noone

I have no idea about the best 120p but geez I think an A7sii in a place like Patagonia would be my choice for evenings for stills anyway.

Seems a bit, well, noisy even at base. Or is that bass?

I gave mine away ages ago with an Oly M4/3 camera to relatives before using it for video (mine was version 1). I have just done a Google search and found this at B&H for version ii so it seems it does work for video but not stills. "Supports the Contrast AF system for highly precise autofocus. Continuous Auto Focus (AFC) does not work for still image capture but is usable when recording video"

If you just want to use your Canon lenses, there is also a Kipon adapter that is not a focal reducer/speedbooster and it is bit cheaper. I don't know how well it would work with your camera but it is fine with my GX7 and all my Canon lenses except an ancient film era EF 28-90. Doesn't work for AFC with my camera but AFS is pretty quick and fairly accurate (and including my EF-S 18-55 IS ii kit lens). It doesn't allow IBIS with my GX7 and Canon lenses for some reason but IBIS is fairly limited anyway with the GX7. IS works well when that is in the lens. IF AF in video or AFC is required, native is still better (except for the Panasonic 20mm 1.7 at least). If you can afford it, I would recommend at least trying a AF adapter/speedbooster to use your lenses especially if keeping dual systems.

What will you be using it for mainly? What ISOs do you think you will be shooting at? The Sony would be better for stills for me, the Panasonic the better for video. The Sony is one of the better APSC cameras at base ISO for DR (after a few Nikons and one or two others). DXO is measuring at base ISO and only for RAW stills. The GH5 should be a little better than the GH4 for DR for stills and one of the better M4/3 cameras but still behind APSC and larger sensor cameras. The DR falls away quicker the smaller the sensor too. DR for video would be different to DR for stills too. BOTH cameras have a DR advantage at base ISO over your Canon, at higher ISOs your Canon catches the GH4 (about ISO 800) anyway. I think either would be good. If offered the two, I would take the Sony but I mainly shoot stills with some video. If it was the other way around, I think the GH5 would be my choice.

Are we sure that is not just with LOG? Maybe in the final camera it will be different. IF it IS ISO 400 starting for video that would be silly as it would severely limit its day time use. The A7s has different base ISOs depending on picture profile used EG PP7, base is ISO 3200, PP3 is ISO 200 others ISO 100 (and stills has ISOs 80, 64 and 50 available), surely the GH5 would be similar??

Just under 13 stops at ISO 100 for print, just over 12 for screen but we often forget that is applying to the sensor and for stills in RAW only. I would think that video (unless RAW) is mostly going to be less. GH4 DR drops away fairly steeply as you go up the ISO range (as is the case with most cameras but especially smaller sensor cameras). The Canon 5Diii that has been mentioned a bit in this thread has about a stop less DR at ISO 100 but has caught up by ISO 400 and is a stop ahead by ISO 3200 (against the GH4). https://www.dxomark.com/Cameras/Compare/Side-by-side/Panasonic-Lumix-DMC-GH4-versus-Canon-EOS-5D-Mark-III___943_795 The latest Canons seem to have been raised their DR at base to the levels of other APSC and FF cameras. Many cameras don't have the same range of ISOs for video that they do for stills. My A7s can not go under ISO 100 for video and my GX7 can not go over ISO 3200 for video. I cant help but thinking the GH5 , for video might look better than its DXO scores would indicate. GH5 maybe will have a bit better DR and a bit less noise than the GH4 and should be not much different for stills but video, maybe some of its tech will make it better (against others). I still think it wont match fairly recent APSC or FF cameras in low light but up to ISO 3200 (maybe 6400) many will prefer it (video anyway) maybe??

Surely a D500 and a GH5 (and A7sii) are very different cameras? GH5 looks like it will be THE camera for video in good light at least (probably up to ISO 6400 anyway) and will be a decent M4/3 stills camera. The D500 will be by far a better stills camera and for sports and wildlife for the most part while having some video use and the A7sii would be the one for stills and video in low light. If I had unlimited funds, those three would complement each other and never be alternatives to each other (though video to the GH5 level is much more than I would need) I just wish Nikon lenses adapted across systems as good as Canon lenses.

Looks fantastic for more serious video shooters. Looks like a fantastic video camera and way beyond what most people would ever need. Certainly beyond what I would need for video. It may well be TOO good for video for many that would have previously got a GH4 (which is still going to be sold) with the much higher cost. Forget about it regards being light weight though. It seems heavier and mostly larger than every entry level DSLR (Pentax, Canon and Nikon) and around the same size give or take as many mid level DSLRs (heavier than the Nikon D5### cameras and a fraction lighter than a Pentax K5). Maybe not so many reasons to buy it as a stills camera. Maybe I might be able to get a cheaper GH4 second hand when I upgrade/replace my GX7 as my second camera in a few months.

I m not sure what a GH5 would have for the OP's needs over a GH4. Wouldn't it be more a function of the lens? I would think a GH4 with a decent fast lens would at least be worth a try. How about a GH6? (kidding, kidding)!

For people who claim to not be biased you are both making plenty of posts about how bad the A7s is as a PHOTO camera, what with one of you never having used it as a photo camera and the other having minutes of use with it. You also seem to be saying I couldn't possibly find the AF useful in low light never mind that shooting in low light is what I mainly like to do with it. You are right (as I already said), the A7s IS just a tool. but one that I and many others do use for photos. DXO isn't something to take as gospel but it IS an interesting read and the low light score IS an actual ISO based on their criteria and they still have the A7s on top for that. I own or have owned cameras from Canon, Nikon, Pentax, Sony, Olympus, Panasonic, Samsung, Polaroid, and more. I still have three SLRs (Pentax x2 and Canon), one DSLR (Nikon but have had Pentax and Canon too), Mirrorless from Pentax, Olympus, Panasonic and Sony (currently Sony and Panasonic). A Polaroid ILC rangefinder. Some of those photo cameras are AF and some are MF. I have several thousand dollars worth of Canon lenses, a couple of Pentax lenses still, a couple of Nikons and a couple of Sony's. I buy the camera that suits me regardless of who made it. It just happens that at the moment, my camera of choice is a Sony. When it comes time to replace it, I may well get anything. Lego if they made a camera that suited me. If I saw a post asking about a Nikon D750 and if it was suited to good light photography, and machine gunning for sports or "X", I would think it was but certainly would not be replying with something not relevant to the post and saying but the A7s (or whatever) is better at "Y". Lets leave it there shall we? Time to edit a lot of low light photos from a gig tonight with an A7s with AF and MF.

@noone we got it since 5 posts ago, the a7S cameras are the best for you. Also, you avoid to mention whatever you don't like from other people posts, and that shows fanboism behaviour. If someone asks me "do you know anyone that says that a7s is the best camera for photos?", I will reply "oh, just noone". LOL coming from someone who declared "a7S is not a very good photo camera, for quite some reasons. I would never thought of using one for photos" And then "Obviously, I was referring to the PHOTO part of that camera, that I have never used it as a PHOTO camera, because there are much better PHOTO cameras out there. I didn't say anything about the VIDEO part" That really is precious! Please enlighten me with what cameras ARE better PHOTO cameras than the one you have never used? Does that apply for ALL photos? I am happy to leave it at the A7s is a good camera, so is the D750, so is the "insert precious here".

@noone + @bigfoot Obviously I am not the only one having some issues with the low light AF (stills) of the a7s ii: As seen in this article...This might be a good explanation for slow AF in low light... @webrunner5 Not necessary to get ironic. I am sure, I use enough flash and lighting - when possible....But there are many situations, when it is not possible or permitted. For example I shoot horse sports (show jumping) indoor. In Germany - in most indoor competitions - it's not allowed to use flash. When I shoot show jumping, I mostly need 1/1000s shutter. And no flash. As you see in this case, there is a real practical need for high ISO cameras having fast AF. In many cases, APS-C (7D / 7D ii) fail with noisy, not acceptable IQ (though using HQ tele with constant aperture f2.8). In my eyes and from technical point of view, I speak of photography (implicating my quality needs) up to ISO 12.800 (on FF cameras known for good low light capabilities). Till this point it's light processing. Above this ISO, it's no more photography as processing of light, but interpretation of darkness. It might sometimes be useful, but it is not my understanding (!) of photography. Lets look at that. So UP to 12800, and I am assuming with a Nikon D750? OK, at ISO 12800, your D750 has 7.64 stops of DR (screen use) and 8.44 stops for print (from Dxomark). The A7s has 7.89 stops (screen) and 8.19 (print) at ISO 51200. https://www.dxomark.com/Cameras/Compare/Side-by-side/Nikon-D750-versus-Sony-A7S___975_949 Tonal range is similar all the way with just a slight edge to the A7s, colour sensitivity favours the Nikon D750 very slightly up to ISO 800 after which it favours the A7s a little and noise also favours the Sony by a fraction all the way. I have used my A7s for Harness racing (night time) shots where it shines because can use a faster shutter speed, and Greyhound racing shots from my manual focus 300 2.8 (in a national greyhound racing paper). I would take fewer shots at a high enough shutter speed any day. I have had ISO 51200 colour photos of live bands at large size in newspapers without noise reduction as any other photo (IE as a normal ISO). As to what Sony has the A7s for, the S stands for sensitivity. That is BOTH stills and videos. Their promo video http://www.sony.com.au/electronics/interchangeable-lens-cameras/ilce-7s Some of the things it says. "full frame high-sensitivity images with wide dynamic range", "high shutter speeds with extremely low noise", "improved fast intelligent AF Fast in light as low as EV -4" It ALSO goes into all the movie specs because it can. Now, as it seems some think I am just being a fan boy, lets look at that too. This was a thread about a camera with particular requirements and mentioning the A7s. From the needs in that opening post, I do think the A7s would be a good match. SOME people, like to jump on the a7s (for things not asked in the original post), and make claims that simply disagree with what I see in daily use. The A7s is not the best camera for everyone (or indeed most people0, it is terrible for tracking AF for the most part, and it is only 12mp, while it has ISO 409600, it is terrible at that setting and not usable for anything but proof of a yeti or some such. ISO 102400 is usable for my uses sometimes. I would submit a photo with it at that setting IF it was fairly unique. I would submit a photo at ISOs up to about 80,000 for normal for news or websites. 80,000 is actually quite useful for my limited video uses. Now, I would never say that a D750 is rubbish, I think it is a great camera but is it a BETTER camera than my A7s? Not for ME. I have already said, I prefer an EVF, silent shutter, 1/8000 ETC. Plenty of other reasons for ME. Cameras ARE just tools. If I was a pro sports shooter, I would have a DSLR probably still (not a D750 though) but I would still have an A7s for the areas it shines . From my experience, while AF could be improved (I will always take better when I can), the low light AF is great. In lots of lighting, even fairly low lighting, lots of DSLRs and other mirrorless would focus faster. That doesn't mean the A7s is bad though and when the light is lower still, well I know my A7s will still focus (auto AND manual).

Serious question for your friend before he (obviously) sells his A7s. How does he have "Live View Display" set? ON or OFF? if it is set to ON, that might make a difference as that means the camera is focusing stopped down so if he was using a lens at 5.6 it is focusing at 5.6 before shooting. If he has it OFF, it focuses wide open and THEN stops down which is a lot faster to focus in low light especially. That Gary Fong video was not so much for an A7s either as the A7s is a CDAF only camera and not PDAF/hybrid though the video is still pretty good.. Lock on AF does work ok in the A7s (in flexible spot as well as wide area, centre and zone AF), face detect works and even smile shutter can be quite useful (the camera will focus and fire automatically when a smile is detected and some singers are sometimes detected as smiling when they are singing and it even works - slowly- with Canon lenses). There is a lot in the A7s, some of it is excellent. Completely silent shutter is another thing that I use though rarely.

Hmm, I don't remember saying Nikon or Canon are inferior? I seem to remember saying the D750 is a good camera? It is just not for ME as for ME, my A7s does what I want. I still have a Nikon DSLR, I still have a Canon FILM SLR and have owned and used Canon DSLRs. I have more Canon lenses than anything (sold most of my Nikon lenses). You on the other hand, seem to like to put down the A7s. Any time you want to come here for that "shootout", I will be happy to oblige but I get to pick half the challenges! Oh and I wonder why Nikon did put ISO 1,640,000 in the D500 and 3,280,000 in the D5? I find 102,400 is ok and usable with the A7s but would rather it was limited to 80.000. Everyone has different needs, Edit. I mostly really do have auto ISO set to either 102400 or 51200 but in this case, I thought I must have been wrong for the last two years of using it as someone on the innernet said the AF doesn't work. I was simply putting your "theory" to the test and what can I say, my actual experience differed from your post! Sure there are lots of A7s users who would like faster/more reliable AF, that would be nice but is the camera a decent low light (and good light) stills and video camera? Is the AF ok? Is for me.

Ok, I just got home from my early morning walk. Left before dawn with just my A7s and 28-70 FE kit lens. I ONLY used AF and aperture priority set to 5.6 with the camera on auto ISO set to 102400. I used flexible spot AF set to small. I came home with 56 shots on the camera and deleted another 2 (out of habit). I didn't shoot anything special, just aimed at things near and far and regardless of the light which varied greatly, walking down the main street and side streets and into back alleys. Some into shop windows, pretty much anything. I would say AF failed for one shot (one of the deleted) and it hunted for five. The failed shot and two of the shots where it hunted were very similar (down a back alley, shooting to the other end at distance street lights and were at ISO 80,000. One of the shots that hunted was down to me forgetting to recentre the flexible spot so the camera was not focusing where I was trying to shoot. ISO used (of the 56 I came back with) 1600 1 shot 2000 1 shot 2500 4 shots 3200 1 shot 8000 2 shots 10,000 3 shots 12,800 6 shots 16,000 2 shots 20,000 4 shots 25,600 4 shots 32,000 2 shots 40,000 4 shots 51,200 3 shots 64,000 2 shots 80,000 5 shots 102,400 12 shots. That's my point, I just don't worry about the ISO and AF (or MF) works just fine for me. If you need fast tracking AF (or any tracking AF in stills), then it is the wrong camera. Actually, I think it could keep up with a slow bridal procession in a church but not what I want to do.

I have been using my A7s as a STILLS camera for two years now in all lighting conditions. There has never been a situation where I wanted a different camera. I don't consider ISO 6400 to be "low light" anymore. The A7s is not a camera for shooting sports with machine gun AF though I have used it for sports from time to time and especially for night time sports found it to be quite good (my longest decent lens is an old manual focus 300 2.8 that I have used across systems), I have had plenty of photos published in newspapers (including sports) using it over the years and would happily submit photos from the A7s using it. Sure, I would get MORE shots using a D750 and the latest greatest AF 300 2.8 but I can not afford that and from my experience, in plenty of situations, I would be using a higher shutter speed with my MF lens and A7s than someone with the Nikon combination would. I would happily do a "shootout" but it would NOT just be for one thing where the A7s is not good, but would be just about anything. I actually PREFER the AF of my A7s over the Canon 7D I used to have. The Canon was a bit faster to focus and could focus on much faster moving things but was less accurate, much more limited in focus areas and gave up earlier. My AF needs are pretty similar to the OPs from the original post (maybe I use AF a bit more even for stills and video but not to the OP's level for video), partly why I suggest they at least TRY an A7s if possible. Look, the D750 is a nice camera and for many it would be the choice of the two. It is not for me as, A) No EVF (I much prefer an EVF these days). B) Larger than I would like C) ISO limited (I often use ISOs - with and without auto focus) at ISOs higher than the D750 can go, that is not to say it is still a good camera at high ISOs but for my needs, the A7s is better). D) In good light, with my fast lenses, I often need 1/8000, the D750 is limited to 1/4000. E) I like using focus peaking with AF with my two native AF lenses. F) I like using Canon lenses as I can use them (with AF and full electronic control) on both my A7s and GX7), couldn't do that with a D750. G) My favourite lens is a manual focus wide angle tilt shift lens that I use for lots of things but including walk around at night and for live band stills and video. Couldn't do that with Nikon anything currently (though the new 19mm PC lens looks promising, they just need a FF Nikon mirrorless now). There are other reasons Anyway, while the D750 is a great camera, I will stick to my A7s for stills and video, again in all lighting ("lousy" AF and all!). It is very early now so I am going for a morning walk with just my A7s and 28-70 FE kit lens. AF will be just fine with auto ISO set to ISO 102400, then later tonight (New Years Eve), I will go shoot a band (or two) and including lots of people in pub lighting and using AF as well as MF and I bet it works just fine.

Actually, the A7s (mine Is the first version) is very good for AF. NOT AFC, but AFS is just fine and while it may well hunt in extremely low light, there is hardly any camera that will auto focus at the extremes the A7s can. It is rated at EV -4 but is often stated as being more like EV -5. My GX7 also has EV -4 AF but it can not keep up with the A7s given a similar lens. Video AF somehow does work better for AFC than it does for stills (the FE kit lens works a treat for AF for something like a musician in a confined stage area as long as the movement isn't too rapid). There would be better cameras for AF overall (and just about any for AFC is better) but the A7s is actually pretty good for single shot AF and in almost no light it can focus using the glow from an appliance LED. Even using Canon lenses (which it is slow to AF with), it can AF in light lower than the same lens on just about all current Canons. It has less DR at base ISO than any other FF Sony E mount but it is still more than all the Canons except the 1d x ii and the 5d iv (and is equal with the 80D). It has more than a stop on the 80D by ISO 800, about a stop on the 1Dx ii and 5d iv by ISO 25600. Again, the A7s is an excellent stills camera, (which is why I got it) but it is a better video camera than I need. I love that it can record both XAVCs and 720p MP4 at the same time so when I shoot a song, I have a full size video to play with and a smaller copy I can email to the band (as long as it isn't too long a song.)

If you do go the APSC route, with Sony, don't forget there is a stabilized 50mm 1.8 lens available (also works on the FF A7s in crop mode or FF with vignetting). I would suggest at least trying out an A7s for yourself. It isn't for everyone but from your opening post, I do think it may well be for you. What lenses do you have currently? You can actually mount M4/3 lenses on Sony E mount though most are pretty much pointless.

I shoot live music stills and to me, the A7s is the best camera I have used. I am not a video shooter as such, I just shoot the occasional song by putting the camera on a tripod, getting all band members in shot and focus and turning it on and letting the band do the work. From time to time I might focus on a solo singer only for video. The A7s can not use AFC for stills but for manual focus and AFS it is a wonderful stills camera and especially for low light. I prefer it for my (stills) uses to the A7 and m4/3 and Canon and Pentax and Nikon DSLRs I have owned/used. Paired with a lens like the Sony Zeiss 55 1.8 it is very nice indeed as well as with Canon lenses. From what is described in the opening post, I would think an A7s would suit a great deal. The only things with stills are you cant print ultra huge or crop too much. There is nothing like it at ISOs like 25600 and up with stills or video as far as I am concerned. Edit, I also think the 28-70 FE kit lens works well for video with an A7s and is stabilized though again, I am no video expert. Further edit. The A7s is actually a reasonable camera in good light too, with greater dynamic range than just about all (if not all) M4/3 cameras and has the same DR for stills for instance at ISO 102400 as the GH2 does at ISO 3200.

I would hang on to the EF lenses. Adapted AF is getting better and better. AF with either Metabones or Kipon adapters and M4/3 is pretty close to native for stills with AFS now (and some combinations AFC may well be ok now) and some Sony cameras with some adapters is also close to native AF for some uses. I would hope in a year or two, adapters would be as good as native in just about all ways for AF in video. My favourite Canon lens is manual focus anyway (17 TS-E) and to my mind is better on Sony FF than on any current Canon camera (at least a lot more useable and easier to use anyway).

To me, it would all come down to lenses. With the Fuji, you would have to factor in new lenses but with some other cameras you wouldn't have to buy as many. The Canon 80D would be a good choice as you could use your EF lenses straight. M4/3 and you can have great compatibility depending on the combinations. There are smart adapters from Metabones (including focal reducer and non focal reducer) and Kipon (non focal reducer). AFS at least with many combinations is close to native and I think that at least some combinations with Metabones can also work for AFC (I have not tried the Metabones M4/3 adapters but do have the Kipon and a now aging GX7 and love it with lenses like my Sigma 150 2.8 APO macro, EF 100 f2, 40 2.8 STM, 18-55 IS ii APSC kit lens and loved it with my (sold) EF 135 f2 L). It doesn't work at all (can not use) with a really ancient 28-90 kit lens from a EOS film camera I got for cheap from a charity shop to play with. Sony has lots of smart adapters for EF lenses and these range from cheap to expensive (I have four different ones). With Sony, AF depends on the camera more than anything. With the first generation Sony cameras generally, it is AFS only and slow (fast enough for me often enough for portraits of patient adults or ducks on a pond or static subjects) With later cameras, it seems it can be a lot faster. I have only used first gen Sony cameras (A7s is still my all time favourite camera) and I love it with the same lenses I use on the GX7) Even that 28-90 cheapie works (slow AFS) with a cheap adapter and the 18-55 APSC kit lens works FF from about 24mm up as well as having a APSC crop mode that is still slightly wider than used on Canon cameras (1.6 VS 1.5). I got most of my Canon lenses to use on both FF E mount AND M4/3 with just a few native lenses for each (have sold most of my native M4/3 lenses). I did also use them on a Canon DSLR but sold that. I MUCH prefer an EVF now and it is much better in low light for me with the A7s than any OVF (have used dozens of them). For video, probably better sticking with native lenses for now unless using manual focus for video (though that may well be different soon enough). TLDR: Both Sony E and M4/3 work well with Canon EF lenses and can save you money on duplicating lenses.

What lenses are you using? There are some that take rear filters or have a filter drawer. Mostly it will be longer tele lenses that have a rear drawer slot but there are others it seems (mostly wide angles on FF).

I used to love mount the Q onto my Canon 85 1.2, that camera was the most fun (though it is just a small sensor camera).

All I can say is I have never had any issue with DOF with FF or M4/3 since using them together. I have never had to stop down a lens to the point of diffraction limiting me. I am sure there may well be occasions when that happens, just not for me yet. I have also been quite happy to use my A7s at f8 at night at higher ISOs. 17mm lens I use for shooting live bands from next to the stage has infinite DOF from only a couple of feet with a subject at 5 feet for instance and even at f4 it is pretty close to having enough DOF much of the time (I may just have to shift the point of focus a little). 50mm and up and I am not that often wanting infinite DOF, I want "enough" DOF. Fast lenses are nice (I have FF 24 1.4, 85 1.2, 100 f2, 300 2.8 and have had a couple of 50 1.2 for instance amongst others) and have their place but are not used wide open all that much (100 f2 maybe more than the others). Many of them I use on both FF and M4/3. I also don't stop down my Sony Zeiss 55 for sharpness, I stop it down for DOF (it is more than sharp enough wide open though I tend to use f2 or 2.2 a lot more). I use FF and M4/3 because they are different. Each has a place for me If someone wants to shoot with both FF and M4/3 together for a movie, then you could match them by calculating DOF/F stops/ETC unless it was outside what is available but it may well take some work to do.