BasiliskFilm

Unless Nikon produces a focal reducer you are going MF adapted lenses so there is no advantage to having a Nikon body. My dilemma is Nikon full frame lenses and no decent AF adaptors to mirrorless, certainly none with focal reducers. So that is why a full frame Nikon mirrorless with native-performance AF, however achieved, would be interesting. If it is a 42 MP sensor, then you could presumably get the best of crop performance at S35/APS-C, like the A7RII. Nikon might prioritise ergonomics/ease of use over miniaturisation, which is, to my mind, one of Sony's problems (overheating, fiddly controls and menus etc)

Would prefer full frame as all my glass is full frame (assuming they either keep the F mount or have some smart adaptor). The A6500 pretty much has APS-C nailed from my point of view, and a focal reducer enables all my full frame glass for MF, so a Nikon version would not add much.

My Nikon D600 has stills pretty much nailed from my point of view, so I am unlikely ever to buy another DSLR. A Nikon mirrorless that matches Sony for video, but lets me use my existing glass, without breaking the bank, with DSLR quality autofocus? That might be very tempting.

My point wasn't necessarily clear - Nikon prioritised keeping the mount mostly compatible at each stage rather than replacing it, like Canon did when they scrapped FD, but ultimately the problem is that you get more and more design compromises. While I like that I can use 40 year old lenses natively, a fully electronic connection makes more sense in the modern world going forward. My screwdriven lenses work on my old D40, but it made no sense to put a body-motor into cheap consumer DSLRs when most users only have one or two lenses. Sony UIs may have improved, but the A6000 series are a bit more cramped, and they have massive levels of control, but also lots of deep menus to get lost in. A bigger body might not hurt on such a capable camera.

Seems to me that all companies have trade offs... Panasonic settled on a relatively small sensor, but have done their best to extract the maximum from that, with fast lenses and ever improving image quality. Sony, with their philosophy of a consumer electronics company, have pushed compactness to possibly perverse extents. If their products are defective, it is mainly for this reason. Within a small form factor, overheating will be an issue, and there is never enough room for controls and buttons, so UI will be compromised. But within that restraint they consistently push the envelope. (A9 picture profiles is perhaps the obvious exception) Nikon have made a virtue of backward compatibility, I love the fact I can use old Nikkors on a new body as they were meant to be used, but it was always a bit of a kludge. And they don't make their own sensors, so always seem to be playing catch up with Sony on getting the best video peformance. The Df was a deliberately "non-video" retro camera, but the D4 was available for those who wanted the same innards with extra features. None of the above have routinely worked to deprive customers of features that could have been included at little extra cost, to protect other, more expensive, models in their lineup, knowing that their customer base is so heavily invested in quality lenses they cannot easily switch.

If there is a dioptre adjustment on the Vufine, then you can set it for distant focus, so both eyes are focusing at the same apparent distance

Problem with Sony is working out which camera they will release next, which will be more suitable than the current options. An E-mount version of the A99II, with an updated LA-E4 adaptor? Surely technically possible? A video oriented A7 series camera with the A9 sensor, AF system and picture profiles? These would both be very attractive options.

I am afraid as Sony was originally an electronics company rather than a photographic company they have always sought to fit the most functionality into the smallest package - remember the Walkman folks? So the sensor and processor are through-putting the maximum data in the smallest space, as well as offering extra cleverness like sensor stabilisation. The Canon and Nikon equivalents are just not working quite as hard, and have more space for cooling.

I think another model with a 12MP sensor only makes sense if they upgrade the autofocus to match the A9 etc, otherwise what would be the justification for an (inevitably) more expensive model. There is no one snapping at their heels to keep prices down. If they can read 20MP @ 25fps (as in the A9) then I guess maybe they could read 8MP @ 60 fps, and maybe (lineskipped) 2MP/HD @ 240 fps. The challenge though is writing this much data to the card.

The only rational for leaving picture profiles off the A9 is that they are going to bring out a video-centric camera with much of the same technology. Maybe an A7 style body, and a single card slot, but having invested so much in a new sensor design, they are going to want to roll it out in several cameras. If they can get low light performance similar to the A7S, then wave the 12 MP sensor goodbye.

It won't win prizes for rolling shutter, but no one else is doing 6K readout down sampled to 4K on full frame, so it is not surprising it is still there, and it is certainly better than the A6500. Would be good to see a full assessment of the HD modes to see if there is an improvement in image quality and rolling shutter there. For fast moving or hand-held shots, HD is often enough. HD on the A6500 is a let down after the IQ of 4K.

My question is what could they leave out of the A9 to make a more affordable video-oriented camera, without compromising it. Would be great to have the AF. Seriously I don't think they are going to make a completely different sensor for the A7Siii, it will either be an update of the 12MP sensor, or a version of the A9 sensor. It would be too expensive to come up with a 5K sensor just for a single model.

First full frame readout on a sensor over 12 MP, The AF looks excellent, the low light performance very good (most people don't really need A7SII shoot-in-the-dark capabilities), the 4K image super detailed, the rolling shutter much improved (given 6K sensor readout), even the 120 fps looks fairly clean and detailed, excellent stills capability (24MP is good for most things). So no picture profiles really seems slightly perverse. I haven't got the money, but the picture profiles does seem a bit of a sticking point, otherwise my lottery win would be straight on this camera.

I wouldn't be surprised if they put the A9 sensor in an A7S body for a video oriented release. Given the advances in sensor technology, it is possible that it would be just as good in low light as the A7Sii as both have full pixel readout. The advantages of a 24 MP sensor are clear for photography and video, and give you digital zoom/full 4K at super 35. Maybe even 4K/60p at super 35 if the readout is fast enough, and hopefully better quality for 120 fps. The new longer life battery would be a bonus, but dual cards are not essential as video users are used to dual recording. Improved AF and a more affordable price would make for a very attractive option.

Sony has more of a record of piling in features that are not quite ready than deliberately crippling a camera to prevent it competing with other models. As the first full frame oversampled 4K camera I am surprised they don't have picture profiles etc, but maybe they will be added in. Not unprecidented for LOG curves to be a paid upgrade. Either the processing pipeline will be fast enough to offer Raw video or it won't. My guess is with the compact body and the cards they are using it would be tough to implement.

If they could do 8K downsample to 4K they wouldn't use line-skipping in the A7Rii, but as we know from the A6500 they have the processing to perform 6K > 4K. The size of the photosites is less important than the total area covered by photosites - the A7S has better coverage than the A7RII because it reads from the whole sensor without skipping like the A7Rii. In which case I would expect the A9 to do a similarly good job in low light.

Most the low light benefit of the A7S is down to the full sensor non-line skipped output. The A9 achieves this for 4K by downsampling. The size of the photosites is less important than the total area covered by them.

Seems odd, but I guess the full frame market is seen as quite conservative, and getting pro Canon and Nikon shooters to shift to mirror-less is a big challenge, especially now that Sony has such a developed mirrorless full frame operation. A whole new lens system, just to catch up with Sony?

f1.2 lenses (and faster) are already available for MFT and probably better corrected than half a ton of glass.

Interesting that making a lens that doesn't breath during focus is so expensive. I wonder if breathing correction could be done in software, like CA and distortion correction, improving the quality of more compromised and affordable lenses.

I think the reason they are (relatively) light and compact is because they take full advantage of the short flange distance on e-mount. Every DSLR compatible wide angle has a retrofocal design that has additional elements to compensate for the distance between the lens and the sensor. Longer focal lengths are less affected by this problem.

The medium format look was all about proportionally finer grain, allowing faster films, better in low light, and relatively shallow DOF. Faster full frame primes take the speed advantage away from a lot of medium format lenses. I know this is a relatively slow macro lens, but your reducer is giving you 56mm f2.8 equivalence, with a fairly bulky set up. Do you perceive any advantages?

No point being last to market, unless you offer a lot more than competitors. Canon persist with their mirrorless offering, but they don't really look that serious. Apart from VR cameras, there is not much that is radically different that the big boys can break through with.

The problem seems to be that most can't do full sensor readout at more than 25 fps, so you can either get great 4K footage from downsampling the sensor (A6300/6500), or lineskipped 1080p at up to 4x speed. Seems to be a next generation thing, as the NX1 (ahead of its time in many ways) and GH5 seem to have faster readout, so it is probably the next thing to come to Sony, though APS-C upgrades will probably have to wait till after the next FF releases. Perhaps the A7iii?

Shooting in natural light on a sunny day, moving from light to shadow? That's when you really appreciate Alexa footage. Good luck with cheaper options.