Bob Wall

I was referring to the ef-emount adapter.

Seems like an ideal pair with a set of Rokinon/Samyang manual primes.

Interesting that the reviews seem to contradict each other - still it seems like it works.

hmmmm.

I think it just adds some additional flocking. Waiting on a report on this one...$87. http://www.ebay.com/itm/291135342480

?? Don't understand the bit about exposure - the point is that you get an extra stop of light and don't have to raise the ISO to get it. As to the DOF, that's exactly the point - you can increase the light hitting the sensor without having to work with shallower DOF than full frame.

For battery performance, sony lists ~340 still shots as the performance for all the A7 cameras, and all the NEX cameras too. For anybody who has any of these cameras, what does this translate to for video shoot time? I'm thinking of my 5D and I am sure it can do waaay more than 340 stills on a single battery but I guess I never counted. I just looked in a folder that I left it going for a timelapse the other day and there were more than 1300 shots, and I'm sure the battery wasn't half drained.

jcs is just pointing out an interesting feature/possibility. the speedbooster is a really fascinating thing - pairing it with a sensitive camera is a natural idea. By putting the camera into APS-C mode, the DOF becomes a bit bigger, but the speedbooster ups the amount of light. So you don't get insanely shallow DOF but do get the extra stop.

With the caveat that the Tokina is "half" usuable in FF - it's fine from 14mm-16mm.

I'm as excited as anybody over this camera, but one reality check: if this sensor is really as good as everybody's hoping, why is it showing up for the first time ever in a $2500 NEX body? It just doesn't make sense from Sony's perspective. Having Den Lennie shoot the promos and all the non-line skipping, low megapixel (or rather, APPROPRIATE megapixel) etc talk gives it the whiff of being aimed at video people strongly. But again, if I had this "perfect" megapixel full frame sensor that is a low light monster, and goes to slog, xavc, designed around an E mount, I'd toss it in a FS700 body and call it the FS700FF or something and put a $10-12,000 price tag on it. I guess it makes some sense in terms of volumes to put it in a slim stills body, but I don't think this camera is going to sell that high of volumes to stills shooters - they are probably looking for megapixels. Anyway, it just seemed to me that if this sensor is really everything that everybody's dreaming about, they would put it into a flagship, higher margin product, and then maybe let it trickle down later.

I've never understood why people care that much about "jello" anyway. In most situations it just doesn't come into play.

I just noticed in the test shot that he's set to 1/60, implying that he shot at 30p. Maybe that's what I'm seeing.

There's something funky on the image around and inside the lantern - especially the last shot. Doesn't it look really really video-y? I can't tell what I'm seeing. Almost like it was shot at 60p or something (which I think is impossible for the 4k on this camera).

I don't agree that the small body size seems rediculous with large lenses/rig. The body is a piece of technology that houses the sensor, processors, and holds the lens mount. It seems like the best approach is to get that as small as possible while still giving the functionality you need/want. For me, looking at this camera as a possible 5D replacement, I'm looking at it as cutting 1lb off what I carry around. So if my overall weight and size are skewed heavily towards the lens/rig that I use, I'm fine with that. Plus the small size here gives many options - you can use a svelte lens in situations where you need that, like a handheld stabilizer gimbal, and use heavier lenses when you want that - long shots on a tripod, etc. Whatever gets that job done of processing the image, in whatever form is the most efficient.

A6000 would be a good bet, too, very affordable and good quality.

I have the canon 24-105 and for what I do (as a WORKING corporate filmmaker) it's great. When I get sent somewhere to shoot something, I just have to get hundreds of shots that are good, quickly, with little fiddling about. The IS is great and the range is very good. Any poo pooing on the lens is silly. I also have a 70-200 2.8 II and a Tokina 16-28 2.8. With these 3 lenses (and a 2X doubler for 70-200) I can cover pretty much anything I need, I occasionally break out a 50mm 1.4 m42 adapted to EF, or an 85mm 1.8. The dealbreaker for me with the Sigma is that it has a 82mm filter. I think most reviews, as Jcs said, give some to one, some to the other, but they are basically very similar in performance. If you really want the lens, don't for god's sake pay that much for it - most people in the US can get it all day long for $700, one of us can buy it for you and send it to you, and you can send along a few hundred for the trouble and still save a bundle.