noone

Just use any Sony that has Clear image zoom and you can mount any of those lenses without vignetting. Like that camera, M43 lenses that need electronics are almost pointless.

I am pretty sure an NX2 has existed for some time. The lead in time for cameras can be pretty long and I would have thought it was in development when the NX1 was released and it was just never proceeded with. Maybe they have a small unit ticking over with camera stuff now just for phones and tablets ETC.

Still nothing to say it is NOT a Sony sensor. Until I see a Panasonic executive swear under oath the sensor in the GH5s did not come out of a Sony factory, I will accept it is a Sony sensor. It doesn't matter who makes it though as long as it works in the camera it is in as intended (and that it seems to do). All the makers are pretty incestuous anyway (EG Sony and Nikon are still the two biggest shareholders in Olympus I think?) I would love to have a GH5s and maybe I will at some point and that would apply even if the sensor was made by Kraft or Lego or whoever.

Where does he say that it ISN'T a Sony sensor? Everything I have seen from Panasonic about it is a bit vague leaving me to believe it IS a Sony made sensor but with Panasonic input. EDIT Never mind, I see it is from the B&H video. Nothing there tells me I am wrong and it isn't a Sony made sensor (based on a Sony sensor) tweaked to Panasonic's requirements.

I have a camera that shoots at 12mp in 3:2 aspect ratio and 10mp in 16:9 ratio, if it had a multi aspect sensor it would shoot 12mp for both (or something like that).

This was from Sunday morning. Hand held through a hole in a metal gate with a Canon 17mm f4 L Tilt shift lens shifted a fair bit (I was taking stills and on the spur of the moment used it for video). I only had it at about 1.4x for stills and so started there. I posted a couple of screen grabs from this in the Lens thread. 1.4x zoom.mp4 Edit: Here is an old lame test I did of the Canon FD 24 1.4 L used as a zoom at 1.4 I think.

But the Samsung version isn't fully variable is it? Not like using a zoom and stopping at any position and going back and forth at will? Lots of cameras have digital zoom at one or two positions for stills (does it work seamlessly for video?). With Sony, I set it to be turned on via the down button and then use the left/right buttons to zoom in and out. (hit the down button just after starting video even if I don't use it). I have mostly only been using it hand held and unstabilized so the video jumps around a bit while zooming but if stabilized and/or tripod mounted, it looks ok. It works as well in APSC mode too. It IS real variable zoom when set to a button that allows it. The E mount Sony APSC kit lens I had also had variable digital zoom for part of its range (in addition to optical zoom) but I think I prefer the clear image zoom way to that too.

This is different to just having DX mode. I agree about Canon and APSC lenses (which work on Sony FF and M43 cameras with adapters easier than Canon FF DSLRs). I don't understand why Sony seems to be the only one who has digital zoom as being variable. The FF Sony's have APSC and FF modes and also use variable digital zoom (either to 2x as Clear image zoom which is excellent or as normal digital zoom which is not so great over 2x but still better than nothing). Panasonic ETC is great but it is frustrating to me that it isn't variable. It isn't available for RAW stills but for Jpegs works well and the same for video. ( I also don't understand why more people don't use it for video). At the cricket over the weekend, 300mm 2.8 was not anywhere close to long enough for me and while I had a real 2x converter with me, I preferred to use clear zoom with my old ancient manual focus Tamron.

The more I use clear zoom for Jpeg stills and video with Sony, the more I hope Nikon (and Canon) does something similar IE a virtually lossless variable digital zoom up to 2x. You CAN go to 4x using the regular digital zoom but there is noticeable loss as you get up above 2x. It just means you don't need zooms at all other than for longer range ease of use options. You can use fast primes as zooms and if it is close to lossless, it means even if there is SOME loss of quality using some of the better prime lenses, you still end up better off than using many poorer quality lenses (zoom and prime). Of course there is nothing to stop you using it with zoom lenses either to increase the range.

On the subject of favourite lenses. Mine has to be the Canon 17 f4 L TS-E "17-35 zoom" A couple of video screen grabs when mucking around with it this morning at about 1.4x and as normal.

I don't think it is because they couldn't go wider readily but it would have been a lot more difficult and a lot more expensive. Nikon have had a rectilinear 13mm FF lens since 1976 but they are rare and cost a mint now. It is easier and cheaper to make a lens with more distortion now and correct it in camera I think. Another reason I love FF, just much more choice for wide angles (you can get those cheap old 19-35 Soligor's and similar for very little money and many variants of 16/17/20-35/50 type lenses). One lens I have always wanted to try on M43 is the Canon 10-18 STM (I would use it on a Kipon non focal reducer smart adapter).

I don't know how well it goes for real estate but there is another Laowa lens that MIGHT be of interest. The 15 f4 macro. That one is a full frame lens and has some limited shift ability on APSC (not FF).

Nikon almost certainly wouldn't but I think the A7Rii and iii and A9 wouldn't exist if the first gen A7 cameras were not able to use EF lenses. Sony would likely have only sold a fraction of the cameras they have. The few lenses they put out to start included some very nice ones (55 1.8) but they needed far more than that and that people could adapt their EF lenses with some limited AF to start just meant many more could try a Sony camera. The steady flow of some nice E mount lenses has since had some people selling their EF lenses when they are sure they are happy with Sony. I love being able to adapt EF lenses even to my first gen Sony. I am over the moon that my ancient EF 20-35 2.8 L that has been bricked for the last two years works again this morning (I had to take the AF/MF switch cover off and will now use it MF only I think but at least it works again).

What about the Mitakon 85 1.2 in EF mount? I do love my old 85 1.2 FD but it has the dissolving bearings problem some FD lenses have so focus is very loose. You could always get a FD to M43 focal reducer to go with the FD 85 1.2.

Or you can look at it that it is 230 million more lenses for any mirrorless system with a shorter flange distance than the Canon EF mount. (including Canon or Nikon when they come).

I think it was said to be a 1.86x crop somewhere and I went with that. Still not buying the "it makes it FF" routine. Sure it makes a LENS faster and shorter. Someone who knows please answer Dr Caldwell.

My first wish is that they (and Canon) just get on with it.

They should have given you one. Geez even the first one since speedboosting is a huge part of M43 for many (ok not all) people.

I would think it will have DR that starts out about the same as the GH5 but ramps down at a more gentle rate. For RAW stills at ISO 2500, the GH5 on DXO has about 10 stops so maybe this might have 10.5 (just a uneducated guess), maybe a fraction more?

I think maybe the second half of this year through to the first half of next are going to be spectacular for "waiters". That rumoured Nikon mount if it is a 16mm flange might allow someone like Kipon or Metabones to even make a Sony E to Nikon Z adapter. That would mean my 55 1.8 and 85 1.8 Sony lenses would not be orphaned if I ever left FF E mount. Might be a very different mirrorless world pretty soon. You know it is coming, question is how soon?

GH5s is 1.86x crop rather than 2x I think? Still bigger than 1.6x but is it that really much of a difference? I don't think focal reducers are nonsense but they don't change a sensor, only the lens. If you get a (say) 20mm 1.4 lens after speedboosting, it isn't going to be different to using a 20mm 1.4 native lens if you can find one. So if someone doesn't like a small sensor size, a focal reducer doesn't actually change things.

That is pretty much exactly what I expected. I see some are not happy that it isn't the match of the better FF cameras in low light but I would say it looks amazing in low light FOR an M43 sensor. The other stuff for video is why you should buy the camera, that it is competing with some better APSC sensors for low light is the bonus. I can see some adding a GH5s to a GH5 for lower light (than the GH5) instead of a A7sii with a GH5.

Useability and again, I disagree. I am no Sony fanboy (I still own cameras made by eight different makers even if I will never use some of them again). I prefer the A7s for usability to any camera I have had but that is just me and it is subjective. I have never really had any issues with any camera in terms of useability though, I seem to adjust too all of them. Reliability, well I have only had three major pieces of gear stop working on me in many years (mainly stills) and that was two Pentax cameras that both bricked BECAUSE of IBIS and a Canon EF L lens. Never had an issue with Sony except I did have a POS Sony point and shoot that had a faulty sensor years ago. Stuff happens and happens to all brands. Portability, well my real world use I mainly use the SAME lenses on my A7s as I do on my GX7 and will do the same when (if) I get a GH5s down the track. The A7s is a fraction bigger than the GX7 but a fraction smaller than the GH5s. Again, to me there is little difference. I sold most of the native M43 lenses I had and am happy using some native for each and adapting other than that. Adaptability. Again, disagree. You can use FF or APSC with the A7s and you can use fast primes as zooms for video (and jpeg stills) and you can use smaller format lenses too if you have too. Every lens I can put on my GX7 (and could put on a GH5s), I can also put on my Sony and use both FF and APSC but I can not mount my Sony E mount lenses to M43. (lenses that require electronics for focus or aperture control can be problematic regardless of the system). Some APSC lenses cover FF with little or no vignetting too (cheap and cheerful Canon 18-55 IS ii kit lens for instance works FF from about 23/24mm up. The Sony 50 1.8 OSS lens worked great as a cheap stabilized macro lens FF with 16mm of extension tubes. Again, it all comes down to need and use.

No, I would rather not use 102400 but will when I have too. EG a night time projection of a large building with a lagoon close behind so need a shift lens. Just walking around at night and I can easily be there. Geez I wish this camera WAS the best ever at ISO 1 million but isnt. To me at ISO 25600 this is better than most but not the best (from the impression reviews I have seenSO FAR).

Just looking through every impressions riew I can find again and they pretty much all say how the camera is great up to either 6400 or 12800. They are not talking about it as better than an A7s for low light. Some add in the at same DOF argument but again, that is a lot less often than many would use. DPRs uses both and most are at the same ISO yet seem to not have DOF issues and the same DOF shots are all very close in. For stills of course the A7s will still have a DR advantage at low ISO and can shoot at a lower ISO too as well as having a DR advantage at higher ISOs.' It is not the low light ability that makes this the video camera to get, it is other video specs like 8bit 420 VS 10 bit 422 but the low light being very good is what helps sell it.: Choices have never been better.