kye

Wow, lots of discussion!

@IronFilm Yes, I realise that low light is more than sensor size..  Your comment about a larger sensor requiring more light seems confusing, and I suspect that it's one of those situations that doesn't make sense because "all else isn't equal".  

My rationale is this - if you have a camera that is a certain physical size and has a number of photo sites on the sensor then each photo site will get a certain number of photons per second.  If you were to take that camera (camera body, sensor, lens, etc) and make an identical but smaller copy, you would have a lens that was gathering less light (because it casts a smaller shadow on the wall behind it so less light goes into the lens) but it has the same number of photo sites, therefore each of these photo sites gets less photons per second.  

This exercise of scaling everything down to the same proportion isn't how cameras are actually implemented, which is where I think the vista vision sensor discussion was coming from.

@jonpais I get that not a lot of videographers are feeling the gap that the FF F2.8 zoom lenses that pro photographers swear by, but did you also see that basically every FF prime from F1.4 and faster is not available on the m43.  FF F1.8 = m43 F0.7 and FF F1.4 = m43 F0.6.

And yes, we could suggest that super35 is our reference, making m43 only one stop behind, but also putting FF one stop in front.  It still won't change the fact that the most exotic lenses on m43 have the same amount of DoF as my $100 canon nifty fifty, which is hardly an exotic lens in FF circles.

@BTM_Pix No worries - I thought perhaps my tone was coming across a bit too directly

Your summary of my position isn't quite right and is potentially due to my wording..  Let me have a go at clarifying and choosing my words a bit more carefully, feel free to reply or not as you choose

I think the sensor size is a weakness if you scale the physical size of the lenses to match (as it would have to spread less light over the same pixels), but this doesn't apply if speed boosters are used, and even if they aren't used this can be overcome through high ISO performance, which as @IronFilm points out, they're doing a great job at.  I think that in every other way, the sensor size is an advantage, for reasons I already mentioned.  In this sense I think the format has no fundamental limitations, just the odd engineering challenge here or there.  The current lack of available lenses I think is a barrier to some potential users from adopting the system, but this is also something that can (will?) be overcome in time.

In a sense much of this thread is about where m43 has come from and where it's going in the next 6 months, but I'm trying to look at the bigger picture.  In the longer term everything that's difficult technically gets done if there's demand for it, and standards can last an incredibly long time in the tech space.

Damn it's hard to talk about complex and nuanced topics online..  ???

@webrunner5 We could show you photos to prove that we're correct, but you'd just blame photoshop and stick to your story!! ???

4 hours ago, BTM_Pix said:

I'm not sure why they would be any less "PRO" when they might well have extremely high quality Canon mount lenses attached to them?

The adapters are such an integral part of the process for people using these cameras that they are permanently attached to the camera and so can be more or less considered the de facto lens mount. 

Changing the lens means just changing the lens as if it were a native Canon mount at that point.

This is also true for cameras like the Sony FS5 and FS7 where a large number of them that are used in professional environments every day permanently use an EF adapter.

I'm not sure where I've suggested MFT cameras are in common use on large budget TV shows and feature films by the way?

Even if that was the suggestion, there are numerous reasons why they wouldn't get used in that environment that would take precedence over the lens choice, native or otherwise.

I have a RED Epic and a set of PL primes and my Panasonic GX80 can mount all of them and use them in exactly the same way so if those lenses are not limiting the RED then they can't be limiting the Panasonic surely?

Absolutely everything else about it would be of course but not the lenses

I'm not trying to have an argument with you for the sake of it by the way - as I think the native offerings could be cheaper as well for one thing - but I do disagree about the lens choice being the limitation when it is adaptable to so many different lenses.

For what its worth, I think MFT as an imaging format in terms of cameras from Panasonic and Olympus is probably in a bit of an awkward place right now but its more to do with the internals than the lens options. MFT as a mount with cameras such as LS300 and probably the BM4K behind it is a different situation but, again, the E mount is catching and probably overtaking it in terms of utility.

Is this an argument? I thought it was a debate   I'm definitely learning things and am open to the idea I could be wrong..  I'm wrong about things all the time!  If someone isn't then they need to get out of their rut a bit more ?

I was assuming that adapting lenses was something that the pros weren't that into, but maybe that's not the case.  I know that the photography youtubers all went to Sony and adapted their Canon glass and then abandoned it, and I thought the GH5 adoptees also adapted and then abandoned them too, but these might all be AF related.

I know you didn't bring up m43 on large budget productions - I did.  I think that m43 has no fundamental limitations to its potential, and personally I would like it to succeed.  Having a lens mount that is supported by more than one manufacturer is great - everyone wins - imagine that the Motion Picture Experts Group didn't exist and all we had was platform specific formats, what a mess that would be.  

The only fundamental thing that m43 has against it is that a smaller sensor gathers less light, assuming no speed boosters, which means that it is at a disadvantage with noise performance.  I can't think of anything else that is fundamentally worse (maybe I'm missing something though) but there are huge potential benefits.  Cameras can be made smaller which is useful for some applications.  Cameras that are made the same size (eg, for ergonomics and screen size) will have more room internally for IBIS, cooling, more processing.  In really fast digital circuits the length of a track on a circuit board can be a problem and shorter paths are better and support faster data transfers.  All else being equal these support faster readouts and less rolling shutter.

Even if you have all the money in the world, a larger heavier camera might require a robot arm instead of a gimbal, this reduces setup times, cost and weight of the setup, etc.  If you halve the size of something (scale to 50% size) it becomes 8 times lighter and occupies 8 times less volume.  This means less trucks and fuel and people to lug equipment around, etc.

All this at the cost of making a sensor that is two stops better in ISO noise performance, which cinema cameras aren't market leaders in anyway, and having equivalent lenses.

I'm not saying that the lens lineup stops the current users from using it, I'm saying it's a limitation of the format taking over the entire industry.  Aim big right?

1 hour ago, Robert Collins said:

I always think that when M43 users see the need for extremely fast, large, heavy and expensive lenses, they are missing the point. BTW, the Zuiko 35-100 f2 weighs 1.65kg which is more than the Sony 70-200 2.8 GM. You see what you are really asking for is a bigger sensor....

https://camerasize.com/compact/#482.460,777.639,ha,t

Actually, I'm taking a style of film-making and working out what equipment is required to get that end result, and then looking at which camera systems are able to give me the functionality I need.  In a way I'm saying that tools should fit the requirements of the customer, and you're saying that the tools don't meet the customers needs and the customer should go somewhere else.  That's fine if you don't want to gain those customers, but why wouldn't you?

3 hours ago, Andrew Reid said:

Imagine the GH5 screen. Exactly the same when folded flat against the body, but a bit taller.

Except it unfolds and is now double the width, and OLED.

Ah, yes, now I'm starting to see a benefit...  

Of course, the vloggers wouldn't be pleased because it's not a selfie screen anymore!! 

4 minutes ago, BTM_Pix said:

Natively perhaps, if actually less so now than it used to be, but the mount itself will take just about anything except E mount lenses.

If you use the smart versions of the Metabones speed booster for EF lenses then you can have a lot of very fast glass (made faster) complete with AF and aperture control from the camera.

The Sigma 18-35mm f1.8 becomes an 11.5-22.4mm f1.2 lens when used with the Metabones XL 0.64 for example, which makes it equate to a 22-45mm f2.4 if it were on a full frame.

The biggest drawback comes in the wider areas generally but even then something like the Tokina 11-16mm f2.8 in EF mount using the Metabones XL is going to be like having a 14-20.5mm f3.6 on a full frame, which few people would feel would be a limitation.

Having big chunks of lens like those and using an adapter doesn't really jive with the whole compact camera philosophy of course but fast glass on full frame isn't particularly compact either so if people want that sort of performance then it comes with the territory.

With the f1.4 manual focus prime lenses from Samyang in EF mount then mounting them on the Metabones will get you the equivalent of f2 full frame primes without breaking the bank or your back.

Yes, but adapters are perhaps even less pro than the native F5.6 equivalent "PRO" zoom lenses.

My take on it is that m43 has boomed with the same kind of spirit as the DSLR revolution, people who are willing to sacrifice usability, features (and sometimes quality) for an extreme reduction in price and size, in comparison to the previously available ILC cinema cameras.

I am aware that the higher-end industry pros dip into the smaller sensor cameras now and then for specific purposes like dangerous / destructive situations like car crashes and explosions and for tiny hand-held setups like @John Brawley has shared with us, but my impression was that this happens a lot more often than that tier of users would consider using speed boosters or other adapters.

Maybe I'm wrong, but the whole thing just doesn't seem to vibe with the "we're on the clock / I need it to be reliable and stay out of my way" requirements of the higher-tier pros.  I get that many people are paying off their home-loans from these setups, but if you're talking about m43 being as common as Super35 on large budget TV shows and feature films then I think the native lens selection is a real limiting factor.

Maybe it's just a matter of time for more lenses to be released, and perhaps higher-tier industry use will grow over time as it all matures.

8 minutes ago, jonpais said:

ETC - extra teleconverter. hehe

Ah, ok.  Yes, you're right that cropping in doesn't effect the DoF.

So if you put a 50mm 1.8 on a Canon APSC it is the same as an 80mm 1.8.  The problem is that if you buy a 27mm F1.8 and put it on a Canon APSC it will have the same angle of view as a 50mm on FF, but the DoF will not be the same as a 50mm F1.8 on FF.  This is the part that confuses people.

53 minutes ago, jonpais said:

Still, focal length has a greater impact than aperture, no? Which is why I usually reach for longer lenses like the Oly 75mm f/1.8 or Veydra 85mm T2.2 if I need some separation. 

ETC has no effect on DOF as far as I’m aware.

If you're talking about DoF then many things factor in, but all else being equal I think my above post stands.

What do you mean by ETC?  I feel like I should remember what it stands for, but I can't

40 minutes ago, webrunner5 said:

I agree, you are allowed to step back further and use a longer lens. Now if you are standing on the top of a telephone pole, well yeah your screwed one way or the other! ?

 

It depends on the situation.  If you're shooting in a confined space then often you can't step back.

I'm not sure if this is true but I think stepping back and zooming in might negate any DoF impacts because the ratio of distance from the camera to the subject to the distance from the subject to the background also changes.

Taking a step back and putting on a longer focal length also has other effects.  I'm sure we're all familiar with these:

Basically, two lenses are equivalent if I mount them each to a camera, stand in the same spot, point the cameras in the same direction, and see the same angle of view and DoF.  

1 minute ago, seanzzxx said:

From what I understand technically raw can be prepared in any way you like, however the vast vast vast majority of people will load the raw into a standard NLE which will use the manufacturer's recommendations on how the image will be displayed. Someone correct me if I'm wrong.

My understanding was that the RAW settings that could be taken from the camera was around things like ISO, WB, etc.  I'd be stunned if something like Resolve would do anything other than the minimums to construct an image from the RAW data, and I can't see why sharpening would be required for that.

In a sense, shooting in RAW is desirable precisely because it removes all the decisions that other people make for you in the other modes, so that you can make them yourself.

So a smartphone will be the first camera with a screen large enough to manually focus without AF assist features, but because of the sensor size the DoF won't be shallow enough to need it..  what a crazy upside-down world!!

I'm not really sure how this will impact ILC photography though - most cameras aren't that much larger than the size of the screen plus some buttons.  Unless we start making cameras that are like a foldable iPad mini with a lens mount on the back?  Ergonomics be damned!!

5 hours ago, jhnkng said:

Just curious — how many cameras with reliable AF has a really crap codec? You could argue that the C100mk2 has a rubbish codec on paper yet it looks nice and is plenty gradable as long as you get you exposure right. 

I would say the measure of a codec is how it looks.  If something looks great and has a lower bit-rate then I would say that is a BETTER codec than one that takes more bitrate to look as good.

Of course, no-one is suggesting that a sub-40Mbps codec is going to grade like RAW..

4 hours ago, Cinegain said:

I'm calling FAKE NEWS!1!! He only got one so he has content for his next video: 'Why I'm returning the A7III and getting another Canon!'. ?

So you're saying that if he returns it after making another clickbait video then the purchase will have ceased to exist?  We should use fake news to severely re-write history....  imagine all the people we could save from natural disasters, genocide, etc..

Slightly more seriously, I didn't see anything where he says he's switching, and I do remember him saying he's not definitely switching, so even if he returns it I'm pretty sure no promises will have been broken.  Unless brand loyalty means you can't even look at a different manufacturer when an interesting model walks past you in the shopping centre and you turn your head to look without thinking and then get evil stares from your other half.  Umm..  what were we talking about again?

I have the bigger brother to the UP2718Q - the UP3216Q.  I chose it because I was tempted by the wider gamut, but it's been a complete bust for me.

I tried googling how to set it up for the higher gamut modes, and I tried to calibrate it with my Datacolour Spyder Pro 4 but when I set the Dell and Spyder to extended colour modes the Spyder never recognised the Dell as extended colour.  I googled for hours but eventually gave up, and so I just use it in the normal mode because although the wide gamut mode looks nicer I can't calibrate it (it calibrates fine in sRGB mode).

If someone can tell me what I'm doing wrong then I'd be very happy to hear it.  It's still a nice monitor though.

Oh, and I should also mention that I'm using a USB-C/Thunderbolt to Mini DisplayPort cable, which throws another variable into the mix.  IIRC to get a decent refresh rate in UHD you needed to run multiple HDMI cables and buy a converter box that cost an arm and a leg at the time.  The MBP automagically turns a USB port into a DisplayPort when you plug a monitor in which is nice, so it's hot-swappable, and the cable was <$100

Wouldn't any digital sharpening, noise reduction and compression effects be N/A when recording in RAW?

I understand that the OLPF and other optical aspects would of course still apply.

5 hours ago, Shirozina said:

I find the M43 sensor size too limiting for general video use in that it severely restricts DOF options without adding exotic ultra fast glass ( primes only mainly) 

3 hours ago, sanveer said:

Various Panasonic (and Olympus?) Cameras do have ETC kind of zoom too, which are similar in function. Obviously with lesser megapixels, there is lesser megapixels to zoom in from.

I think it's the lenses on MFT that are the biggest limitation.

When we consult a tool like mmCalc which calculates equivalent lenses on different sensor sizes:

• An F5.6 lens on FF gives the same DoF as a ~F3.7 lens for APSC and F2.8 for m43
• An F4.0 lens on FF gives the same DoF as a ~F2.7 lens for APSC and F2.0 for m43
• An F2.8 lens on FF gives the same DoF as a ~F1.8 lens for APSC and F1.4 for m43
• An F2.0 lens on FF gives the same DoF as a ~F1.3 lens for APSC and F1.0 for m43

(The APSC numbers are a bit funny as crop factor varies by manufacturer but they're approximately correct for my purposes)

FF is drowning in F1.8 - 2.0 primes (and even lots faster are common but let's set these aside for the moment), and these are standard lenses.  Equivalents are available on APSC at F1.4, and there are a rare few F0.95 or F0.85 on M43.  The range for ~F1.8 equivalent lenses on m43 is severely limited, but it's a start, however you're out of luck if you want a FF F1.4 equivalent (it would need to be F0.7), and you're dreaming if you want a FF F1.2 equivalent lens.

FF is drowning in F2.8 zooms, and these are the standard pro lenses.  Think how many 24-70 and 70-200 F2.8 zooms have been made over the decades.  
Only the Sigma F1.8 zooms match it on APSC, and are no F1.4 zooms on M43.  This is the one that I think is strange because the fastest zooms on m43 aren't even one stop slower at F2, they are two stops slower at F2.8, which is the FF equivalent of a fixed F5.6 zoom!  

Most (all?) variable aperture kit zoom lens on FF bodies are faster across most of their zoom ranges than the fastest PRO zooms on m43, including extremely expensive offerings.

Please someone tell me I made a mistake......

John Hess just posted a cracker of a video about why 24fps is here to stay.  Highly recommended

Matti Haapoja has been tempted for a second time...

He obviously read my post about DR in the Nikon thread! ???

Does anyone make a ILC with a 1" sensor?  I can't think of any, but I'm not a database

18 minutes ago, BrunoLandMedia said:

Yes, the quick turn around is important at my day job. You might not believe how much video one could shoot for a private PK-8 School in the DC area, but I have the hard drives full to prove it. HA. Yes, the XC's have been on the radar, but I feel like they miss the boat with the fixed lenses. 

Yes, workflow is a big deal for people who publish frequently, I find that lots of the people on here are down on Canon because they value image quality over having an easier workflow, but if your job is to pump out videos then workflow is more important than image quality.  Plus, for the average person, if it's HD, has nice colours, and has a bit of background blur then it will look amazing

I agree about the XC10.  I'm a fan and own one as my main camera, but I'm looking at upgrading because of the limitations of the lens.  Apart from that it's a great camera.  In a way it's a real lost opportunity.

23 minutes ago, BrunoLandMedia said:

I actually do use 60p and it's slow mo ability in post all the time. I know it's not 120 + but I my set up and Broll is a huge part of the videos I make. The performance videos might not use 60p at all, but that's also where I really need the No Time Limit, and peaking, and zoom while recording, and all the serious video features my DSLR's don't have. XLR's are huge although my Rode shotgun mic's have been pretty good. 

At this current budget and set up, It seems that if I do get an MK1 for performances, I really will only be pulling it out for those events, interviews when I do them, and when I know I'm not using 60p. I'll be traveling around with the 80d much more often it seems. 

Maybe I need to save more. This is all coming out of my pocket even though I"ll be using it my full time job as well as more private jobs. Cheers

I guess if you use 60p all the time then it does matter.

In terms of 120p vs 60p, I think 60p is potentially more useful in many situations.  I don't know how you use it, but I find that 60p makes things look nice, smooth, and kind of gentle in a way, but it doesn't look like a special effect.  120 looks like a special effect to me.  I would imagine that kids smiling and running and things like that would have a nice aesthetic in 60p - I've used it in a couple of my home videos and it's a nice look.  

I notice that really nicely shot TV shows use 60p quite often (probably slowed down to 24p, which is a bigger slow-down than you're doing) and they kind of use it for emotional scenes, like when showing footage but putting music over the top.  The only times that I can think of frequent uses for 120 or slower is food or hair-care commercials!

The future is an amazing place filled with next-level stuff.  When I was growing up the future was about 3-10 years away, but now it's only 6 months or a year away at best.  It's taking its time but one day it might be here!!!

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Technological_singularity

???

3 hours ago, webrunner5 said:

This is his cost statement.

"BUDGET: Top of my budget is around $1800ish and that would get me a c100, or if I sold my 80d, could be a stretch to get the mk2, but I feel 1 extra job will pay for the rest."

He is not going to bring Anything new to the table from what he already has with a C100, no matter the model. In this day and age a C100 is an antique.

And with 1800 bucks he Ain't buying no (FS5/FS7/LS300/UMP/etc).

His need for quick turn-arounds in the edit suite, and existing Canon lens catalog are pushing him towards Canon, and his budget and need for longer recording times are pushing him to a cinema camera, and the only overlap between those criteria are the C100 models.  I'll also mention to the XC10 / XC15 cameras, just in case the OP isn't aware they exist, but they're probably not a good choice as they have fixed lenses that aren't that fast, and the OP looks like they prefer faster glass.

If he was looking to replace all his cameras then that might open up other systems but right now he's in Canon lock-in mode, just where Canon wants him.  If anyone wants the definitive answer for why Canon is doing so well commercially, this example is the one they should reflect on.

Assuming that we didn't all miss a major difference between the C100 Mk1 and Mk2, the main difference seems to be the 60p.  If so, I think the OP should think about what situations slow-motion actually makes it into their final edits (no point shooting stuff you won't use) and if the C100 would be suitable in that situation.  Eg, if slow-motion is always shot on a gimbal then it's not a good match, but if they are shooting on the monopod with their 'best' camera and are switching back and forth between 30 and 60p then the Mk2 makes sense.  Buying a Mk1 and then have to carry around the 80D and Mk1 because the Mk1 doesn't do something the 80D does is what we're trying to avoid here.

@Cinegain - great love letter to m43 post.. ???

You covered most aspects and I agree with your analysis on most things.  I think that the A7iii, GH5, and the Pocket2 are going to occupy special places in people's equipment lists for a long time yet.  I'm looking forward to the Pocket2 vs ARRI videos that are inevitable (Potato Jet YT channel I'm looking at you!) because when I think about the differences between compressed video and RAW video and then I look at the A7iii screenshots that @jonpais is posting I'm struggling to imagine there will be a huge difference between the Pocket2 and high-end cinema cameras.  Certainly nothing to justify the price difference when looking at the images anyway - I'm aware that high-end cinema cameras offer a huge amount more than just good images.

I definitely don't represent the average user, and I feel caught in the middle of these three cameras as each offers something I would genuinely love.  The A7iii represents the best compromises for me personally but I'm not at all against smaller sensors.  I currently have the XC10 and in many ways it is the perfect camera.  It has 30+minute recording times, a reliable thermal solution, really nice 4K with a high bit-rate (305Mbit), long battery life, a flexible 24-240mm equivalent lens with solid IS, c-log, built-in NDs, ergonomics DSLRs can only dream about, etc.  The only reason I'm considering upgrading is that it doesn't have the 'look' I want with a shallow enough DoF.  I completely agree with you about bokehmania being a passing fad and you say that no-one really needs anything better than f1.4 (which IIRC is 2.8 FF equivalent?) and I agree, in fact I'm happy to settle for F4 FF equivalent.  For me having shallower DoF is about having my images look less flat and have a bit more depth in them, so the choice is creative instead of trendy.  I did some tests with my APS-C camera and 18-35 1.8 and when looking at the frames decided that the F2.8 (F4 FF equivalent) was sufficient, anything else would be nice, but would be a luxury.  I've shot a few test videos at APS-C F1.8 and I find the look too strong on almost every shot.  As you say, things should have a 'sense of place'.

The setup that is "winning" for my needs right now is the A7iii with the 24-105 F4 as this would give me the flexibility to shoot my home and travel videos where I'm shooting a landscape one minute, a bird 200m away the next and then a portrait of one of my kids the moment after that. That lens combined with the crop mode and clear image zoom provides about 24-250mm which is flexible enough for my needs.  Unfortunately FF seems to be the only system that has that combination of aperture and zoom range.  As a bonus, the IBIS + OIS of the combo will also help the good but not great IBIS (the 24-70 F2.8 doesn't have IS).  The AF will be great for me because my brain often can't deal with the chaos of a family holiday plus trying to anticipate what is about to happen so I get the shot plus actually taking the current shot, let alone doing down-to-the-pixel MF.

It seems to me that the GH5 is great for slower film-making where there is time to change lenses and do MF but allows hand-held and lightweight setups.  The Pocket2 will be fantastic if you have time to change lenses, do MF, and you can put it on a tripod or gimbal.  The A7III will be great for those who need the flexibility of zooms without compromising the shallower DoF.

@Robert Collins I agree about the convergence of photo and video being a big deal.  One of the key advantages is being able to crop into the sensor but retain full resolution like the A7III.  This is an advantage over dedicated cinema cameras because they tend to have sensor resolutions that match their output resolutions, or are slightly higher (like the 4.6K Ursa).  This gives a tremendous flexibility.  For example my 700D / Sigma 18-35 is 29-56mm equivalent, but the 3x crop in ML makes it a 87-168mm and gives it enough range so be a walk-around lens, not to mention my 55-250mm is both an 88-400mm equivalent and a 264-1200mm equivalent, and that crop mode comes in hugely useful at my kids sports games and they're on the other side of the field.  This is for 1080p - when the 45+MP sensors start being used like this we'll be able to get 2-3X 4K crops, if any of the manufacturers are that bold, plus the full-sensor will be 8K capable.  I have no idea what the market for a C100 sized camera that shoots 8K video would be in, say 2021, but it would sure be an interesting thing to see.

I'm a Resolve user, but haven't really played with HDR so I'll try not to speak out of turn on that, however I have a couple of thoughts that might be useful.

Instead of controlling the input colour space via the clip properties you can convert the colour space in the node graph using the excellent Colour Space Transform OFX plugin.  Juan Melara has an excellent tutorial about how to grade footage using it here:

I think that method (using the OFX plugin) is the answer to how you can work with input clips that come from different colour spaces, but some google searches should be able to confirm that for you.

Also, I've heard that Resolve is a bit limited with options when using the GUI because it's designed to be used with a calibrated monitor via one of the Blackmagic video output devices listed here: https://www.blackmagicdesign.com/products (under the Capture and Playback section).  There is also a discontinued product called the Ultrastudio Mini Monitor that was only 1080 but might also be useful (I'm not sure on what colour spaces it supports), and I believe there were also an equivalent PCI output card if you're on a desktop machine.  

This is how Resolve is designed to work so support for these hardware devices is fully integrated into Resolve and it's how all the pro colourists all work so there's lots of support for that kind of setup.

If the nice people here aren't able to help then I'd recommend liftgammagain.com forums where the pro colourists all congregate, and they do this stuff all day long

Good luck!!

In terms of budget, I'd say that you're about to spend a large sum of money so you should get a large upgrade.  Buying something that only adds a little to what you can do wouldn't be worth it.  

It sounds like you already have enough cameras for your multi-camera setup, so buying another one isn't a huge value-add.  In that sense you might be better off selling one of your existing cameras and using that extra money to make sure your purchase really gives you a lot more than your current setup.

I find that if you have analysed the problem well enough then the solution becomes obvious, so try making a list of all the current pain points in your setup (is it stabilisation, is it the 30 minute limit, is it something else?) and then rank them as to what the biggest ones are, then you'll be able to tell which potential purchase will give you the most benefit.

Good luck!!

Thanks @Aussie Ash and @BTM_Pix - I was definitely fooled!!

I was thinking WOW!! ??? 

29 minutes ago, Aussie Ash said:

Here is a pic of the new lens adaptor,rumors say it has a motor in it for the older AF lenses

This looks very deep to me - certainly a lot deeper than the mirror in the DSLRs it is emulating.

For our lens experts - does this mean there is glass inside it?  and what implications does that have?

It's certainly not a compact setup then, to use the new body and a small pancake lens!!

29 minutes ago, Tone1k said:

That's not the only time in this thread that I have stated that AF can be useful in some situations.

Cool.  I've said it can be useful in some situations, you've said it can be useful in some situations.

I'm just not sure how any of that added up to the below....?

3 hours ago, Tone1k said:

Good grief.....I hope you're being sarcastic??

Unless it was autocorrect and you meant to say "yes, you raise valid points, but have you also considered....."