noone

What lenses? I would love to see you use the same zoom lens on each. I might do that using a Canon APSC kit lens though will be the GX7 and A7s.

What camera/s was that with? My experience with Clearzoom with my A7s and previous A7 is that it really IS virtually lossless. Above 2x (normal digital zoom), I start seeing degradation which is why I have clearzoom set rather than digital zoom. ETC with the GX7 is ok too but not quite as good as the Sony clearzoom and again, it is not variable so nowhere near as useful. As for bokeh, I think I would prefer the bokeh of a fast prime used to zoom rather than that from most zooms (at least those I have seen or used). This is very subjective though and very much individually lens dependent.

A7s is smaller and lighter than the G85 (A7sii is larger), who knows what the A7siii will be. You can use the same lenses on the A7s cameras. To me, the A7s cameras are far better in the field. The A7 cameras have greater lens choice actually as you can use all the lenses available for M4/3 and M4/3 lenses if you want but you can not use E mount lenses on M4/3. The FD lenses ARE FF lenses. IBIS is nice but the A7s cameras need it less than any other I have used and again, who knows how well it will work in the A7siii. My GX7 has terrible IBIS for stills and non existent for video just as the first A7s doesn't have it, the second does. It gets better with each generation. No, it just means you can use a fast lens and keep your ISO lower than with a slower lens but you can do that with an A7s series camera as well. Plus the A7s cameras have an APSC mode for double duty (not so great for stills with the lower pixel count but for video is useful). What are you going to match an A7s and FF 50 f0.95 lens with? The FD lenses will work just fine (better as far as I am concerned) on the A7s cameras. I love my FD 24 1.4 and 85 1.2 lenses but they are much better for me on the A7s than the M4/3 camera (and the combination would weigh less on my A7s than they would on your G85). You would need a 12mm f0.7 to match the 24 and a 42.5 f0.6 to match the 85. Manual focus is excellent with the A7 series cameras (better for me than anything else I have used) but is also great with EF mount lenses. The TS-E lenses for instance, I think are better (easier to use at least on the A7 cameras) than on any current Canon camera. I love M4/3 but for low light, there is NO comparison as far as I am concerned. Your G85 would be a much better general video camera to me than the A7s but low light? No, I don't think so.

To satisfy my curiosity (it has been a while since I used the variable zoom with my A7s in video), I just mounted an old crappy Canon 28-90 zoom on my A7s, mounted on a tripod and set it to 47mm then used Clearzoom (virtually lossless variable digital zoom to 2x) and zoomed in to 2x then back out, then I used the optical zoom to zoom to 90mm. The Clearzoom actually looks better as the optical zoom is not parfocal so is a bit out of focus at the end of the 90mm. The optical zoom is also quite shaky (even on the tripod) while the digital zoom is smooth. I am not going to post it as it is pretty lame and not a great lens but anyone with a Sony E mount camera with clearzoom and a zoom lens that covers 2x at least can test it. For stills I would always prefer an optical zoom but for video in SOME circumstances, I would go with the digital zoom.

The main reason for an A7siii (or even ii or I) against any M4/3. The GH5 looks a very nice camera but mainly for different strengths. For low light, maybe not so much (and I am thinking ISO 12800 and up). My first gen A7s VS my almost the same age GX7.

I have used the Sony variable zoom in my A7s with a few different lenses (including a 24mm 1.4 FD as well as an 85 1.2) for stills and video and in better hands than mine it can be very useful in video I think. It also allows you to use smaller sensor lenses without vignetting sometimes with just a little zoom (1.1x or 1.3x might be enough). That is more useful to me with a FF camera and APSC lenses but I think it would also be nice with some smaller than M4/3 lenses. Of course with the A7s I also have an APSC mode and it works great with that too for even more range. In video, it might be useful for example with macro distance subjects or to "zoom in" on a person or animal (or zombie's) eye or zoom out for a scene or zooming in/out with a product shot.

Convince Panasonic to make it variable like Sony does, that way you get a whole range of focal lengths with the one lens or use a fast prime as a zoom (12 1.4 zoom lens anyone?). Wonder if they could do that via firmware?

Of course it could be put out by a company (not Canon) that may have a GH5 killer camera coming that isn't quite ready yet. That way, people hold off buying the GH5, get annoyed with Canon and then everyone migrates to the new flavour of the month. Or it could actually be true but that remains to be seen. For me the GH5 is in a different market segment for the most part to a 5Div.

Very good! Out of curiosity does the serial number come up as stolen anywhere? If not that seems a bit about face that you have to take a pic with it to check it is stolen after purchase. As for the original owner, if they had insurance, I hope they will be as honest and tell the insurance company!

I wasn't sure which A7s was used. The first articles I saw only had A7s but the later ones say A7sii. I was thinking it might have been the first version as I thought this was filmed before the ii was available. Doesn't matter what they used, I certainly couldn't have shot it regardless of what camera I used. The A7s/A7sii stuff was really low light stuff. Wasn't in the episode I saw last night (the modified Red was). A brilliant series though and the future looks very bright for this sort of show from all sorts of makers.

Has anyone tried the Kipon smart adapter on the GH5 yet? Not a focal reducer but is an alternative to Metabones if you just want a smart adapter for EF lenses on M4/3.

Not any more it isn't. The (original) A7s will still do me but the Red Helium 8k s35 is now the low light king. https://www.dxomark.com/Cameras/Compare/Side-by-side/Red-Helium-8K-S35-versus-Sony-A7S-II-versus-Sony-A7S___1110_1047_949 I just watched an episode of Planet Earth ii last night and it is interesting that the BBC used an A7s for that series in part as well as a modified Red camera. My guess is they will still use a small low light camera for forthcoming shows but for other low light, why wouldn't you use the latest greatest (budget permitting).

Funnily enough, Sony was the last maker I have used (lately anyway) and my first Sony camera was the biggest piece of crap and the worst camera I have ever owned by a long way. I won a thousand dollars on a horse race more than ten years ago and digital was newish still so went and got a Cybershot something or other and it was garbage. Was actually ok for a short period but had a bad sensor and all sorts of issues. I didn't look at any Sony cameras after that until the A7 series came out and the two I have had have been the BEST cameras (for me) that I have had and especially the A7s. If it had of been another company that made the first FF affordable to me mirrorless cameras that could adapt lots of lenses, I still would have got them (just happened to be Sony). I have come to see things written about Sony that just doesn't match my experience. EG ergonomics, colours, skin tone, menu access and even AF in some instances.

Some people just hate Sony. I dunno why, I don't find them any different to any brand. They will do some things well and others not so great. My CURRENT favourite camera is a Sony. When it dies, its replacement could be from Lego for all I know (hopefully in a few years yet).

Look great. Better for my purposes as a second camera than M4/3 would be (mostly for stills) though still more expensive than I would like for a back up. One question, I have just seen the video on using ETC (Extra tele converter?) in the GH5 and that looks ok but it is only 1.4x or only 2x or 4x? while the Sony's have a much better variable version (clearzoom to 2x digital zoom to 4x). Have you tried that in video for 4k? It just means you can use a lens like a fast prime (like a 85 1.2) as a short zoom or use some APSC lenses or even M4/3 lenses and remove vignetting with little loss of quality (1.1 or1.3x might be all that is needed) . Works great on the A7s for FHD but that GH5 video just got me curious about it for 4K?

I have never had any overheating with my original A7s and that is even after trying to produce it to see what it would take. I haven ever had any problem with Sony colour either and actually find it more true to life than most and never had any problem with any camera for colour having owned/used just about all brands over decades (mostly for stills). At least with most Sony cameras, if you don't grade in video for around $10 you can buy the colour grading app and add many millions of variations that can literally take you years to try all the combinations. I got the App with my A7 but have not needed it really. I don't expect an A7sii to be any real competition to the GH5 (and don't expect the GH5 to be any competition to the A7siii either). I think they will complement each other and (mostly) have different strengths and weaknesses. I think there will be a more expensive pro A7 series camera out before there is an A7siii aimed at both stills and video and it should be good at low light (as FF should be) but not the low light king. If that happens, then the A7s iii will still be crippled by comparison in some ways -maybe still CDAF only, AF I would expect to improve each generation but still not be all that great (compared to the best AF cameras), I would expect it to still be 20mp or less. The first version A7s is my all time favourite camera so far and I expect to use it for a couple of years yet for my uses. By the time I replace it (I hope), other formats will be as good in low light so I can have more choice. Maybe I might find a phone good enough by then? Who knows!

Not for me but that is because it is far more serious as a video camera than I could possibly need. Stills are more important to me and for that I prefer larger sensor mirrorless cameras (but am fine with having an M4/3 second camera). Also I shoot a lot in low light and M4/3 has been day time cameras for me (and still are at the moment). I would love to be given one but am not paying for one (not now at least anyway). I can see 9 out of 10 video production houses on the planet planning on getting one now (subject to anyone else coming out with something else quite soon)

MOST are cheap. Some of the more exotic ones cost as much as they ever did. In the last couple of years, some of the more expensive ones have come down a bit (24 1.4 L can go from between about $500 and $1500 I think and the 85 1.2 has come down a bit as well). Maybe since the arrival of lenses like the Samyang/Rokinons and some of the better and more recent Sigmas and the fast third party lenses like the Mitakons the prices of some of the more exotic FDs has come down but not the rarest ones. The 300mm L lenses are a lot better than the 300mm non L's too I think and hence the higher prices. Same with the 50 1.2's. I had a Pentax 50 1.2 that I think was better than the 50 1.2 FD non L but not as good as the FD 50 1.2 L. The L is twice the price (or more) of the non L. Others like the 200 1.8 are at car prices still. The longer faster exotic lenses (often with fluorite elements) also hold up well today. Just got my 50 1.8 FD AF lens out to play with. If I ever needed cheap 50 I can actually use it though it is manual focus only on my A7s, it CAN be focused manually (has a one shot/servo/manual switch) but MF is an afterthought it seems with a tiny area on either side to grip to focus. Just discovered that while I can not change the aperture normally (no aperture ring and no way of changing in camera), the lens mounts safe enough and securely enough that I can change the aperture via the on/off ring on the adapter without the lens coming off. I have enough normal 50mm lenses to not need to use this but just for fun (it will soon be back on my Canon FD T-80 camera in a box with all the other film relics).

You are not changing the camera by adding a focal reducer, you are changing the lens. If you use a dumb focal reducer (like a Lens Turbo), then you would tell it the focal length AFTER the reduction but you do not take into account the 2x crop (the camera does that). If you are using a smart adapter/focal reducer with a "smart" lens (IE with communication between camera and lens) you do not need to tell the camera anything as it "knows" what is mounted (some might not know what the actual lens is but even the stupidest smart adapters seem to know the focal length). At least that is my experience with IBIS and many adapters from a few different brands. The only time this question would arise I think is if you use a smart focal reducer with a dumb lens and I would think for that, the best thing to do is ask the focal reducer makers (or try a few experiments if you have the kit). Interesting question though and I would like to know the answer too (not that I have a smart focal reducer and dumb lens combination otherwise I would try it and see for myself).

Oh Brother where art thou, Pizza is crap (except for a particular sweet pizza at a micro brewery), The Angels (with the late Doc Neeson). I have not seen enough GH5 footage to comment.

I think most of the cheaper FD lenses are just like all the other old manual focus lenses and I would think condition and how hard a life they have had matters far more these days than anything. That said, I do love some of the FD L lenses as they are different to many lenses of the same vintage (often using hand ground aspheric elements unlike the non L and other mount lenses) I had the 80-200 f4 FD L and 50 1.2 FD L and both were quite nice. I sold both when I needed the money but seriously considered another 50 1.2 L (but got a native Sony Zeiss lens instead). I still have a 24 1.4 FD L and 85 1.2 FD L and love both though both have some issues (dissolving bearings I think for the 85 1.2 L which can be an issue with some FD lenses) which is one reason I think condition/life matters A LOT with old lenses. I do prefer the EF 100 f2 now over the FD 85 1.2 L but it is still a nice lens I intend getting fixed (still works and I have lent them out at the moment). I keep the 24 1.4 for when I want a fast 24mm lens which isn't all that often. I prefer them FF on my A7s but will use them on the M4/3 GX7 from time to time. I don't need IBIS with the A7s and it is a help with the GX7 though not a huge amount (and not at all in video). Since the F stop blues is real, there isn't so much of a need for 85 1.2 but it is a really nice lens for lens fondlers and both are fun to use (I loved using the FD 85 1.2 L on my dead Pentax Q!). BTW, you CAN auto focus some FD lenses. A) You can use some on the Sigma adapter for E mount cameras and Leica lenses with a second adapter I believe (adapter allows AF with MF lenses but up to a weight limit I think with the latest PDAF E mount cameras). B) There are actually two or three FD AF lenses that work on FD film cameras (I have a FD 50 1.8 AF lens- has a great big lump on its side). Just a couple of old snaps I have in my computer with the 24 1.4 I think.

You still want the focal reduction? If not and it is ONLY the smart adapter functions, there are a gazillion different smart adapters for EF to E mount that don't have glass at all and so just use the lens as is and IS works great. AF is going to be slow with most cameras and effectively AFS only with just about all. Some combinations will not work for AF and some third party lenses might have problems as well with some combinations (from my experience with an A7 and A7s and four different adapters from cheap to a MB). Some EF to E smart adapters are less than $100. I have a Lens Turbo for EF to M4/3 and while it has its uses with some Canon lenses for the most part it is for third party lenses with mechanical aperture and focus.

While they are not common, there ARE lenses that have a T stop the same as the F stop. When used on a FF A7 series camera, the really nice little Sony Zeiss 55 1.8 has a T stop of 1.8 (with a bit more vignetting than the two M4/3 25mm lenses wide open). When used on a APSC camera, it has a T stop of 2 for some reason (I had it in my head it would be the other way around) but now vignetting has more than halved. https://www.dxomark.com/Lenses/Compare/Side-by-side/Sony-FE-Carl-Zeiss-Sonnar-T-STAR-55mm-F18-on-Sony-A7R-II-versus-Olympus-MZUIKO-DIGITAL-ED-25mm-F12-PRO-on-Olympus-OM-D-E-M1-Mark-II-versus-Panasonic-Leica-Summilux-DG-25mm-F14-on-Olympus-OM-D-E-M1-Mark-II__1252_1035_1774_1136_450_1136

A7s is 12mp FF 3:2 and 10mp FF in 16:9 Video is always 16:9. M4/3 cameras often have a greater range of aspect ratios so might be easier to test with. GX7 has 4:3 16mp, 3:2 14mp, 16:9 12mp and 1:1 11.5mp ( I have mine set to 3:2 mostly lately).