but I guess it depends on what you want. Take the Sony Zeiss 55 1.8. People say that it is expensive for a normal 1.8 lens but if it was made by Canon, it would be labelled an L lens and cost as much but Canon simply don't make such a beast. The 50 1.8 OSS lens is another bargain from Sony. Not as needed with an IBIS body but for a while it was pretty much unique (stabilized normal/short tele prime). I loved using it on my FF E mount cameras with around 15mm of AF extension tubes as a FF macro lens. I also had no issues with the APSC kit lens and found mine was at least as good as the Nikon and Canon APSC kit lenses on Nikon and Canon cameras I have had and certainly more useful being a fraction wider (I have kept the lowly Canon APSC kit lens as it covers FF on my Sony from around 24mm and up). As for A mount lenses, if using an APSC camera, you can also use the LA-EA1 and LA-EA2 (forget the 1 I think). For VIDEO auto focus, the 2 and 4 would work somewhat and for STILLS auto focus, all four will work with lenses that have a lens motor (like the cheap but nice 85 2.8 SAM) and the 2 and 4 only for screwdrive lenses. Some of that may have changed and it may be camera/adapter/lens dependent. One thing with the LA-EA# adapters for video, it used to be that they would not open up faster than about f3.5 I think (not sure if that has changed with any combination). Another point is you are using the AF of the adapter pretty much instead of the camera so a lot smaller focus area and number of focus points and low light AF limits drop (depending on camera- IE my A7s has better than -4 AF but with the LA-EA4 I had, it was around EV1 AF I think). Really, I would not bother with A mount for video unless using manual focus and Canon makes a lot more sense (so many adapters from cheap to expensive). For STILLS and AFS, I found A mount lenses to be good (I liked my 85 2.8 SAM but sold it as I have better dearer 85s) and I love my ancient Sigma 180 5.6 enough to keep it and hope to get another LA-EA4 sometime to use it (old screwdrive lens needs an adapter with motor in the adapter)

To be fair, it can handle focusing on a rock band where they don't move very far (or too fast) so I wouldn't call it Dog shit and it maybe could keep up with a three legged dog?

I agree I don't have any problems with AF with my A7s but could you honestly recommend it for AF in video for someone for whom that was a/the major feature? Pretty sure I would hate it if that was my most desired point (it isn't and there are so many things I love it for). Nice find with the lenses! I love haunting Pawnshops and charity stores.

As much as I love my A7s (and it is to me still the best camera I have had), I would never recommend it for someone that wants good AF in video. It is ok for MY uses but I don't need it to focus on anything really far or fast moving for video. Likewise for stills, it can not AFC to save its life (though AFS is excellent and even in almost no light). I would try the A6500 (and A6300) and see what you think yourself as it seems they may well suit you and make up your own mind (lots of people will probably try and steer you to M43 or to stay with Nikon -both are fine for many people). There are a couple of Sony kit lenses and while they get a bad rap with some people, I thought the 16-50 I had was actually pretty good (though I only used it on FF cameras sparingly a little).

There is the Sigma 24-35 f2 in FF but otherwise, yeah. Sony FF users can also use any lens including (for example a 50 f0.95 and I have tried a 85 1.2) as a 2x zoom for video too though (that would be hard to shoot except in a very controlled environment I would think).

I think most camera manufacturers are going to go with software correction for many of THEIR lenses as it means they can concentrate on other things and/or save money in building them. Canon does I think to some extent as does Sony (and I wouldn't be surprised if both Canon and Nikon do more so with FF mirrorless). It wont be an issue for their own cameras but for those adapting it might well be. Just a guess but it seems to me that Sony cameras correct some Canon lenses as if they are A mount (also seems to depend on adapter used) as in at least some cases the EXIF I get is that of A mount lenses. I think it also means that some older lenses from Canon for example that don't have profiles might be better adapted including to the Blackmagic camera. For example, my old 20-35 2.8 L seems to have less distortion than most Canon wide angles UNCORRECTED but compared to newer lenses with profiles in camera, may come out a bit worse on the Canon cameras, but what about adapted to others? If I am right, it really is going to be a mine field and every combination of lens/camera/adapter will differ. It also means that third party companies like Sigma ETC might be better choices in future for adapting across systems.

Once they dive into mirrorless fully, I am sure they will do well. Meanwhile, if Canon isn't your flavour there are plenty of other choices. I doubt I will ever get another Canon camera (unless something cheap and fun comes my way) but I still love their lenses. My favourite lens ever still being the 17 TS-E and currently, I love playing around with my 28 year old EF 20-35 2.8 L

Don't be afraid of adapters as even the non manufacturer ones like Metabones and Kipon can be almost native in use and they are a long way from simple dumb adapters these days. Even decades ago, there were adapters that allow auto focus with manual focus lenses from several makers for several mounts but the latest ones are excellent. As for silent shooting, that just gets better with each generation with the first gen cameras ( I had a GX7 and still have an A7s) it is very useful but with some limits. The lastest Sony cameras it is better (as said A9 in a different league). My guess would be Canon will need an adapter for EF lenses on its mirrorless but there will be little problem with that.

There have not been very many zooms at f2 or faster made for M43 or larger sensors for normal photography gear. Pretty much Sigma 18-35 1.8 (APSC), Sigma 50-100 1.8 (APSC), Sigma 24-35 f2 (FF), Olympus 14-35 f2 (4/3), Olympus 35-100 f2 (4/3) and Tokina 12-20 f2 (APSC) is it I think. Any others? That is one reason I love my A7s as ANY lens can be a 2x zoom including fast primes and exotics for Jpeg stills and video using clear image zoom. EG I have tried my old Canon FD 85 1.2 L as a 2x zoom for testing.

I have never tried it but what about the Canon APSC 17-55 2.8 with a non focal reducer smart adapter? Not sure if it works with a Speedbooster (other focal reducers?) I had a Kipon non focal reducer smart adapter and liked that a lot but it was not great for video AF or AFC though almost native for AFS with a GX7 (all sold). If you are keeping any Canon lenses, a non focal reducer smart adapter makes sense anyway just for an increase in range.