noone

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.
 

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.

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
 

I thought I saw a comment about why I am looking to buy an M43 camera when I'm unsure about the lenses available. The comment seems to have gone but thought I'd clarify anyway. 
The GH5, for the money, has an incredible feature set for video and is a great lightweight stills camera. I'd like to use it as a B-Cam for video and a second stills camera for the small amount of photographic work I do. 
I'm sure some of the native lenses are incredible, and thanks to those who are giving me advice in that regard. I think it might be worth investing in one, to begin with. However I have to think about the rest of the gear I use, not much point having fabulous M43 glass gathering dust at home if I'm shooting on an F5 or a C300. 
Thanks again for the help everyone. Keep it coming. 
Rich

Thanks Noone for the Kipon info, I will have to check it out. I did a bit more research last night and I'm guessing the Leica lenses are Panasonic's equivalent to Canon's L Series, would you guys agree? 
Thanks for the video Jonpais, I had watched a few of his videos but not actually seen his one. I presume he's using IBIS but I can't see it stated in the comments. 
I noticed in the video comments that people mention vignetting if using a lens at 18mm on the Speedbooster. Could someone explain why this would happen, as I thought the whole point of the Speedbooster was that it takes an image from the lens and shrinks it down to M43 size?  Why would vignetting appear? Does this mean I couldn't use the Canon 17-40mm? 
There are three uses for the camera I'm thinking of...
If I'm using the GH5 as a B-Roll Camera on a video shoot I'd need to use Canon glass on a Speedbooster to match other cameras. 
Just shooting video on the GH5, I'd need a good focal range of fast visually matched glass, so all from the same manufacturer most likely. 
Thirdly, using it as a stills camera I'd like wide aperture zooms with fast AF.  
Again, thanks for all the comments. Really helping find my way through the rabbit hole I've found myself in. 
Rich
 

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.
 

I've been shooting drone for a long time. On a pure technical standpoint (I'm not going to enter in the legal aspect)
- Karma: the drone is big, takes forever to warm up, the gimbal has a lot of drift, the radio link is weak and it's not very cheap ($1200 with the GoPro). In other words this is not the best bang for your bucks, nothing dramatic but there is much better on the market. Just GoPro first shot at it. Perhaps after the recent recall, GoPro fixed some issue, we'll see...
- Phantom 3 : the Phantom 3 Pro films in 4K, the P3 Standard only in 1080. DJI recently stopped selling this drone but there is a lot of inventory and you can still buy a brand new unit for cheap. The IQ is enough for most internet stuff however the max bitrate at 60mbps is a little bit weak especially if you shoot in 4k.
- Phantom 4 and Phantom 4 PRO: the Phantom 4 is just an updated Phantom 3 with front sensor (collision avoidance). Nothing very different on the IQ compared to the P3Pro However the Phantom 4 PRO has a much larger sensor (one inch) so better DR, ISO and quality overall. The bitrate also max out at 100mbps which is good especially with the h265 codec (but a pain to edit right now), you can still record in h264 at 100mbps. It also does 4k60. It's the most expensive one ($1500)
- Mavic: nice and small portable drone, ok price at $1000 but hard to find at the moment (sold out). Offers collision avoidance (front) like the Phantom 4 and 4 Pro. On the con side the drone is a bit too light for windy days (jello and vibration issue) and the bitrate is back to 60mbps.
- A note about the focal (FF equivalent): the Phantom 3 Pro and P4 are 20mm, the Phantom 4 Pro is 24mm and the Mavic is 28mm. Keep that in mind depending of what you want to do.
- Other drones ? The Yuneec and Walkera make ok drones but DJI products are just better
- Is is hard to fly?  not really, these drones are full of automation, the flight is assisted by GPS, they will come back to the landing point if you press a button (RTH), they will also calculate your distance Vs battery and start flying back if the battery is too low based on the distance. Some have collision avoidance system. If you are a bit tech friendly and played video game in your life you won't have any issues. To give you and idea, once you start the drone and take off, the thing will stay in the air and hoover by itself until you move the command. It won't drift thanks to the GPS. Can't be easier than that !
Conclusion:
You could start with a Phantom 3 standard (1080 max) or P3Pro for $500-800 new or even find cheaper used unit (check the hundreds available on Craigslist and ebay). The IQ is good enough for most internet stuff (similar to gopro), you won't break the bank and/or cry too hard if you crash.
The Phantom 4, 4 Pro and Mavic have the front sensor for collision avoidance if you are a noob. Basically the drone will stop automatically on front of an obstacle.
The Phantom 4 Pro is definitely a step up in term of image quality but also the more expensive.
Last thing, if you buy a drone here is what YOU MUST do and understand before flying: 1. compass calibration, 2. IMU calibration, 3. return to home (set the correct altitude), 4. difference between the flight mode (ATTI and GPS). Check the thousand of tutorial available on internet. Nothing complicated but ignoring these simple things will lead to crash. Be smart, not like Casey Neistat.
 
Here is what I did with a Phantom 3 Pro a few years ago. Fair enough
 

What I found interesting in that opening post link is that someone actually used the BM pocket cinema camera for a cinema film.

What I found interesting in that opening post link is that someone actually used the BM pocket cinema camera for a cinema film.

What I found interesting in that opening post link is that someone actually used the BM pocket cinema camera for a cinema film.

Seems a bit, well, noisy even at base.    Or is that bass?

I still love the first A7s as it fits my needs better than any camera to date.
I prefer the size shape of the first over the second A7# cameras.
I would think the biggest change to an A7siii would be something like 18 or 20mp as well as 4k 60p.       Better AF with adapted lenses would be nice but Sony isn't likely to aim for that.
Batteries are not that much of an issue to me.    Easy enough and small enough to carry what you need and If you use them fresh, you can get a lot more out of them than if you leave them in the camera and shoot sparingly.

I used to shoot in grainy black and white as well as grainy colour film.      The main reason for black and white for me was it was better to look at than colour gave.      Even now with digital, you will see people convert shots to B&W if they are above what you would normally expect from a camera.      Of course, sometimes it is a valid choice on its merits too.
Again, I am not saying don't light.
I am simply saying if you want or need to add light, do it but equally since photography IS about and needs light, then available light (even if very dim) is also a valid choice.
I just picked up my old Pentax Spotmatic.   The highest film speed I can set is 1600 and the fastest shutter speed is 1/1000 (actually mine says 1/500 but Pentax was too cheap to use different shutters and on my lower model they didn't mark the 1/1000 setting but it is still there).    I would push film a bit sometimes but the grain could be huge.
Likewise my old Nikon D50, highest ISO I can set is ISO 1600.      My Pentax IST*D was (I thought then) ok at ISO 3200 and the same with other cameras.     A Pentax Kx I would use almost to ISO 12800 but really 6400 was about it.
I didn't like my Canon 7D over ISO 3200.
As each generation gets better, it just means I can use faster shutter speed longer or higher ISOs or slower lenses or stop down lenses more.
In a few years, people will be using phones better in low light than an A7s or any current camera.      Progress is nice.
There would have been very few combinations that you could use to get a shot of a full rock band from next to the stage with film.      It is just fun for me and the bands seem to like what I do.

DXO has their explanations.
https://www.dxomark.com/About/Sensor-scores/Overall-Score
 
https://www.dxomark.com/About/Sensor-scores/Use-Case-Scores
Low light score in particular is an actual ISO and I think the easiest to explain.
"Sports & action photography: Low-Light ISO
Unlike the two previous scenarios in which light is either generous (studio) or stability is assured (landscape), photojournalists and action photographers often struggle with low available light and high motion. Achieving usable image quality is often difficult when pushing ISO.
When shooting a moving scene such as a sports event, action photographers’ primary objective is to freeze the motion, giving priority to short exposure time. To compensate for the lack of exposure, they have to increase the ISO setting, which means the SNR will decrease. How far can they go while keeping decent quality? Our low-light ISO metric will tell them.
The SNR indicates how much noise is present in an image compared to the actual information (signal). The higher the SNR value, the better the image looks, because details aren't drowned by noise. SNR strength is given in dB, which is a logarithmic scale: an increase of 6 dB corresponds to doubling the SNR, which equates to half the noise for the same signal.
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."
 
It has nothing to do with AF etc so I think the sports scores are pretty reasonable maybe more so if you just consider them as low light rather than sports and remember it is based on their criteria.       I am fine with using an A7s for night time sports.      I use an old manual focus 300 2.8 anyway so it just means I can use a higher shutter speed.     None of the shots would be printed huge so 12mp is fine.
A modern FF DSLR would be a better sports CAMERA most of the time but does it have a better sports SENSOR (given DXOmarks criteria)?
The overall scores are a bit based on voodoo as the bits that go into that are subjective without full explanation as to weighting.
I think some of the anomalies might be because of a low number of samples tested given many cameras get slightly different scores with the same sensors.      A slight difference might be just enough to take a camera a bit over or a bit under their marks.     I don't think the A7s is any noisier than the A7sii and It seems the colour depth might be why the A7sii gets a lower score for low light (the point they cross 18 bits for colour sensitivity).
For video it is all a bit silly though as they are only testing RAW stills and most video is Jpeg.
I would love to see a site test sensors for video.    RAW and otherwise.
 

And haven't we come along way with stage lighting, this is what one of the (arguably) best bands in the world could expect in the 70's when they toured in Melbourne or Sydney. Little Feat, Festival Hall, 1976.

DXO has their explanations.
https://www.dxomark.com/About/Sensor-scores/Overall-Score
 
https://www.dxomark.com/About/Sensor-scores/Use-Case-Scores
Low light score in particular is an actual ISO and I think the easiest to explain.
"Sports & action photography: Low-Light ISO
Unlike the two previous scenarios in which light is either generous (studio) or stability is assured (landscape), photojournalists and action photographers often struggle with low available light and high motion. Achieving usable image quality is often difficult when pushing ISO.
When shooting a moving scene such as a sports event, action photographers’ primary objective is to freeze the motion, giving priority to short exposure time. To compensate for the lack of exposure, they have to increase the ISO setting, which means the SNR will decrease. How far can they go while keeping decent quality? Our low-light ISO metric will tell them.
The SNR indicates how much noise is present in an image compared to the actual information (signal). The higher the SNR value, the better the image looks, because details aren't drowned by noise. SNR strength is given in dB, which is a logarithmic scale: an increase of 6 dB corresponds to doubling the SNR, which equates to half the noise for the same signal.
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."
 
It has nothing to do with AF etc so I think the sports scores are pretty reasonable maybe more so if you just consider them as low light rather than sports and remember it is based on their criteria.       I am fine with using an A7s for night time sports.      I use an old manual focus 300 2.8 anyway so it just means I can use a higher shutter speed.     None of the shots would be printed huge so 12mp is fine.
A modern FF DSLR would be a better sports CAMERA most of the time but does it have a better sports SENSOR (given DXOmarks criteria)?
The overall scores are a bit based on voodoo as the bits that go into that are subjective without full explanation as to weighting.
I think some of the anomalies might be because of a low number of samples tested given many cameras get slightly different scores with the same sensors.      A slight difference might be just enough to take a camera a bit over or a bit under their marks.     I don't think the A7s is any noisier than the A7sii and It seems the colour depth might be why the A7sii gets a lower score for low light (the point they cross 18 bits for colour sensitivity).
For video it is all a bit silly though as they are only testing RAW stills and most video is Jpeg.
I would love to see a site test sensors for video.    RAW and otherwise.
 

They down rated Canon because the cameras didn't have the highest DR at base ISO.      They can not give a camera a higher rating than they can measure.
Once you got to higher ISOs, those Canon cameras would often be as good (if not better) which is why you don't just go off the headline figure.
The latest Canon cameras are as good as the competition at base ISO now so they get higher scores for example, they measured the 5Diii at 11.7 stops of DR but the 5Div gets 13.6 stops (nearly 2 full stops).     At higher ISOs the improvement is less than a stop.    That plus the other improvements is why the 5Div gets a much higher score.
 
Many of the situations where  a much lesser camera gets a higher score, that is what they measure but if you look further, you will find the lesser cameras fall away much quicker.
Sometimes the lesser cameras have higher pixel counts too.
With Nikon for instance, if you want 24mp and only shoot with top class manual focus lenses like an Otus at base ISO, you may well be better off with a D5## than getting a better more expensive camera.
Besides DXO, Bill Claff has a pretty good site for sensors.
http://photonstophotos.net/
His chart (not all cameras are there).
http://www.photonstophotos.net/Charts/PDR.htm

Because of their methodology; They do the noise measurements from prints (if I remember correctly it's around 8-12 Megapixel prints).
Downsize ANY noisy image in Photoshop - and you'll reduce the perceived noise of the image - especially with such a hefty downsizing as 30 MP -> 10 MP. High resolution sensors with fine-grained noise will gain the most in DXO's test.
DXOmarks sensor testing is very well done in an unbiased way. But you need to understand their testing methodology and how it applies to what you do with your photography to understand how the sensor will perform for your use case - or if the use case is covered enough by the DXOmark testing. You shouldn't spend much on the single numbers they present either, but rather look at the graphs! And when you do, always always keep in mind that it isn't a measurement done directly from sensor data, but that it has gone the route through downsizing and printing. If you know how those processes function, you also know how that will impact the test outcome.
If you care about using the full 30 MP images and how the noise pattern from a camera looks like at 100%, DXOmark is definitely NOT the place to look. It's a good estimation of noise performance at print-sized photos in a magazine - or for photos downsized to fit screens / websites. If you want very large size prints or like to export 100% crops of photos, the noise characteristics can't be extrapolated from the DXOmark data - you'll have to find other tests than theirs.
A short summary on how to make use of DXOmark when you're going to buy cameras:
1) Realise that it is only the sensor & processing performance of raw files that get tested
2) Make sure to read and understand the methodology
3) Look at the graphs and compare the cameras that interest you!
4) Due to the downsizing methodology - check elsewhere for sensor and processing performance at different ISOs to get a more complete picture.
5) Now you know a bit about the sensor performance for still photography, which shouldn't really be the main reason for camera choice. Handling, lens choice, video performance etc will have to be tried & tested and read and learnt about elsewhere.

DXO has their explanations.
https://www.dxomark.com/About/Sensor-scores/Overall-Score
 
https://www.dxomark.com/About/Sensor-scores/Use-Case-Scores
Low light score in particular is an actual ISO and I think the easiest to explain.
"Sports & action photography: Low-Light ISO
Unlike the two previous scenarios in which light is either generous (studio) or stability is assured (landscape), photojournalists and action photographers often struggle with low available light and high motion. Achieving usable image quality is often difficult when pushing ISO.
When shooting a moving scene such as a sports event, action photographers’ primary objective is to freeze the motion, giving priority to short exposure time. To compensate for the lack of exposure, they have to increase the ISO setting, which means the SNR will decrease. How far can they go while keeping decent quality? Our low-light ISO metric will tell them.
The SNR indicates how much noise is present in an image compared to the actual information (signal). The higher the SNR value, the better the image looks, because details aren't drowned by noise. SNR strength is given in dB, which is a logarithmic scale: an increase of 6 dB corresponds to doubling the SNR, which equates to half the noise for the same signal.
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."
 
It has nothing to do with AF etc so I think the sports scores are pretty reasonable maybe more so if you just consider them as low light rather than sports and remember it is based on their criteria.       I am fine with using an A7s for night time sports.      I use an old manual focus 300 2.8 anyway so it just means I can use a higher shutter speed.     None of the shots would be printed huge so 12mp is fine.
A modern FF DSLR would be a better sports CAMERA most of the time but does it have a better sports SENSOR (given DXOmarks criteria)?
The overall scores are a bit based on voodoo as the bits that go into that are subjective without full explanation as to weighting.
I think some of the anomalies might be because of a low number of samples tested given many cameras get slightly different scores with the same sensors.      A slight difference might be just enough to take a camera a bit over or a bit under their marks.     I don't think the A7s is any noisier than the A7sii and It seems the colour depth might be why the A7sii gets a lower score for low light (the point they cross 18 bits for colour sensitivity).
For video it is all a bit silly though as they are only testing RAW stills and most video is Jpeg.
I would love to see a site test sensors for video.    RAW and otherwise.
 

I had no issues (GX7 camera and 45 1.8, 12 f2 and 14-42 ii kit lens).
I found the Pana 20 to be ok for AF, just it could not be used for AFC for stills.    

They down rated Canon because the cameras didn't have the highest DR at base ISO.      They can not give a camera a higher rating than they can measure.
Once you got to higher ISOs, those Canon cameras would often be as good (if not better) which is why you don't just go off the headline figure.
The latest Canon cameras are as good as the competition at base ISO now so they get higher scores for example, they measured the 5Diii at 11.7 stops of DR but the 5Div gets 13.6 stops (nearly 2 full stops).     At higher ISOs the improvement is less than a stop.    That plus the other improvements is why the 5Div gets a much higher score.
 
Many of the situations where  a much lesser camera gets a higher score, that is what they measure but if you look further, you will find the lesser cameras fall away much quicker.
Sometimes the lesser cameras have higher pixel counts too.
With Nikon for instance, if you want 24mp and only shoot with top class manual focus lenses like an Otus at base ISO, you may well be better off with a D5## than getting a better more expensive camera.
Besides DXO, Bill Claff has a pretty good site for sensors.
http://photonstophotos.net/
His chart (not all cameras are there).
http://www.photonstophotos.net/Charts/PDR.htm

I don't know what you should take, I just wanna see the results!

Well even if their testing is flawed to some people, it is flawed for all cameras tested, so it is a fair comparison to each one, they all use the same technique applied to them.
So maybe the outcome is maybe not true reality, the order they come out is probably what real life output will be compared to each other camera tested.
Red and Arri have always have crazy high DR compared to others brands. And it has proven to be true.

Dxo marks always been like that. 
It's not THE reference ..it's only a reference for those who actually know how to read the graphs and analyse some of the results. Overall score means as much as saying that the sky is blue. 

Dxo marks always been like that. 
It's not THE reference ..it's only a reference for those who actually know how to read the graphs and analyse some of the results. Overall score means as much as saying that the sky is blue.