noone

I love FD lenses and they adapt well to both E mount and M4/3. I do prefer them on my A7s (which is not stabilized but doesn't need it for stills) to my GX7 (which is stabilized for stills though not the greatest version) but they work on both. The L lenses are mostly very nice and while they can be expensive, some of the more common ones have come down a fair bit sometimes due to a few similar new manual focus third party lenses being released in the last few years (plus more and more really good lenses for systems that can adapt FD's). Lenses I have been happy with include FD 24 1.4 L for in close wide angle shots (FF) wide open and is ok for landscapes stopped down, the FD 85 1.2 L, the FD 50 1.2L (all of those can still be expensive but have come down a lot lately if you look). The FD 80-200 f4 L this can be found for a couple of hundred dollars and is quite good and better than the non L. The 24 f2 and 24 2.8 lenses have quite a following too (I have not tried those). Be careful with them though, the mount can be a pain sometimes (I keep an adapter on each lens usually) and especially, some FD's can have issues with dissolving bearings. My 85 1.2 L has this problem and the focus ring is now very loose (still works and I still intend getting it fixed as I love the lens). Pretty sure this was with the 24 1.4 L (probably now my favourite FD along with the 85) on the A7s.

No.

Nah! The A7s is my all time favourite camera. I still love my first version for stills and the odd video. I am just getting in before "it" starts (as it will). Seriously, I expect it to be a wonderful camera that would suit me down to the ground and be a low light demon. I don't expect it to be the "best" camera for everything though just as I think the GH5 looks very nice but not the "best" for everything. OH and as for battery life, IF you use fresh batteries and use them quickly, you get a LOT more shots out of an A7 battery than if you shoot over time without changing.

A7siii AF sucks. A7siii battery life sucks. A7siii touch screen sucks. Have I missed anything? (just getting in early before the chorus starts).

If anything, that makes it worse for Nikon. The body they just released (A99ii) would likely have very little impact on the market and at the same time the previous year. Sony would have got a bigger boost from the A7Rii (released in June 2015) but that is a bit of time passing and Nikon had just released the D5 (Jan 5 2016) and people would have been holding off purchases in some cases from before that a bit.. Does it really matter as long as they all make cameras people like and can pick and choose between?

I use DXO Optics Pro 9 now (was free recently and I love it) when I shoot RAW but mostly I don't find it a huge difference (there IS a difference) but I shoot so many shots at most gigs and am happy enough with the results using Jpeg that unless there was something special, jpeg are good enough. Would just take me forever to process RAW a lot of the time. My GX7 I would never have even tried at that gig as I don't like it at all above ISO 6400 and that (ISO 8000) was one of the lowest ISO shots from that gig (the other shot posted was ISO 16000). The DR and tonality would have all been reduced and noise worse and the same would go for most cameras.

It is actually an A7s as taken jpeg at ISO 8000. Tonality IS limited a bit but it would have been even more limited on most cameras in that lighting at that ISO. I mainly shoot jpegs but when I do shoot RAW, I don't see a huge difference (but I hate post processing). I also try and get it how I like in camera for video as much as possible at gigs.

Most of my shooting that involves people varies greatly for lighting. Skin tone is going to be what it is and to that end I prefer it to look as close to what was actually there at the time. I would love to show one of the two songs I recorded at the gig these were taken at. Skin tones are the same as the photos (plus others including bright red) One day, I might be able to post it to YouTube. Even if I can light what I am seeing it isn't always going to be the same. Sarah McLeod

I am still not convinced. Skin colour (and any colour) isn't viewed under the same light only and therefore will always look different. We often develop our likes from what we have been brought up with. Are we over thinking colour? Again, I have never had any camera that I didn't like the colour from and most cameras/photos/video can have changes to colour anyway.

Or it could be that because they are dominant, that people have become used to their colours and have come to like them? They didn't become dominant because of colour mainly I think. I prefer colour closer to what I actually see and for that, I do like Sony though have never been unhappy with colour from any brand really. Thanks for the reminder (I have to buy some more Canon ink for my cheap printer (ink is dearer than the printer).

I wont be buying one but I agree that it will sell by the truck load (after the first or second recall that it will surely have). Wont be sold FOR video generally much but will be maybe stop some bleeding for the Nikon shooter getting a bit edgy about wanting better video but wont switch just yet. I also agree the D750 would be a better choice for many (not all). I think that plenty of Nikon stills shooters who can't quite get the D500 or FF users wanting the latest back up or D500 users wanting a similar second camera will go for it. D7200 is still very good and better in some ways but wont stop this being a good, big selling camera.

Thanks. I was aware of the Voigtlander 0.95 lenses but I did forget there is a 17.5 one which would match closely enough the 45 2.8 MF lens. Maybe a little more even than some and a little less than others (depending on sensor size).

The medium format 45 2.8 would probably be doable, the MF 80 1.9 would probably not be (MAYBE the very fastest lens would be just possible). Of course, that 45 2.8 has infinite depth of field at 2.8 with a subject at around 15 meters or further. It would depend on the actual sensor "crop" as to what lens you would need. If it was .79x for instance to FF then that MF 45mm lens would be about a 36mm lens FF angle of view and therefore would need about an 18mm lens with M4/3. MF 2.8 would give DOF of about f2 FF, 1.4 APSC and about f1 with M4/3 so you should be able to do that maybe with something like a Sigma 18-35 1.8 and the faster speed booster. Wider and faster would be virtually impossible since the fastest lenses possible seem to be about the same regardless of sensor (or film) size though the wider you go the quicker you get infinity. A lens like even an 85 1.2 FF would not be likely in M4/3 Even a 24mm 1.4 FF lens which is readily available would need a 12mm f0.7 lens for equivalence (used wide open anyway). A lens like a FF 50 f0.95 lens would probably not be possible for normal photography to match. I love larger sensor cameras for being able to use slower lenses and yet still have decent subject isolation, for the "exotic" lenses (like 24 1.4 or 85 1.2) that can not or hardly be matched and especially for better low light performance. Smaller sensor cameras I like because they can be used with smaller lenses (not always) and especially for the different angle of view. Choice is great!

The two Fujinon lenses are not exactly the same. Anything that indicates I am contradicting Dr Caldwell is an error on my point (but I don't see any). I am out.

Hi reply to you finished with " the only caveats being related to aberrations and other flaws in the lens and focal reducer" Of course there are going to be differences UNLESS the two lenses have exactly the same optical formula and are mounted on the same camera. Using a focal reducer on a lens to get to a 56mm is not going to have the same design as a lens made to be 56mm in the first place. If you have five different 56mm lenses they will ALL be different to each other but no more different to a lens that arrives at 56mm by using a focal reducer. That the man is responsible for focal reducers being main stream in photography and videography and yet you want to argue with him??? Of course most lenses labelled 80mm or 56mm or whatever are not going to be exactly that and I doubt you would be able to find many that would be exact so ANY difference will change things but not significantly and it will only be minor. So much for respecting him too! You find me two lenses that get you EXACTLY the same using a native lens and focal reduced lens and that will give you exactly the same results, if you can not, then the results will be close enough while having minor points of difference but not enough to matter. There is zero point in anyone continuing this with you TL:DR The man who designed the SpeedBooster and other optical goodies says- "The notion that, say, an 80mm medium format lens has some inherent "80mm-ness" or "medium formatishness" that somehow stays with that lens after you attach a focal reducer is just silliness. The combination of a 0.7x focal reducer and an 80mm lens is a 56mm lens. Period. Put that 56mm lens on a 24x36mm format camera and it will behave just like any other 56mm lens attached to that camera, the only caveats being related to aberrations and other flaws in the lens and focal reducer." Some guy on the internet says- "The assertion that a 0.7x focal reducer and an 80mm lens will behave like any other 56mm lens is logically (and demonstrably) false, because lenses of the same focal length can exhibit a dramatic difference in behavior, even when designed for the same format by the same manufacturer."

What I meant is the ISO was maybe too low for the light available. I would use auto ISO normally and have maximum set a bit higher than I otherwise would think. It is just a guess but I see something a bit similar sometimes with full HD on my A7s if I have the auto ISO maximum too low. Also it depends on the bitrate used. When I set dual record video so my camera does both XAVC-s and MP4, at higher ISOs the MP4 can look terrible while the XAVC-s can be fine. Chances are I am way off but that it just looks a bit like it to me. I didn't like the Sony in that at all and I would think it can do a lot better as ISO 1600 is not high at all.

Agreed. I would like to know what ISOs were used with each though. Looks to me the Sony was using a bit too low an ISO maybe but that is watching it with my limited laptop.

Should have been Dr Caldwell (typo).

That should be the end of it because in this thread, Dr Calwell replied to you with- "You are expecting a level of precision in this comparison that is entirely unreasonable. Little things like changes in distortion and entrance pupil position during zooming make it impractical to make a blink comparator test completely perfect. What the comparison does show - with more than sufficient precision - is that you can optically reproduce all aspects of an image shot on a large format with one shot on a smaller format - or vice versa. The notion that, say, an 80mm medium format lens has some inherent "80mm-ness" or "medium formatishness" that somehow stays with that lens after you attach a focal reducer is just silliness. The combination of a 0.7x focal reducer and an 80mm lens is a 56mm lens. Period. Put that 56mm lens on a 24x36mm format camera and it will behave just like any other 56mm lens attached to that camera, the only caveats being related to aberrations and other flaws in the lens and focal reducer." Somehow, I doubt you will accept this (since you went on to argue with him further in the thread).

No one will ever do a test to satisfy some people (there will always be a fraction of a difference from theoretical equivalence- unless someone actually builds two cameras and lenses specifically to match, there will ALWAYS be a hair different here or a spot different there). Just using my own gear and doing my own lame tests I am more than satisfied. One of these is M4/3 (in 3:2 mode) and the other FF. Wont be acceptable as I was being lazy (really lazy) and doing this quickly but I see little difference.

Thanks for that. So that will work for Metabones at least. I don't think it will work for the Kipon as NON IS lenses also don't work for IBIS. I will give it a try though (have not got the adapter here at the moment). At least in the case of the Kipon, (non focal reducer) smart adapter, even when you turn IS off on the lens, you still don't get IBIS so I think it is more likely the firmware. You can use the same lens on a dumb adapter (like the Lens Turbo) and IBIS works. Firmware (at least with this adapter) can make HUGE differences. The adapter as sold was very different to how it is now after a couple of updates and is now a much better and more useable product.

Play around with this. https://***URL removed***/products/search/cameras#! LOL, the Nikon DLs are still showing, maybe one of those would have been ideal. Pity. You might have to make some compromises as I think the LX100 or RX100 pair you have listed might be it (minus the mic). In the end, a lot of cameras that are almost there are about as big as your A7s or bigger in some way or other. https://***URL removed***/products/compare/side-by-side?products=sony_dscrx100m4&products=panasonic_dmcg7&products=sony_a7s&sortDir=ascending Take out 4k and you have a LOT more options. Maybe something from left field like one of the later Nikon 1 cameras? (1AW for travel interest me somewhat). It can shoot 4k for a second or two (sort of) I think.

Could be the adapters firmware. I know that with the Kipon (non focal reducer) smart adapter, IS works great but IBIS doesn't work with Canon lenses on the adapter even when they don't have IS or it is turned off. My old GX7 doesn't have the best version of IBIS though (and can not be used in video at all) so I am not losing much but if I had better IBIS from more recent cameras it would be a worry. Again though IS does work well.

Just getting it out again, it would be difficult to use for video because of how the Mamiya lenses work and with the leaf shutter. Would need a different lens unless used in bulb mode.

It is pretty much a Mamiya Universal press camera with a couple of alterations to the mount and back so you can not interchange the film holders or lenses without alteration. They can still sell for silly money on Ebay and have a bit of a cult following. My Dad gave it to me years ago with a 127 f4.7 lens and 75 f5.6 (there is only one other main lens for it though maybe a few rarer ones).