A7SIII (and why you should wait before buying GH5)

[noone]

The main reason for an A7siii (or even ii or I) against any M4/3.

The GH5 looks a very nice camera but mainly for different strengths.      For low light, maybe not so much (and I am thinking ISO 12800 and up).

My first gen A7s VS my almost the same age GX7.

 

[bunk]

On 31 March 2017 at 9:57 AM, jonpais said:

I'm not seeing that, though my earlier white balance and color correction skills were seriously lacking. The Leica lenses also produce a much more pleasing color than the yellowish Panasonic lenses I've used.

This picture you provided shows exactly the problem Inazuma is talking about (chroma smearing). No need to go pixel peeping, viewing it at 100% is enough.

[webrunner5]

36 minutes ago, bunk said:

This picture you provided shows exactly the problem Inazuma is talking about (chroma smearing). No need to go pixel peeping, viewing it at 100% is enough.

Hell on my monitor it looks great at 100%. Well now Jon, not so great. For some reason the Red disappears when I blow it up here, but on YouTube it is too Red.

But I just don't see the chroma smearing you are talking about??

I mean yeah the curtains behind him maybe what you are talking about, they look more OOF than smeared?

This link shows for a GH4 at least, that a good LuT can change it tremendously from not so hot to holly shit! Christ those women in the feather things are well, GREAT! http://www.dvxuser.com/V6/showthread.php?340808-Leeming-LUT-One-%96-the-best-LUT-for-the-Panasonic-GH4/page52

I don't think we ought to be blaming cameras as much as we ought to be blaming the LuTs in them we use!! Not counting not doing WB, BB, wrong exposure, on and on.

[jonpais]

26 minutes ago, bunk said:

This picture you provided shows exactly the problem Inazuma is talking about (chroma smearing). No need to go pixel peeping, viewing it at 100% is enough.

I should probably say how I white balanced and which settings I used as well. Settings: Standard, Contrast -2, Sharpening -5, NR -5, Saturation 0. I manually white balanced just using the LCD screen. No color correction in post. So of course, it's not any example of perfection. But I thought what Inazuma was referring to is the general overall skin tones having a tendency toward orange. I'm no expert on chroma smearing, but I thought that referred to splotchy patches of color (green/magenta) showing up in footage, not to the overall color rendition. Anyway, if you'd explain what you're seeing, I'd be very interested in learning more.

[webrunner5]

10 minutes ago, jonpais said:

I should probably say how I white balanced and which settings I used as well. Settings: Standard, Contrast -2, Sharpening -5, NR -5, Saturation 0. I manually white balanced just using the LCD screen. No color correction in post. So of course, it's not any example of perfection. But I thought what Inazuma was referring to is the general overall skin tones having a tendency toward orange. I'm no expert on chroma smearing, but I thought that referred to splotchy patches of color (red/magenta) showing up in footage, not to the overall color rendition. Anyway, if you'd explain what you're seeing, I'd be very interested in learning more.

Yeah your  "I thought that referred to splotchy patches of color (red/magenta) showing up in footage" is what I equate chroma smearing to also? Especially on peoples face.

[jonpais]

34 minutes ago, webrunner5 said:

Hell on my monitor it looks great at 100%. Well now Jon, not so great. For some reason the Red disappears when I blow it up here, but on YouTube it is too Red.

But I just don't see the chroma smearing you are talking about??

I mean yeah the curtains behind him maybe what you are talking about, they look more OOF than smeared?

This link shows for a GH4 at least, that a good LuT can change it tremendously from not so hot to holly shit! Christ those women in the feather things are well, GREAT! http://www.dvxuser.com/V6/showthread.php?340808-Leeming-LUT-One-%96-the-best-LUT-for-the-Panasonic-GH4/page52

I don't think we ought to be blaming cameras as much as we ought to be blaming the LuTs in them we use!! Not counting not doing WB, BB, wrong exposure, on and on.

Nice LUT samples, even better subject matter! And the previous pages over in that same thread show some even more remarkable images using LUTs (all shot with the ancient GH4).

[Emanuel]

50 minutes ago, bunk said:

(...) No need to go pixel peeping, viewing it at 100% is enough.

LOL This is "the" joke! Priceless. The best definition of pixel peeper I've ever read ; ) *thumbsup* :-)

[bunk]

59 minutes ago, jonpais said:

Anyway, if you'd explain what you're seeing, I'd be very interested in learning more.

Here is what I see, as for some reason you can't see it I blow it up to 200%, so maybe that helps. You might have a differenrt skin color at those spots but not the color panasonic makes of it. I suspect it's caused by chroma smearing, I could be wrong though.

[tomsemiterrific]

On 3/27/2017 at 11:06 AM, wolf33d said:

Hahahahahaha 

get out of your cave man. The "MF is for pro, AF for small hobbyists" is a thing of the past. 

Not so long ago we used MF in photography. Do you know many pro photographers shooting weddings photography in MF??

I don't see the either/or thinking. Both AF and MF can be useful in the right situation. I shoot only video, and MF is the way to go for 99% of the shooting I do.

But I do want to say something about waiting for the next A7siii:
If it existed right now I would not care to have it in the vast number of instances.

Perhaps it might be useful in studio. But the weight of the lenses and terrible stabilization (compared to Olympus/Panasonic) make it very problematic for field shooting.

IMO little has been said about the incredible in-camera stabilization of the new Panasonics and what it does for on-location shooting hand held. I've been shooting hand held with the G85, using a .72 focal reducer and speed booster, and using FD lenses and it is a world better than trying to manage the weight and limited stabilized full-frame Canon lenses. 

And the sensitive light and focus control is much better shooting manual FD rather than full-frame Canon lenses.

Here are what I see for all the pros shooting video with Panasonic in-camera stabilization with speed booster plus FD lenses.

1. more sensitive and subtle focus control.
2. more lens choices---all are stabilized.
3. incredible low-light capability. I have in one small camera bag (very light) 1 85mm 1.8 (1.2 w speed booster), 1 50mm 1.2 (.095?? w/ speed booster), 1 35mm 2.0 (1.4 speed booster), 1 28mm 2.8 (2.0 speed booster), 135mm 2.8 (2.0 w/ speed booster); all stabilized, all giving me about the same perspective as the 1DX mk II. The whole set up is very light--nothing like the torture of lugging full frame Canon lenses---but wait! These are full-frame Canon lenses! Plus, I can use Rokinon Ef to MFT speed booster with click less aperture--all stabilized. Why the Hell would I forsake that for a larger sensor when all the weight and focus problems--and the cost come with it!! I mean, it's video. Just how sharp does it have to be--just how necessary is it to pixel peep till your eyes are blood shot?!?
4. FD lenses are cheap compared to their full frame equivalent--and with the speed booster they provide near a full-frame angle of view and faster F-stops. There's nothing Canon or Sony make the FD + speed booster can't provide you with plus at least one full stop more light.
So, why should I switch to a full-frame Sony and have to pay full frame prices? and deal with the weight and the AWFUL impossible to use manual focus???

Other than Panasonic, another option I see is using the in-camera stabilization and speed booster FD lenses with the Sony a6500. That yields even better image/light results  than the Panasonic G85, but the shooting is more physically challenging, inconvenient, and not nearly as pleasurable as shooting with the Panasonic. Can't say about the GH5 because it hasn't arrived yet here in the States. I pre-ordered mine, and it should arrive early next week.

IMO: IF Sony put the body of the a6500 in a slightly larger, DSLR style body (like the GH5) and improved the ergonomics to make the shooting experience a little more facile I would buy it in a New York minute! --Hell, half a New York minute.

I love that camera, and the results with its combination of in-cam stabilization, speed booster, FD lenses, and, IMO, image quality is second to none. Plus, the aps-c sensor is really much the same as the Super 35 sensor more traditionally used for video.

The Bottom Line:
An inexpensive, light, easy to use set-up providing freedom from the tripod, a beautiful image, amazing focus control and low-light, excellently stabilized---you lose almost all of those when you go to the full-frame Sonys, Canons, etc. But you have them in the GH5, G85, and the a6500---they allow you to shoot all day and not to have to undergo physical therapy for a week.
Alas, if only Sony would improve the camera body--making it slightly larger, just a bit heavier, and with a better grip. Put the a6500 in something like that and you've got my money! 

[Emanuel]

Here is what I see, as for some reason you can't see it I blow it up to 200%, so maybe that helps. You might have a differenrt skin color at those spots but not the color panasonic makes of it. I suspect it's caused by chroma smearing, I could be wrong though.

No problem with your findings at all (even though, I guess another picture profile or even higher bitrate through HDMI, as for instance, can bring another outcome : )

I just found it funny enough and very accurate definition BTW ;-)

On topic, take a look on this one here:

You'll find the same chroma smearing going on with other cameras, take a look on minute 00:46 of that example above. Saturate the colors just a bit and see the ear of the guy. Same effect. So, everything can be controlled either in the camera settings or at post for sure, the more avoidable the possible, I concur though.

[Ken Ross]

2 hours ago, webrunner5 said:

Hell on my monitor it looks great at 100%. Well now Jon, not so great. For some reason the Red disappears when I blow it up here, but on YouTube it is too Red.

But I just don't see the chroma smearing you are talking about??

I mean yeah the curtains behind him maybe what you are talking about, they look more OOF than smeared?

This link shows for a GH4 at least, that a good LuT can change it tremendously from not so hot to holly shit! Christ those women in the feather things are well, GREAT! http://www.dvxuser.com/V6/showthread.php?340808-Leeming-LUT-One-%96-the-best-LUT-for-the-Panasonic-GH4/page52

I don't think we ought to be blaming cameras as much as we ought to be blaming the LuTs in them we use!! Not counting not doing WB, BB, wrong exposure, on and on.

I don't see it either! Between not knowing how people view these things, the monitors they use, calibrated and non-calibrated, the web browsers used (I see a huge difference between color rendition on my 5K IMac between Safari and Chrome), and who knows what other variables, good luck making comparisons.

Someone posted how fleshtones were being pulled to magenta in one posted pix. Not on my IMac, fleshtones looked great. In other pix, one says fleshtones are great and someone else says they're terrible. It's almost becoming amusing to me.

What's important to me, is thus far I'm liking the color I see on my GH5, but of course that's 'only' on a 75" UHD Sony or 65" OLED.

.

 

1 hour ago, bunk said:

Here is what I see, as for some reason you can't see it I blow it up to 200%, so maybe that helps. You might have a differenrt skin color at those spots but not the color panasonic makes of it. I suspect it's caused by chroma smearing, I could be wrong though.

OK, granted I'm now only looking at this on an IPad, but I still don't see what you're talking about other than 'imperfections' in Jon's skin (don't feel badly Jon, we all have em'). I give up. 

[Kisaha]

@tomsemiterrific I agree with 95% of what you said, still considering the IBIS as a panacea to everything, is similar with the attitude of the people considering the low light capabilities of the A7s as a panacea, well, to everything!

They are tools, and everyone has different uses (I for once, tripod like 97% of my time, and 2% monopod!), plus, there are amazing zoom lenses these days, and with one, you don't have to carry 4-5 FD ones (I have a small FD collection my self, and Takumars). Also, there is a lot of discussion going on about the resolution of lenses in the new 6K downsampling 4K video, and we are moving already to higher resolutions (Japanese TV broadcasted 8K Olympics from Rio!).

Cameras are complicated machines and have many uses, my sweet spot is APS-C, and people with NX and Fuji cameras just buy a Crane stabilizer and consider having an advantage over m43 cameras without having the size and weight of 35mm cameras lenses. There is no an end to this. There is not a ring to rule them all in real life, and no one is cleverer than the rest, just people with different needs and workflows! 

I am not a friend of 35mm photo cameras, especially these days with the leaps in technology of the smaller sensors, but I understand why people are so excited about cameras such the S. I would be more interested on a better APS-C camera (than the ones we have right now), or a super 35 video camera one, in anyway, GH5 is here, and it is shaping the things to come, but I am not buying it, yet..

[noone]

55 minutes ago, tomsemiterrific said:

55 minutes ago, tomsemiterrific said:

Perhaps it might be useful in studio. But the weight of the lenses and terrible stabilization (compared to Olympus/Panasonic) make it very problematic for field shooting.

 

A7s is smaller and lighter than the G85 (A7sii is larger), who knows what the A7siii will be.     You can use the same lenses on the A7s cameras.    To me, the A7s cameras are far better in the field.

The A7 cameras have greater lens choice actually as you can use all the lenses available for M4/3 and M4/3 lenses if you want but you can not use E mount lenses on M4/3.

55 minutes ago, tomsemiterrific said:

IMO little has been said about the incredible in-camera stabilization of the new Panasonics and what it does for on-location shooting hand held. I've been shooting hand held with the G85, using a .72 focal reducer and speed booster, and using FD lenses and it is a world better than trying to manage the weight and limited stabilized full-frame Canon lenses. 

And the sensitive light and focus control is much better shooting manual FD rather than full-frame Canon lenses.

The FD lenses ARE FF lenses.    IBIS is nice but the A7s cameras need it less than any other I have used and again, who knows how well it will work in the A7siii.   

My GX7 has terrible IBIS for stills and non existent for video just as the first A7s doesn't have it, the second does.   It gets better with each generation.

55 minutes ago, tomsemiterrific said:

3. incredible low-light capability. I have in one small camera bag (very light) 1 85mm 1.8 (1.2 w speed booster), 1 50mm 1.2 (.095?? w/ speed booster), 1 35mm 2.0 (1.4 speed booster), 1 28mm 2.8 (2.0 speed booster), 135mm 2.8 (2.0 w/ speed booster); all stabilized, all giving me about the same perspective as the 1DX mk II. The whole set up is very light--nothing like the torture of lugging full frame Canon lenses---but wait! These are full-frame Canon lenses! Plus, I can use Rokinon Ef to MFT speed booster with click less aperture--all stabilized. Why the Hell would I forsake that for a larger sensor when all the weight and focus problems--and the cost come with it!! I mean, it's video. Just how sharp does it have to be--just how necessary is it to pixel peep till your eyes are blood shot?!?

No, it just means you can use a fast lens and keep your ISO lower than with a slower lens but you can do that with an A7s series camera as well.       Plus the A7s cameras have an APSC mode for double duty (not so great for stills with the lower pixel count but for video is useful).     What are you going to match an A7s and FF 50 f0.95 lens with?

 

55 minutes ago, tomsemiterrific said:

4. FD lenses are cheap compared to their full frame equivalent--and with the speed booster they provide near a full-frame angle of view and faster F-stops. There's nothing Canon or Sony make the FD + speed booster can't provide you with plus at least one full stop more light.
So, why should I switch to a full-frame Sony and have to pay full frame prices? and deal with the weight and the AWFUL impossible to use manual focus???

The FD lenses will work just fine (better as far as I am concerned) on the A7s cameras.      I love my FD 24 1.4 and 85 1.2 lenses but they are much better for me on the A7s than the M4/3 camera (and the combination would weigh less on my A7s than they would on your G85).     You would need a 12mm f0.7 to match the 24 and a 42.5 f0.6 to match the 85.

Manual focus is excellent with the A7 series cameras (better for me than anything else I have used) but is also great with EF mount lenses.

The TS-E lenses for instance, I think are better  (easier to use at least on the A7 cameras) than on any current Canon camera.

I love M4/3 but for low light, there is NO comparison as far as I am concerned.     Your G85 would be a much better general video camera to me than the A7s but low light? No, I don't think so.

[jonpais]

2 hours ago, bunk said:

Here is what I see, as for some reason you can't see it I blow it up to 200%, so maybe that helps. You might have a differenrt skin color at those spots but not the color panasonic makes of it. I suspect it's caused by chroma smearing, I could be wrong though.

In real life, I'm white as a ghost!  

[bunk]

1 hour ago, Emanuel said:

You'll find the same chroma smearing going on with other cameras, take a look on minute 00:46 of that example above. Saturate the colors just a bit and see the ear of the guy. Same effect. So, everything can be controlled either in the camera settings or at post for sure, the more avoidable the possible, I concur though.

Might be an interesting test once you have the original file in your hands and not the compressed version with huge(!) macro blocks on the wall that you can download as "original".

[Philip Lipetz]

4 hours ago, jonpais said:

I should probably say how I white balanced and which settings I used as well. Settings: Standard, Contrast -2, Sharpening -5, NR -5, Saturation 0. I manually white balanced just using the LCD screen. No color correction in post. So of course, it's not any example of perfection. But I thought what Inazuma was referring to is the general overall skin tones having a tendency toward orange. I'm no expert on chroma smearing, but I thought that referred to splotchy patches of color (green/magenta) showing up in footage, not to the overall color rendition. Anyway, if you'd explain what you're seeing, I'd be very interested in learning more.

The problem with a -5 NR setting is that the GH5 has a special function that enhances collie gradients in areas of similar color, the GH4 did not have this, and turning NR off will turn this off also. Guys, this is not a GH4. I wish I had time to create and post tests but this is March Madness basketball tournament time.  

[webrunner5]

2 hours ago, noone said:

 

 

Manual focus is excellent with the A7 series cameras (better for me than anything else I have used) but is also great with EF mount lenses.

 

 

He is not kidding about that. I have NEVER seen a camera, or video camera as easy to MF than a A7 series camera. They are scary easy to do it with, and fast as hell to make it happen.

You can do it damn near as fast as AF could, they are that good. Now I never used a Sony F55 or a Arri Alexa, but...

 

 

[tomsemiterrific]

2 hours ago, noone said:

A7s is smaller and lighter than the G85 (A7sii is larger), who knows what the A7siii will be.     You can use the same lenses on the A7s cameras.    To me, the A7s cameras are far better in the field.

The A7 cameras have greater lens choice actually as you can use all the lenses available for M4/3 and M4/3 lenses if you want but you can not use E mount lenses on M4/3.

The FD lenses ARE FF lenses.    IBIS is nice but the A7s cameras need it less than any other I have used and again, who knows how well it will work in the A7siii.   

My GX7 has terrible IBIS for stills and non existent for video just as the first A7s doesn't have it, the second does.   It gets better with each generation.

No, it just means you can use a fast lens and keep your ISO lower than with a slower lens but you can do that with an A7s series camera as well.       Plus the A7s cameras have an APSC mode for double duty (not so great for stills with the lower pixel count but for video is useful).     What are you going to match an A7s and FF 50 f0.95 lens with?

 

The FD lenses will work just fine (better as far as I am concerned) on the A7s cameras.      I love my FD 24 1.4 and 85 1.2 lenses but they are much better for me on the A7s than the M4/3 camera (and the combination would weigh less on my A7s than they would on your G85).     You would need a 12mm f0.7 to match the 24 and a 42.5 f0.6 to match the 85.

Manual focus is excellent with the A7 series cameras (better for me than anything else I have used) but is also great with EF mount lenses.

The TS-E lenses for instance, I think are better  (easier to use at least on the A7 cameras) than on any current Canon camera.

I love M4/3 but for low light, there is NO comparison as far as I am concerned.     Your G85 would be a much better general video camera to me than the A7s but low light? No, I don't think so.

It's hard to know where to start with your comments. I'll just say I try to read comments carefully before I respond, because I want to make sure my response is about what the person said, rather than somethings I assumed he or she said. I think that's always wise advise.

Now, let me start with weight. Yes, the a7 cams are lighter than the G85 and the GH5. Lighter is better, but I think everyone will agree there is a point a cam can be too light. Some weight is needed to help stabilize the cam in the hand, and there is where the a7cams fall short. They do get weight--but from the FF lenses--while are often very heavy and make the camera feel terribly out of balance. I'm not against weight--just too much weight, and balance is also a factor I left out, but which is really important. The Panasonics are great cameras to hold. The A7 cams are not--and the heavy lenses often make them kind of miserable to hold and use. That's my story and I'm sticking to it.

Yes, the FD lenses can be used FF---but you have to lose the speed booster and that extra stop of light. I owned an A7sii--and could get some excellent results from it, but I didn't care for the color very much. Maybe I'm nuts, but I found the a6500 color to be much, much better. There the FD lenses shine, though the stabilization is not as good as the G85 and GH5. Honestly, I like the image of the a6500 best of all. I own one, but it's not a pleasure to shoot. If they only made a slightly heavier better balanced cam with a better grip AND BATTERY--using the FD+speed booster on them would make balance feel great. No way would I consider using FF Sony lenses.

THEN YOU WROTE:
"No, it just means you can use a fast lens and keep your ISO lower than with a slower lens but you can do that with an A7s series camera as well.       Plus the A7s cameras have an APSC mode for double duty (not so great for stills with the lower pixel count but for video is useful).     What are you going to match an A7s and FF 50 f0.95 lens with?"

I think I'd far prefer shooting video on the 24 mega pixels of the a6500 than the cropped aps-c of a 12 mega pixel cam. And besides, why should I pay so much extra for features I don't need, don't want, and don't plan to use? I'm perfectly happy shooting with an aps-c sensor. The challenge with a smaller sensors is light, and the speed boosters go a long way to solving that. 

You wrote: "

"The A7 cameras have greater lens choice actually as you can use all the lenses available for M4/3 and M4/3 lenses if you want but you can not use E mount lenses on M4/3."

I have no interest in the E mount lenses--at all. The bizarre MF is unusable. I loathe it. And they are too frigging expensive. Sigma lenses are sharper, just as good--better actually, and with a MF that human beings can actually use. And if you put the cam in aps-c mode Sony has a shitty array of crop lenses--and nothing fast to speak of.

You wrote:
" Your G85 would be a much better general video camera to me than the A7s but low light? No, I don't think so."

A large sensor cam will give you better low light and DOF all things being equal. But I find shooting the G85, with speed booster and the Sigma 1.8 zoom to be amazing in low light-it does what I need it to do well and produces beautiful shallow depth of field. The speed booster drops the 1.8 to 1.1 on the G85, and the 50-100 drops to 1.2 with amazing boca---creamy and gorgeous.(I just got an FD 100mm 2.0, mint, that drops to f 1.2, has a focus ring that is creamy smooth--and the image is sharp and beautiful--and it is super stable and cost me 1/3 the price of the Sigma 100). If I have all those satisfying features why the hell should I pay 4 times more for a different camera body and several thousands more for lenses I find unusable in MF.?

But I'm not making an argument for the G85 over and against Sony. I'm not against Sony. I actually posted this because Panasonic, a video camera company that makes stills cameras, finally decided to take making a camera with in-camera stabilization seriously, and have now made a camera with world-class stabilization. Very good in the G85, even better by all reports in the GH5, and how this revolutionizes the use of these wonderful non-electronic lenses for hand held shooting. Let's face it. For video these FD lenses and rokinon lenses provide every thing you need and can easily control outside the camera--stabilization has been the missing link to make them full useful and free them from the tether of the tripod.

IMO, at this point Panasonic's in-camera stabilization is better than Sony--though Sony is usable in the A7sii and a6500. And being able to use these less expensive, lighter FF lenses with speed boosters on the Panasonics and a6500 enables you to shoot in low-light and produce shallow DOF to the point the RESULT is often indistinguishable to that of FF cameras with their array of large heavy lenses--most of which are not very fast. And those that are are not stabilized. That was my point.

 

 

 

 

 

 

[noone]

1 hour ago, tomsemiterrific said:

1 hour ago, tomsemiterrific said:

Now, let me start with weight. Yes, the a7 cams are lighter than the G85 and the GH5. Lighter is better, but I think everyone will agree there is a point a cam can be too light. Some weight is needed to help stabilize the cam in the hand, and there is where the a7cams fall short. They do get weight--but from the FF lenses--while are often very heavy and make the camera feel terribly out of balance. I'm not against weight--just too much weight, and balance is also a factor I left out, but which is really important. The Panasonics are great cameras to hold. The A7 cams are not--and the heavy lenses often make them kind of miserable to hold and use. That's my story and I'm sticking to it.

I find the A7s to be the right size for me and it is about the same size/shape weight give or take as most cameras I like.    GX7, most of the film SLRs I have had ETC and as long as the camera has a decent viewfinder and full range of controls.      After using most brands for many years, I now actually PREFER the A7s for handling and ergonomics but could get used to most cameras easily enough.      I have no issue using my old 300 2.8 on the A7s (or GX7).

Subjective though so no wrong opinion (though mine is of course righter!).

 

1 hour ago, tomsemiterrific said:

Yes, the FD lenses can be used FF---but you have to lose the speed booster and that extra stop of light. I owned an A7sii--and could get some excellent results from it, but I didn't care for the color very much. Maybe I'm nuts, but I found the a6500 color to be much, much better. There the FD lenses shine, though the stabilization is not as good as the G85 and GH5. Honestly, I like the image of the a6500 best of all. I own one, but it's not a pleasure to shoot. If they only made a slightly heavier better balanced cam with a better grip AND BATTERY--using the FD+speed booster on them would make balance feel great. No way would I consider using FF Sony lenses

.      But you don't NEED a focal reducer.     A 85 1.8 will give you the same DOF as about an f0.8 lens on M4/3.    I have a few 85mm lenses but my favourite is an 85 1.2 and that can not be replicated on M4/3 currently.       I would be at a HIGHER ISO with M4/3 and any 42.5 lens than I would with my A7s and 85 1.2 L FD.      Never mind I am fine using ISO 51600 and higher even with the A7s.

I loved the 50mm 1.2 FD L lens but had to sell it.     When I came to get another lens, I almost got another FD L 50 or a Mitakon 50 f0.95 but opted for the Sony Zeiss 55 1.8 instead.

That gives me a lens that would need about a 25mm f0.8 lens to match it but with AF (for stills for me) and is superb wide open.

My only two FF Sony lenses are the 55 1.8 which is quite small and the FE kit lens which is not huge either and is very nice for a kit lens.     Apart from that, I mix what I want (FD, EF, K, F , Tamron adaptall and more).

The reason I have the A7s is simply for low light shooting (which I do a lot of) but it is also good enough as a day time camera too (I don't print huge).

1 hour ago, tomsemiterrific said:

I think I'd far prefer shooting video on the 24 mega pixels of the a6500 than the cropped aps-c of a 12 mega pixel cam. And besides, why should I pay so much extra for features I don't need, don't want, and don't plan to use? I'm perfectly happy shooting with an aps-c sensor. The challenge with a smaller sensors is light, and the speed boosters go a long way to solving that. 

 I prefer the video from the A7s in full frame mode  and FHD.       Video is an afterthought for me though and I just shoot the odd song at gigs I photograph.  I am using available light at whatever light level I have in front of me.

I love that I don't HAVE to use fast lenses in low light but can use whatever lens I want (EG Canon's  F4 17mm TS-E).      The A7 I had was wonderful for stills but more than I needed as the A7s (and GX7) are good enough for stills.

Again, the speed boosters are not changing the camera, they are changing the lens.     I have two focal reducers and they are just giving you a faster lens as well as wider lens.

A Native lens (say) 25 f1 is not going to be any different to a lens that arrives at 25 f1 after focal reduction (will be as different as any two lens not made exactly the same of course).

1 hour ago, tomsemiterrific said:

A large sensor cam will give you better low light and DOF all things being equal. But I find shooting the G85, with speed booster and the Sigma 1.8 zoom to be amazing in low light-it does what I need it to do well and produces beautiful shallow depth of field. The speed booster drops the 1.8 to 1.1 on the G85, and the 50-100 drops to 1.2 with amazing boca---creamy and gorgeous.(I just got an FD 100mm 2.0, mint, that drops to f 1.2, has a focus ring that is creamy smooth--and the image is sharp and beautiful--and it is super stable and cost me 1/3 the price of the Sigma 100). If I have all those satisfying features why the hell should I pay 4 times more for a different camera body and several thousands more for lenses I find unusable in MF.?

Sigma 1.8 and speedbooster with M4/3 would be nice.      Not something I would like to rely on in low light though.

I am glad it works for you but I like to shoot in low light with both fast and slow lenses.      My EF 100 f2 on focal reducer is ok on M4/3 but I still prefer the lens on my A7s as I can still be at much higher ISOs even though the GX7 combination is a stop faster.

You don't NEED to use native Sony lenses if you like MF.     The FD lenses (and many others) are great.       I use the SAME lenses on M4/3 as I do on the A7s mostly so there is not difference in cost or size (I have just a couple of native lenses for M4/3 now and only the two Sony's).

1 hour ago, tomsemiterrific said:

But I'm not making an argument for the G85 over and against Sony. I'm not against Sony. I actually posted this because Panasonic, a video camera company that makes stills cameras, finally decided to take making a camera with in-camera stabilization seriously, and have now made a camera with world-class stabilization. Very good in the G85, even better by all reports in the GH5, and how this revolutionizes the use of these wonderful non-electronic lenses for hand held shooting. Let's face it. For video these FD lenses and rokinon lenses provide every thing you need and can easily control outside the camera--stabilization has been the missing link to make them full useful and free them from the tether of the tripod.

IMO, at this point Panasonic's in-camera stabilization is better than Sony--though Sony is usable in the A7sii and a6500. And being able to use these less expensive, lighter FF lenses with speed boosters on the Panasonics and a6500 enables you to shoot in low-light and produce shallow DOF to the point the RESULT is often indistinguishable to that of FF cameras with their array of large heavy lenses--most of which are not very fast. And those that are are not stabilized. That was my point.

  Well this is a thread about a possible A7siii and we know zero about how well it will work for stabilization or how big it will be. or anything else.

GH5 looks a wonderful camera and with far more as video camera than I could ever need but I would guess an A7siii will be a completely different beast and again be a wonderful low light camera without regard to the lens speed.

I think my lenses are fast enough with a FF Sony though I have sold/disposed of some fast FF lenses as well. 

I don't use my 24 1.4 or 85 1.2 lenses that much now (have lent them out at the moment) but keep the 24 for when I do need speed and I prefer the 100 f2 over the faster 85 1.2 anyway.

If you prefer the G85, I have no issue with that but I just can not get the speedbooster makes a camera like a larger sensor thing.

 

 

[noone]

2 hours ago, noone said:

I would be at a HIGHER ISO with M4/3 and any 42.5 lens than I would with my A7s and 85 1.2 L FD

Oops, this was wrong in terms of exposure as of course there are lenses at and near 42.5 mm as fast and faster though not enough to overcome the sensor size difference in ISO.

DOF could not be matched currently though that is really going to be very shallow DOF at close distances.