noone

27 minutes ago, Simon Shasha said:

I have a rule. Even with A7S. If you need more than 1600ISO, you probably shouldn't be shooting there in the first place. Either change the scene's location, or use lights. Simple.

I shoot live bands in whatever light is available to me and have done so with many cameras since film SLRs.

I can not change the location and I can not add light.

Each generation has gotten better and better but for me, the A7s is the camera I always wanted as it means I can use 5.6 or even f8 if I want to.    I just don't worry about ISO anymore.

I do use ISO 51200 and even higher from time to time (ISO 80,000 is fine for me often and sometimes 102400 is as well).     The bands, and odd newspaper have been happy to use some of my shots at 51200.

I use auto ISO and what I use depends on where I am aiming at and the light available.     I would prefer if it stayed at lower ISOs but sometimes, in some of the bars and pubs I shoot, there is just no choice. 

With each camera I have used, I have had my limits.      Original A7 was 12800 with the odd shot a bit higher, Pentax Kx was ISO 6400, sometimes ISO 8000,  My GX7 (I have only used for live music on the odd occasion), I don't like over  3200 (6400 in a pinch).     Earlier DSLRs were a bit lower.      Film and ISO 3200 was mostly very grainy but I was restricted most of the time to using fast lenses.

A few years ago I shot in a club/bar that was lit by a couple of shaded table lamps.     I was using an APSC DSLR at the time and ended up with very few usable shots.     I would have loved to have an A7s there.    Many of my current venues are just pub corners and one is an outdoor beer garden with all gigs at night.

I mainly shoot stills but I use the same lenses with the same  auto ISO settings for video and have been very happy so far.     

Doesn't look all THAT bad to me.

Sure the other cameras look better and I wouldn't want to use the GH5 at ISO 6400 anyway unless I had to.      I think for the A6500 I wouldn't want to use at ISO 12800 unless I had to but any of these cameras is not going to be at its best over ISO 3200 anyway.

GH5 seems like it will be a wonderful camera for video (regardless of sensor size) as long as you can control the light or keep it at lower ISOs.     It will also be a nice M4/3 stills camera with all the normal pluses and minuses the sensor size gives.

Maybe in a couple of generations, M4/3 will have the low light/high ISO that some want but just seems beyond M4/3s for now. 

8 hours ago, cantsin said:

Nikon is part of Mitsubishi. It won't file bankruptcy as long as Mitsubishi is in business. But I wouldn't be surprised if, sooner or later, Nikon will radically cut down its classical photo business and focus on medical imaging instead.

No, they are not.

They are aligned to them somewhat like many Japanese companies but it is a separate company I think you will find.

I would not have minded getting one of the two short lens DLs but not anything needed.

I wonder if any of the ones they have made will ever see the light of day?     How much would one of those go for on Ebay?

As to who lives and who dies?    While I hope they all do well and thrive, I am not a shareholder and my existing gear will still work.   

Many of the current companies, while large are not THAT large and all it takes is one success or one failure to decide things.

Polaroid, Agfa, and others are no longer around (in some cases the name might have been sold).

   At least with mirrorless, if you get Canon lenses, mostly you can use lenses that are less likely to be orphaned.

Wont matter soon enough anyway, as we will all be using a the 20th generation smart device for everything and it may well be made by the likes of Apple or Kipon or some Chinese or Indian start-up.

1 hour ago, webrunner5 said:

Speaking of Autofocus, Philip Bloom has his finial video on the subject finished if you haven't seen it already. No real susprise on the better cameras.

 

Thanks for posting.       Thanks to Philip Bloom for doing it.

One thing I want to ask Sony users who have the 55 1.8, do you have any issue with video AF on your Sony cameras?

I saw he had trouble with the lens on the FS55 and am wondering if part of the issue is that lens (or any other native lenses used with that camera?).

On my first gen A7s, AF is ok for AFS for stills with the 55 1.8 but in video (HD) using AFC, it is very poor to focus.     My 28-70 FE kit lens on the other hand is not bad at focusing in AFC for video as long as the movement isn't too rapid (I use it as a 5.6 constant aperture lens) and it seems close to being parfocal too).

I did have an issue (cause-me) with my 55 1.8 though  but I am not sure if the lens might not be the best for video AF.

Curious to know others findings.

Keep your eye on Ebay.

Sometimes, especially at odd times like say a Friday after a Thursday holiday or other non normal times you might find a used A7s selling to Australia only with little competition.

I have had mine for a couple of years now but that is how I got mine.     It was actually sealed in box but was technically sold second hand and for a fair bit less than I otherwise would have had to pay.

I also have a GX7 that I really like but it has a few too many limitations for video for me.      Maximum ISO of 3200 for video and no mic or headphone jack being the biggest.

That said, I don't do a lot of video beyond recording the occasional song at rock/blues gigs and I am more often than not over ISO 3200 (sometimes way over) so the GX7 will never work for me for that nine times out of ten.

A7s is not the camera for everyone but I think it is worth every cent they go for.

EDIT    A quick check of Ebay Australia  sold listings has several first version A7s cameras having gone in the range of $1572 including postage to around 2100 or so but many of the higher priced ones have extras with them.     Plenty in the range 16-1800 range.    Some have lots of bids, some only two or three.

3 hours ago, wolf33d said:

Firmware update does not make magic to shitty contrast based AF. 

I had such big hope for GH5 becoming my video camera in parallel of a D810 for photo. Well, better waiting for A7SIII now...

It CAN do.

The Kipon AF adapter for Canon lenses on M4/3 cameras was very limited and had all sorts of issues as it was first sold.        After a couple of firmware updates it is near native for AFS at least with my CDAF only GX7 and several Canon lenses.

Admittedly, that was starting from a very low point.

I don't expect miracles from the GH5 but it IS possible that the final version will be better.

Interesting.

Australian Camera magazine did a review in the Nov/Dec 2016 issue and they like it though say it "could be considered a fairly expensive lens"  but they also say "the lens's correction for distortion is exceptional..."    tested on a GX8.

In the same issue it was a finalist for their 2017 imaging awards Prime lens category (winner was the Zeiss Otus 28 1.4).

Not a lens for me as it is too expensive for a lens I would use on my second system and I have a 24mm 1.4 FF lens (though an old one) that I can use on FF, APSC and M4/3 for a different use on each.       I don't need that wide a lens on M4/3 (I had the Oly 12 f2 and that was nice enough but not needed either).

20 minutes ago, liork said:

With the A7s you can shoot iso 25,600 with not much problem, the GH5 cannot touch it.

For stills I am fine with the A7s (original) at ISO 102400 sometimes for colour and sometimes black and white even higher.

For my limited video use, it is similar though ghosting does become an issue sometimes at 102400 and higher or lower (any ISO maybe) with too low an ISO set.

I have had photos in newspapers taken at 51200 used as normal shots without any noise reduction.

I wouldn't expect an A7Riii until early 2018 maybe the same for the a7siii?    Both announced at the end of 2017?      

One thing, I am not so sure Sony cameras lose value any more than any similar camera now.      Lower end cameras probably do but just as they do for other makers.

The original A7s for instance seems to still be selling at prices MORE than I paid for mine two years ago (and my all time favourite camera to date).

Maybe the first version A7R might have had a bit of a drop but that is because the difference between the two versions was so big.        I sold my original A7 for a decent price after 2 years of solid use as well.     

The video in the A7Rii seems to have been deliberately limited to a max ISO 25600, possibly to not take away from the A7s/A7sii.        I use my A7s often above ISO 25600 for stills and my (limited) video use.

50 minutes ago, Rich Merritt said:

Yeah, apologies. Is that why they vignette on a Speedbooster? 

 

I think so.

This is what Metabones says (for the Ultra .71x Speedbooster)

"Like the revolutionary original Metabones Speed Booster® announced in January 2013, the Speed Booster ULTRA m43 has a magnification of 0.71x, and so it effectively reduces the crop factor of mirrorless Micro Four Thirds mount cameras from 2.0x to 1.4x.  However, the new ULTRA design makes very effective use of exotic materials at the furthest limit of glassmaking technology, and as a result is almost perfectly corrected for use with all fullframe SLR lenses regardless of aperture.  The Speed Booster ULTRA m43 will also work extremely well with many DX and APS-C format lenses provided the image circle of the lens is large enough.  Optical performance of the new Speed Boosters is so good that the MTF of any lens attached to it will be improved.  Even the latest generation of ultra-high performance SLR lenses such as the Zeiss Otus series can be improved by adding a Speed Booster ULTRA m43. (More information can be found in the press release here and whitepaper here)"

http://www.metabones.com/products/details/MB_SPEF-M43-BT4

You might find those lenses might vignette for part of the range but not all.

I don't have those lenses or Speedbooster and most of my Canon lenses are FF but my one Canon APSC lens (18-55 ISii kit lens) doesn't vignette on my M4/3 camera at all and that is with (Lens Turbo .72x apox) and without a focal reducer.      In fact, the lens covers FF on my A7s from about 23/24mm and up and covers APSC on the A7s at 18mm just fine (Canon's  APSC is 1.6x while others makers are 1.5x).      

I think it is going to come down to a lens by lens case as to what can work and what can not.

With the XL (.64x) Speedbooster, Metabones says-

"EF-S lenses require modification to fit or may remain incompatible even after modification (but third party DX lenses can be used without modification)

EF-S and third party DX lenses may not cover the full Micro Four Thirds sensor in still photo, FHD video (all cameras) and 4k (GH5) modes (but will cover 4k video mode on GH4, GX8)"

http://www.metabones.com/products/details/MB_SPEF-m43-BT3

4 hours ago, Rich Merritt said:

Thanks. I shall have a read of those.

Do you guys look at DXO lens ratings? A video I watched pointed to their website and now I've realised that even the Canon glass I've got isn't all that great. The Sigma 16-35 and 50-100 come out on top for full frame. For me, the 50-100 is a really weird focal length and not something I'd use. 

For M43 the PanLeica 42.5 gets the highest mark, but it scores really badly on chromatic aberration. Same with the PanLeica 25. Any experience from you guys on this? 

So my current thinking, which I admit changes almost every 5 minutes, is that I should spend the money on good full frame glass that will have a longer life in terms of what I do and the cameras I mostly use. Obviously, I'll have to sacrifice AF speed and Dual IS. 

Rich

 

Both the Sigma 1.8 zooms are APSC.

GX7 with Sigma 150 2.8 APO macro and Kipon smart adapter.  

Nothing special, just from a morning walk (was a bit early for the GX7 for me as I usually take the FF camera and start long before dawn).

AFS used.     Jpegs as taken (resized to fit only).

1 hour ago, Rich Merritt said:

Thanks to everyone who replied. Really helpful advice and has helped clarify what I'm looking for. I think the jury is still out on whether the Speedbooster will work with the GH5 stabilised sensor. 

Thpriest, I also use a C100 most of the time. I'm thinking the GH5 would be a good B-Roll cam for doing slow mo which is something I miss at the moment. I love the C100, and I wished Canon would pull their fingers out and catch up spec wise. The SLR Magics are lovely, but I've been thinking that investing in a set that is only M43 might not be the way to go. I guess I want something that's future proof and I can use on Canons and Sony's going forward. 

Noone, the Kipon looks nifty. Is it a speedbooster/focal reducer or just straight through with no glass in it? So if I'm using my 24-70mm it would be a 48-140mm? Does aperture control work on the camera body. 

Inazuma, do you have to use the Regain with that massive dongle on the side? That's a bit of a deal killer for me. How does it do with AF? 

Thanks for the M43 lens recommendations. If I did buy native M43 I'd be after a set from the same manufacturer, fast primes or zooms covering 10mm, 25mm, 40mm and maybe 75mm. 

Rich

 

Kipon is not a focal reducer so your 24-70 will give you 48-140 FF angle of view.      It is a smart adapter so AF(s anyway) and IS works and aperture control is fine (via camera body just as on a Canon camera).

On my older GX7, one issue is that IBIS doesn't work with Canon lenses even if they don't have IS (but IBIS isn't all that great on the GX7 anyway and IS, at least with my APSC kit lens is very good).

The Kipon as it was sold (mine is one of the first) was a bit limited and had a few issues but after a couple of firmware updates it is great.        If the camera is left on it can drain the battery quicker as it is always trying to focus.      It isn't completely silent in focusing but quieter than some of the older screwdrive AF lenses I used to use and not anything annoying for me.

A lens with the kipon is not too dissimilar to the M4/3 Panasonic 20 1.7 lens (that can not be used for AFC on M4/3 cameras either).

I do also have a Lens Turbo focal reducer in M4/3 camera and EF  lens  mount and that is a "dumb" adapter.        I thought until this week (had it for ages), it would only be of use with some third party lenses with mechanical aperture and focus but it turns out that many Canon lenses can be used as many do indeed focus mechanically as well as electronically (many don't).      Previously I thought only my 17 TS-E with mechanical focus would be usable wide open but my APSC kit lens and Sigma 150 2.8 also can be used as can my EF 100 f2.

The Lens Turbo's are pretty cheap and might be worth trying to see if you want a proper Speed Booster smart adapter.

You can only shoot with the Lens Turbo wide open though (where the third party lenses like the Samyang's do come into it).

I find the Kipon to be a fantastic piece of kit for stills IF you want to use multiple formats or have lots of Canon lenses you want t keep while using M4/3 cameras.

The Metabones smart adapters (there are focal reducers and non focal reducers) might be a bit better but cost more.      Some combinations of camera/adapter/lens work better than others.     Both Metabones and Kipon smart adapters have micro USB ports for updates.

One lens I love with the Kipon and GX7 is the little 40 2.8 STM.

5 hours ago, webrunner5 said:

MFT cameras have never been too good at focusing anything but native lenses for them. Only the Sony A7r mkII seems to work great with Canon lenses.

It will be life in the slow lane focus wise. But a lot of people use them. They are hard to give up. But they  have no external focus or aperture ring as you know, so I am not too fond myself in using them.

But MFT cameras are really a great way to go. Small, lots of used lenses, great video on the Panasonic cameras. And some really cheap used ones like the G7. Looks like the GH5 is going to be a very hard camera to beat for the money, even though it is going to go for 2k.

Actually, even my old GX7 focuses fast and accurately with Canon lenses and my Kipon adapter.      That is for AFS with my combination but it is a PDAF only camera.

My A7s (also CDAF only) is ok for my uses with Canon lenses and a few different adapters, again it is AFS only and quite slow to focus but useable for some things.

The A6300, A6500, A7Rii and A7ii apparently can all be ok with Canon lenses and adapters and can even use AFC.        Even some manual focus lenses can be used for AFC with a Sigma adapter and the latest Sony cameras it seems.

For video, AF doesn't work on either my A7s or GX7 with Canon lenses adapted.

4 minutes ago, Dude_ger said:

Beacuse i do professional work. Even i don t own a Sony. Youre right with dynamic range.

Just seems to me that if you are sticking at ISO 5000 or less, there are plenty of cameras that would work and the main point of the A7s cameras is they work great at higher ISOs/low light.

The A7s (first version) is my all time favourite camera to date but that is BECAUSE I shoot so much above ISO 6400 (and often way over).      If I was only sticking to ISO 5000 or less, it just wouldn't make sense.      It is a nice enough day time camera but for its price point and specs, there are plenty of others that make more sense I think just for good light.

I just find it interesting how people don't want to shoot with some cameras at ISO 6400 but will with another at 3200 even though the 6400 one might be better.      Sometimes it seems people are scared of the numbers rather than the results.

No matter, I was just curious.     Thanks.

6 hours ago, Dude_ger said:

Beside the pushed 100 Iso which is crap, think of this: On a Sony A7s2 i don t go over ISO 5000 for any shot. So if ISO 3200 is acceptable on the GH5 and has neraly the same noise as a A7s2 with 5000, go for a speedbooster, that will make your iso 3200 the same as 6400 on a Sony.Giggidi.

Can I ask why you got an A7sii if you don't go over ISO 5000?  Seems a waste to me.

That said, even ISO 6400 on a A7sii is going to have greater dynamic range than a GH5 at ISO 3200 (with or without a focal reducer).    Going on the GH4, even ISO 12800 on the A7sii might be better than 3200 on the GH5.      The noise and colour sensitivity differences will likely be a bit smaller but still there too.  

The Speed Booster does not change the camera.     It changes the lens.

What are the laws in your country?

Do you need a licence for any or none?    Or are their weight limits?

Here in Australia, the rules changed not so long ago.     You previously needed a licence to fly commercially which just about meant to a pilots licence level.

Now, you can fly commercially up to 2kg without a licence (you still need to do other things and follow rules and you get extra if you get a licence and can fly over 2kg).

I think these days there are more than enough lenses available for almost any system.

There are always going to be certain lenses not available for one system that can not readily be replaced but those are not that many.     The latest Sony's (like the A6500) it seems can even use many manual focus lenses for AFC with the Sigma adapter.

There are a few different zooms these days faster than 2.8    .

50-100 1.8, 18-35 1.8 (Both APSC), 24-35 f2 (A FF lens) and of course the 2 four thirds lenses and maybe another that I can  not remember.

As for focal reducers, to me they can be very useful but I just look at them as making a lens shorter and faster as in can turn a garden variety 2.8 zoom lens into a f2 lens but equally can turn a cheap old 5.6 lens into f4.       Some focal reducers are quite cheap and still work ok (others like the Light Cannon are pretty poor).     Lens Turbo can have its uses but is a dumb adapter.

As a user of both M4/3 and Sony, I don't think I am missing anything I don't need in either and that is using most of my lenses on both cameras.

Back to the purpose of the thread.      A6500 VS GH5.

If the lenses the OP wants are not there, then go for the one that has them.

Are stills part of the equation?   If so, what camera has the specs that matter?     

https://***URL removed***/products/compare/side-by-side?products=panasonic_dcgh5&products=sony_a6500

Is a built in flash wanted? (A6500)

Is a higher flash sync wanted? (GH5)

Is a faster max shutter speed a factor? (GH5)

GH5 generally seems to have the higher stills specs.

Then again, the Sony has better high ISO and likely better low ISO too (ISO 100 is a boosted setting on the GH5) and slightly better image quality (maybe) as well overall.

If it is ONLY about video, the GH5 and as I said, I still think the GH5 would be the choice of those two anyway for wedding use.

8 hours ago, dvcrn said:

I know I asked this question before but a lot changed in the recent weeks and now I'm asking again: what do you think, to mft or not?

I own a 80D and a em5II both with 1 lens. I love the features and size of my em5 but also the AF and colors of my 80D. Photography is important to me as well. 

My current options are:

1) sell the em5II+lens, buy ef-s glass and a eos m5 for portable photos (canon route)

2) sell the 80d + lens, buy mft glass and a gh5 (maybe swap the em5 for a small pen-f) (mft route)

3) sell the oly, buy a gh5, get efs glass with a speed booster and share lenses (hybrid route) 

I guess the struggle is which system I should invest into going forward. I would say mft if the af, preamps and colors of the canon wouldn't be so good. Also the m5 looks pretty interesting! 

Should I stop trying to focus on one system and treat photo and video entirely separate?

Option 1 and you end up with two very similar cameras (same sensor in each?)     Option 2 and the cameras are different enough that the current camera would be a back up and the GH5 would have a lot more in specs over the other choices.

Option 3 works for me.      I like using cameras with different sensor sizes but still being able to use the same lenses.     I do think FF and M4/3 make a better mix but APSC and M4/3 would still be nice.

What did you like about the GH3?     What didn't you like?

I think in your situation the GH5 makes a lot more sense.      I mainly shoot stills and not for professional use so I would likely go the other way.

IF a lot of the weddings are in really low light, then maybe the Sony makes more sense but then I would go with an A7sii or original A7s anyway (I shoot a LOT over ISO 1600 and much higher often).       It seems to me that one of the two cameras has been made for you while the other can be made to work for you and either would be good.

Don't some of these Speed Boosters have limits on how fast the lens becomes?     Some M4/3 versions I thought it was f0.9.      Does that also apply to APSC versions?

And a brain fade.

The Canon lenses all seem to be wide open with the lens turbo anyway so no need to adjust aperture on another camera as I am only getting them wide open and can not change the aperture regardless.       For that, this would only work with lenses with a mechanical aperture ring like some of the third party lenses.

The focusing though IS a bonus and very pleasant surprise with the Sigma 150 2.8 and the APSC kit lens with the Lens Turbo focal reducer.

     It seems with SOME Canon EF lenses, there is mechanical focus control in MF mode.    The ones I have previously tried must have been exceptions.     That plus what I have seen around the web and the fact that EF stands for electronic focus.

WTF!

I have also just found out that the EF-S 18-55 IS ii Canon APSC kit lens can also be used the same way on the Lens Turbo (set aperture on another camera and remove the lens while it is turned on) and as long as you set manual focus on the lens you CAN focus it.      This is another lens that works great for AF on the Kipon adapter but this Lens Turbo is going to come out of its box now fairly often.     This cheap and cheerful Canon kit lens is one of the biggest value lenses ever.

I had always believed that EF/EF-s lenses focused only by electronics in AF or MF (EF means "electronic focus" hence the TS-E lenses not having F in their names)

13-40 f1.8 to f4 on M4/3 with focal reducer (manual focus and IS doesn't work but IBIS does on the GX7) 26-80mm FF angle of view, 18-55 3.5-5.6  on M4/3 with Kipon adapter (fast AF IS works but IBIS doesn't on the GX7) 36-110 FF angle of view, 18-55 3.5-5.6 3.5-5.6 APSC on my A7s (slow AF) 27-82 FF angle of view, covers FF on my A7s 24-55 3.5-5.6 (slow AF) s is angle of view.

I could even use it on a Canon APSC camera!

For those wanting one of the latest digital medium format cameras for an image quality boost, the difference between APSC and FF is a fair bit bigger than the difference between FF and most of the digital medium format cameras.       There IS a difference but everyone has to decide for themselves if it is worth it.  

Recent high MP FF cameras may well compare very favourably with current digital medium format cameras, especially since lenses are advancing so rapidly to use with large MP FF cameras.

For me, M4/3 and FF mirrorless play well together and adding medium format wouldn't make all that much difference for me (but then even a 24mp A7 was more image quality than I needed for daytime use).     I would like to play with MF as I said above though given the right (cheap) adapters/backs.

I also have to thank this thread for just getting me to discover that my Sigma 150 2.8 APO macro CAN be used (manual focus) with my Lens Turbo focal reducer and GX7.      I thought it would be useless before so never tried it. (the Lens works great with fast AF and Kipon smart adapter but that is not a focal reducer).

I have to set the aperture via my A7s (removing it while the camera is on) but it is not like my EF/EF-s lenses in that focus is mechanical so I can use that lens as well as a 17 TS-E.

I think it is not so popular for a number of reasons.

Medium format lenses are not necessarily sharper than 35mm lenses (they don't have to be, just as 35mm lenses don't have to be as sharp as M4/3 lenses).

There are not so many medium format lenses available compared to 35mm and the A7 cameras can adapt sooo many lenses.

For cheap lenses, you are going to find a magnitude of times the number of 35mm lenses as medium format available.

I think it only makes sense if there is a particular medium format lens you want to use on an A7 series camera that is not available with other choices (how many would THAT be?).

If there was a lot less choice already available, then this would be handy but as it is, I think it is mainly only for those who have the lenses already and want to try them on E mount and that wouldn't be a lot of people.

I am still done with film though I would like to try my Polaroid 600SE with a digital back if possible and cheap enough (I would need a medium format film adapter and a digital back adapter to that).

Someone was selling Mamiya 6 cameras modified to take a digital back on Ebay a few years ago, I would have loved one of those but it wouldn't replace a dedicated FF A7s or M4/3 camera for me.   

I love using different formats because they ARE different.     Adapting across formats means I don't have to buy as many lenses.