noone

Yes it isn't a big difference but then it IS a difference in FAVOUR of the A7s and not the A7Rii. The DXO scores are also not just for stills but for RAW stills only too. That said, I have seen posts around the internet that the A7s advantage for video is much greater than for stills (in terms of low light) though personally I think it is for both at least for my uses and of course Sony artificially limits the A7Rii to a max ISO 25600for video (if they hadn't, I may well have got an A7Rii replacing my A7s) though I am very happy with the A7s still. I found it very interesting looking at DXO ranks just for DR and ISO (Landscape and sports) EG the Nikon D810 scores 1 and 18, the Pentax K1 gets 2 and 4, the APSC Nikon D7200 is 3 and 55, my precious (A7s) is 57 and 1. For M43 cameras, the GH5 is 73 and 142 and the EM-1 ii is 79 and 60 (both of which are still quite good. The choices we have today are amazing.

I disagree about the A7Rii having better low light performance than the A7sii (or A7s first version) though it is a lot closer than many other cameras and only at very high ISOs. DXO ISO scores (IE the limit they find acceptable using their criteria) A7Rii ISO 2993, A7sii ISO 3434 and A7s ISO 3702. Some of that may be down to sample variation and limited cameras used. DR on the other hand doesn't necessary follow in that it seems manufacturers can make a camera either very good at high ISO or have very good dynamic range but not quite both though all recent FF cameras do have higher DR than just about all M43 cameras. The Pentax K1 maybe comes closest being second overall for DR and still having high ISO over ISO 3200. DR seems to be all over the place in terms of pixel size but generally the larger the sensor the better. Interestingly, the Nikon D7200 rates third overall in the DXO general database for DR despite being an APSC camera https://www.dxomark.com/best-cameras-for-landscape-under-45200-dollars Maybe, except that for M43 you NEED a fast lens and you can also use a fast lens FF. The reason I especially like the A7s is that I can use ANY lens in any light and that includes fast and slow and it means I can use fast lenses with faster shutter speeds.

Yeah these always end up going in circles. I do agree it is not always a direct comparison but in general, yes a larger sensor of fairly similar vintage will do better in low light and that comparison of the current E-M1 ii and the Canon 5D from 2005 is interesting. The new Oly is clearly a better camera in other ways but as far as the high ISO/low light goes, the DXO scores for that are actual ISOs using their criteria(ISO 1312 for the Oly, ISO 1815 for the Canon) and the ancient 5D does rate a bit higher still for that than any M43 camera. Does that mean everyone should shoot with a 5D (or any FF)?, of course not and M43 can have plenty of reasons and the latest are better in low light than the older APSC DSLRs I used to use. If the original question was, is M43 good enough to use in low light, then the answer for me is clearly yes in many cases and for many people but against current or fairly recent FF cameras, then just in terms of high ISO/low light, for me it is not yet.

You should be using the M43 camera that came out in 2005 when the 5D was released! Since there weren't any, we can use the first M43 camera from 2008, the Panasonic G1 You could also use four thirds cameras that existed in 2005 but none of them (E1, E300 and E500) are on DXO. The top line four thirds camera in 2005 was still the Olympus E1 and since that isn't on DXO but the E3 is that came out two years after the 5D you could use that for more relevance to the 5D. https://www.dxomark.com/Cameras/Compare/Side-by-side/Panasonic-Lumix-DMC-G1-versus-Olympus-E3-versus-Canon-EOS-5D___450_220_176 While not for me, I think the original 5D still holds up quite well today from images I see from it around the place. To put it into perspective, the G1 and E3 have lower DR at ISO 3200 than my now aging A7s has at ISO 204800!

I thought it was brilliant and much better than the first series. In the third episode (I think) they use an A7sii for the low light stuff.

Personally, the 55 1.8 is the lens for me. It can be found a LOT less than its list price (I paid a lot less even fairly early on) but to me it is worth every cent and has spoilt my lust for older 50-58mm normal lenses (I have had a lot and still have a few that no longer get a look in unless used on my M43 camera). What about the Samyang 50 1.4 AF FE mount lens if price is an issue? Also, the 28-70 FE kit lens is a nice enough handy lens (at least on the lower pixel count cameras) and for me, my native E mount lenses are the 55 and 28-70 and will soon add the 85 1.8 and that will do until I add another next year (maybe) with adapted lenses for the rest.

I don't think it is an absolute and varies from camera to camera but I will use my A7s at up to ISO 102400 for stills and video (though often set 51200 as the max with auto ISO) while I don't like using my GX7 at anything above ISO 6400 and even that is too much sometimes. M43 cameras since the GX7 seem to be only a little bit improved for low light high ISO but maybe 6400 would get a bit more use (if I needed it). Quite a lot of my shooting is above what I would use with any M43 camera.

The main reason they use Canon and Nikon I think is that was all there was really for quite a long time but more and more are adding other (mainly mirrorless) cameras to their gear and in particular, quite a few Canon shooters are adding Sony FF E mount cameras to go with their existing cameras and lenses. Nikon isn't quite so compatible so it seems there is a bit less movement there (Nikon does seem to be losing market share but that is to Canon or users are more likely to jump ship rather than add too I think). The Canon tilt shift lenses in particular work BETTER in many ways on Sony than on current Canon cameras (and at least are a lot easier to use). I suggested using a few Canon L zooms (along with the 17 TS-E) and a native lens for each as I think those two cameras would be a very nice mix and using a couple of Canon lenses would mean some of that money could be used for other things. Personally I would choose the cameras first (which again, my picks would be theGH5/A7sii pair) and then add the lenses to suit which would also depend on what is actually there to be shot.

Are you really going to need a full set of Sigma art lenses? I guess for me it would depend on what is IN this city. If there is lots of tall buildings or interesting architecture I would include a wide angle tilt shift lens Canon 17 TS-E or the new Nikon 19 but that is a bit dearer. I think I would start with an A7sii, a GH5, a Canon 17 TS-E (with Metabones IV) at least one good native AF lens for each of the GH5 and A7sii. Then maybe a couple of Canon L zooms then add the accessories and batteries ETC. As for the drone stuff, unless you are competent and really good with it, I would hire someone for that and not over do it. I guess I have sort of been doing this (the stills part anyway other than the drone) in a instagram/Face Book kinda way lately. When do I start?

My old retired D50 works great for AF with my AF 50 1.8 but your D40 would not work as well with it as my Sony A7s or Panasonic GX7 as far as I am concerned. The latest Nikon AF-P lenses can not even focus on cameras as recent as a D800, D7000, D5100 or D3200 which are cameras many still use as their current camera. As for the A6000 UI, that is one camera and you could pick and choose a camera from Nikon that is more menu driven against a higher end camera that isn't. Ergonomics is subjective. Personally, I prefer a camera that has lots of control and deep menus as that means it has more in it. My old D50 menus are not very big but then there is not a lot too the camera but it still needs menu diving more than most recent cameras. I have owned and used cameras from just about every one of the major makers and it is simply getting used to them but I have not had any I didn't particularly like and have come to prefer the FF Sony way (A7s and A7 previously). My last Canon DSLR (7D) wasn't all that great as far as the menu was concerned but not bad either. This new Canon isn't for me but that is mainly because it has a mirror and doesn't do much I need or want. If it had been mirrorless , the it would be something for me to consider when my current camera dies (though I would like better HD video at least). As for 4k cameras, I went and checked an electronics shop with a reasonable range yesterday and the brand that had the most models with 4k was actually Nikon (including the action cams) which was very surprising.

Sorry! Delete them if you prefer please.

The wide angle shots are with the 17 f4 L TS-E and manually focused. The individual shots are AF with the Canon 135 f2 L -since sold the lens though AF is slow it still works). The wide angle 10 Years shots are ISO 40,000 and 16,000 I think at 1/2000. The lighting at the 10 Years show was very varied from almost completely dark to blindingly bright and changed in a instant. The 17 TS-E and I will use anything from f4 to f8 depending on DOF requirements but for individuals I will usually use f2 or a bit stopped down (2.8 with the 150mm). I have auto ISO set to either 51200 or 102400. I recently had an ISO 102400 shot used by a newspaper as their Face Book cover photo for a while. The main lens I use for AF with the A7s is currently the 55 1.8 and it works very well for AF and even in really low light (almost no light and it still focuses well). The camera can not AFC at all really* but AFS is very good as far as I am concerned and even the fastest moving bands don't move very far generally (*I do think the A7s CAN use AFC in video mode for slower paced musicians or stationary or nearly so ones with a lens like the 55 1.8 but for video, I mainly use the 17 for anything more than a duo). I want the 85 1.8 as I just want a third native AF lens (besides the 55 and 28-70 kit lens which I also like as a choice when I am being lazy) but otherwise will use a MF FD 85 1.2 L or Canon EF 100 f2 (AF or manual) or Sigma 150 2.8 EF mount (usually but not always MF on the A7s and AF on M43 where the AFS is close to natively fast. Recent AF shots with the 55 1.8 though the lighting isn't too bad (ISO 6400 1/2000 f2.8) and( ISO 125 1/8000 f2)

Thanks but I cant even afford a bus ride to the other side of town at the moment and when I do have a little bit of money soon I "need" a Sony FE 85 1.8.

How about a faster moving band? I have not shot any really fast moving bands for a while, maybe the last was the US rock band 10 Years (those guys are nuts and the lead singer was literally hanging from the roof upside down while singing).

I never have any problems shooting fast moving musicians on stage or in dark club atmosphere with my lowly old Sony A7s and I wouldn't trade the A7s for any of those Nikons for what I shoot either.

I agree that there are trade offs for everything but not so much with you examples. I like the Sony UI of the A7s and the level of controls is excellent with access to so many things without having to go into a menu. As for Nikon's backward compatibility, well that is getting worse by the day. Yes, the MOUNT is compatible but what works varies greatly from lens to lens and camera to camera. The oldest manual focus Nikons work as well (at least) on mirrorless as on any Nikon camera and some I would argue are better (with IBIS on many for instance or can even be auto focused on Sony in a pinch via the Sigma adapter). Nikon screwdrive AF lenses don't AF on lower Nikon cameras and the G lenses don't work so well on older cameras and now the newest lenses can not be fully used on some even fairly recent cameras. Nikon could easily make their lower cameras be able to use a wider variety of their own lenses. I shudder to think what they are going to do with mirrorless!

Done and done. Though I don't think the issue is THIS camera not having 4k, I think it is that NO Canon cameras have 4k other than higher level. If I go to a large chain electronic retail store later and look, I will bet that there will be more Canon cameras there than any others but NONE of them will have 4k but there will be plenty of others that do from cheap to moderate (nothing high end).

Possibly but even with the slow AF with my various adapters on an A7s and previous A7, I like how many of my Canon lenses work on Sony and manual focus ones like the Canon tilt shifts are to my mind better on FF mirrorless than on any Canon currently (that may change when Canon brings out a FF mirrorless). I also use Canon on m43 and the AF with the Kipon adapter is very fast for AFS for stills (no good for video on an GX7 anyway). When I had the Canon 7D, the only thing it could do is AF faster with Canon lenses but even then it was less accurate and a lens like the 135 f2 L would be nice in close but very hit and miss at longer distances which would often negate faster AF. If I was shooting sports and things that need fast AFC with long lenses, then Canon makes more sense but maybe not this new camera so much. Might be better off with a smaller sensor camera then anyway. EDIT I have a couple of native Sony lenses for when I want faster AF but I also like that while AF is AFS only and slow with my A7s, it still works with Canon lenses in light lower than they would with any current Canon DSLR and works with Canon APSC lenses in FF mode (some without vignetting in part) and one of my cheap AF adapters also has a spot that takes cheap 43mm filters that I can use with all my Canon lenses (and save a fortune with the 17mm TS-E which otherwise needs a filter holder anyway and 150mm filters). Back on topic, I kinda wish the 6d ii had been mirrorless.

Just curious but what do you find wrong with the Sony's for photos? To me the original A7s is a MUCH better camera for stills for most things than the Canon 7D I had and the same with the original A7 let alone the A7Rii you have access to. The original A7 was more than I needed for photos and I also prefer my now aging Panasonic GX7 to the 7D. I can not think of any reason I would prefer the 6Dii to the any of the 24mp or higher Sony FF cameras in terms of image quality or the A7s at higher ISO's that I use often. The A7Rii in particular, well I can not get how you would not use that for photos over this new Canon.

In a slightly similar vein, are there any old standard definition camcorders/handy cam's with lots of spec and a decent (for the size) sensor that people would recommend for playing around with that are cheap now? I was haunting a pawn shop looking at what they have in stock and they had a couple of old camcorders, some seemed a bit high in price (a couple of CD video cameras) but one old Canon is fairly cheap (though reviews were only fair when it was released - a later entry level model released when HD had started being a thing). Anything worth looking at?

While I sold my original A7 as it was more stills camera than I needed (and the A7s is fine for me as a stills camera), I would take the original A7 from 2013 over this new camera any day. Yes this has dual pixel and a fully articulated touch screen but for me that is it. EVF, head phone jack, 1/8000, 1/250 flash sync and lens adaptability and more all favour the A7 (let alone the A7ii) and the original can still be found at great prices now. https://***URL removed***/products/compare/side-by-side?products=sony_a7&products=sony_a7_ii&products=canon_eos6d&products=canon_eos6dmkii

Seems like a nice competent stills camera for its target market and many of those will be happy with the video it does have. That it isn't a camera for this forum is fine and the issue with Canon to me is that they don't target video (4k in particular now) in any "affordable" cameras (IE not in cameras below what will be semi pro or higher for most people). This camera is Canon's A7ii and that isn't a camera for this forum really is it? (I am sure many will use it but with Sony there are other choices and pretty much everything now has 4k and other video specs). As a stills camera it looks like a nice lower level FF camera and I think it will get a lot of sales from those who still love mirrors. It will sell very well and be used by wedding photographers who want FF but can not quite reach a 5D4 or as a back up for many pros. Not for me and I think that a 1/4000 max shutter speed in a camera at this level still is a bit odd and the same with the flash sync of 1/180 (even the little SL2 has 1/200!). All in all a nice stills camera but only a bit relevant for video and nothing for me.

If it is like the FF E mount cameras then it can do variable digital zoom to either 2x (clear image zoom) or even up to 4 times (which they just call digital zoom). Past 2x it will start falling apart but my experience with Clear zoom is that it is quite good for both video and stills and pretty close to being lossless (and especially at lower magnifications). You could use it on an APSC sensor camera to remove vignetting with smaller sensor lenses. You do lose some functions with it and can only use it for video or jpegs, It means you can use a fast prime as a short zoom for instance.

A) Fricassee of fresh air for lunch B) Got old and had some money down the couch over the years (who am I kidding, I cant afford a couch).

LOL that is funny because it is soooo true. I am sitting in a mall to post this as I have run out of credit with my (prepaid) internet and using free Wifi, wearing a shirt and jumper I purchased from a charity shop (they were absolute bargains and it is the same place I got a couple of pretty good tripods for $5 Australian each). And am (in part) looking for lenses on Ebay while here!