noone

Nice to see it DOES have an EVF after all. Never mind the camera. That lens 28-60 f4-5.6??? If it was 24-60 I would be getting one as a body cap (price depending) I think but at 28-60 only if it is really good.

The TS thing is THE reason I can only do this with FF. People either get the tree in full from far off or they get people/ a person in shot with a small PART of the tree but never both or even the full tree by itself from up close (it is a local instagram thing). As I said above, WHEN there is a high quality 8.5mm TS for M43 (that works in low light to at least ISO 25600 with decent DR, THEN M43 will come back into it for me. I can do the 120p (in NTSC mode 100p in PAL but it is not even full HD I think) with my old A7s. As for "reach", I actually would prefer Panasonic ETC to be variable like Sony clearzoom...I CAN in a pinch get to 6300mm with my A7s but it would not be pretty (1200mm equivalent would be better if still not great) but again, if I want a lens longer than my 300 2.8 (600mm with 2x clearzoom) I will use my Fuji superzoom. I am looking for four thirds (not M43) lenses to use cheaply to experiment with since I have discovered some of them cover APSC fully and are not far off covering FF.

Did not really turn out how I would like but I am still happy with a couple of shots. Again, not something i could have even tried with M43 and probably not with APSC.

Agree that it depends though I do not think anyone said otherwise really. I did a shoot with a band last night (photos only) and I took two bags with a heap of lenses but only ended up using my 17mm TS on my FF camera. It was in front of a large tree with fairy lights and the ONLY way I could have got a shot of the full band with instruments lit by slow sync flash with the tree illuminated was with that....maybe the Nikon 19mm on a FF camera would have worked too. I still do not know if it worked out (I gave the band the card they are friends). I loved M43 but now I think I am going to just use a 1 inch camera and a FF camera (and a superzoom with a half inch sensor if I need longer than around 400mm)...I still recognize others will have different needs/wants. If I was more serious about video I would probably still be using smaller formats just because of cost as I would want better AF and my lenses are old and or MF.

Sorry Kye, my apologies, I thought the thread was titled "Is full frame necessary".

I do not think that is the case. While Sony is the owner, the semi- conductor business is run apart from the camera business and Sony semiconductor will sell sensors to ANYONE. Sony USED to be the major shareholder in Olympus but sold out not so long ago (they must have seen the writing on the wall). Sony still owns about ten percent of Tamron.

Unfortunately, I think there are simply too many camera companies and not enough customers. There are zillions of older cameras that still work just fine and every day more and more go to phone cameras instead. I would not be surprised if Panasonic went in a year or two and even if Nikon went soon enough too. Give it another fifteen years and the biggest camera company will be some Chinese company I have never heard of (and may not even exist yet). My little 1 inch sensor RX100iv does much of what i want and it is already getting old ...a phone in three years will be better than all but the better FF sensors in low light but better for everything else (ok that is not a given but you never know).

Focal reducers do not change cameras. they change lenses. They just mean you can use some lenses for larger systems differently by making them faster and shorter. There would be practically no difference if a lens existed natively to one that has the same specs after boosting. To me, what to use comes down to if a system has what I want (and as I said earlier, for a wide angle tilt shift in low light that is still only FF for ME).

Until they come up with a 8.5mm high quality tilt shift lens for M43 that will work on a camera in low light at (at least) ISO 25600 with at least 9 stops of DR, yes for me!

Kye, does your camera have a miniature effect setting? If so have you tried it? They actually do work pretty good in my experience (at least for photos). My A7s has it but only for jpeg photos. It works BETTER for tilt than my 17 TS-E does really. I have used it WITH the TS lens for fun. Not something i would use a lot but tried with different lenses can give a different look. This is the Sony Zeiss 55 1.8 (at f2) using miniature effect vertical middle (where the lens is) this is a very sharp lens but you could put filters on or use crappy lenses or whatever you want. Doing this for this post has me wanting to go try it more with various lenses. I just wish it worked for video.

Tilt shift and lensbaby are chalk and cheese really. I suppose I could get some lensbaby effects with filter glass in the adapter I use with my Canon 17 (I have only used a IR filter really but a sand spot filter might work). Longer TS lenses would/could be more lensbabyish I think as it is the tilt function rather than shift and on my 17, tilt while it does work, is pretty subtle, the 17 at least is a lens for shifting and a LONG way from a lensbaby. The 24mm TS-E I had would be more like it but a 90mm or longer would be closer.

No, not naff* but would I buy one? Nah. Just another different type of lens and there are so many others i would get before I got one of those (though I am almost done with my kit now and it will be just replacements from time to time). * The lenses are not naff, but the name maybe is and that probably puts me off more than anything.

This is one of the reasons I do not use M43 now. A humble 1.8 lens FF will give even greater blur and can do it with auto focus. I keep looking for a manual focus f0.95 M43 prime though (cheap) to try on my FF Sony (yeah i am dumb enough and curious enough to do it) . The problem is that it is only really the MF lenses that have a mechanical aperture and focus. I would love for it to be a voigtlander but they are all too dear just to experiment and even the Mitakon ones are mostly.

To be fair Kye, the cheaper Zhongyi Mitakon f0.95 lenses for M43 are not THAT bad and neither is the Kipon Handevision 40mm 0.85 (though that is expensive) The Kaxinda (never heard of it before and it may just be one of the others rebadged) 25mm 0.95 is an unknown quality to me, The SLR Magic 25 0.95 is probably the Mitakon altered slightly. I do think the voigtlanders are nice though!

All focal reducers are doing is changing the lenses so I would go native IF the same focal length and aperture was available or if price made a difference (and you are only using one system). If the speedboosted lens is faster than native or the focal length/speed you want is not available or you use multiple systems, then focal reducers make a lot of sense. Of course another advantage of using adapted EF lenses is you can ALSO use non focal reducer smart adapters and get double duty from the same lens. Your 18-35 is good enough to go with a focal reducer for a start (you can always add native too and can find bargains for M43 if you are patient).

Crop at full size from the Kanagroo shot. Then downsized a bit. You can still make out single hairs! Even from a lowly 12mp camera! Would love to try a more modern less abused 300 2.8 though again, this one will do me.

I love my ancient 300mm 2.8 Tamron adaptall. Not the best 300 2.8 made but probably the lightest (and there were NO bad 300 2.8s ever). Still over 2 kilos though! Even so, as I get older I have to seriously think about if I am going to take this lens anywhere (usually walking and usually will have it in a backpack). It is getting close to the time when I will have to give it away (to a relative) but maybe not for a year or three yet. I just might have to limit it to trips to the zoo and festivals now and for video, just outdoor music festivals on a tripod. My old Fuji superzoom will have to do when i want a long lens otherwise if not now, soon enough. I have had a few others over the years but this old Tamron 2.8 has been with me across systems for must be going on twenty years. I still have an old Tamron zoom to 350mm but none have been to my liking more than this old Tamron 2.8 IF I had the time and the room, this would be my first choice as a portrait lens most of the time too (though being MF, a lot of misses for every hit). I can not afford a newer better lens but this will do me fine for now (would love a 200 f2). I nearly got a Nikon 300 f2 many years ago, glad I didn't as that would be too heavy for me now (though might have made a tidy profit selling it). I have had several greyhound racing pics in a national (Australian) Greyhound racing paper and Australian football pics in a regional daily from it and even though i dropped it a few feet onto a hard ground that made it very hard to remove or replace the adaptall, still works fine for me. A couple of zoo shots from today (glad i took it instead of the Fuji superzoom). The Kangaroo shot was also with a bit of clearzoom for more "reach". What longer lenses are you using?

I think if that IS the camera for 6 grand plus, it will have 10 bit available in all modes and that in part was the actual cripple hammers the R5 and R6 were supposed to have (only 10 bit in log) but they stuffed up the heating issue so much no one cares about it. The lack of wider RF lenses for APSC says they will probably release a lens or two at the same time (EF lenses probably work just fine adapted though.)

Just looking on Ebay for cheap four thirds DSLR lenses to try and adapt. Seems to me Four thirds did not have very many lenses really. There are many of the two versions of the 40-150 lenses and many of the 43 kit lenses. The super high grade lenses (like the f2 zooms and the 150 f2 and the others) are rare and expensive. The high grade lenses mostly consist of the 12-60 and 50-200 (that I have already, both with common issues). They would have had almost no fastish primes if not for Sigma (and I think the Sigma lenses are just modified larger sensor lenses and some of Olympus own lenses were modified Sigmas also). There is one fast and expensive Pana Leica 25 1.4. There are one or two macro primes (the 50 f2 high grade macro interests me but it is focus by wire so maybe not...adapting to Sony as MF lenses) It almost looks like Oly went from one extreme to the other when changing form 43 to m43.

Fair enough. I used Canon lenses in part because they were so adaptable and that 40mm was very different on M43 to using it FF so did double duty. I never tried the lens for video on FF or M43.

Have you tried the 40 2.8 STM on M43? I used one with a Kipon smart adapter (non focal reducer) on a GX7 and it made a great portrait combination with ok AF (after a firmware update for the Kipon) for photography (mf for video but I never tried that).

That is true in theory but SOME four thirds lenses seem to definitely have a larger image circle (or maybe it is ONLY the 50-200 SWD). That lens covers APSC without vignetting at every focal length at least (and is not THAT far off covering FF at 50 and 200mm) so a focal reducer would work for THAT lens anyway. Question is, how many others do?

Never mind that, just an non speedbooster smart adapter for four thirds lenses to Sony E would do me since some of those old four thirds lenses cover APSC without vignetting so an automatic one stop speed boost in effect (I know not really but sort of). Now that IS do able though unlikely since maybe I would be the only one wanting it.

I have the 15mm Bodycap lens but only to use on my FF A7s! I have a couple of my late Dad's four thirds high grade zooms....both have known problems that affected them often to the point one will likely just be thrown away and the 50-200 I can at least use wide open (currently ALSO just on my FF Sony). MOST Oly lenses will get very cheap very quick IF M43 becomes abandoned. IF Oly goes but Panasonic stays, the Pro lenses and a few others like the 75 1.8 MIGHT hold their value at least (there are a lot of 75s comparatively cheap on Ebay already though). Olympus has had a habit of putting out a few very nice lenses along with the run of the mill and have ALWAYS done so....EG the OM 350 2.8 and OM 250 f2 and the four thirds 150 f2 and 300 2.8 and the two f2 zooms and the 90-250 2.8 (They ALL still sell for a LOT).

As long as there is SOME light, yes, with an A7s I can see what i would not be able to with just my eye. Even a tiny LED on a kitchen appliance can be enough to shoot by. Some of the more recent mirrorless FF cameras should let you do similar and maybe even better regards the EVF. I do not think there are any cameras BETTER than the A7s at really high ISOs. Maybe one of the FF Panasonics would give you almost the same at the highest ISOs and be better at more normal but still high ISOs and give you more pixels to play with. I have never had any issue with 12mp on my A7s for photography. Only if you think you might need to crop or print really large (and if printing large, you could use upsizing software).