noone

Would be interesting. Very clever idea and build. makes me want to experiment and try an extremely poor mans version using a Polaroid 600SE and bits of cardboard. Need a cheap glass focusing screen back first though.

I am just an old amateur who likes to photograph (and lately video) live music local shows. This is mostly cover stuff. I want to upload to You Tube but in order to do that realise I have to respect copyright (which is why I have not done that yet). I just wish there was a simple cheap and easy to access way to pay a small reasonable fee to be able to upload the songs (I would do it with the band I am recordings permission too). The couple of times I have asked about it, I have not even got a response from the record companies. The artists and record companies could make a mint from this. At the moment, nobody sees it except me and the bands (probably a good thing for now anyway).

This is used by a lot of people. http://www.dofmaster.com/dofjs.html Note there is also a circle of confusion calculator there as well.

Possibly part of it but then faster (than 1.4 or so) lenses have not really been needed with full frame. A micro four thirds 25mm f1 lens has slightly MORE depth of field than a 50mm f2 full frame lens (for a similar shot). I think a lot of the fast m43 lenses started appearing to give depth of field approaching that of "normal" aperture lenses on larger sensors for stills. There have been a few faster ones for FF though mostly expensive and of course there will shortly be the Mitakon 50 0.95 lens available in Sony FE mount for well under $1000.

I have an FD 85 1.2 you can borrow. You coming to Australia to pick it up or sending me the airfare to bring it there? I think you would be right about the Hassy having the edge. Still is fun to use the 85 and at 1.2 close up the DOF is way too thin for me to use much for video. http://youtu.be/Pw0Go5ghcYA

Panasonic's current list of stabilized lenses. http://www.panasonic.com/au/consumer/imaging/lumix-g-lenses.html?browsing=params&facets=T3B0aWNhbCBJbWFnZSBTdGFiaWxpc2F0aW9u&sort=Featured EDIT that is the Australian site with Australian prices. EDIT 2 for some reason the Australian site does not list the newest OIS lenses like the Nocticron 42.5 or the 12-32 kit zoom (listed but not in the list of stabilized lenses).

I like the Zoom H1. Tiny little thing and you can use it as a on camera mic and record into it at the same time. If you don't hit record while plugged in as a mic it will still record into the camera but as Maxotics said, don't forget to hit record to have the choice.. I am sure there are better but for the price and size it is great.

Ok yes I worded that wrong. The same amount of light goes through the same size aperture. The 24-70 2.8 lens gets more total light than the 12-35 2.8 because of the larger aperture (in terms of area) but because it hits a sensor with a larger area they get the same light per sensor area. EDIT These discussions go around and around and sometimes I get lost as to which "side" I am on. I think a lot of what is in that video is right but he does go too far.

No, there IS more light hitting a larger sensor if both have a 2.8 lens but not more light per area. The light hits all of the sensor at the same time so with a larger area there MUST be more total light hitting the sensor. The SAME amount of light hits the same size area though.

I think a lot of what he said is right but he goes too far. These sort of discussions go on endlessly around the internet though. To me, two lenses for different formats (EG 12mm Olympus f2 on micro four thirds against a 24mm Canon FF) give roughly the same picture in terms of angle of view AND shutter speed (if both set to the same aperture and same ISO) BUT will have different depth of field from the same location. It is just as wrong to say they are NOT equivalent if you are only referring to depth of field and ignoring shutter speed. So regards the 12-35 2.8 he used to demonstrate against a 24-70 2.8, he is right to say that the 12-35 is NOT a 24-70 FF equivalent in terms of DEPTH OF FIELD but he is wrong to say it is not a 24-70 FF equivalent in terms of using the same shutter speed ETC. Personally, I like having different sensor sizes for different angle of view with the same lenses and like to have a different depth of field with different sensors.

Most people are using native FE mount lenses or adapted full frame lenses from most systems (including some that can have autofocus and stabilization if available depending on the adapter). In addition the a7 takes normal E mount lenses (same mount) and you can use them either in crop mode or normal mode with vignetting. Crop mode means reduced resolution (around 10mp for the A7, about 15 I think for the A7R, wonder what it will be for the A7S???) Some E mount lenses are useable in normal mode for at least some of the time. The 10-18 for example for part of its range. I don't have any E mount lenses (only one FE and a lot of legacy lenses) to see the difference in video between crop mode and normal FF mode but from posts around the internet, videos shot in crop mode do not seem as good as full mode for the most part though. Not sure what the difference is from the sensor.

Looking forward to watching and learning from this thread. I know my way around for stills a bit but video is a whole new concept for me.

But that is how it comes off as (not always). I think it gets confusing the way it is often worded/stated. It is just changing the lens after all. Seems a wonderful tool to have. I like having a 50mm on various formats including 75mm angle of view on APSC.

Isn't a Speedbooster just a negative teleconverter? Nobody refers to a normal teleconverter making a sensor virtually smaller so I don't get how this affect the sensor. Surely it is just changing the lens? I thought many lenses where made by adding a negative teleconverter to a normal lens?

Wonder what you will end up using? FF with an 85mm 1.2 or 1.4 for stills ...would that work for video?

Just out of curiosity, what cameras would be suggested for those who's shooting style is locked down on a tripod? I know almost nothing about video and come at this from shooting stills.

What about the A7 kit lens. It is not a constant speed but I guess you could use it as a 5.6 constant lens on the A7S with its crazy high ISO. It actually rates very close to the 24-70 including being sharper in DXO's testing in some ways. Stabilization is good. You just lose 4mm at the short end and a stop at the long end (but a little faster at 28mm). And it is native so no adapters. I would not expect any of those lenses to score close to the A7R tests with the A7S. (the two Sony's drop a lot on the other cameras tested, the NEX7 and A3000). Strangely they have not tested either on the A7, including the A7 with its kit lens (if they did that would give some indication of what it would be like on the 12mp A7S, or at least a rough idea).

That will depend on if the A7S does what people want and will be interesting to see a few months after its release. There are a few A7 cameras for sale second hand but I don't think FE lenses (the few available) are losing money much. Even the kit lens is quite good and the only FE lens I want. The current A7 pair are used by many people with good manual focus lenses for stills (I like Canon FD L primes on mine), no reason to think the A7s will not be the same and those lenses can be used across formats. If someone else comes up with a full frame mirrorless with AF for around the same price, things might be different. I am a video novice and I know it is not ideal but I am happy with the A7 and the kit lens and FD primes.

Hi Don't know how well (or if) they work but there seem to be a few different adapters and maybe there will be more by the time the camera is released. Here is another just found via a search. Be nice if there was a list of all the adapters that work with the Sony FE cameras. http://www.deo-tech.com/