noone

I keep looking to see if there is a way of adapting my old Polaroid 600SE camera with a digital back. It is a big Polaroid pack film rangefinder camera with interchangeable lenses (a couple of modified Mamiya lenses) and it can take MF film with an adapter. Should be easy enough to put an adapter on the adapter (though not huge demand for it) and older MF digital backs can be quite cheap (some low resolution ones) but it would be for stills only as I think it will be a few years yet before any MF back or camera that can do video will be at my price point at least. Would be fun to try if not serious use.

On further reading, it seems I was wrong and the Hasselblad does have very slightly larger pixels than the A7Rii. 4.5 microns for the Sony, 4.6 microns for the Hasselblad is what I can find. In any event, many current/recent FF cameras have larger pixels (all the Nikons, all the Sony mirrorless other than the A7Rii, the Canon's other than the 50mp pair). Some of the latest APSC sensors are close (some of the older APSC and even 4/3 ones have larger pixels but that is different ages of technology and some of the older MF backs had massive pixels too).

The largest sensor with the fastest lens will always give you the shallowest depth of field for a given angle of view. Where the "problem" arises is when the larger sensor camera doesn't have any lenses that match up for speed with a smaller sensor camera. FF has an advantage in that there are plenty of super fast lenses for many focal lengths while medium format(s) and larger often don't have such fast (or wide) lenses available. That is one of the things said in reviews of the new MF Fuji. There are not any lenses that can give it shallower DOF than some of the FF cameras available. I am sure there are lots of reasons people shot on 8x10 view cameras but then what else would they have at the time? I can only find a few MF cameras in the DOF calculator I play with and so have picked the Pentax 645D. Here is a list of available lenses for it (from Wikipedia). There may be others and you might be able to adapt other lenses too. smc PENTAX-D FA 645 25 mm F4.0 AL SDM AW [IF] (2011) smc PENTAX-DA 645 25 mm F4.0 AL SDM AW [IF] (2012-current) smc PENTAX-A 645 35 mm F3.5 smc PENTAX-FA 645 35 mm F3.5 AL [IF] (current) smc PENTAX-A 645 45 mm F2.8 smc PENTAX-FA 645 45 mm F2.8 (current) smc PENTAX-A 645 55 mm F2.8 smc PENTAX-D FA 645 55 mm F2.8 AL SDM AW [IF] (2010-current) smc PENTAX 645 LS 75 mm F2.8 (current) - leaf shutter smc PENTAX-A 645 75 mm F2.8 smc PENTAX-FA 645 75 mm F2.8 (current) HD PENTAX-D FA 645 Macro 90 mm F2.8 ED AW SR (current) smc PENTAX-A 645 Macro 120 mm F4.0 (current) smc PENTAX-FA 645 Macro 120 mm F4.0 (current) smc PENTAX 645 LS 135 mm F4.0 (current) - leaf shutter smc PENTAX-A 645 150 mm F3.5 smc PENTAX-FA 645 150 mm F2.8 [IF] (current) smc PENTAX-A 645 200 mm F4.0 smc PENTAX-FA 645 200 mm F4.0 ED (current) smc PENTAX-A 645 300 mm F4.0 ED [IF] (current) smc PENTAX-FA 645 300 mm F5.6 ED [IF] (current) smc PENTAX-FA 645 400 mm F5.6 ED [IF] (current) smc PENTAX-A 645 600 mm F5.6 ED [IF] (current) HD PENTAX-DA 645 28-45 mm F4.5 ED AW SR (current) smc PENTAX-FA 645 Zoom 33–55 mm F4.5 AL (current) smc PENTAX-A 645 Zoom 45–85 mm F4.5 smc PENTAX-FA 645 Zoom 45–85 mm F4.5 (current) smc PENTAX-FA 645 Zoom 55–110 mm F5.6 (current) smc PENTAX-A 645 Zoom 80–160 mm F4.5 smc PENTAX-FA 645 Zoom 80–160 mm F4.5 (current) smc PENTAX-FA 645 Zoom 150–300 mm F5.6 ED [IF] (current) The crop factor to FF is .79 (I think) and the widest lens is 25mm so nothing readily available wider than around 20mm. Nothing faster than 2.8 it seems either. A 75mm 2.8 lens on the MF Pentax equates to about a 60mm f2 lens FF. Nice enough but there are much faster lenses readily available. That 75mm lens on the Pentax at 2.8 and with a subject distance of 10 feet has total DOF of 1.17 ft. A 60mm f2 lens on FF at f2 and at 10 feet to subject has a total DOF of 1 foot (not an exact match but the figures are not exact - close enough though). Stick a 58mm 1.2 lens on the FF camera and the total DOF is going to be well under 1 foot at 10 feet to subject distance. Yes, there are super fast MF lenses but they are rare and expensive and mostly aerial photography lenses. Anyone ever seen one? The H6D 100C has a larger sensor than the Pentax 645D but the same things still happen. You have to have the lenses for it to have shallower DOF. If you DO, the yes you wont match it but what lenses are you going to use? The Hasselblad does have wider and faster lenses (than the Pentax 645D) available though not a huge amount.

I would think the A7Rii actually has larger pixels. I think it might be something like 4.9 x 4.9 for the A7Rii to 4.6 x4.6 for the MF camera (I remain to be corrected on this) but in any event A larger sensor by about 70% but also more than double the number of pixels?

If the gig is for the purpose of the band shooting a video, then I am all for them lighting it as they see fit for video. Pub bands are mostly about being another way to get people into the pub to drink. I have five pubs within two hundred metres of where I live. Two have live music weekly or more, two have live music often but not every week (one has a nightclub a few times a week) and only one doesn't have any. Even at the ones that are more than weekly, they don't even turn the TVs above the bands off sometimes. They all have some lights in place (some not so many/much) but they are not always used/aimed properly and some just turn the bar lights off and the band might bring a couple of lights with coloured filters. A couple of places (a bit further away) have excellent stage lighting. I have been shooting bands for decades starting with film. At first, I had to use fast lenses with as high an ISO film as I could, then with the first digital cameras, at most gigs, I could still only use fast lenses but was glad of ISO 3200 when I had it (it wasn't very good but at the time I thought it was ok). With each generations ISO improvement, the ability to shoot at higher ISOs has also meant the ability to use slower lenses for greater DOF or for using the lens at the aperture I think it is better at. It simply gives me more choice. I hate the look of photos taken using flash when the light at the bar is very different. This is ISO 100, I will take it when I can (but if it had been ISO 25600 or whatever, I would have been happy to take that too). I use the same lenses/settings for video with the only difference being for video I like to have the camera on a tripod or table.

That is true but it does get really annoying in a dark pub or club at a gig to even see someone using even a small light with the tiniest video camera. It also annoys me when someone uses flash endlessly for stills too (and it often annoys the bands no end). A few times I have shot alongside other photographers using flash almost every shot and sometimes the band would tell them to stop. One has since upgraded his kit and now shoots without flash a lot more. He also does video now too and (thankfully) without lights. If I remember, next time I see someone with a video light at a gig, I will take a photo.

There is SO much wrong with that video. He really handicaps the larger sensor cameras by not using primes (he prefers to use zooms) and only one particular zoom (he could have used the other 1.8 zoom I guess too). The ONLY way the GH5 "wins" is IF you use the 1.8 Sigma zoom and a Speedbooster and you don't use a similar fast zoom (Sigma 24-35 f2) with or without a focal reducer OR a fast prime on the larger sensor cameras. On top of that I don't see the Gh5 "winning" there in many instances at all even as it is. What happens if you need deeper DOF at high ISOs or if you are at ISO 25600 and up and are using a fast prime as well? GH5 looks very nice and that combination (GH5, Speed Booster and Sigma 1.8 zoom) will be usable in lower lighting than a FF camera and slower lens in many cases but that does not make the GH5 a better low light camera than the others "tested" there. I will still gratefully accept any GH5 that isn't wanted by the buyer. Would love to use one as a decent daytime/good light/controlled light camera.

Not everyone needs high ISO but if you shoot available light, then often enough you do (or I do anyway). The last gig I shot was at a reasonably well lit pub last Friday. The highest ISO I needed was ISO 25600 and the lowest was ISO 100. Many were around ISO 5000. If I had used lights, I would have destroyed the atmosphere for everyone and also likely have been kicked out. I will not add lights when I am not in control or if the stage lighting is part of the show ETC but will always prefer to shoot at lower ISOs. I prefer available light most of the time too for stills and video. I COULD shoot at lower ISOs last Friday but I don't always have that luxury. I don't know what I am going to get most of the time until I get there. Was trying to upload two shots but going very slow.

I don't think it will happen at all as It would be too low res for most but if it was hybrid, it would at least sell a few more than if it was simply a video camera (and should therefore be cheaper). If it did happen, I would be fine if it was usable at ISO 51200 or 102400 in a pinch. I find it funny how some people like to knock others requirements just because it isn't something they need or use. I would simply like to be able to use a normal shutter speed at night (or in this case a bit longer).

For most sure. Some of us will take all we can get. I think the RED Helium Weapon is the new low light champeen of the world currently. I saw that PDF on DPreview (they were linking to it for the 150mp Medium format sensor). I would love to see someone (anyone) use that 8mp m4/3 sensor in a hybrid camera but if it happened it would need to be excellent in specs for more than low light to justify making it or the cost would be too much since they otherwise would only sell to people like me. 204800 and 409600 ISOs are a step to far currently but I have had normal photos at ISO 51200 used in Newspapers. 102400 would be usable too (certainly for web use). Black and white and you can go a little higher. For video, with the A7s, is ok too. I set ISO 102400 sometimes with auto ISO in the hope it will only go to ISO 80000 if I need it. In really low light, if I use 51200 with auto and it should be a bit higher, I see ghosting more sometimes. What I want is to be able to shoot the same effectively no matter what the time of day or night.

Well it does apply to video. I got the camera for stills but using it for video more and more. Happy t leave it there.

I really wasn't trying to make it anything of the sort. Assuming ETC really is lossless (I dont), who wouldn't want it to be variable? We can agree to disagree on anything/everything else though.

Mostly photo but also some video. A lot of live music. Sometimes I have the luxury of a very nice stage but other times it can be a outdoor beer garden at a bar at night in the middle of winter. My ISOs can easily go up to 102400 sometimes for full band shots or musicians not in the spotlight. Individual shots will mostly be at much lower ISOs. I also use lenses like a 17mm TS walk around at night. Sports at night is another. By having decent high ISO I can shoot at much faster shutter speeds. I mostly use an old manual focus lens for that so AF doesn't matter (and I would take better high ISO over fast AF for night sports anytime for my uses. (football and harness racing and greyhound racing, not that I do enough of any lately. D750 seems a good camera but isn't as good for high ISO and I am done with DSLRs for the most part now (after having had five). I also prefer Canon lenses as they can adapt easily to both Sony and M4/3 with smart adapters. D750 doesn't have as good high ISO, doesn't have digital/clearzoom, only has 1/4000 max shutter speed, lower flash sync speed and is larger heavier, doesn't have an EVF and plenty more. I love the Sony ISO wheel, EVF, customization, ergonomics and more. Don't get me wrong, most people might prefer a D750 to an A7 but not for me. Same with all those other things other makers have that Sony doesn't. That is all great stuff but not so much for me. We each buy what suits us (I hope).

I agree that most cameras are fine at ISO 3200 now. Most people wont ever need (much) higher but for those that do, it really does matter a lot. I don't need 4k or great slow motion or even great AFC but I recognize that others will. A lot of my shooting is done over ISO 12800 and when I was using DSLRs I always wanted better high ISO. FF just gives me more choice. I don't find everything easily matched with a speed booster and something's not at all. There are things I can not do with my Sony that I can with my Panasonic and vice versa. The Council here is going to use three of my photos in a document they are launching next week. Two from the A7s and one from the GX7 and none could have been done with the other. Choice is better than ever now!

They still have a FF sensor used FF. Don't knock low light performance as being a small thing either. For most here who light their videos or shoot in the day time it might not matter. Just out of curiosity regards a few different threads here I have been following, I put my old 300 2.8 lens on A7s on my cheap $5 tripod from a charity shop and stuck it out the window in the middle of the night. I focused on a sign some distance away and used Clear Image zoom. Was at ISO 51200 1/50. Ok this is lame but I am now thinking of how I can use this properly. 300 2.8 clear image zoom.mp4

Yep!

Nah, not me!

if there are any charity shops near you, ask them if they have any tripods. They may have something out the back. Tripods may not be looked on as something having any real value (like old cameras for example). You would be lucky to find a decent fluid head tripod but you never know. A charity shop I know usually has one or two out the back from all sorts of makers. I recently paid $5 Australian for a very nice Vanguard Pan head tripod that can hold up a battleship there and it is in excellent condition. Not the highest end but still would have been a few hundred dollars new. I missed out on a geared head tripod with all sorts of goodies by a few hours a couple of months ago ( I think someone overheard me talking about it and went and got it). Certainly worth investigating anyway. Again, not high end and the head isn't detachable but certainly worth more than $5.

I don't see any real difference in your test but if that is what you get I am fine with that. Having said that, BOTH ways are digital enlargement and can not be completely lossless though both ways are very close to it and especially at smaller magnifications. I do prefer the clearzoom way rather than crop and enlarge (if that is what ETC is doing). Sony is very coy about clearzoom though and never says much though it has improved in more recent cameras (it didn't work for video at all in earlier cameras). Why I think there seems to be some doubt about clearzoom against ETC is that ETC has mostly been 2x with previous cameras and 2x (no matter if clearzoom or ETC) is more lossy than 1.4 so having a 1.4x "teleconverter" is a great option but then I find clearzoom at 1.4x to be equally a great option. I might use APSC mode much more often if Sony didn't have clearzoom as being variable. With APSC though you are not getting the same size (5mp with the A7s while still getting 12mp with clearzoom and FF mode). You can always use clearzoom in APSC mode too if you want. I also think the lens used is MUCH more important too as in I would prefer a very good lens with clearzoom at 2x (and even more so at smaller magnifications) than a poorer optical lens. In any event, I have satisfied myself that. A) ETC with the GX7 is not as good as clearzoom with the A7s though both are pretty good (and both cameras are around the same age). B) The lens can matter more than anything. (Start with a good lens and it works with little loss for either ETC or Clearzoom). C) I would MUCH prefer it was variable (please Panasonic make it so). D) I like using a fast prime as a zoom in some instances (which isn't really possible with optical or ETC currently). E) Sometimes if used with a zoom lens, variable clearzoom may well be better than zooming optically because the lens may be better optically at some focal lengths (and sometimes the other way around) and also due to vignetting if adapting lenses for different sensors. F) Choice is STILL good. If I have the time later, I might see about putting a really good lens with clearzoom up against a poor one of the same focal length and ask people to pick which is which.

Bearing the load? The A6500 weighs a massive 36 grams less than the A7s! My kit I take to a gig or for very early morning walks would typically be- A7s Sony Zeiss 55 1.8 which is not a lot heavier than the little APSC Sony 50 1.8 OSS (I had one and loved it) but the FF lens is really nice and can be used in APSC mode. Canon EF 100mm f2 with very lightweight Fotga smart adapter. Canon 17 f4 L TS-E. The Canon 17mm is the only one that I would consider to be heavy but it is worth it and nothing else like it for M4/3 or APSC currently and with the rest of the kit is easily taken for a night out (walking, I live in the city centre). I can use the lens on M4/3 or APSC but of course it isn't as wide. I can also use it on a focal reducer (I do on my GX7 on rare occasions). Sometimes I will vary it and take the 24 1.4 instead of the 17 in which case it really is a lightweight kit (the FD 24 1.4 is the lightest of its kind and lighter than some 25mm M4/3 lenses and not a huge amount heavier than the 12mm 1.4), Other times I will take the FE kit lens and others Canon 40 2.8 STM and/or the 85 1.2 or even a 150 2.8 or others. Next gig I will take the 17, 55 and 150 2.8 and small hotshoe flash (for punter pics). The other thing is if I DID take my GX7 instead, the weight and size of my bag would not be very different at all if I don't take the 17 and even if I do, it would not be a huge difference. the bigger difference is I would be shooting a lot less because of too low a light level. Daytime, and I may well take the GX7 instead. Especially if going to the zoo or similar. That 150 2.8 makes a very nice 300mm FF angle of view lens with fast AF on my GX7.

At 1.4x I think that clearzoom is at least as close to lossless as the Pansonic at 1.4x. It is still very close to lossless at 2x and of course you can go to 1.1x or 1.2x or 1.3x or whatever you want to 2x as well. You can change the setting from clear image zoom to digital zoom to 4x in which case above 2x you start seeing it though still could have uses in a pinch. I have it set to clearzoom and the down button set to use to bring it up and then I can use the left and right buttons and use it on the fly. (I sometimes use other things with the down button but mostly it is set to clear zoom). Those four images I posted above are 2 from the A7s and 2 from the GX7. Regards the A7s shots, I actually prefer the clearzoom at 25mm with 2x applied over the 50mm image. those were taken with the cheap little Canon 18-55 IS ii kit lens and I think it might be because being a APSC lens used FF, while it covers the sensor from around 24mm up, there is still vignetting (just not a black edge as there is below about 24mm). Using the clearzoom has removed the vignetting. It may also be that the lens is optically better at 25mm than at 50mm. With the Panasonic shots, the optical image is clearly better than the ETC shot though I would use the ETC one if I had to. Again, the (same) lens is for a different format, in this case for a larger 1.6x APSC sensor so I don't have the vignetting issue and it may well be now that the lens is also better at 36mm of the optical zoom than it is at 18mm for the ETC shot so this time other factors favour the optical VS other factors favouring the clearzoom for the Sony. Again, though this was never meant to be a Sony VS Panasonic thing but to suggest that if 1.4x is great with ETC, why on Mars wouldn't you want it variable?

A normal pub or club or walk around the city at night is enough of a difference for me. No way I would use any M4/3 for that (I could but would be limiting myself to brighter opportunities and or using a fast lens only). To each their own. I will always want/need a secondary camera (APSC or M4/3 probably) I think and currently the GX7 is fine for that. I am surprised that the G80/G85 hasn't improved all that much for stills on the GX7 and seemingly not at all for high ISO. https://www.dxomark.com/Cameras/Compare/Side-by-side/Panasonic-Lumix-DMC-G80-versus-Sony-A7S-versus-Panasonic-Lumix-DMC-GX7___1118_949_901 Video is a different matter and it seems much better for that. The A7siii is probably not for me either but that is because I am happy with what I have though I am sure I would love it. Happy shooting!

Oops, this was wrong in terms of exposure as of course there are lenses at and near 42.5 mm as fast and faster though not enough to overcome the sensor size difference in ISO. DOF could not be matched currently though that is really going to be very shallow DOF at close distances.

I find the A7s to be the right size for me and it is about the same size/shape weight give or take as most cameras I like. GX7, most of the film SLRs I have had ETC and as long as the camera has a decent viewfinder and full range of controls. After using most brands for many years, I now actually PREFER the A7s for handling and ergonomics but could get used to most cameras easily enough. I have no issue using my old 300 2.8 on the A7s (or GX7). Subjective though so no wrong opinion (though mine is of course righter!). . But you don't NEED a focal reducer. A 85 1.8 will give you the same DOF as about an f0.8 lens on M4/3. I have a few 85mm lenses but my favourite is an 85 1.2 and that can not be replicated on M4/3 currently. I would be at a HIGHER ISO with M4/3 and any 42.5 lens than I would with my A7s and 85 1.2 L FD. Never mind I am fine using ISO 51600 and higher even with the A7s. I loved the 50mm 1.2 FD L lens but had to sell it. When I came to get another lens, I almost got another FD L 50 or a Mitakon 50 f0.95 but opted for the Sony Zeiss 55 1.8 instead. That gives me a lens that would need about a 25mm f0.8 lens to match it but with AF (for stills for me) and is superb wide open. My only two FF Sony lenses are the 55 1.8 which is quite small and the FE kit lens which is not huge either and is very nice for a kit lens. Apart from that, I mix what I want (FD, EF, K, F , Tamron adaptall and more). The reason I have the A7s is simply for low light shooting (which I do a lot of) but it is also good enough as a day time camera too (I don't print huge). I prefer the video from the A7s in full frame mode and FHD. Video is an afterthought for me though and I just shoot the odd song at gigs I photograph. I am using available light at whatever light level I have in front of me. I love that I don't HAVE to use fast lenses in low light but can use whatever lens I want (EG Canon's F4 17mm TS-E). The A7 I had was wonderful for stills but more than I needed as the A7s (and GX7) are good enough for stills. Again, the speed boosters are not changing the camera, they are changing the lens. I have two focal reducers and they are just giving you a faster lens as well as wider lens. A Native lens (say) 25 f1 is not going to be any different to a lens that arrives at 25 f1 after focal reduction (will be as different as any two lens not made exactly the same of course). Sigma 1.8 and speedbooster with M4/3 would be nice. Not something I would like to rely on in low light though. I am glad it works for you but I like to shoot in low light with both fast and slow lenses. My EF 100 f2 on focal reducer is ok on M4/3 but I still prefer the lens on my A7s as I can still be at much higher ISOs even though the GX7 combination is a stop faster. You don't NEED to use native Sony lenses if you like MF. The FD lenses (and many others) are great. I use the SAME lenses on M4/3 as I do on the A7s mostly so there is not difference in cost or size (I have just a couple of native lenses for M4/3 now and only the two Sony's). Well this is a thread about a possible A7siii and we know zero about how well it will work for stabilization or how big it will be. or anything else. GH5 looks a wonderful camera and with far more as video camera than I could ever need but I would guess an A7siii will be a completely different beast and again be a wonderful low light camera without regard to the lens speed. I think my lenses are fast enough with a FF Sony though I have sold/disposed of some fast FF lenses as well. I don't use my 24 1.4 or 85 1.2 lenses that much now (have lent them out at the moment) but keep the 24 for when I do need speed and I prefer the 100 f2 over the faster 85 1.2 anyway. If you prefer the G85, I have no issue with that but I just can not get the speedbooster makes a camera like a larger sensor thing.

Clearzoom VS ETC, same lens used on each camera. (which is an APSC lens used FF on the A7s). This is off topic though, my original point was simply that I wish Panasonic would make ETC variable as Sony does, so that way, if someone likes the quality of ETC at 2x, why wouldn't they like it variable for less than 2x?