noone

Yeah, sorry! Probably should read "don't get the argument about a different look between a lens for one format with a focal reducer on a smaller format against one made for that format as most lenses are different even within the same format. " Or something like that.

Well perspective compression is relative to your distance to your subject ( that why people speak about equivalence , a 42.5 on micro four third and a 85mm on full frame will produce the same compression at the same distance from the subject) The test you show simply say that the Leica are more corrected in term of distortion than the Cooke. If you like distortion, get the Kippon, you will get a lot of it. But in term of compression and dof your 80mm f 2.8 will act like a 52mm f 2 . The point of larger format is I guess that wide angle are a bit easier to manufacture. That reminds me. When the Kipon m4/3 smart adapter (not a focal reducer) for EF lenses was first released, it had bad distortion (and other issues) but after a few firmware updates, it is just fine and the distortion issue is a thing of the past. I don't think it is necessarily a focal reducer issue as opposed to a design issue. To me, focal reducers are simply tools that allow access to more lenses and are particularly useful when there are no or few lenses of a particular type for a given camera. There is much less need in using medium format lenses on a FF sensor as there is so much choice available. I don't get the argument about different look generally as all lenses are different even for the same format. Maybe if you have a lens designed as a wide angle for one system that becomes telephoto on another there might be some issue of distortion (from lens design not perspective) IE maybe a 15mm FF lens on a Pentax Q? That said, I do like what Mattias is doing anyway from the results.

It CAN be. Again, it depends. I have not had any real issues, just occasionally would I like a bit less DOF with M4/3 and I can not remember the last time I wanted deeper DOF with FF which is sort of the opposite that I see mentioned a bit. Honestly, while I prefer to use my A7s for my (very limited, non grading, not often seen) video use, that is because a lot is at higher ISOs than my GX7 can use (ISO 3200 limit) and has little to do with DOF. I often shoot with 17mm FF and for that am using f5.6 or even f8 sometimes to fit a rock band in shot from close to/next to the stage. Sometimes f4 is enough but I seem to prefer it at 5.6 for bands. IF I was using M4/3 for live music, I would likely be using f4 most of the time if I could (don't have a wide lens that could do that). For shots of individuals, I want shallower sometimes to isolate them from the background. With my 100mm f2 lens I would likely be using f2 but I would do that with the same lens on both cameras but just be shooting the M4/3 camera from a bit further back. Using a shorter lens with M4/3. I would still be pretty happy using f2. For portraits, unless I want the one eye in focus thing, I like using f5.6 a lot FF and my favourite portrait lens for M4/3 is the little Canon 40 2.8 STM on my Kipon adapter and GX7. I do love fast glass though and still have an old FF 85 1.2 and have had a couple of FF 50 1.2 lenses and FF 24 1.4.

While it IS easier to get shallower DOF with larger sensors, I don't think the difference is all that much a lot of the time. FF lenses can have infinite DOF even with very fast lenses and M4/3 can have fairly shallow DOF even with quite slow lenses. Much depends on subject distance. When you really want very shallow DOF you might just need a fraction more space behind the subject (and maybe not all that much). I am fine with people at f5.6 or f8 FF and 2.8 or f4 with M4/3. Even 5.6 and M4/3 is ok a lot of the time with longer lenses. I have a nice old Sigma APO macro 180mm 5.6 lens I like on FF. Wouldn't pay a $1000 for it but I would love to be able to use it on M4/3 (it is Sony A mount so I can not use it at all at the moment). Was nice on the A7 using an LA-EA4.

If you shoot in low light often, then the A7sii. If not, the A7Rii. The A7sii (and original A7s) are both very nice stills cameras I think and especially in low light. I had (and loved) the original A7 too but as I shoot stills a lot in low light, I sold the A7 and kept the A7s. What it (A7sii) is not, is a camera for pro sports shooters, or for AFC or if you need more than 12mp. The A7Rii has a lot more spec for stills. For video, if you ever want to use higher than ISO 25600, the A7R ii can not go above that, the A7sii can. If you want to use auto focus with your manual focus Nikons, well you can even do that with the A7Rii the Sigma adapter (as long as the lenses are not too heavy).

Nah, turns out it is just an old super 8 camera but I spent a whole $10 on it anyway. A Cinemax 8EE with a roll of Kodachrome 40. Nowhere I could get it developed even if it wasn't fogged though but it is a fun little new toy. Battery life looks to be terrible (it doesn't have one) but I wish digital cameras could be wound up like this. My last Super 8 camera must have been almost 40 years ago! I do not understand how anyone could look through the OVF it is so small.

The Fotga adapter is fine but I am only using it for stills. The Canon lenses can not be used for video AF on my A7s as all my adapters are AFS only effectively and even if it did work for AFC, it would be very slow. Aperture control is exactly the same as with a Canon camera. IE control is via the camera (unless using a lens like a third party MF lens with an aperture ring). I have had no issues with light leaks or any other problems with it (and not really any with any adapter other than ALL the adapters play up with my Sigma 150 except for the "broken" no name adapter and manual focus). For video and the A7s, I am mostly using the FE kit lens when I want AF, sometimes the Sony Zeiss 55 1.8 but mostly manual focus with the Canon 17 TS-E on my Metabones IV and mostly I am just shooting bands for the odd song or two getting all band members in shot and focus and letting them do the work. The Fotga would not be as good as the MB iv for that as the "hole" isn't quite as large (or scalloped )when I want to shift the lens a fraction. The Fotga is also a lot lighter as it is mostly plastic while the Metabones is metal. the 17 TS-E is a heavy and valuable lens and while the Fotga would likely be fine with the lens, I don't want to risk it, especially in a mosh pit or near the stage at a pub gig. The Fotga works great with my 100 f2 and 40 2.8 STM. I might try a video with the IR filter at some point but it would be pretty lame if I did it. I am more interested now in finding some other filters to try IN the adapter spot. Prime interest to me is that apodization filter but it seems it will be very costly if possible at all. I am looking on Ebay for some cheap other 43mm filters to play with. Maybe a polarizer and maybe some close up filters and even maybe one of those Hollywood Black Magic filters in a low strength one (to try behind the 100 f2 and 40 2.8 maybe for stills?). Other possibilities include things like star filters and diffusers and whatever else comes along. I might try a clear glass filter and smear the edges with something or using different sticky tapes around the edges (I am very curious). I have a couple of things to shoot for people this week so I might see if I can find a 43mm filter locally. I am shooting a favourite band on Friday night. I doubt the light will be good enough to use the IR filter behind the 17 but it might be ok behind the 100, maybe I can try a couple of seconds of video with that?

I will be spending $10 (Australian) on an old super 16 (I think) movie camera tomorrow just because it has a roil of (long expired) film with it. After that I guess it will sit in a large box with all the other old toys.

YES! It works with my 17 f4 L TS-E. I wont post any of the rubbish samples I just took but this is going to be a lot cheaper using a 43mm piece of filter glass instead of buying a 150mm IR filter to fit in my X-Pro filter holder. Now I really have to see if anyone makes a 43mm circular apodization filter that works like an STF lens that I can use with my 100 f2. There is a company that makes them I think but I am shuddering about the price.

Well I'll be! I destroyed the filter. The edge was soft aluminium so was simple enough to file the edge off and have the glass just fine. This is going to be fun. The filter fits right in. It might be a little loose but once you put a lens on it seems ok. An EF-S lens doesn't seem to fit (probably for the same reason Canon FF cameras can not mount them). That means my 18-55 APSC kit lens is out but my EF 100 f2 is ok (for fit at least). Sticky tape would work well to hold the filter in too I think. Amazing. With my A7s and Fotga adapter I am getting auto focus indoors with a 750nm IR filter and can see easily in the EVF! OP, This will easily take two filters (one inside, one on the lens front though if it is any good or not is another story. Two snaps. The filter glass sitting loose in the adapter and one taken with the lens and filter in place auto focused. This calls for more 43mm filters for me! Thanks for the thread, this will be fun (though add to more cost I can not afford). As for the IR image, remember it is just a first snap in the excitement and is with AF at ISO 51200 and 1/15 with a 100mm lens at f2. Have to check it with my 17 TS-E too!

Damn Damn Damn! My smallest filters are 43mm (for the filter drawer of my Tamron 300 2.8.) I have the original clear glass the lens came with and also a IR filter I got to experiment with. I had to file the IR filter edges down to get it to fit. IF I took the glass out of the IR filter, I think it would fit nicely in the Fotga circle. Decisions decisions, do I destroy the filter to try this or do I keep it for mucking around with IR and 300 2.8! Let me think about it.

The Fotga and no name. Plenty of space in each for a thin filter but if you got the size right, the Fotga could have one slip right in with luck. Metabones and Commlite (I found my junk box) are fairly similar to the Metabones. The Metabones has a larger scalloped hole than the others (designed that way for use with tilt shift lenses I understand).

I wouldn't risk my Metabones. I only use that for manual focus with my 17mm TS-E but I like that just as it is. My cheap Fotga is mostly plastic but I use that as my AF adapter (though slow AF) with a 100 f2, 40 2.8 and a couple of cheap EF mount zooms. My no name adapter doesn't work for AF at all anymore but became like a Metabones when breaking in that it now magnifies automatically. I use that with a EF mount 150 2.8 Sigma that doesn't play well with the other adapters and as a back up for the TS-E. The Commlite is around here in a junk box somewhere since I can not use it on the A7s (sold my A7 long ago). Looking inside the adapters, The Fotga has a circular ledge about the size and shape of a filter that the contacts are on. I think a (fairly) thin filter could sit in there easily without modification if lucky . The Metabones and no name don't have a circular area that a filter could just slip in but could easily hold one below their contact ledges. I want to try for a filter that mimics the STF lenses. Have been looking for one that fits in the filter drawer of my old 300 2.8 Tamron but that would mean a custom filter and being expensive. Maybe if I find one that fits in one of these it might be worth a go too. I will take a couple of shots in the adapters soon and maybe use one of my many old filters as a sacrifice (to see if it fits).

The cheapest EF to E smart adapters are not that expensive (under $100 US). Maybe one of the older ones second hand could be found very cheap. There must be six or seven different smart adapters for Canon lenses on Sony E mount cameras, maybe more! I have four different ones ranging from a cheap Fotga to a Metabones iv. Some may have issues with some cameras (I have a Commlite that doesn't mount to my A7s but did to my A7).

If you use the 17-40 EF L or 17-35 2.8 L lens instead, those lenses do have a rear slot for a gel filter. Then maybe add another to the front. Then again, maybe best not to use them at their widest zoom setting from what I have read.

That new GH10 has sure made M4/3 a much more viable format. Personally I think it is almost as good at ISO 2,000,000 as last years A7s xxiv!

Maybe. I just remember not THAT long ago there used to be four or five photographic stores in my (small) city alone. I used to haunt the second hand sections in those stores as well. Harvey Norman wouldn't stock the higher end stuff for long if it wasn't selling. I must go there today and look but last time I was there it was the lower and mid stuff that had shrunk a great deal/disappeared. They don't have a huge amount but might have some Canon/Nikon pro lenses (2.8 zooms , 85 1.2L and the range of FF cameras ETC). I have purchased a LOT of second, third and fourth hand gear from Ebay too. Now, there are a few photographic chain stores hanging on (Camera House in Australia though they closed their store here a couple of years ago). I now have Ebay still and also a couple of pawn shops but they don't have a lot of stuff that often. Surprisingly for some photo stuff I find charity shops can have some nice stuff but you might have to ask them if they have anything out the back. I have to go to Sydney, Melbourne or Brisbane for nicer stuff usually. There are very few dedicated stores that stock high end gear now though I note a new one just opened in Brisbane a couple of months ago. They have a slick booklet (summer catalogue) insert in a magazine. I especially like that they advertise the three Nikon DL cameras in it ($889, $1079 and $1197 Australian)!

I am not so sure that Nikon is in all that much trouble (YET). There are very few dedicated photo shops left (none here) and cameras are sold in electronics chain stores mostly now. Just looked in one and there were 4 Nikon DSLRs (no FF, some older models), 2 Nikon mirrorless (AW and normal 1), 5 Canon DSLRs (no FF), 3 Canon mirrorless (m10 and a couple of M3 options). There were 2 Sony Mirrorless (an A6000 and A5### - no A6300 or A6500), 2 OLy m4/3 and 2 Panasonic M4/3 (none of the top ones). Only a handful of various lower level lenses. At the other end of the cabinet were almost as many video camcorders from Sony, Panasonic and a couple of others from around $200 to about $1000, plenty of "action" cameras and tiny video things. In between, a few point and shoot (including some Nikon Coolpix). 3 or 4 different Instax cameras of varying colours. The range there has shrunk a fair bit in the last year. A store like Harvey Norman (another electronics chain) here still has a bit larger range and more lenses including FF cameras and Canon/Nikon "L" /gold ring type lenses but their range has also shrunk greatly lately from what it was not so long ago. Nikon may well be in trouble but not really any more than anyone else it seems.

I use two vintage 1959 mk 1 eyeballs and a (faulty) brain. Why what do you use?

Ok, after another 29min and 50 seconds it shut off with 24% battery left. The camera bottom was hardly any warmer (very comfortable to hold). The grip was also now about as warm. Not an issue at all. So, a two to three year old battery gave me an hour of video in two half hour sections with about a quarter capacity left, without any heating issue even when placed on a warm blanket and with the LCD left in and recording both XAVC-S and MP4 at the same time. Not a camera you could use for remote shooting for hours (but not many are).

The battery life is actually a lot better than most would think. The trick is to use fresh batteries and if you do, you can get over a 1000 shots if shooting straight away. I had three batteries with me (all are getting old and due for replacement) but only used one and left after around 400 shots with well over 50% left. Had I taken a few shots, put the camera away shot some more later, put the camera away ETC, THEN I would have got poor battery life. The A7s doesn't have a 12minute recording time. I mostly don't record for that long anyway as I am just shooting songs one at a time (didn't record at all on Friday) but it has a 29min limit (I think it is). I have never had any over heating with it. My previous Pentax Kx on the other hand would burn after one or two songs. EDIT I just put in a fresh (but old) battery. Turned on video, and put the camera on my bed on a woolly blanket. Shooting both XAVC-S and MP4 at the same time. Got to 29mins and whatever seconds with 69% battery left. The bottom of the camera was just mildly warm. I have turned it on again and will see how long this lasts. I expect it will do another 29min and then I will have to change the battery. I don't need 4k yet (I am curious and keep hoping I can find an external recorder cheap enough). I prefer the size of the first gen A7s over the second. I have had a few cameras with IBIS and it would be nice but is not needed so much with the A7s. All that said, It isn't the best camera for many things though and not many would choose it as their primary camera. I have a GX7 I like a lot too that will maybe need replacing later. If I had the money, the GH5 would be a strong candidate as it seems a wonderful choice to complement the A7s as they could hardly be more different from each other. Realistically though, the GH5 is likely far more camera than I need for what it does well and I probably couldn't afford it anyway but I hope it is what everyone wants it to be.

The lighting there is the best. Rapidly changes and has all sorts of different lights. I love that stage but never know what the light will be in the next second. I have ISO set to auto at 51200 often but it never had to get anywhere near that for THAT gig (often it does even at that venue). I used three lenses, a 17mm f4 for full band shots and at 5.6 mostly, a 55 1.8 (the above shot was with) and a Canon 100 f2. I was using aperture priority and knowing the minimum shutter speeds the camera will set with each lens. The above shot was at 5.6 as at the time I was trying for a bit deeper DOF (if I had a couple of the band members in shot - not the drummer). It was 6400 for that shot because that is what the lighting gave me at the aperture I chose and with that lens, knowing the camera would use at least 1/60. Plenty of other shots at different times with the same settings, the camera would have given me a lower ISO and at other gigs, a higher one. With film cameras I would have HAD to use fast lenses wide open, with the first DSLRs I used, I would have been able to use slight slower lenses or stop down just a bit more. Each generation gives me more options. With the A7s, it is my choice what I use. ISOs for that gig ranged form ISO 100 to 8000 with only a handful at 6400 to 8000. This one was with the 55 at f2 and I got ISO 640 but again, it COULD easily have been much higher.

Actually, one thing. If you need high ISOs, it doesn't mean the lighting sucks, it just means it is low. I want to be able to take photos when I want, not just half the day. I would hate to go to many shows or gigs or restaurants ETC where the light was bright. It would destroy the atmosphere a lot of the time. Having better high ISOs just means you can shoot longer or with faster shutter speeds.

Sometimes I can not go UNDER ISO 3200! I had the luxury of a gig on Friday night that the highest I needed was ISO 8000. 6400 is nothing these days with the better FF cameras. For M4/3 though it is currently a stop to far most of the time.

Three shots. The first from 2005 with a IST*D at ISO 3200 (Adalita from Magic Dirt) The next from 2011 at a festival I was shooting for with a Kx at ISO 3200 and the last from 2015 with a A7s at ISO 102400 (US rock band 10 years).. I used a fast shutter speed for the A7s shot as the band is very fast moving and the light was also changing rapidly. While not great, I think the A7s shot is far better than the IST*D shot. These days I would likely delete that IST*D shot but back then some from that gig were used on their 2005 Warner album Snow White at small size in the collage. I have shot several festivals, sometimes for the festival and sometimes you just have to take what light you get. The A7s shot was in brighter light than the Magic Dirt shot but that is another advantage of better high ISOs - I can use much faster shutter speeds when I want. I never even tried my Canon 7d for live music. That camera was for other things.