noone

I like both Pana and Sony. I agree this is a wonderful camera. I disagree it is better than an A7s in low light from what I have seen posted and from early reviews. That it is getting mentioned with the A7s or low light is prizes enough given the small sensor. For video if you shoot up to 6400 often, get this, if you shoot 12800 often, maybe get this but above that, get a recent FF camera or A7sii For stills, I will stick with the A7s and use whatever ISO I want and whatever F stop I want. Including high isos at fast apertures even with infinite DOF. I would like one of these to replace my GX7 though.

Agreed they are both great but Usability, no it is a bit subjective with things favouring each and depends on what use you have in mind. Reliability. Again, subjective. I have never had any issue of reliability with my A7s in a couple of years use. Portability? Both are around the same size and both can be made big or small as systems. (original A7s is actually smaller). Adaptability, well any lens you can use on the GH5 CAN be adapted to the A7s but not the other way around (though M43 lenses can be pointless adapting to the Sony mostly). For many people, I would think the GH5 would make more sense than an A7s and especially for video in daylight/controlled lighting but for others (me included), the A7s is a better camera so far.

I do all the time, 25600 is common. More so when I need a faster shutter speed in low light (EG a fast paced rock band). For stills and video I use auto ISO set to either 102400 or 51200. I will take lower whenever possible but it isn't always possible. I am happy to use an intermediate ISO like 80,000 (pity I can not set that with auto ISO). It seems to me from the various tests that some are saying the GH5s is the new king and others are saying it is very good for M43. Seems to me physics says it will be more likely very good for M43 (and as good as any APSC and some FF). It DOES look nice at 25600 in some tests but not sure I would say it is better than an A7s yet. No question it will be better for video at up to ISO 6400 and in many ways up to 12800. For stills at any ISO and video beyond that, well I look forward to the comparisons but remain to be convinced. A7s (original) is still my choice for stills and (limited full HD) video. The A7s was dethroned as low light king by a couple of medium format cameras recently. I really look forward to both DXO and Photons to photos comparisons.

Not all FE glass is super expensive. The FE 85 1.8 is the biggest bargain ever in my view. I think I will get one of these GH5s cameras but not for a year or two. It isn't that it (fully) negates the A7s series low light advantages but more so that it DOES seem to negate M43 sensor size disadvantages in many ways.

The difference isn't a full 2x with this camera but is something like 1.86. The tech advance does make up for some of the natural difference due to size but I wouldn't say it makes up for close to all of it. No question this is a game changer. Regards using fast glass (with speed booster included), you can use fast glass on the larger sensor too of course.

I would like to explore that further as I keep seeing it but again, from my experience in use it doesn't apply often and sometimes I think the reverse can apply (given existing lenses). DOF depends on a few things including subject distance and the shorter the lens, the greater the DOF. That makes me think that at 24mm and wider (FF), there will be few situations that will apply as DOF gets infinite quickly and at 17mm f4 for instance with a subject at just 8 feet, everything from about 4ft to infinity will be in focus at 2.8, the subject distance needs to be 12 ft to have everything from around 6ft to infinity in focus (I use f4 as my 17mm lens is a f4 tilt shift). Another thing is that it seems this is (mostly) applied regarding people and how much of a person is in focus. In that regards, I find that at around 150mm FF and up, I actually prefer using larger sensors for people with the sort of lenses usually used. IE a 300 2.8 lens FF at the sort distances to shoot people at and the whole person will be in focus at 2.8 I guess that if you can have a 150mm 1.4 lens for M43 you would EQUAL it but there isn't such a beast. The 4/3 150 f2 adapted or a speed boosted 200 f2 would be nice and would do it possibly but that is getting to an extreme in use (I like using my 150 2.8 on M43 AS a 300mm equivalent lens but my older MF 300 2.8 on my A7s is the real thing even if the Sigma 150 2.8 is a better lens optically). Between 24 and 150mm FF, there may well be more cases favouring M43 but even then, it doesn't seem to apply so much for me (so far anyway). I guess I am more looking at it the other way. What/how could I match the DOF of my FF gear for MY uses with m43? Or what situations have I been DOF limited with FF due to too shallow DOF? When I do that, there is no comparison really. Often enough too, I can be at the SAME ISO with both systems but use a different shutter speed instead (as long as I have a high enough shutter speed). I guess to me it means, in limited situations EG up to about 24mm with a short subject distance, 24mm to 150mm maybe more situations but close in still and subject dependent and above 150mm maybe at very short subject distances and/or if you have a really exotic lens and all if you can not just use a different shutter speed, then there may well be advantages. Regards IBIS, I think this new camera doesn't NEED IBIS as much as previousM43 cameras, I love having it but it isn't something as necessary as with the cameras that I have had it in before (a couple of Pentax DSLRs and Olympus and Panasonic m43 and a Pentax Q). I don't miss it much with the first gen A7s (would be better to have though). The GH5s might be the best camera yet to use stabilized (and non stabilized) Canon lenses though. With a smart adapter (focal reducer or non focal reducer) like Metabones or Kipon it might be as good as it gets up to ISO 6400. Again, I don't get why people want to compare this against an A7sii for high ISO. That they are tells me just how good this thing will be when used as a regular camera against normal cameras with APSC or even FF.

While there may be times that is an issue, I can not remember any time that really was an issue for me. I think some focal lengths will favour smaller sensors and other larger ones. FF wide angle lenses can have infinite DOF pretty quick too. Often the difference is shutter speed too rather than ISO (using auto ISO and A, S or M modes). This seems like a wonderful camera though and while maybe not a replacement for a A7sii in really low light, it certainly negates the smaller sensor size at the ISOs most people use most cameras at. Part of the beauty of the A7s is that I can use any lens at any aperture (including fast and slow) and I shoot a lot at high ISOs. That wont change with this new camera but if I was after a camera that was AS capable as decent "normal" FF cameras or any APSC camera, I wouldn't be worried about smaller sensor size now. This will be a far better video camera than the original A7s except for full HD at the highest ISOs though. The A7sii might be a different matter for me. For stills I will take the A7s still any day (even if I could afford this new camera. It is a game changer though.

I think there are many great photographers these days and access and marketing is what can determine success. That last Instagram page doesn't do it for me. A couple of photos I like but mostly the photos just seem contrived (just my opinion, obviously thousands like them). Going forward with the likes of social media like Instagram and FaceBook, the most popular will be people who can market themselves, are popular and sociable people anyway and after that they will also be fair to great photographers. I describe myself as an average, lazy and anti- social photographer and I know very few people in real life that actually use social media for photography. My photos will be lucky to get 10 likes when I post them but the further away from ME they get, the more popular they seem to get (I post usually aimed for/at someone). I have one photo on Instagram now that has five likes. One of those five reposted and that has 275 likes and from there it was reposted on FaceBook where it just missed out on being the NSW Tourism fan photo of the week on a page with four others and they have over 30,000 likes as a page. The exact same photo. Just too funny.

I just realised I can not use Rich Tone monochrome for video (only stills) with the A7s so my B&W video choices in camera are only high contrast mono via picture effects or B&W creative style and adjust settings to suit (I much prefer not chasing my tail and just using high contrast mono picture effect). The same would likely apply with the RX10 ii. If you have a few trillion (ok I exaggerate) years to spare, you can get the Live view grading app and I believe that has plenty of B&W options too though Ihave not had it for a couple of years but I remember it had decades (not so much an exaggeration) worth of settings to choose from for colours.

The other thing I like to play around with is the "partial colour" picture effect which has a choice of red, green blue and yellow. It has B&W except for the chosen colour. It needs the colour to be pretty specific to work and can be a bit lame but when it works properly it can be good (it think). I don't like the B&W it gives as much as high contrast mono but it is growing on me. This New Years eve I am going to TRY (if I remember and do it in time and the colours are right) to shoot a video using it and fireworks (though I expect failure, you never know). Then maybe shoot a video of a band for a song with high contrast mono (again, IF I can get around to it).

I like using "High contrast mono" picture effect with my Sony A7s for stills and have been trying to think of something to use it for video too. This is a quick and dirty video screen grab using my FD 24 1.4 L @1.4

No, the article was NOT about a Sony A7sii. This is what it was about "So What Did We Learn Today? Salt water is really, really bad for cameras. Even in small quantities. Really. Bad. If this had been fresh water there’s a chance the camera would have survived. Saltwater, no way. Trusting ‘weather resistance’ is risky business. They all say they have it. But none of them define what it is or how much they have. This camera had easy water access from the battery door, the entire bottom, and around the camera strap lugs that we showed you. It also has two rotating dials that you can pour water through, but this splash didn’t hit those. The viewfinder and hot shoe are a bit leaky, too. Wiping the camera off carefully and saying it never got sprayed with water isn’t very efficient at anything other than establishing your level of trustworthiness. And just before it starts, we don’t discuss interactions with individual customers. While I rarely defend the service center, there are good reasons why they won’t touch your water damaged camera. On the front end, this didn’t look that bad. But repair would have been impossible. You’d have replaced the entire camera except for the viewfinder. Even when it’s less severe, you can never be sure what part has just enough corrosion to fail in another month or two. (That’s why we won’t reuse the viewfinder even though it seems fine.) As an aside, one of the reasons we’re so vigilant about corrosion is we have seen a lot of cameras that got splashed and seemed fine fail two or six weeks later. The beach is the sworn enemy of your gear. If the salt-spray doesn’t get you, the sand will. When you go into hostile territory, take appropriate precautions. And yes, Johnny, I know you spend every weekend photographing on the beach and nothing bad has ever happened to your camera. Yet." Sony or A7sii isn't mentioned once there and it just happened to be an A7sii that was the camera used in that study. As I have said, there IS different levels of sealing and yes, sometimes people have lost Sony cameras due to the elements but that is down to taking a camera where it shouldn't have been (at least without any extra care). I am not a brand fan boy, I happily use all brands and it just happens that the A7s is my favourite camera to date (as it happens the unsealed CANON 17mm TS-E is my favourite lens to date, anyone wanna take one of those into the surf?). I have owned seven Pentax ILC's, three canons, Two Sony's, two Olympus two Nikons, a Panasonic and a few others in my life. Of my many most used lenses, only two are Sony. Very few of my lenses have/are weather sealed (maybe one of the Sony's might even be the best sealed but still would not use it in a heavy rain storm without a plastic bag on it) and the A7s and A7 are as well sealed as any of the others except the 7D or even a bit better (though still not well sealed at all for rain/surfl). I have only lost two ILC cameras that stopped working and became bricked (both Pentax) and one lens that was bricked as well (a Canon L). My point is that I suspect there are very few cameras around that would have survived what happened to the camera in the article and even those that did would still have issues going forward from corrosion that might make a repair center baulk. If people want to take a non water proof camera into the surf, or close enough to get a major splash, feel free to do so, PLEASE!

Well put it this way, I had a 7D and there is no way I would have let it get splashed by a wave. It would have taken it better than my A7/A7s/GX7/D50/various Pentax DSLRs yes, but no, I wouldn't have let it get splashed that badly. Also, I would have had a lens on it and none of five EF mount Canon L lenses I have had are/were weather sealed at all and neither were/are the four other non L lenses. So had it got splashed at the mount by salt water, it would have died just like the Sony did. Probably the camera I least liked of my recent cameras too.

While it was most likely one splash rather than fully dunked, I think it seems it was a lot more than what I would consider a "splash" in the usual meaning and in some ways may have been worse than just getting wet as it must have been some force to it (like maybe a wave from behind as alluded to as possible in the article and up from the bottom to the lens mount and higher on the side). Until (if) the renter fesses up though we wont know for sure. Anyone wanna risk their "splash proof" camera by doing the same to find out? Again, I don't think the article was about an A7s ii in particular. The other issue here is that some people took the A7 series to be fully weather sealed when they never have been and it wasn't helped by some early reviews saying they were.

All the A7 series have been labelled as dust and moisture resistant including the A7s ii (and my original A7 and current A7s seem to be). NEVER as waterproof (which is what this camera would have needed to be to survive I think). The A7s ii note on this on the Sony site is now "13 This camera is designed for optimal dust and moisture resistance, but is not waterproof or splashproof." http://www.sony.com.au/electronics/interchangeable-lens-cameras/ilce-7sm2 There ARE different levels and I would not expect any camera to live through what happened in the case here unless it specifically said waterproof (and listed a depth/time) and without that, you do so at your own risk. As to the 1Dx and 5D, this is what Roger said in reply to a question. "I don't remember seeing a D5 or 1Dx with obvious salt-water damage, but we rent far fewer of those, and I expect the rentals tend to be to more experienced photographers"

I don't think ANY camera I have used (Canon. Nikon, Sony, Pentax, Olympus, Panasonic and more) other than a film camera I had that was designed for underwater use would have survived what seems to have happened there (I I don't think it was done as a story about the A7s ii so much as about cameras in general and honesty in renting/returning). Sony does not say water proof and that camera got soaked from below up to the lens mount it seems. The cameras have SOME dust and moisture resistance and from my experience with my A7s (about two years daily use now) and previous A7 also for a couple of years solid use and both in the odd rain shower (sometimes fairly heavy until I could get out of the rain), the cameras are pretty good. I am more worried when an adapted lens is used or a lens without any resistance (like my most expensive Canon 17mm L TS-E).

99% of photos and video will be shot on your personal life device (PLD), CANIKON CORP (they merge in 2021) has just gone bankrupt and the names Canon, Nikon and Canikon will be picked up for a song by the company holding the "Polaroid" name. There will be much debate as to if the large M43 format is really THAT much better than the standard introduced by the 1mm Senors in most PLDs. PLDs and old fashioned larger sensor ILCs mostly being made by the imaging and communication division of the Indo/Chinese company formed by the government owned company of the Peoples republic of the eastern hemisphere. Then again, I could be wrong since my crystal balls sensor was made by Sony.

The current GH5 has 10 stops at midway between ISO 1600 and 3200 so is close and using a lower res/larger pixel sensor designed FOR low light should be much better than that and I think there would be little use in making the camera if it wasn't able to do 10 stops at ISO 3200 normally. The issue with M43 to me isn't so much DR at ISOs up to 3200 but beyond that that M43 cameras fall away quickly currently (the GH5 falls away a stop between 3200 and 6400 ISOs while some FF cameras might fall away a stop between 3200 and 12800. I don't think this sensor will be up to the better FF DR lenses at high ISOs by itself but with HDR technology? The extra DR from combining shots for video could easily get above that if they can do it. I shoot jpegs a lot and use in camera HDR quite often and if they can do the same sort of thing with video now in a camera at this level, there is no reason that 14 or 15 stops at ISO 3200 or higher isn't possible.

The thing is, that as long as the IF,IF,IF rumours are right, this camera might be able to have that 10 stops at ISO 3200 by the sensor and maybe even more via technology. The three cameras I have Old retired Nikon D50 has about 10 stops DR (RAW stills) at ISO 400, the GX7 has about 10 stops at ISO 1600 (a bit less) and the A7s has about 10 stops at ISO 6400. I am happy with even less than that in many cases (even 7 in really low light since there isn't going to be a huge range that I can see in real life then anyway). A bit more at ISOs 3200 to 25600 is something I am always happy to take.

The Nikon D7200 has 3.92 pixels and 14.6 stops of DR (RAW stills). The size of the pixels doesn't seem to relate to maximum DR. It does seem to matter for DR at higher ISOs (which will not be as good as at base). I think it means if this camera (if that is what it is) is using the Starvis sensor, they will get good high ISO because of the size of the pixels (and modern tech supporting it) and get the increased DR (if any) at base via voodoo. I would expect it to have much better DR at higher ISOs than the current GH5 and other M43 cameras but it is still going to be lower than at base (it just wont fall away as quickly as most M43 cameras.) Then again, this could just be announcing a new camera strap!

I just want to be able to shoot bats in flight at night at 1/500 to 1/2000!

It seems the D850 sensor isn't a Tower Jazz one after all. http://www.dslrbodies.com/newsviews/sensor-wars-update.html I don't think this (if it is what is rumoured) will compete with the GH5 much for that many. I think it will complement it and maybe they want people to have a pair of Panasonic cameras instead of a GH5 and an A7sii/iii/iv. I hope it IS a good low light camera but then if it is and uses a Sony 10mp sensor, I am salivating at what the coming low light FF Sony's will be (not that I can afford any of them these days).

A7s at ISO 6400 is very nice. The A7s at ISO 12800 has about the same DR as the Canon 7D does at ISO 1600 (RAW stills anyway). 120/100fps is only 750p on the first version A7s.

I don't think you are going to find what you are after currently. If you give up the 4k 60p requirement, you will get close. There are very few cameras that can do 4k 60p at all and so the best in low light will be expensive and the 1dx ii is about it. If you accept 4k 30p the A7sii would be the camera but that is still dearer than what I would call "low cost". If you accept full HD instead but with the ability to do 4k 30p with a recorder, the A7s MIGHT be low cost enough if lucky used? If only there was a "low cost" external recorder? There are a gazillion cameras better than the 7D1 for low light though, I didn't like mine above ISO 3200 at all while the A7s I often use up to ISO 102400 (and from time to time a bit more). A good low light camera CAN be used with 5.6 lenses, the thing is I get to choose. If $20,000 is "low cost" enough and you can live with a 2.26mp full frame sensor, the Canon ME20F-SH is the king of low light video.

Yes, instead of dolly in/out use a fast prime with clearzoom (variable pretty much lossless digital zoom) in and out. I have use it just mucking around but I can see it would actually be very useful and especially if you didn't have much room. IE a fast wide angle prime close in and then zoomed in/out. I am going to play around with it and see what lame shot I can come up with.