noone

You CAN have fire crackers in Australia but only on Territory day and only in the Northern Territory. Several decades ago I was allowed to buy a smallish black powder cannon in a shop in George St Sydney but I had to get it out of the state. It never did get used (pity though I probably would have just blown myself up).

This camera DOES seem like an improvement over the A6300 though. Sure it isn't a A6500 but it isn't meant to be and it seems priced right (but still beyond me these days). Even the A6000 still gets a lot of love by many people. As for the screen being blocked by a mic, I thought you were not supposed to use a mic on camera for vlogging for best use of sound? You can always use a bracket or just pug into the mic jack can't you? It seems to have excellent AF for stills and I do think stills are what is going to sell this more than video (want a Sony camera for video, get something else though I think it wont be bad and may well be better than most who get it need. Is it the same sensor? Probably but people say the same thing about the A7iii sensor but I think that is not the same as the A7ii ETC, just similar. What do I know though, I am still wanting Sony to put out an A3600 and having fun using a Canon A4000 and Olympus VR-350 eight year old point and shoot cameras with HD only that I have been given (the Oly had an error when switched on but it was just a corrupt memory card and seems like it had hardly been used at all). EDIT, if this post seems addled, it is 44 degrees Celsius today and has been over 40 all this week and will be tomorrow as well (45 yesterday and more to come next week) and I don't have air con. 100 degrees f is about 37.5 c.

Dissolving bearings is not fun but it is also not that common either. I am just saying it DOES happen. Even with it, the FD 85 1.2 L is one of my favourite legacy lenses (along with the other FD L lenses I have had). Much better than the regular lenses from all system I have had generally. There really is something for having those aspherical elements in early primes and most others didn't (Nikon did in the Noct and look at the cult following and cult prices they go for). Canon had a couple of L zooms with aspherical elements too that are supposedly good as well As for a cheap 40mm lens that works great on M43, don't overlook the Canon EF 40 2.8 STM used on a non focal reducer AF adapter. I used it on a GX7 with Kipon adapter and the AF (for AFS anyway) was virtually native.

FD lenses can be great but be careful. Some of them have issues with dissolving bearings and a get very loose throw. The regular lenses are like any old legacy lenses, some good, some less so and with all of them, condition and how hard a life they have had will be the biggest factor. The aspherical FD L lenses are well worth getting though sometimes still expensive. I recommend the 24 1.4 L, the 50 1.2 L and the 85 1.2 L especially. I sold my 50 1.2 L but regret not having it and my 85 has the dissolving bearing issue. The 24 1.4 is one I have always like but it is growing on me more and more. (can not use them on a camera just now and want something cheap just to use them. The non L lenses are pretty much like most of the regular Pentax K, Nikon F, Minolta MC/MD, Olympus OM, Tamron adaptall and many third party lenses ETC (some I liked and some I didn't for various reasons, sometimes ease of use being more important than a tiny bit of sharpness (Minolta MC lenses can be a pain with a lever sometimes).

Ah but the thing is that if Sony has a button that is 1mm out of place for most people that makes it unuseable while Canon (and Nikon) could make a camera that only takes a picture every second time you push the button and that would be neither here nor there! Just merging your two recent threads a bit.

DOF is dependent on focal length and aperture and also subject distance. A 85 1.2 lens can be used with infinite DOF at 1.2 if the subject is far enough away. I have this link on my desktop http://www.dofmaster.com/dofjs.html As for cheap lenses, if you visit charity shops they often have old film cameras very cheap that might have a lens or two with them (often a 50 1.8 or so).

There is a 17mm f3.5 Tamron adaptall lens. Dunno how good it is but it is an SP lens (their better lenses) and all the SP lenses I have tried are pretty good to very good.

Yeah that comment about waiting for A6000 users to reply sums things up perfectly!

I just wished all my lenses worked on all my cameras!

I dunno, I have seen a few stories lately on how American toddlers are shooting people pretty much weekly. I have spent a bit of time on Face Book lately where some seemingly quite intelligent people seem to have very different "facts". Many of the people here do also seem to be on DPR (I was but gave it up for my own good and now just read the comments on the news items with very occasional forum reads).

If your subject is in a small area and not moving very far or fast, I found the original A7s AF was ok (IE a singer that stays put around a microphone stand). For very low light and for stills it will auto focus when almost every other camera has long given up and gone to bed. For AFC? no, just no.

I am dumb enough to shoot sports (including AFL and cricket) with old manual focus lenses. I think pretty much any old zoom in the 70/80-200plus range will do and it will depend on the lens condition and how hard its life has been more than anything. Most will not be that great but you will get something you like. My favourite lens for this is out of budget (Tamron 300 2.8 adaptall) - photos from this lens used in newspapers including Greyhound racing (Greyhound Recorder) as well as Australian football. I had some (Womens) AFL shots from a cheap old Tamron adaptall zoom (80-250 3.8-4.5) used in a Newspaper as well. Two old zooms I had and liked are the Canon FD 80-200 f4 L, Tamron adaptall 70-210 3.5 (model 19ah). I also have an old Tamron adaptall 70-350 4.5 that might be good for sports and while rare can be had cheap though is sometimes listed for much more than it is worth (it was a very expensive lens in its day but does not use any fluorite or ED elements). Many of these old timers have a bit of purple (or other colour) fringing. Get the longest fastest you can find and bonus points for ED/Fluorite elements ( 70/80-200/210 2.8 if you can find one in your price range) Other options would be the Canon 100-300 5.6 L EF. Maybe a bit slow but still quite good and can be found cheap (maybe on Ebay from Japan) and is as old as some FD lenses (I regret selling mine) and also something like a Canon EF 70/80-200/210 f4 (there are a few but maybe look at the old constant f4?). For evening/overcast afternoons in winter, 2.8 can be very useful with a longer lens. For Australian football, even 600mm (FF angle of view) and except for one sided games, you can spend a lot of time watching from afar and more so for kids.

Actually, I think many are STILL users of Canon, Nikon and other systems using Sony alongside (Canon especially since there were AF adapters for E mount before the A7 series cameras came along). Since they use those systems or did recently, should they still be entitled to post in those forums? If they see something posted by an ANTI-Sony poster that is contrary to what their experience is, should they not respond if they disagree? A lot of this seems to based on people thinking it is ok to knock a brand in a forum for a different brand without being called out. ALL systems have their strengths and weaknesses. Why is it ok to disparage Sony but not the others? (I don't make negative posts about stuff I don't use, at most I would say why it isn't for me). In plenty of forums, there are posters for and against Sony that if I see a topic and a posters name in the thread, I pretty much know if it will be a negative post or a positive one (about various brands I use) and there are far more that I KNOW will be anti-Sony than pro and often it will be just another opportunity to post something negative that might be completely off that topic I still see posts about Sony and root kit issues! Just as easy to post negative stuff about lots of brands (if I was anti Samsung, I could be posting about Samsung gear causing houses to burn down!). I have a cheap Samsung camera sitting next to me by the way alongside THREE Canons (one I don't use).

Funny thing is if you read all the comments in that link, there are not that many that could be said to be true Sony fanboy comments and there seems to be more ANTI-Sony comments. There many more posts about why each camera is better for the comment poster than real ugly fanboy posts (for all of them) but because Sony seems to be more the winner from the article, some of the comments from other users are about it being rigged or an ad for Sony. Many of the pro Sony posts are from previous users of other systems. There are the usual trolls (from all systems) with multiple posts of course but there always will be. Those comments are very tame by DPR standards and seem (mostly) quite reasonable.

While there do seem to be some abusive Sony fanboys, I see far MORE anti-Sony fans that can not help but re-post and magnify every little thing negative they can about Sony and some of it isn't even photography related. On line that is (In real life locally many are moving to Sony and most people get on just fine regardless of brand they use). EVERY brand has its pluses and minuses and many do things unrelated to photography and they all do/have done some truly bonehead things at times. I absolutely love the original A7s but it is still dead so now I am shooting stills on an obsolete Canon and my video needs are met for now with a crappy little Canon point and shoot. It will be expensive to fix my A7s (if ever) and I may just get another cheap Sony APSC just to keep using the Sony Zeiss 55 1.8 The WORST bang for buck I have owned was a $1000 Sony point and shoot years ago and the best bang for buck to me is the FE 85 1.8 There are plenty of abusive users who use other brands too. It seems like it used to be the smaller brand users being defensive about their choices against the mass of Canon and Nikon users (some of whom were not pleasant to be around). Sony has raised itself up from the pack somewhat and some Canon and Nikon users have become the defenders of the faith. Then there are the sensor size snobs.....

Cameras (not just hybrids), have ALWAYS been "good enough". But when I look at the crap I did ten years ago, I shudder and cringe (and a lot of that IS down to the tech, I am just as crap as I have always been (photos mainly, dabbling in video).

Agreed. For MOST uses and even at quite high ISOs the A7iii may well be better for low light but one you get above ISO 51200, the A7s cameras are still slightly better I think. Not to mention AF works to a lower level (even if only AFS and not really for video).

Well no one else is going to buy that sensor now (given that "individual specification changes can not be made..."). As we all know, "they" do NOT use Sony sensors but have Sony make "theirs".

Pentax 70 2.4? It is an APSC lens but it does cover FF quite well I believe (not used it). In a pinch you could use a shorter lens with a 1.4x or 2x teleconverter (the better legacy 50s can still be good with a good 1.4x if you can find the right combination). Maybe the Pentax 77 1.8 limited? (ok it is a little longer but it isn't 80 and we don't know the exact actual focal length of most lenses anyway).

Not sure you would get much of a size and weight saving with a 40 f4 pancake. A lens like the Canon 40 2.8 STM is already tiny and light and being 40mm f4 would be very unlikely to get any shorter. As for weight savings, the 2.8 is already only 130g so I guess you could maybe save 30 or 40g but would that little be worth a stop? Until the Sony FE 85 1.8 came along, I regarded the little Canon 40 2.8 STM as the biggest bargain going in anything photography related. Cheap but very good and all systems should have a lens like this (and it makes a nice AF portrait lens on M43 too). If Nikon could adapt it to the Z cameras, it would be a nice fit I think.

That depends on the subject, distance to subject and focal length. If you are shooting a macro video of insects, you will have the same problem even at f8 or so with m43. If you are shooting a video of the stars, an f0.95 lens or faster will stay in focus and the same for shooting video of the ground from a plane I would think. A sports video with a 300 2.8 lens could be kept in focus by better shooters (certainly not me) as there can be ample DOF and the same if you are shooting a stage show from the back of the room. There ARE lots of situations when too fast due to being too shallow DOF would not be nice but there are still plenty of times when it is nice to have and of course lots of people will shoot static scenes too. You don't HAVE to use it if you have got it but you can not use it if you don't have it. I also think a lot comes down to how lenses have been made. I think a lot of the faster legacy lenses for instance were made with speed as the primary driver but with some compromises (or very expensive) but now with better high ISOs there will be more and more 1.8 lenses that are optically wonderful wide open (the Sony Zeiss 55 1.8 is an example- I have had and loved 1.2 50s but the 55 1.8 has cured me of wanting any for now).

According to Ken Rockwell, there are two versions of the 43-86 and one is ok and the other is Nikons worst lens (just looked at his ten worst Nikon lens list). https://kenrockwell.com/nikon/10-worst.htm I find him entertaining though don't take everything he says or does seriously. .

Maybe this camera used with the Light Cannon focal reducer in Nikon-M43 mount and matched up with the Nikon 43-86 3.5 (which is often regarded as Nikons worst lens)?

Given that even the original A7s looks less than great for video much above ISO 102400, I would never in a million years have thought it would get anywhere near the claims. As for the Light Cannon, I got it after they started selling it cheaply as a "soft focus" adapter. They ended up giving them away with newer models that are probably light years better (but then that would not have been hard to do this thing is so crappy).

At last! A camera to truly be able to match the ability of and to use with the ....