webrunner5

Good question LoL? Why don't you just adopt a old Canon 70-200 or 75-300 on the A7III? Heck with 2x you would be at 600mm for 150 bucks, they give away the 75-300's. https://www.amazon.com/gp/offer-listing/B00004THD0/ref=dp_olp_all_mbc?ie=UTF8&condition=all Apparently nothing? I have never seen hardly any difference when I use it. But I don't print over 19" x 14", that is as big as my printer goes. http://eriknaso.com/2015/12/21/sony-clear-image-zoom-gets-2x-zoom-with-no-image-quality-loss/ And on here.

Ahh then you do want newer looking lenses. For video you want Worse looking ones LoL. Well the Sony A7xx cameras have a thing called Clear Zoom. Ii is a digital 2x zoom but it works surprisingly well. Some of the m4/3 cameras have a zoom also. not 2x I think though. Well one good thing about FF if you have the MP you can zoom in with a crop in Photoshop. Poor mans zoom lens. That 2x factor on m4/3 can be a blessing or a curse. I really liked m4/3 when I was into nature photography for not having to carry a big lens and camera. But 16mp was really not cutting it for that, especially birding. So I bought a Sony A7r. Ehh that worked! I don't know why but I really love the form factor of them. I have a Sony A7s now. And my son is buying a used A7r mk II. The mk II works Really well with EF lenses. And really was the cats ass camera really no that long ago. They are down to like 1500 bucks now used.

Are you shooting video or Photos mostly? You mean a longer lens or using a Speedbooster for focal increase? Ahh you mean the 2x crop I bet.

Most people go the old manual Nikon, or Canon FD lenses on m4/3 for cost reasons mostly. Unless you are looking for manual focus there is a ton of nice m4/3 lenses around that are pretty cheap. I have Always been a fan of the 14-140mm lenses, especially the last one out. Hard to find fast lenses from Any brand that are cheap. But even m4/3 now isn't that bad for low light. It's not like years ago you were afraid to go above 400 ISO. And razor thin DoF is overrated anyways with video. You are allowed to walk back a bit and use a zoom to get tighter shots in a lot of circumstances if you have room. And now there is a lot of the cheap Chinese Cine lenses out. Some are not bad money wise used. But don't go out and buy 50 old lenses. It can become a habit on adopted lenses! There are a few people on here that are guilty as charged! Buy a original A7 or a A7s, they are cheap as hell anymore. That way can use your lenses. Heck they fit on the A6000, or newer, hell older also. You really have more better FF choices for adopted lenses on the A7xx cameras than just about anything, even m4/3. Tons and tons of used FF lenses around. Yeah I am done with m4/3 myself.

There is these ones. Never had one myself. Always went the other way with 4/3 lenses. https://www.amazon.com/Fotodiox-Adapter-Micro-4-Mount-Mirrorless/dp/B0095OLT6Q https://www.ebay.com/itm/Micro-Four-Thirds-4-3-M43-lens-to-Sony-E-mount-adapter-NEX-5T-7-6-A7-A7R-A6000-/182034245856

Just for you.

Some of the old cameras were killer. I think the most advanced camera I ever shot with that I enjoyed the most was the T90 Canon film camera. That thing had every trick in the book in it. But they suffered from the top LCD panel that faded as time when on to you could not use it at all. I have had 2 of them. Great camera. But I Loved the original Canon 5D. Wedding photographers dream at the time. I just sold the one I had for hell 10 plus years beginning of last year. My Nephew bought it from me.

I think you are right. The DCS-460 I had cost $26,000.00 new. I paid 6000 bucks for it when I bought it used. But I made a lot of money shooting it. It was a hell of a camera, but they had Chromatic Abrasions from hell, so you had to use a Hot Mirror on the end of the lens. They cost like 600 bucks a piece for a normal sized one. They had no AA filter on them was the problem. But back then all digital cameras were pretty much using CCD sensors instead of Bayer. I still think the CCD ones had Way better color than the Bayers. But CCD sensors fell out of favor because they sucked at high ISO. by High I mean like 400 ISO. Medium Format cameras just changed to Bayer sensors form CCD's in the last few years since Sony started making the new sensors for them. One reason MF camera output was so beautiful. But then they still sucked at thigh ISO's. Not now. They are good up to like 6400 ISO with the Sony sensors in them. I think other than maybe Hasselblad they all use Sony sensors now, up to 100mp on the Phase One cameras.

I have owned several used DCS Kodak's. The top end ones were in FF Nikon F4, F5, Canon EOS 1 Bodies. Nikon's first. But they were not FF sensors in them. They were APS-H sized. 1.3 crop factor. Same sized sensor as the later Canon 1D series cameras had. The best one I had was the DCS-460. It was 6mp. It was based on the EOS1 body. I bought it because I was using the EOS 1n at the time so it had basically the same exact body.

Canon didn't start anything, hell there were Medium Format backs in the 1990's. Canon and Nikon were late to the party as they say. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kodak_DCS https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Digital_camera_back

Actually The first full-frame DSLR cameras were developed in Japan from around 2000 to 2002: the MZ-D by Pentax.

Well about the 120 slo mo. No luck trying to find the Codec spec at that speed. Fuji X-H1 Slow Motion Performance: Based on the samples below the camera can do very good 120fps Full HD slow motion but it suffers from severe moire and aliasing that is visible in most shots. Be it the X-Trans sensor pattern or processing from a less than optimal sensor down-sample, the X-H1 is not going to be competitive with the GH5, G9, GH5s, a7r III, a9 and even the discontinued Samsung NX1. Noise also seems to be a problem in slow motion settings generating ample amounts of shadow artifacts. It is from this article. http://www.hispeedcams.com/fuji-x-h1-aims-compete-pro-video/

If I am outdoors lugging stuff down/up a trail I want a Sony A7xx or a m4/3!! For wildlife I would want the Olympus EM1 mk II for that . They seem to be the cats ass for AF for birding etc. I Loved my EM1. I have never tried a mk II. Man that 12-100mm lens would be nice for hiking, wildlife. Does your GH5 focus fast enough for wildife, birding?? I Know the 1DX mk II does!

Main problem, I see with the EVA1 is there is in reality no Auto Focus. Not in a continuous way. And it is not super high DR as you would think. 13 stops probably what it really is. But in reality your 1DX mk II is really more like 10 or 11. An old Alexa is 14 stops probably real life stuff. Sony FS7 is 14 stops also. Some of the Red cameras claim crazy DR, hell 20 stops on the new 8k Weapon!. Man that sounds hard to believe, but I did see a test where it was closer to it than you think. But for a Mere 50 thousand bucks we can get one to find out if true LoL. Back to the old "ain't no perfect camera" thingy.

Yeah but if you run an external recorder you could use ProRes if you edit on a Apple. I would think it might help with the overall output. I think the 1DX mk II is suppose to be 12 stops of DR. Not many cameras we can afford are going to do much better. Plus the recording limit is endless, and you would be recording to SSD's instead of C Fast. Cheaper way to go. But yeah I hate Crushed Blacks.. I can see why that would drive you crazy.

Yeah I agree it is probably due to be updated, but you know they will raise the price and will not be able to find a used one. I don't understand why your 1DX mk II can't get the job done with say a Atomos Flame to be able to use the video aids on it, False color, WF, Zebras, on and on? Man that is a camera to die for with DPAF, form factor, long lens use etc. Or I read that you can't do clean 4k out, only HD?? Is that true?

It has USB 3.0 so that ought to work to charge externally. 2.0 USB's can't keep up with the loss fast enough.

Are you shooting 4k material?? And the Canon C200 sounds like a bad way for you to go Codec wise. The normal codec is not broadcast ready, and the Raw is a total hog data wise. For what you shoot seems like neither way would work out. God only know what the middle Codec will be. Probably 8 bit, and I would hope at least 50mbps. The EVA1 would be a better bet. How about a used Sony FS5, or FS7? And one that has not been mentioned is the Sony A9. Now that is a hell of a camera. But I think the DR on it is not as high as say a A7r mk III?

I would think is just about has to be a 10 bit camera to keep the GH5, especially the GH5s from eating into it's sales. And even 4k 60p in it. But I don't see how they are going to do it without making the body a bit bigger for heat dissipation?

Might help if I actually put the link in the reply!! https://www.amazon.com/gp/product/B019D5P7EQ/ref=oh_aui_detailpage_o05_s00?ie=UTF8&psc=1

Yeah but that camera at 3200 ISO looks like most cameras at 400 ISO. So it is really not a big deal noise wise. Yeah pain in the butt ND filters wise in daylight.

I know this isn't helping you with your 12-60, but I use one of these on my Sony A7s and it works great, and it has 8 stops of ND. And Focus, OiS, everything works just like it should. Amazing bargain for the money. I even got it to work with my EFS lenses by a little filing, sanding on the back of the lenses. I guess they make one for m4/3 to EF lenses?

"and the further away from the base ISO, the less dynamic range you will have" Well I have no clue how it works, but in video with Log you have the most DR you can get in a camera, and Log stuff is shot at pretty damn high ISO's on average. You have no choice over it. Yeah in Photo mode, hell you are lucky to have 3 DR at high ISO's

This is interesting. Alister Chapman July 23, 2015 at 6:40 am Reply "Well most cameras that shoot raw or log don't actually have any highlight roll off. The light response is uniform up to the clip point, unlike cameras with more conventional gammas that do actually alter the response to highlights with a knee or similar. What you see with most modern log or raw cameras is the effect of a greatly extended dynamic and highlight range that allows you to capture the way the light in the scene itself rolls off which is why its looks so much better than the electronic roll off in traditional video cameras." It is a reply in this article. http://noamkroll.com/why-highlight-rolloff-matters-more-than-dynamic-range-which-affordable-cinema-camera-does-it-best/

You just can't beat a FF camera for DR, and DoF, and a Sony for Low Light." Sony advertises 14 stops of dynamic range in video mode when using S-Log2 or S-Log3 profiles for the A7 mk III." Now this is stated about the Fuji X-H1, "According to Fujifilm, the combination of ETERNA and DR400% brings the total dynamic range capability to 12 stops and is comparable to F-Log." Trouble is as of now AF is terrible at DR400%. The DR for the GH5 ehh Cinema5D tested it at 10 Maybe 11 stops tops. Sounds about right. I can't find any real figure for the GH5s. I think I would sell the GH5 and buy the Sony A7 mk III. Colors look pretty good on it also. And the low light on it is better than the Sony A7s mk II. And that is with 24mp. Crazy.