noone

A7s. I have been shooting live music for a long time for stills and it is the camera for me for this. I don't have to worry about ISO and I don't need to just use a fast lens/aperture. Video is not something I have done much of but have been doing more since getting the A7s.

Yes though It isn't to the same level though as the A6000 was being sold as a stills camera that has video and it wasn't the only non dedicated video camera from Sony that didn't have XAVC-s. Sony had started putting it into more cameras around that time and I guess it wasn't something that they thought important (certainly not of primary importance to the vast majority who would have purchased the camera). A6000 is still sold new here too (I keep thinking I wouldn't mind one). This Canon is a video camera and a serious one at that and so a LOT more puzzling an omission (if Sony had left out higher quality jpegs from the A6000 and gone from RAW to low quality would be more the equivalent I think and not even Sony would do that).

I think it is exactly what they said it would be and I thought it would be. It amazed me they didn't have it at launch though as it just seemed odd. IE it is a bit like as if the A7s was launched with AVCHD and XAVC-s was added 6 months later. Does not make sense.

I had two of those (in Pentax K mount). I thought they were nice and reasonably sharp lenses but the main issues for me were. A) Quite a lot of distortion (more than I would expect for a 28mm lens). It wasn't the best lens for people. B) A lot of them suffer from stuck blades (one of mine did).

How about the Canon EF 40 2.8 STM? Sharp and cheap. 80mm FF angle of view on M43. Ok it isn't all that fast but do you need faster? It has the advantage of likely being in better condition than a 3rd or 4th hand old timer (and not as much time would have passed to ruin the lens or it to be dropped ETC).

While I think the Oly would be better for video, for stills the A7ii would be better. The A7ii also gives you dual use with your lenses with both FF and APSC modes. Native lenses can be more expensive though there are some very good lenses that are no dearer than the better M43 lenses and of course you don't need as fast a lens for subject isolation. While it is also around $800, the Sony Zeiss 55 1.8 is a wonderful lens (and gives you 55 FF and aprox 85mm APSC). I just got the FE 85 1.8 and it is also an extremely nice lens for the price (a bit less than the 55 1.8). 5.6 lenses FF can still give quite decent subject isolation in some cases.

I have no doubt that as a stills camera, WHEN it comes it will be as good as it gets for image quality. It is possible it could well be Nikons last high pixel count DSLR (I think they might go another round for sports/speed shooters both pro and amateur). Then again, Nikon being Nikon, there might be one more high pixel count DSLR after this too. The only thing that they have revealed here really is that it is called the D850 and not the D820. Many companies give out presents on their birthdays, Nikon gave an IOU.

I do think it wont be THAT far off and maybe only a couple of months. I guess they probably wanted it to be available on their birthday but couldn't quite do it so have to settle for an announcement that it is coming instead which is a bit lame. In any other year it would not look so silly to me I think.

Wait! A camera company, with a history of making cameras in sequence announces they are GOING to make a new camera in one of their sequences (that has been expected for a while)? THIS on their birthday? No longer do companies need to compete with actual cameras, now it is ones in development. Maybe Canon and Sony are working on new cameras? Who would know?

No I don't think I did miss the point but thanks anyway. I am after quality and small size to mount to the hotshoe but the quality would need to be noticeably better (to the average listener) to make it worthwhile for me. I get that proper filmmakers and sound recordists will want the highest end gear they can afford. This is one area that might make sense to rent? Yes, you did say that in the body after a bit but it came across to me like. "Here are some recorders, IF you are a location sound person, I would use X as a minimum". Again, thanks.

But I am not JUST after a microphone but a small recorder that can do double duty and act as a mic mounted on a camera. Sometimes doing dual use. Size does matter often enough. Very occasionally I will take the H1 along and record a gig or the odd song without using the camera (with permission). No matter. Perhaps edit the title to indicate this is not for those who want to record sound into a camera? Great article none the less.

Are any of those others as small as the Zoom H1? Personally, I am very happy with the little H1 mounted on the camera as a mic into the camera (sometimes recording in the H1 as well) but I just use it when recording live music and it is fine for that I think. Are any of those below around $500 going to be noticeably (by the average regular person) better as a mic that can record for live music than the H1? The prices of some of those is way beyond what many here are paying for a camera. I have tried a couple of older cheap recorders (EG Zoom H2) but that was ages ago with limited use and I like the smaller size of the H1.

Thing is I get to choose. If I want to control light and I can and my camera(s) are still good for that but my primary interest IS available light that is often at ISOs that most cameras can not do. For video, that is simply recording songs that the bands I am photographing do live for the most part and that often includes the lighting as part of the "show".

None taken. So what do YOU do if you want to shoot a gig in the back of a pub beer garden with paying customers around? Tell them to put up with the bright lights so it can be "properly lit"? I use pretty much the same ISOs for video as I do for stills and at many gigs that can range from ISO 100 to ISO 102400. Besides, I prefer the lighting I get at gigs generally even if sometimes it isn't the best or aimed at the right place. It isn't so much low light as available light but often in circumstances that I would have to put many other cameras away. It also just means I can use slower lenses or stop down when I choose. Too each their own.

I think a large part of the issue for Nikon lenses isn't that there are no (well one maybe to a degree) AF adapters for other make lenses, it is they would need an adapter to get the latest NIKON lenses to work on many even current Nikon cameras! You can not even focus the latest Nikon AF-P lenses on even some current NiKON cameras let alone on anything else! Nikons flange distance is going to be their biggest decision in going mirrorless. Keep the current set-up and that limits adapting others ON Nikon cameras (and isn't helped by their hodge podge of different options using the F mount).. Bring it back to the likes of other mirrorless systems and they will need an adapter or more likely several different ones to be able to use their different technologies (AI/AF/AF-P/G whatever).

I don't see anything factually incorrect in the article. Some things are posed as questions and for others it says low ISOs. If someone wanted a camera just based on stills image quality at or below ISO 400, the Samsung does hold up very well I think compared to the latest high end Nikon APSC cameras. For many (maybe most) the Nikons would be better over all cameras but that the old Samsung is at the very least still competitive says a lot. I don't have a dog in the fight as I don't use any of these cameras. As for DXO, I would argue the sports score is the MOST meaningful as that is a real measurable ISO score. True, if you use higher ISOs than DXOs maximum standards (as I do every day) it doesn't necessarily follow that the "best" camera at their maximum high ISO will be the same as at ISO 25600 or whatever but it does seem to run pretty close. If you have different standards to DXO (IE can live with a lower DR level or different noise level ETC), then you would get different scores and positions on the various lists would change and the high ISO scores would alter. Regards bias to high res sensors, I disagree and they actually say resolution doesn't count as far as their overall scores. I think it is simply that many of the higher pixel count cameras are designed more for low ISOs rather than high and that the better low light cameras have larger pixels (generally) and therefore smaller pixel counts. The better high ISO cameras tend not to have the absolute best image quality which is usually at lower ISOs. One exception may be the Pentax K1 which rates in the top ten cameras for everything on DXO (and top 4 for most). I don't have one of those either. https://www.dxomark.com/About/Sensor-scores/Overall-Score "What does Sensor Overall Score show? Sensor Overall Score shows a camera’s: Sensor quality in terms of noise. Ability to render high contrast. Formation of colored noise. Ability to shoot in low light. Sensor Overall Score does not show a camera’s: Resolution, i.e., its ability to render fine details. Lens quality. Optical aberrations. How is Sensor Overall Score measured? The Sensor Overall Score is an average of the Portrait Score based on color depth, the Landscape Score based on dynamic range, and the Sports Score based on low-light ISO."

I dunno, I see some ex pros downsizing and at first it was to some of the better point and shoot cameras (or rather better fixed lens cameras) but more recently to mobile phones. The thing is that for many uses, some phone are "good enough" now. I have not had a mobile for a while now (it was liberating to let them go) but now I have been locked out of Instagram (they helpfully want to send me a text to know it IS me) so have to buy a new one today- will be the cheapest nastiest one I can find and maybe even a dumb one but I bet it will have a camera and I bet it will be at least as good as the two or three point and shoots I have lying around here somewhere.

I am not so sure about that as I see more and more Pro photographers and former pros uploading phone pics to Instagram and Face Book. There are also a LOT more people taking photos now who would not have previously too. People who would never have purchased a stand alone camera that will use the one that comes with their phone.

Would there really be that big a market for it? I would love one since I have the original A7s and can only do 4k via an external recorder but more and more cameras will do 4k internally and get better as time marches on. It would be a must buy for me even if I don't use it much (a smallish lower price 4k recorder).

I shoot what I want when I want with auto ISO set to either 51200 or 102400 and while I would always prefer it was lower, I take what I get. It just means I can use the A7s a lot longer and in much worse light than anything else. I used ISO 102400 for that shot as A) it was very cold for me, B) It was hand held and C) it was shifted (using the 17mm f4 TS-E Canon). It also means I can use a faster shutter speed than I would at night with other cameras EG for fast moving bands or night time sports. Photos are not all about chocolate box images and the A7s has enough DR for good light shots too (not as good as many other FF recent cameras and some APSC cameras but at least as good or better than M43 so the choices are mine and a LOT more choices than other cameras. Beauty is in the eye of the beholder anyway. With M43, I NEED a fast lens (or long exposure time in low light but there is still a limit that I often exceed. With the A7s I CAN use a fast lens or long exposure time (and do having accumulated four tripods now) but I don't HAVE too. My A7s can not track to save its life and AFC is about 2fps at best and it is only 12mp and for many it isn't close to the best choice but for low light/high ISO it will do me. These shots are at ISO 40000 (needed a faster shutter speed) and 51200 (was shooting a low light festival) and 102400 (same festival) and I could not have used any previous camera I have owned at all for the first and without a tripod for the later two (and that is many).

They will sell every one they can make and it will be back ordered for months. Not for me, I will wait a few years and buy fourth version or more likely the "Metabones" speed booster version (or the cheaper Kipon smart phone/focal reducer version). Sony will probably be onto the A99 smart phone by then (with A99R and S versions as well), Nikon will be making very nice FF smart phones (as the Panasonic phone optics division) and Canon will be on the DSLR 5D mk 7 holding 100% of DSLR market share.

Yes The newspaper here used this as their FaceBook cover photo for a while recently (they wanted winter photos - it wouldn't have been my choice of the ones I sent but I had no issues sending it). That it is lower DR doesn't really matter as it was dark and I wasn't seeing all that much DR anyway. This is an as taken Jpeg. Had I shot RAW it wouldn't have been much different and the A7s has seven and a half stops of DR at ISO 102400. In better light where greater DR matters, I wouldn't be shooting at ISO 102400 and at 51200, the A7s has about the same DR as the GH5 at ISO 12800 (8.19 stops for the A7s). The A7s at 51600 is very similar for DR for instance as the GX7 I have and the Pentax Kx I had at ISO 6400 and my former Canon 7D a bit lower still (and I would prefer the A7s at 51200 to those cameras at 6400). As for my pet Nikon D50, the A7s DR at 51200 is bout the same as the D50 at bit above ISO 800.

I mentioned it because in another post it was stated the A7Rii was the better camera for low light/high ISO. DXO is a wonderful resource and very useful as well as a nice way to pass idle time but should always be taken with a grain of salt (I love their Pro Optics 9 that was released free when I shoot RAW). Their overall scores are subjective but some of the components that make that up are not though they can be based on DXO's criteria. The HIGH ISO scores ARE ISOs but with their criteria IE against the A7Rii and EM-1 ii for instance that is ISO 3702, 3434 and 1312. "An SNR value of 30dB means excellent image quality. Thus low-light ISO is the highest ISO setting for a camera that allows it to achieve an SNR of 30dB while keeping a good dynamic range of 9 EVs and a color depth of 18bits. A difference in low-light ISO of 25% represents 1/3 EV and is only slightly noticeable. As cameras improve, low-light ISO will continuously increase, making this scale open." https://www.dxomark.com/About/Sensor-scores/Use-Case-Scores Other people might be happy to vary some of the components, IE I am happy with lower levels for each so I shoot very often a LOT higher than ISO 3702 and it is at higher ISOs that the difference becomes greater. Vary any one of the components and you would get different scores. The A7s never gets way above the A7Rii but at ISO 6400, the A7s does start pulling away and at ISO 102400 (that I do use sometimes) it has just over a stop more DR for instance and about half a stop at ISO 51200 I use a lot. Against most other cameras (and on topic against M43), the difference is greater. Of course, for video, the A7Rii is artificially limited to 25600 as well. When using a ISO like 102400, one thing is that while it has greatly reduced DR, more times than not there isn't a whole lot of DR to be seen by my eyes anyway as the camera can "see" in light a lot lower than I can. I do prefer to keep it a bit lower if I can but that isn't always possible. As for putting a speed booster on, you just make the lens faster and of course you can always use a faster lens for a larger sensor if there is one available and there are limits to how fast a lens will be able to be "sped up".

I can not watch it as the content is blocked here due to the music but could it be the A7sii in APSC mode?

The camera stores in my small city in the middle of nowhere all closed years ago (there were FIVE here at one point from memory when I started being interested). The trend now is for the big chain electronics stores to downsize their photo gear ("Harvey Norman" and "JB-HIFI" with much smaller selections at "the Good Guys" and just an odd camera at one or two at others. Harvey Norman has (had?, every time I go there is a bit less) some higher end stuff , JB-HIFI has maybe one FF Nikon sometimes and the rest is APSC, M43, a few P&S, a few action cameras, a few drones and a few consumer video cameras. The same stores in larger cities sometimes have MUCH larger selections. If I need to go to a bricks and mortar camera store there are a couple of nice ones in Sydney, Melbourne and Brisbane including a new one that opened a few months ago that I have yet to haunt. Give it two years and there will maybe be one cabinet at best at any store here. Second hand gear is now limited to a pair of pawn shops and a few charity shops from time to time.