noone

The thing is though that many many people buy their camera and THEN read the reviews! And a fair number of them then visit internet forums to argue WHY reviews are wrong.

Even for recording covers. I would love to be able to hit a pay now button to be able to pay a small amount to upload cover songs on the likes of You tube. Everyone would win. The copyright owners get money they otherwise would not (plus more exposure to their stuff so more would go looking for the originals), the hosting service would get their cut of course and the cover bands get local (and if they are good enough) wider exposure. Crazy as it is now!

Only up to ISO 200. At ISO 3200 the Sony is about a stop ahead and by the time it gets to ISO 12800 the Nikon is more than 2 stops behind. Even the 5d mk iii is two stops behind at ISO 12800. 13 stops at base ISO is still pretty good though maybe not quite what was expected but how many have been waiting to see it as a good light camera? Above ISO 1600 and things look great.

Luminous Landscape first impressions of the A7S. http://www.luminous-landscape.com/reviews/cameras/sony_a7s_first_impressions.shtml Couple of quotes I found interesting. "I did not have time to explore the camera's HD video capabilities in depth. Two areas that I looked briefly at are high ISO performance and S-Log 2. What I found is that video high ISO performance pretty much matches that of stills, with ISO 51,200 being the highest usable speed." and "Who is it For? This then only leaves the most important question of all – what constituency is this camera intended for? Clearly, its low light sensitivity is remarkable. Two and a half to three stops more of usable sensitivity than just about any other camera would not be an indefensible claim. But, the trade-off is its use of a 12 Megapixel sensor. This is at the low end of the scale by 2014 standards. Anyone who crops a lot, or who wants to make large prints will find the sensor's low resolution constraining. But, as I noted earlier in this report, individual images from the A7s have what I can only call the medium format look, which might be a curious thing to say given that the sensor is only 12 Megapixels, but nevertheless is what I see. Large pixels are simply different in the "look" that they create. Videographers and film makers will welcome the low light ability, full frame shallow DOF lenses, and 4K ability. But 4K won't be available until Q4 of 2014 when the Atomos Shogun ships. Then the price equation will need to be considered, because at $4,500 for camera plus recorder numerous alternatives present themselves." The camera will not be 4k at all until later in the year. Is it likely that a cheaper recorder will be available from someone else at any time?

I would think it would have. The existing garden variety A7 has almost the same dynamic range at ISO 400 as the GH4 at ISO 100 and the A7S should be better still (plus being aimed more at video). http://www.dxomark.com/Cameras/Compare/Side-by-side/Panasonic-Lumix-DMC-GH4-versus-Sony-A7-versus-Canon-EOS-5D-Mark-III___943_916_795

Thank You. Then "2.8" it is really not and certainly not for 4k.

This camera (and the LX8 maybe more so) might cut into sales of lower level M43 ILCs. I am more interested in the LX8 but this still might be just what I want for video. As for constant aperture VS 2.8-4 , how far does this cameras lens go @ 2.8? If it is still 2.8 at 200mm equivalent that that IS the same as the RX10 except you get the next 200mmat as a bonus.

I just went out and took this with the A7 in APSC mode with the Olympus 14-42 II kit lens at about 17mm. There is still heavy vignetting at 14mm even in APSC and it comes back a bit towards 42mm but the depth of field is too shallow at longer focal lengths.

Actually, MFT lenses will fit on the A7 cameras. The registration distance is 2mm longer than E mount and there are adapters available on EBAY. Most M43 lenses will be useless (or next to) though because there is no control over anything. Whatever aperture and distance you have when mounted is all you get. The zooms you also get focal range of course. If those lenses have a aperture ring and mechanical focus (not by wire), then they WOULD be useable. In FF mode I would think they would all have vignetting but in APSC crop mode would likely be good. The 14-42 zoom would be ok for video on an A7 variant camera I think at the short end in APSC mode as the depth of field would be deep enough for a lot of uses. Still, I would only think of using it if it was the only lens you had available and the camera was the only one as well. I think it would be worth someone's time to experiment with an A7s for video (doubt it would be worth it for stills), A7 and it could be of some limited use for both and the A7R might even be good for stills and limited ok for video.

Favourite FD 85 1.2L Least favourite Cheap m43 to Sony E mount adapter that turned up to day. Cheaply made and does not work with the focal reducer I got it to try out on (it would work if it was made properly). My already seriously low expectations were not even close to being met. It does work with my native m43 lenses but as I knew without any control. This was only a few dollars but still! For the future the next gen Sony A7 and GX8 (or 9) and LX8 Wished for. Too much to list so I will just look forward to advances over the next few years.

More rumours here http://www.43rumors.com/ft4-new-lx8-has-a-24-90mm-f2-0-2-8-lens/

I would think the GX7 quality may be a bit better but the G6 might be the better choice. I like my GX7 but it is a bit limited (and I am not good enough to overcome the limitations as so far video is something I am trying to learn). No audio input, ISO maxes at 3200. It has peaking but it is far from the best (often it is barely useable and Sony peaking is far better, at least to me).

Metabones have said that .7# x is best for image quality and they didn't want to go to .5 though that could always change. EDIT the BMPCC speed booster does change that though. But I doubt they would go below .5x. Fotodiox said they were making a .5x Light Canon as well as a normal one to replace the failed light canon (now called a soft focus adapter).

Actually the E mount registration distance is shorter than m43 so if you can control the aperture you can use m43 lenses on the a6000. Most m43 lenses and you would have no control of the aperture unless someone came up with an adapter with electronics which would seem pointless for the most part. There are only a few lenses that would work ok and you would have vignetting but there are adapters available on EBAY. I have never seen one the other way around though.

Don't forget that there have been third party adapters for Sony E mount for a while that allow IS and AF with Canon EF lenses (if a bit slow for AF) and E mount has a shorter registration distance than m4/3.

Depends if you have lots of Nikon lenses or not. It is not rumoured either. Three months ago the man who designed the speedbooster optics said there would be a m43 to EF speedbooster soon.

GM1 is for pocketing and small size. To get the same sensor but with a lot more added the GX7 would be better. Too much has been left out for me to use the GM1 as a main camera (for stills and video). The GX7 on the other hand has higher specifications than the A6000 for many things though more so for stills.

GX7 has horrible banding under fluorescent light for stills if using the electronic shutter. The camera is really nice for stills but as far as banding goes, in some circumstances it is possibly the worst camera going. Does not seem to have it in video though.

Now I am curious as to where the GX7 and A6000 slot in.

Just curious if anyone has tried the Fotodiox Light Cannon? Was originally sold as a speed booster/focal reducer but it seems not the best image quality so now is sold as soft focus. At around $50 might be worth trying. Also, anyone used an m43 focal reducer/speed booster on an E mount camera? If it works ok with a cheap m43 to NEX adapter it would save the cost of two of them.

Yes, that would be nice to know. More so because unlike 50/60P having the same mbps, 25p is 20mbps for mp4 but 24mbps for AVCHD. I like using 25p for video so wonder which I should use too.

I would be happy if the plain A7 had IBIS (including for video) and better mp4 from the GX7 oh and the lossless teleconverter too. EDIT and silent shutter and touch screen too. Could go the other way but the GX7 has too much left out plus the grip/ergonomics I prefer from the A7.

I think it might be that people can not really tell the difference but those who's job it is to look and use computer equipment to do so can.

Depends what you like. With the GM1 or GH4 you can fit a couple of native lenses into the space you might fit one for the A6000. Most of the m43 kit zooms are actually not that bad and add a 45mm 1.8 for portraits and a 12mm f2 for a wide angle or even a 17mm or 20mm. Lots to choose from. Maybe the 10-18 f4 for the A6000 plus a 50mm . If you are considering a GH4 or A6000 size wise, I don't understand why you would not consider the GX7. It is everything the GM1 is and more other than it (GM1) is smaller.