noone

D3300 looks ok. Personally I would consider the Sony A6000. You can still find them new and would be compatible with your lens and seems about the same as the D3300 for low light. No tilting LCD on the Nikon https://www.dxomark.com/Cameras/Compare/Side-by-side/Sony-A7S-versus-Sony-A6000-versus-Nikon-D3300___949_942_928 https://***URL removed***/products/compare/side-by-side?products=nikon_d3300&products=sony_a6000

12.8 stops for the GH4 is for stills in RAW at ISO 100 only. It drops away quite quickly as you go up the ISO range (as most cameras do). I think we worry about DR headline numbers too much. As long as there is enough is all that really matters (unless you are shooting a Hollywood feature film maybe).

Jut remembered, there is an adapter that is (was) sold as being able to use AFC with some combinations. The Saker Falcon lite and also a clone from Tech Art (I think). Not sure how well they work and can not seem to find much on them (and the website I was watching has gone). I have always intended getting one of these to try with my A7s even though AFC needs a PDAF hybrid camera (AFS was supposed to be a bit faster and I may well get a hybrid E mount camera sometime). They would probably still not work good enough for AF in video, even if AFC works.

A 50mm f2 lens on a .72x focal reducer becomes aprox a 36mm 1.4 lens. Doesn't matter what sensor size the format is. If you put the 50mm lens on a non focal reducer adapter on M4/3 you get a 50mm f2 lens with the FF angle of view of 100mm with f4 DOF (while still being a 50mm f2). With the focal reducer it has a 72mm FF angle of view with 2.8 FF DOF (while still being a 36mm 1.4 lens). It makes NO difference to the sensor at all. A native 35 1.4 lens is not really any different to a 50mm lens on a focal reducer. I believe some fast wide angle zoom lenses are constructed using a focal reducer internally. The thing is that mostly focal reducers seem to be used with fast lenses for more exotic results or to make slow kit type lenses more useful especially on M4/3.

Then so should the A/B focus pull. And it does (with Canon lens on Kipon adapter on GX7) if used like that (A to B focus change). I would not rely on it for a once only chance shot though but if you can shoot and reshoot, it is actually good enough I think. Not something I have ever needed or really tried but just mucking around now with the GX7 and EF 40 2.8 STM (indoors with a fluoro on in the next room camera is choosing ISO 3200 for stills at 2.8 with the 40 2.8 and 1/25 so about the upper limit for the GX7 for me) it is quite fast to focus and doesn't always hunt. Will have to experiment more (though not a GH5 so maybe for another thread). EDIT: Playing around a bit more with it, it does always seem to be hunting just a bit that would be annoying in video in lowish light anyway.

Ah ok, I just responded to a post about touch focus but I must have missed something. While I can continually touch to focus in video mode with the GX7 and it is fast to focus with my EF 40 2.8 STM for instance, it wouldn't be quite up to being a smooth flow and can hunt just a bit in video.

You want more colour choice with the A6000? Buy the colour grading app for a few bucks and you could literally spend the rest of your life trying settings and still not get anywhere near the end of the combinations for video.

I would think it will with the GH5. Even my old GX7 with Kipon smart adapter works for touch focus for stills and video with EF/EFs lenses. Continuous AFC doesn't work of course with this combination but touch AF is good for stills anyway. It seems like it would have its use for video too but I don't use the GX7 for video much and touch AF for video especially with adapted lenses almost never.

Well you don't really get a APSC size sensor, you still have an M4/3 sensor and you change the lens. If you put a (say) ,72x focal reducer on a 50mm f2 lens on M4/3, you get a 36mm 1.4 lens as a result. Is that going to be any real difference to a native M4/3 35 1.4 lens? To me, the DOF thing is vastly overrated both ways as there are few situations it has mattered to me about what format I am using. Even a 24mm 1.4 lens FF gets infinite pretty quickly. Of course you are allowed to buy lighting but my point was that I don't see many people deciding between an A7 series camera and a GH5 OTHER than for video use and even then it is only the A7s/A7sii really and they have different strengths. Regards thin depth of field, for my (very limited) video use, I prefer 5.6 FF most of the time. For stills, I use fast lenses often but rarely 1.2 FF though again, even that can have plenty of DOF when needed. Again, regards f0.95 in focus for video, I agree the GH5 will be a game changer for video in the Pro/semi pro sector but it is not going to be competing there with the A7 series. Maybe there will be some people looking to compare it to APSC cameras but are many of those APSC cameras being compared really in the same segment? Video wise, for specs/features at least they will be light years behind but for stills again, M4/3 (while good) is always going to be playing catch up. For stills shooters there is a LOT of video specs they will be paying for in the GH5 that they don't have to pay for in something else. I am not saying this wont be a great stills camera and if you get the GH5 for video use in many cases you wont need another camera for stills. I have never had any issue with overheating with my A7s and have gone out of my way to see what would take to get it to overheat (have run it for more than the 30min limit twice continually placed on a woollen blanket with the LCD in on a warmish summers day). My previous A7 I didn't have issues with either but only ever did the odd song (3 to 5 minutes usually) but no one would seriously compare the original A7 to a GH5. The A7 is an excellent stills camera but is just like all the other cameras that have video as an after thought (but with a few video things that at the time were not so common to its video quality level). I had overheating issues with my Pentax Kx when I even pointed it at a band to video a song. No question the GH5 is going to be a wonderful video camera. Pros and serious video amateurs will love it, but again, how many are really going to be choosing between an A7 series camera and GH5? Most of the market for A7 series cameras is for stills (but with variations) A7s for low light/high ISO video but that is still not an area for the GH5, the GH5 is mostly for video. The battery on the A7s just needs you to think differently about batteries. Used fresh, they get a LOT more charge than is often stated. I get a thousand or so shots out of a two year old battery that has been used frequently. If I shot a bit and stopped, shot some more and stopped ETC the battery life is poor (but easy to take two or three and they are small) but used fresh I have no problems. I often take two or three with me but half the time only need one battery for hundreds of stills and one or two videos. I love the touch screen in my GX7 but even with out it. I still have to go into the menu less with my A7s than I do with the GX7. The GH5 is in a different market for most people than the A7 series cameras and a different market as well to most APSC cameras I think..

Apart from a few serious video users, are many people really going to be deciding between an M4/3 GH5 and a FF A7ii/A7Rii/A7sii? It seems to me the GH5 is going to get a huge part of the semi pro/lower budget pro video market and indie film market but the only Sony in that space is the A7sii and that camera is to me complementary to the GH5 rather than in opposition to it. I love m4/3 but much prefer a larger sensor to shoot at night/high ISO/low light and don't see that changing any time soon. GH5 would be serious overkill for my video use and while it seems a nice stills camera, I still couldn't see it being a better stills camera than even the APSC Sony's, Fuji's and others.

Cant help about which lens but there are a zillion different smart adapters for EF to E mount (I have four different ones). How well AF works depends on the camera more than anything and with most (cameras) AF is slow and AFS only. Only the latest cameras have fast AF I understand (IE the A7Rii, A7ii and A6500. The A6300 MIGHT be one of those but I am not sure. My experience is with the A7s and A7 is AF is slow but ok for patient adults, ducks on a pond and stationary subjects ETC. AFC doesn't work with my of my combinations. Some combinations didn't work at all for AF (some lenses would AF with one adapter but not another and a different adapter it would be the other way around). MOST combinations do work for AF but all work for manual focus. I also have the Kipon adapter for EF to M4/3 and it is a lot faster but it doesn't work with one of my old lenses that some of the others do. If the A6300 works better than the first gen A7 series, it might also be ok for AFC and MAYBE AF in video but none of the older cameras is. I have had issues with a Sigma lens and all my adapters (it works ok now for MF with one after "breaking" and also works great for AF on M4/3 and the Kipon) so there could be an issue with some of the third party 2,8 lenses and some combinations. Some of the EF to E smart adapters are quite cheap. I have a Fotga that cost under $100. It is plastic mostly (the others are mainly metal) but it works ok for me and my lenses on my A7s. It has a space that I have found I can put a 43mm filter (filter glass only) and am having fun experimenting with that (just a thought- am looking at trying soft focus filters and polarisers ETC and would love to get an apodizing filter to put there). Some of the more expensive adapters like the Metabones have USB ports for updates, the cheaper ones don't. Some also have a larger "hole" (scalloped inside) to work better with tilt shift lenses. There is also a Sigma adapter that will allow AF with manual focus lenses with the latest PDAF/CDAF hybrid cameras and I THINK that will also work with the A6300 and many lenses (weight dependent) but not certain. A mount lenses with a lens motor will be fine with an LA-EA3 I think and those without a lens motor will need an LA-EA4 (there are also LA-EA1 and LA-EA2 adapters). There are limits with the A mount lenses adapted. I sold my LA-EA4 and some A mount lenses though some were ok. The LA-EA adapters use a much smaller AF area, EF lenses use the same area as native E mount and work to the same EV (IE my Canon lenses while slow to AF still work in lower light on my A7s than on Canon cameras.

That link to Shane Hurlbut's article and while under his name starts off "This is David Weldon, Shane’s assistant." Just saying for accuracy.

I would love a fast zoom to play with though not something I need. I think there are the two four thirds f2 zooms, the two APSC 18-35 1.8 Sigma, the 50-100 1.8 Sigma and the FF Sigma 24-35 f2. ALL would be useable on M4/3 for stills at least with fast AF and keep the fast aperture (just with 2 stops more DOF against FF) and smart adapters.. The two four thirds lenses would depend on camera used I think. I look for a bargain Sigma 24-35 f2 from time to time to try adapted to FF and M4/3 (not quite as useful on M4/3 to me but might still be fun).

I love (most) Canon lenses I have had/used but just don't fully get on with Canon cameras. I am just glad the Canon's can be adapted (and some seem to me to be better adapted than on native Canon cameras for me).

Does it have a filter drawer so I can shove that in my ANUS? Or do I have to screw it to my ANUS?

I would think the lenses you have purchased will be very nice. What is wow factor to you? What they wont give you is shallow depth of field comparable to the three Canon lenses above. Even the 24-105 will give a stop shallower DOF (used FF) against the 2.8 M4/3 zooms and you would need a 17.5mm f0.7 lens to match the 35. The 135 f2 L is a very nice lens too and a bargain these days (I regret selling mine sometimes). So, the lenses you have may well be wow enough but depends on what you want. Maybe adding one or two faster M4/3 primes would do it along with those zooms. For my limited video use and for stills, I am fine with a 5.6 lens FF though and that is matched for DOF by the 2.8 M4/3 zooms.

Canon IS lens with a smart adapter is good too. You can use the lens with IS and a non focal reducer smart adapter or with IS and a focal reducer/speed booster. One thing though is that EF-S lenses might not play well with a Speed Booster (so a cheap Canon APSC IS kit lens maybe not a choice for a Speed Booster but ok with the non focal reducer).

That's because you're not using a larger lens circle. When you put a full-frame 35mm lens on an APS-C camera you're not using a full-frame lens the way it was intended. You're only using the center section of glass in the lens. I have different systems BECAUSE they are different. I didn't buy them to try and get the same result and often use the SAME lenses across systems as it saves me buying more lenses. That said, IF there is a lens available, then you can match them all else being equal*** Trouble is, there are no 12mm f0.7 M4/3 lenses that would be needed to match a 24 1.4 lens FF or 42.5mm f0.6 M4/3 lens you would need to match an 85 1.2 FF. You would probably need to be shooting in something besides air to be able to match a FF f0.95 lens with M4/3 (though an f0.5 lens would get close). Using focal reducers with the fastest lenses doesn't get you any benefit in speed either as there seems to be limits. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lens_speed#Fast_lenses If you have a faster medium format lens, the same also applies against FF but again, apart from some rare and expensive mostly aerial lenses, that isn't going to be available and wide angle lenses in particular are not going to be (easily) matched (let alone beaten) by what is available for FF. For me, "equivalence" favours smaller formats for telephoto use (as long as it is "good enough"). *** The day M4/3 can match my A7s in low light/high ISO is likely still quite a way off though wouldn't it be nice to see and of course by then FF low light cameras will be better still. The Government does create jobs!

Maybe visit charity clothing shops and see if there are any old large bridal gowns being put into rags out the back?

Maybe but the slightly different angle might make a difference too.

If it is like the original A7s in HD at least, it is at 102400 that it falls apart. The intermediate ISOs (64,000 and 80,000) are also ok. I sometimes set auto ISO to 102400 but that is just to allow it to hopefully go to 80,000. Otherwise, I set auto ISO to 51200 max for video. If I don't set auto ISO high enough, that is when I see ghosting becoming an issue more often.

"Right -- it becomes a 56mm FF lens, with the properties of an 80mm lens on MF." No, it becomes a 56mm lens. Adding the speedbooster changes the lens, not the camera. Some lenses are designed by using a focal reducer internally I understand. All you are doing here is adding it externally. "Why not just design a simpler lens with the desired focal length -- without any focal reduction stage?" Perhaps he should. Maybe something like the Coastal Optics 60mm for instance? Oh wait, he did??

You can not lump all the A7 cameras into one. While I don't really have an opinion on what exactly a cinematic look is, I found the original A7 was ok for my amateur use videos (much better as a daytime stills camera than as a video camera) but the A7s is so much better for video. I sure hope the A7s is not like film either as film was crap at higher ISOs. I am not seeing a whole lot of films being released in cinemas from cameras mostly used in these forums though. Please send any that you find particularly obnoxious to me and I will dispose of it safely. Give me a few Million and I will buy an island and a GH5 and report back in a few years!

I thought if a movie was cinematic or not depended on if they used the same gear as "you" do or not? It seems the better the film maker, the less the need for expensive gear (I need as pricey as it gets). Just about all cameras have some things they do well and others not so much though so there is still a place for choosing the right gear for the job from what is available to you. I was photographing a band last Friday night and as an afterthought recorded an original song they have and I started late, was hand held and not stabilized and out of focus for the first few seconds. I shot in both XAVC-s and MP4 at the same time. Looking at the results, the MP4 is terrible. Horrid ghosting and just an ugly mess (was using auto ISO and was varying up to around ISO 51200 I think), the XAVC-s was actually ok (apart from the issues that are all from ME) and good enough to give the band at least so it just means that me plus a reasonable camera for video is ok sometimes, me plus a lesser camera (or shooting a lower quality anyway) is unwatchable. Skill and know how matters most of the time, gear matters some of the time. Skill AND gear together is almost always going to win

I guess I just don't look on a focal reducer to give a Medium format "look" on FF or FF on APSC or APSC or FF lenses on M4/3 ETC. You are not changing anything to do with the Camera but you are changing the lens. I would love a M4/3 Speedbooster to use my Canon lenses on my GX7 but am fine with the non focal reducer Kipon adapter and when I do want a focal reducer I do have a first gen Lens Turbo but being a "dumb" adapter, I can only use my lenses wide open and some I can not focus (some can). I like that the lenses get a speed boost and sometimes want the shorter focal length but it is not changing the GX7 to a APSC camera. I also have the wretched Light Cannon with Nikon lenses on my M4/3. Now there is a device that can put people off focal reducers forever! Got it very cheap just to see if it had any redeeming features or use when it was being sold as a "soft focus" adapter- maybe it does but I have not found a situation to use it yet really. I wanted to try and fit a M4/3 focal reducer to my A7s via the thin M4/3 to Sony E adapter to experiment but the focal reducers don't fit in the adapter.