noone

Maybe just blame Sony since the camera seems to be actually made using at least one Sony part!

This is really a horror story of a great camera for some almost useless for others and it was sold as being for both groups.

32 minutes ago, kye said:

Have a look at it and if the images aren't any good, why not try to clean it yourself?

Worst case is that you'll turn something you don't use that has no value into something you don't use that has no value.

My completely uneducated guess would be that there's a chance it wouldn't have much coverage.  My understanding is that when they push a lens design (eg, to make it small or fast or light or whatever) then they will have to make sacrifices in some other area, and I'm guessing that a larger image circle might be one that they've built into the lens.  

I could be completely wrong though, so maybe a google will set us straight?

I just realized I do not even have an adapter to use my 135 1.8 anymore so i have just ordered one from Ebay.    M42 mount.     It is not a lens I will ever use again seriously (I remember using it to photograph Jimmy Barnes with a Pentax film SLR years ago).

Regards coverage of the f0.95 lenses on My A7s, my guess is none of them would fully cover it but one or two might fully cover APSC.    It is hit or miss and as i said, my 43 50-200 DOES fully cover APSC at least and in either case, using Clear zoom will get rid of the vignetting ...I just wanna know how MUCH vignetting with either the 17.5 or 25 (those are the only two real candidates).

I could always just get one of the cheaper f0.95 brand M43 lenses though if doing that, I might as well get one of the E mount APSC ones 

Unfortunately it has to be a fully mechanical M43 lens as there are no smart adapters for M43 lenses on E mount cameras.

The one fully mechanical M43 "lens" I have used is the 15mm body cap "lens" and it has a huge vignette FF, an almost but not quite usable field of view APSC but with 1.9x clearzoom FF is ok (for what it is) 

Adapting lenses made for smaller formats is always very hit and miss and some sort of work for coverage and most do not but at least with Sony there is always clear zoom.

1 hour ago, PannySVHS said:

Right! For FF the Walimex 135mm F2.0 sounds right for rather little money. Not up for battle though:) Such a kewl review for that beautiful Voigtlaender. Doubt the Samyang has a review going like that. Vintage lovers, beware of the vintage Porst 135mm 1.8. The people on a German gentleman forum put out a warning for it due to its lack of quality. They call it a doorstopper for a reason.

The Canon 135 f2 L I had was wonderful (and even though it is an old lens, auto focused ok depending on camera used).

I actually still have one of those old 135 1.8 lenses (mine is a Promura) and it is a very impressive lens to look at and hold...using it? Not so much (though mine seems to have a thin layer of gunk on an element inside probably because I think a previous owner tried to clean it).

I have had it for decades but not used it for years now...will have to see where it is.

My pathetic little brain has actually started thing I might try and get one of the f0.95 Voigtlanders just to try and use on my A7s both FF and APSC with clearzoom if necessary.......does anyone know how much of FF they would cover? (my 50-200 four thirds lens covers apsc entirely).

This ancient battered 20-35 2.8 L Canon lens would need a 10-17.5 1.4 lens to give a similar look with M43 and it is coming up for its 31st birthday in January (from the date code on the lens).   Despite its looks, it still works fine (even AF) though I use it MF on my Sony).

14 hours ago, kye said:

 

 

With all the new cameras and discussion of prores and shooting raw I've been looking at lenses for S35 and FF and I actually find that there aren't so many great options available.  I would imagine there are and it's just my lack of familiarity, but with my experience of owning and using the Voigt and with my comparative lack of knowledge of S35 and FF lenses, MFT actually seems like the mount with the best options.

You missed out by watching it without sound - he really hit the swells and peaks with the soundtrack!  Great stuff.

Yeah that is a very nice review of a good lens.

There are plenty of options for FF though.     Deleted the rest of my post as i do not want to start an equivalence type war here.

Don't forget they are still putting out EF mount cameras and lenses too (and more so than M mount) so I can not see how they will manage THREE current mounts in a (rapidly) shrinking market.

I guess the test will be how long it takes to put out RF mount APSC stills cameras and appropriate RF crop sensor lenses.

I still need a longer auto focus portrait lens for Sony FE.

Probably going to get something in about 4 to 8 weeks (if I do not try and save for a really good one).

I have my Tamron 300 2.8 adaptall MF lens and 60-120 2.8 Tokina MF lenses which are wonderful portrait lenses but manual focus only and I have a Sigma 150 2.8 in Canon EF mount but AF is so slow adapted I just use it as MF.

Also still have my FD 85 1.2 L but it has the dissolving bearing issue and of course is MF. 

MY Sony Zeiss 55 1.8 IS a nice AF portrait lens but I still want something longer.

IF I buy it soon it seems to be coming down to 

Viltrox 85 1.8 (added bonus this lens seems to be able to do 1.6 with an unauthorised firmware).

Tokina 85 1.8 (might be the Viltrox with a different name?).

Sony Zeiss 24-70 (maybe a bit short and does not have a good reputation but I quite like it)

Tokina 100 2.8 firin (doubles as an AF macro lens though I have lots of ways of doing macro including that 150 Sigma).

FE 85 1.8 (would be used most likely but i had this lens and loved it).

Maybe if cheap enough I might just get another FE 28-70 kit lens (which i found to be ok if a little short and slow in aperture sometimes).

Most likely one of those but if the FE kit lens I might also get another Canon 100 f2 and use it MF as well or even a knockoff of it...just because i like the lens and think i should have a faster 100.

If I was to try and save, then it would bring lenses like the 100 2.8 STF, Sigma 105 1.4 or Sigma or Sony 135 1.8 lenses or 90 2.8 macro or possibly the 24-105 f4. into it

I am sure by the time I actually get one I will have changed my mind dozens of times.

I do not think the A7s iii NEEDS a fan.      At least not for the vast majority who will use it and especially if all you have to do is keep it out of direct sun in hot environments as much as possible.       Not much different to weather sealing.     I would not rely on Sony weather sealing in pouring rain but there are work arounds (I have used an A7/a7s in rain but not for longer periods and not in a downpour).

I am not sure I would want a fan in a camera unless it really was needed as it just adds more complexity and something else that can break as well as an increase in size.   Others will differ.

HMM does that mean they are going to have to abandon the M mount or are they going to have to develop some native crop sensor lenses for both R and M mounts?

1 hour ago, Disgruntled Old PJ said:

"If heat can get out, it can get in."

Sure, that is true. But we are talking real-world circumstances..

Ok, Tell me what the internal temp of an A7s iii is cold?    Take it into the hot sun (still cold) and what is going to happen do you think?   Will it stay the same or will it drop (or as I think, warm up inside)?

How about taking it into a cold climate, will the insides stay the same or cool down if the exterior temp is colder?

I guess we should be talking about if it is European or African A7siii no?

28 minutes ago, Disgruntled Old PJ said:

Sorry, but you are totally wrong. Thermodynamics again. No thermos vs. glass bottle. Your "glass bottle" will always dissipate the same internal source heat (chip) much better than your "thermos", unless it gets way more heating from the sun than what the internals produce, or your "thermos" has a really massive internal heat sink. In the same circumstances, your "thermos" might negate some heating by the sun, but the internal heating would be bonkers (and no cameras are insulated like vacuum bottles anyway). Your "thermos" would have heat from internal source mounting up and not getting anywhere (melting the chip), while the "glass bottle" would just dissipate the heat outside, unless the external temperature was higher than the internal. Even if the heat might dissipate very slowly, if the temperatures inside and outside are almost similar, it will dissipate to equilibrium. 

Heat transfer is by conduction, convection and radiation, and convection is what is probably most important in camera bodies (temperature is not high enough for radiative transfer to matter that much, unlike what the article states, and conduction needs a solid mass attached). There is a reason there are fans for cooling in big cameras. 

There are plenty of other errors in the "article", like UV - most heating of objects from sunlight comes from the visible light and infrared. UV has minimum role (perhaps under ~10%?). The reason it causes sun "burn" is not heat, but chemical reactions. Just look up the energies and spectra of sunlight at earth level. Again, no understanding in the article at all.

Of course any camera exposed to direct sunlight will heat up and that will impede effective cooling, because the temperature difference between the chip and the heatsink (fan / camera body /...) will be much smaller. The more temperature difference, the more efficient cooling. But no way heat from solar heating would travel "backwards" to a hotter area like the article states. That would violate basic thermodynamics, unless the running camera produces less heat that the very small camera area gets from sunlight. Since cameras don't literally melt from sunlight exposure, that is quite unlikely. Less cooling, yes. Heat traveling backwards, no. 

My main gripe with the article is the physics. Most of it is just plain wrong.

Of course no cameras are insulated like a thermos.

And of course a glass bottle will allow heat out with an internal heat source but put it this way.

Which would have warmer water in it, a glass bottle with an internal heating element in a snowy winter environment or one in direct hot summer sun?     Cameras are NOT glass bottle and they are NOT a thermos but it seems to me that the Canon is closer to a thermos and the Sony is closer to a glass bottle (even if both only minimally so).

I would bet that if Canon just added a weather sealed door that could open up, the Canon would cool a lot quicker most of the time.

That Sony camera from a cold start left in the sun in a very hot environment WOULD be getting heat into it (the exterior could well be hotter than the internals so that means it CAN build up to the temp it overheats at faster).....Isn't that what they both said they did in those tests?

If heat can get out, it can get in.

3 minutes ago, MrSMW said:

I’m thinking about getting an R5 and offering a new wedding video service where I start with bride prep.
 

Then I go home and have a proper BBQ.

To be fair, the bride prep would just be a few photos and maybe some non heating low res footage.

The drive to the next location should be ok for cooling it IF you turned it off.    

Then you just hope no one is late or maybe you can ask the wedding party to rearrange the schedule to get the important stuff over first.

Maybe catching the bouquet before the walk down the aisle??

Either that or tow or three cameras should work.

4 hours ago, Disgruntled Old PJ said:

Oh please, come on, last time I checked, laws of thermodynamics still hold...

Heat goes only one way - from hotter place to colder place.

And what's a "net sink" this guy is talking about? Would love something like that for my beer cooler 🙂 

Think again - guess what overheats sooner? A 80 °C chip inside an insulated box, or a 80 °C chip with heatsink inside a thermally conductive box?

Of course, any camera in direct sunlight would overheat faster, but that's not because heat "travels backwards" along the heatsink (unless the camera is hotter from the sun than the chip). Just because the temperature difference is smaller.

Yes and no.

As I have said before on this issue.

Think of two bottles one made of glass and the other an insulated thermos.      Pour boiling water into both of them and come back in an hour, the  water in the glass will be at room temp but the water in the thermos will still be hot.

Now put them both out in the direct warm sun and I will bet you the water in the glass bottle heats up again while the thermos will not be affected. 

Now if there was a heating source IN both bottles, AND in the sun, the glass would have the heat from the sun AND the heat from within while again, the thermos would only have the internal heat.

Think of the Sony as being the glass bottle and the canon as being the thermos.

The Canon will never overheat because of external factors but seems it WILL overheat due to internal camera generated build up.

The Sony seems  good at heat management at least from internal heat and maybe in part BECAUSE it can get out of the camera but that ALSO means it can get in in some cases.

That is why I think it is possible that the Tilta thing might actually work BETTER on the Sony but will also hardly be needed on it.

Remember too that all those peltier type coolers that are insulated boxes can be reversed to warm food as well as cool it.

MC: Would guests with 4k and 8k phones please report to the photographer please!

55 minutes ago, Leica50mm said:

I think this camera is every bit as revolutionary as the original Canon 5D 

 

Agreed!    Even if thanks to overheating it is unfortunately, only slightly better for video!

Kye, this thread just reminded me I have a FD mount Vivitar 2x macro focusing teleconvertor  with 7 elements I think and when the helicoid is not wound out, it acts as a 2x teleconvertor and when wound out it is a 1:1 macro convertor with some 50mm lenses (even greater with a shorter lens or lower magnification with a longer lens).

I have not used it for ages but just trying it with my Tokina 60-120 2.8, it gives me a 120-240 5.6 fully wound in and I actually think it is better than my old Tamron 80-250 at or near 250.   I might be completely off and just a feeling but a GOOD teleconvertor can still be ok and some of the 7 element ones are ok (I have three of these things, the others being a 2x 7 element in Pentax mount and a 3x one also Pentax that does degrade IQ a bit more due to being 3x rather than 2).     Macro is an added bonus with them and a further bonus is you can reverse a lens onto them for even greater macro including some quite ridiculous magnifications but as teleconvertor they can be ok and they can be found quite cheap now.   There are also 5 element ones but I would tend to avoid those.

33 minutes ago, BTM_Pix said:

It certainly seems to be losing some detail in the faces there 🙂

Test match cricket was the longest field sport I used to shoot and it would be full frame with the 300-800mm and occasionally a 1.4X  TC but mainly the action was in the centre of the field so yes you are looking for quite the range to get mid shots at the distances you're looking at.

 

 

Many fields used for Australian football in winter double as cricket grounds in Summer.    The difference is the action tends to flow from one end to the other (unless a game is lopsided but even then they change ends each quarter) while cricket action is mainly centre based.

Rather than cover the whole field, I think you are better off just shooting shorter (I know you sit with your people though while when i do this just change ends when I like).

The 100-300 5.6 L has a fluorite and UD element while the two older versions of the non L do not have either.

Same applies to the 80-200 f4 L.

Don't know if you have seen it but MIR.com.my is a great FD resource.

5 hours ago, Leica50mm said:

I only know how I use them . And it’s exactly like that .

I love that canon gave me a perfect tool.. 

 

 

Do you NEED the camera?

That video by Gerald is excellent and to me sums things up perfectly.

It should make many of the Canon fanboys (especially those on the DPR R forum) a lot happier and maybe they might not think he is evil and anti Canon now?

One thing, did I get it right that the cameras are only 10 bit in Log?     So someone who does not grade and just shoots standard is going to get 8 bit video only? 

While I am sure that phones will be all 90% need in five years time and by ten years probably (almost) everyone, I am still a luddite.

I only just upgraded my phone to one that I might actually use to make phone calls (flip with big old fart numbers for fat fingers), I doubt I will ever use its pathetic little camera.

I guess I use my RX100 iv as many would use a phone camera (it is often in my pocket when my phone is left at home).

GX7 was a brilliant camera for stealthy street shooting thanks to the tilting EVF so no one knows you are taking a shot since you are looking down when it is tilted.

26 minutes ago, Leica50mm said:

 “shoots alongside the c300 mkiii “  so, if you have a 300 mkiii why would you need an R5 ?

logicaly , it would be used for a few wide establishing shots and on a gimbal for a few . 
And, This sound s about well within the camera’s capabilities .

 If it overheats , you put it away and keep right on rolling with the old 300 mkiii.

i don’t see anything too damning in this .

So what’s the problem?

HUH?    CANON said it could be used as the LEAD camera and also it can COMFORTABLY be used on set, they did NOT say it MIGHT work or it might NOT.

Look, IF they can fix it, it will be superb for more than stills but as it is???

4 minutes ago, Márcio Kabke Pinheiro said:

I doubt it. Sony really does not care for its APS-C line. They are iterating it A6000 body forever, reusing the sensor with horrendous rolling shutter, and never responding to Fuji dominance on the format.
It is only a cheaper gateway to E-mount, just there hoping that people jumps after to FF.

The A6## cameras are not aimed at video users any more than the Canon and Nikon apsc DSLRs are.

Video is an important part but not the most important in those cameras.    The vast majority of them are just going to be family videos and stills.

Sure Sony does not put as much effort into APSC as FF but the 24mp Sony APSC sensors are still very good (and especially for stills that they are more aimed at).    Remember some of the others ALSO use the Sony 24mp sensors and the M43 cameras use Sony sensors as well.

Searching "adaptall lens" (previous i used "FD lens") Brings up a couple more 

A couple of 70/80-250 both 4.5 at the long end lenses including one very cheap.

I have an 80-250 3.8-4.5 adaptall lens in really good condition and it is ok but nothing outstanding (beautifully built and cased) and also I still have a adaptall 70-350 constant 4.5 these are rare and they cost a mint when new but since it does not have any special elements (EG no ED glass) it is not that great compared to modern lenses (again really good condition really well made and kept in its own lockable trunk).     I could not recomend either unless you could find them really cheap (I have had both for years bit they were not expensive for me.

I rarely use them as my old abused Tamron 300 2.8 is light years better.

If you look internationally, there seems to be some reasonable bargains for adaptall lenses in the US and other places.

Just looking on Ebay Australia right now (I did not look at any of them, just the listings).

FD 800mm 5.6 $1100 or offer (That is a lot but it is a LOT less than these things used to go for)

FD 200mm f4 macro $699 plus postage

FD 300 2.8 L This one is an auction currently at $500 plus postage with 2 days left (if you got it for just a bit more that would be my pick if it is in good condition).

Tamron SP 200-500 5.6 adaptall with FD and Minolta adaptalls $450 or offer free postage

FD 200 2.8 $400.05 free postage That might be a good choice 

FD 200 2.8 in good condition...Auction starting at $375 plus postage

FD 80-200 f4 L $380.05 free postage

FD 200 2.8 $350 or offer plus postage

Then from $250 down to $200 is a FD 70-210 (at $250) and some 100-300 5.6 lenses (at around $200)

Then another FD 100-300 5.6  at $155 plus postage (that might be a good buy as it seems to have a box and case so might have been looked after)   A couple more 100-300 5.6 lenses cheaper still 

One oddball Sigma 50-200 3.5-4.5 though I would pass and below that slower lenses and one Tokina 60-300 though that is 6.3 at 300.

That is not a huge selection at least from Australia only (would be a lot more from japan).

I would spend just a bit more for a lens that is better (individual condition considering).

I love spending your money!