BTM_Pix

With all due respect, this is very wrong.
The 400 f2.8 issue which you continue to reference and described as prattle earlier on was actually my prattle about the A9 rather than the A7 but I thought I'd reply anyway.
Sony have produced a camera which they push as a professional sports camera and to say it has made little to zero impact in the field that they claim it will revolutionise would be an understatement. 
Why?
Well, lenses firstly and, once they've resolve that, ergonomics.
Unfortunately, whilst professional sports photographers would love to just be able to sashay around with all our gear in a man bag, we need fast long lenses not for some "alpha male" bullshit but because we have to photograph things at distance, in low light and with good separation against often busy backgrounds. 
We don't use 400 f2.8 lenses because we like having to pay for, carry and wrestle with them but because we need to.
To, you know, do our job.
So, if Sony want to actually make any headway in the market they push that camera to then who else should they have listened to other than the people that actually work in it?
Where did you source your data for the 'half dozen' photographers that might buy it 'unsponsored' ?
I'll be shooting a Champions League match tonight along with 50-60 other members of the "shrinking, impoverished and literally dying" demographic that Sony are trying to appeal to with this camera. There'll be roughly £15-20K of equipment being used per metre, none of which will be sponsored and none of which will be Sony, but all those kits will include a 400 f2.8
The total spend on the equipment contained in our oversized weather resistant man bags will be about £1.8m and we will expect to replenish that every 24 months.
Thats from this one game in one city.
Go and have a look at the sporting calendar and see how many more events the alpha males with the big hands are covering tonight. 
Even so, we are still small potatoes perhaps financially against the masses but we bring something to the party that is far more important to Sony than the immediacy of getting a few quid off us.
I'm in this picture somewhere

The worldwide TV audience for this game was around 350 million people.
That is 350 million people getting glimpses of Nikon and Canon cameras for 90 minutes.
If someone wanted to convince you to buy a camera that the pros use, there really is no more effective means at getting the point across than that is there?
Where else are consumers going to see professional cameras being used in those sort of numbers?
The English Premier League has an annual TV audience of 4.2 billion people, all of whom are getting regular glimpses of working professional photographers using Canon and Nikon cameras every time the ball goes out of play behind the goal.
It is a massive calling card for those two companies and that is why Sony want to be involved.
They're not in it to sell a few thousand A9s, they're in it to sell a few hundred thousand of their other ones.
So they have to produce a 400 f2.8 and they have to make it ergonomically viable to get real professional sports photographers to use it. 
And they have completely failed in that respect.
That picture is from the 2017 Champions League final, just after the A9 was launched. You'd think a company like Sony would've been able to persuade a few people to shoot with it wouldn't you? Even by paying us to do it? 
Can't see one can you?
And its got nothing to do with the specs, its all about it not being good enough for the job (and that is what it is, a job) that they were devising it for.
 Hence your dismissal of the balance issue and general body size as wittering is utterly ridiculous in that context.
Try balancing that lens with that camera on a monopod and switching it rapidly from eye back to reverse over your shoulder while you use your other body with a 70-200 f2.8 and tell me balance doesn't matter. 
Try using cameras continuously in that scenario for hours at a time and tell me the camera being too thin doesn't actually hurt your hands, let alone before we get on to button placement and button size.
As an economist, you will be able to speculate on numerous possible factors why the A9 has made more or less zero impact on the market Sony intended for it. 
As the actual intended customer of it, I can offer a completely non-speculative reason for it which is that it didn't have a 400 f2.8 from the get go and its ergonomics and overall performance are not good enough.
The Sony A7iii looks like a great camera though even for someone with small hands like me....

With all due respect, this is very wrong.
The 400 f2.8 issue which you continue to reference and described as prattle earlier on was actually my prattle about the A9 rather than the A7 but I thought I'd reply anyway.
Sony have produced a camera which they push as a professional sports camera and to say it has made little to zero impact in the field that they claim it will revolutionise would be an understatement. 
Why?
Well, lenses firstly and, once they've resolve that, ergonomics.
Unfortunately, whilst professional sports photographers would love to just be able to sashay around with all our gear in a man bag, we need fast long lenses not for some "alpha male" bullshit but because we have to photograph things at distance, in low light and with good separation against often busy backgrounds. 
We don't use 400 f2.8 lenses because we like having to pay for, carry and wrestle with them but because we need to.
To, you know, do our job.
So, if Sony want to actually make any headway in the market they push that camera to then who else should they have listened to other than the people that actually work in it?
Where did you source your data for the 'half dozen' photographers that might buy it 'unsponsored' ?
I'll be shooting a Champions League match tonight along with 50-60 other members of the "shrinking, impoverished and literally dying" demographic that Sony are trying to appeal to with this camera. There'll be roughly £15-20K of equipment being used per metre, none of which will be sponsored and none of which will be Sony, but all those kits will include a 400 f2.8
The total spend on the equipment contained in our oversized weather resistant man bags will be about £1.8m and we will expect to replenish that every 24 months.
Thats from this one game in one city.
Go and have a look at the sporting calendar and see how many more events the alpha males with the big hands are covering tonight. 
Even so, we are still small potatoes perhaps financially against the masses but we bring something to the party that is far more important to Sony than the immediacy of getting a few quid off us.
I'm in this picture somewhere

The worldwide TV audience for this game was around 350 million people.
That is 350 million people getting glimpses of Nikon and Canon cameras for 90 minutes.
If someone wanted to convince you to buy a camera that the pros use, there really is no more effective means at getting the point across than that is there?
Where else are consumers going to see professional cameras being used in those sort of numbers?
The English Premier League has an annual TV audience of 4.2 billion people, all of whom are getting regular glimpses of working professional photographers using Canon and Nikon cameras every time the ball goes out of play behind the goal.
It is a massive calling card for those two companies and that is why Sony want to be involved.
They're not in it to sell a few thousand A9s, they're in it to sell a few hundred thousand of their other ones.
So they have to produce a 400 f2.8 and they have to make it ergonomically viable to get real professional sports photographers to use it. 
And they have completely failed in that respect.
That picture is from the 2017 Champions League final, just after the A9 was launched. You'd think a company like Sony would've been able to persuade a few people to shoot with it wouldn't you? Even by paying us to do it? 
Can't see one can you?
And its got nothing to do with the specs, its all about it not being good enough for the job (and that is what it is, a job) that they were devising it for.
 Hence your dismissal of the balance issue and general body size as wittering is utterly ridiculous in that context.
Try balancing that lens with that camera on a monopod and switching it rapidly from eye back to reverse over your shoulder while you use your other body with a 70-200 f2.8 and tell me balance doesn't matter. 
Try using cameras continuously in that scenario for hours at a time and tell me the camera being too thin doesn't actually hurt your hands, let alone before we get on to button placement and button size.
As an economist, you will be able to speculate on numerous possible factors why the A9 has made more or less zero impact on the market Sony intended for it. 
As the actual intended customer of it, I can offer a completely non-speculative reason for it which is that it didn't have a 400 f2.8 from the get go and its ergonomics and overall performance are not good enough.
The Sony A7iii looks like a great camera though even for someone with small hands like me....

TIL that you are a professional photographer (the one's that matter, anyway) if you shoot meaningless sports spectacles, where you basically spray and pray for two hours and then brag about the cost of your telephoto lenses.
Maybe we should ask some wedding photographers that might even like a lighter, smaller body, since they handle their cams for many more hours per working day. Or maybe there are different tools for different jobs? Sports photographers already have "the perfect tools", so why are you complaining about a product that could be heaven-sent for most and just not big enough for you?

With all due respect, this is very wrong.
The 400 f2.8 issue which you continue to reference and described as prattle earlier on was actually my prattle about the A9 rather than the A7 but I thought I'd reply anyway.
Sony have produced a camera which they push as a professional sports camera and to say it has made little to zero impact in the field that they claim it will revolutionise would be an understatement. 
Why?
Well, lenses firstly and, once they've resolve that, ergonomics.
Unfortunately, whilst professional sports photographers would love to just be able to sashay around with all our gear in a man bag, we need fast long lenses not for some "alpha male" bullshit but because we have to photograph things at distance, in low light and with good separation against often busy backgrounds. 
We don't use 400 f2.8 lenses because we like having to pay for, carry and wrestle with them but because we need to.
To, you know, do our job.
So, if Sony want to actually make any headway in the market they push that camera to then who else should they have listened to other than the people that actually work in it?
Where did you source your data for the 'half dozen' photographers that might buy it 'unsponsored' ?
I'll be shooting a Champions League match tonight along with 50-60 other members of the "shrinking, impoverished and literally dying" demographic that Sony are trying to appeal to with this camera. There'll be roughly £15-20K of equipment being used per metre, none of which will be sponsored and none of which will be Sony, but all those kits will include a 400 f2.8
The total spend on the equipment contained in our oversized weather resistant man bags will be about £1.8m and we will expect to replenish that every 24 months.
Thats from this one game in one city.
Go and have a look at the sporting calendar and see how many more events the alpha males with the big hands are covering tonight. 
Even so, we are still small potatoes perhaps financially against the masses but we bring something to the party that is far more important to Sony than the immediacy of getting a few quid off us.
I'm in this picture somewhere

The worldwide TV audience for this game was around 350 million people.
That is 350 million people getting glimpses of Nikon and Canon cameras for 90 minutes.
If someone wanted to convince you to buy a camera that the pros use, there really is no more effective means at getting the point across than that is there?
Where else are consumers going to see professional cameras being used in those sort of numbers?
The English Premier League has an annual TV audience of 4.2 billion people, all of whom are getting regular glimpses of working professional photographers using Canon and Nikon cameras every time the ball goes out of play behind the goal.
It is a massive calling card for those two companies and that is why Sony want to be involved.
They're not in it to sell a few thousand A9s, they're in it to sell a few hundred thousand of their other ones.
So they have to produce a 400 f2.8 and they have to make it ergonomically viable to get real professional sports photographers to use it. 
And they have completely failed in that respect.
That picture is from the 2017 Champions League final, just after the A9 was launched. You'd think a company like Sony would've been able to persuade a few people to shoot with it wouldn't you? Even by paying us to do it? 
Can't see one can you?
And its got nothing to do with the specs, its all about it not being good enough for the job (and that is what it is, a job) that they were devising it for.
 Hence your dismissal of the balance issue and general body size as wittering is utterly ridiculous in that context.
Try balancing that lens with that camera on a monopod and switching it rapidly from eye back to reverse over your shoulder while you use your other body with a 70-200 f2.8 and tell me balance doesn't matter. 
Try using cameras continuously in that scenario for hours at a time and tell me the camera being too thin doesn't actually hurt your hands, let alone before we get on to button placement and button size.
As an economist, you will be able to speculate on numerous possible factors why the A9 has made more or less zero impact on the market Sony intended for it. 
As the actual intended customer of it, I can offer a completely non-speculative reason for it which is that it didn't have a 400 f2.8 from the get go and its ergonomics and overall performance are not good enough.
The Sony A7iii looks like a great camera though even for someone with small hands like me....

I was like that when I picked up the A9.
If I was Sony I'd ban stores from displaying it without the grip as if you're trying to get someone to switch from 1Dx or D5 it feels small in an off putting way !
They've finally done the 400 f2.8 for it which in the pictures I've seen of it they've also not put the grip on the camera. It looks like a Smart Car towing an Airstream.
 

I've bought
canon4kffwithlogandibis.com 
I'll be putting it on the market in, ooh, 2023 or so?

I've bought
canon4kffwithlogandibis.com 
I'll be putting it on the market in, ooh, 2023 or so?

HOLY SHIT!!!

I've bought
canon4kffwithlogandibis.com 
I'll be putting it on the market in, ooh, 2023 or so?

Im up for 

reliable4ksonywithdecentwhitebalance.com
largesensorpanasonicghcamera.com
samsungnx2.com
fujiwithfullcustomizibility.com
nikonmakesaneffortrinthemidrangesegment.com
blackmagiconsaleagain.com
pentaxkeepsitsimple.com
fastprimesforthecanoneosm.com

I was actually referring to the 20-35mm EF version but it’s probably a very similar lens design... maybe even identical.
But yeah, this is definitely my thought process. In fact, I could see myself shooting an entire short film with just one lens. Now the problem becomes... which lens. I am looking for a very modern clean prime lens between 35-50mm. I’d love a 50 or 35mm 1.4 Sigma Art but I don’t want to pay that kind of money... any suggestions? 
I’d love some Leica’s, but as you know... they can be pretty pricey... do you have the 50mm f2 Summicron?
For now I am going to roll with my Canon lenses. Hopefully this zoom will be good. I’ve been editing a scene from my short that I shot with the 35mm f2 and I really just love that lens. The color needs a little work yet, but the lens is just special...

Here is another one off "Red Screen Productions" vimeo account
Camera test testing out the Slog2 picture profile on the Sony A7RII and a couple new fresnel lights we got. Shot in 4K in all its glory.
 

The company that made the film are called Red Screen Productions.
Completely wild guess/speculation but if the company name is a clue then it might be shot on a RED in HDRx mode.
 

I think the ES that @jonpais is using is "Errata Sendorum", which is an old Latin phrase used in English contract law in reference to failing to deliver an SLR Magic Rangefinder

I think the ES that @jonpais is using is "Errata Sendorum", which is an old Latin phrase used in English contract law in reference to failing to deliver an SLR Magic Rangefinder

The 120-300mm f2.8 is the one I'd vouch for in terms of pro photography because I have and still do use it in anger. In certain stadiums that have particular shooting positions it actually offers a one lens shooting solution with a D500 in the same way that the 200-400 does on a D5.
Video is not something I can attest to its use for but someone does/did re-house them in PL mount so there might be footage around somewhere
https://www.ebay.com/itm/Cinematics-Cine-lens-sigma-120-300mm-T2-9-PL-for-SONY-FS7-F5-RED-EPIC-BMCC-BMPCC-/272894807128

Some 260fps footage by Philip Bloom.
 

Some 260fps footage by Philip Bloom.
 

Obviously, after asking about your budget I'm going to completely disregard it !!!
If you can push the budget and don't mind it being fixed then this 400mm f5.6L is a good value.
https://www.mpb.com/en-uk/used-equipment/used-photo-and-video/used-lenses/used-canon-fit-lenses/canon-ef-400mm-f-5-6-l-usm/sku-704965/
If you think you might be in it for the long haul then one of the best routes to 400mm if you are only looking at the f5.6/6.3 area is to get a 70-200 f2.8 and a later generation 2X convertor.
The advantage of that is that you get a much better and more flexible lens for when you're not doing this assignment and then can match the reach and quality of the sort of lenses you're looking at with the 2X as and when you need it.
You can usually pick up a 70-200 f2.8L in decent condition for around £700 if you shop around and a latest generation 2X convertor for around £250.
Another alternative is the Sigma 120-300 f2.8 and their 1.4 convertor which you can often pick up as a package for similar money. 
There are 3 generations of it but this one (the 2nd) is the best value for money version of it. 
https://www.ebay.co.uk/itm/Used-Sigma-120-300mm-f-2-8-APO-DG-OS-HSM-Lens-Canon-Fit/232683031372?epid=101725619&hash=item362cfd4b4c:g:-LMAAOSwisZak~mD
However....just for balance
If you are looking to upgrade later and just want to get in the game for this assignment and don't mind it being rough then you can save yourself a few quid with this Sigma 120-400mm
https://www.mpb.com/en-uk/used-equipment/used-photo-and-video/used-lenses/used-canon-fit-lenses/sigma-120-400mm-f-4-5-5-6-dg-os-hsm-canon-ef-fit/sku-711854/

Some 260fps footage by Philip Bloom.
 

In my experience, the most significant part of the mojo of most cameras still resides within the circuitry of whoever is operating it.
I've made enough bad images with good cameras to recognise it.
Prefix it with "Then"  and it will be interpreted as such but honestly I'm just not going to engage any more with this.
Its no coincidence that every thread that I open that you are involved in might as well start auto playing the theme tune from Rocky.
English may not be your first language but antagonism might well be.

I think the ES that @jonpais is using is "Errata Sendorum", which is an old Latin phrase used in English contract law in reference to failing to deliver an SLR Magic Rangefinder

This.
The thing to look for isn't so much Mojo but Mego as in it makes you want to go out and use it.
That's what concerns me about the A7iii as its a great spec but the only thing I ever feel like shooting after picking up one of their cameras is myself, with a large calibre pistol.
 

If it was so definable and attributable to particular cameras then every single "Guess The Camera" thread would have a majority of right answers surely?
And they really don't.
At all.

This.
The thing to look for isn't so much Mojo but Mego as in it makes you want to go out and use it.
That's what concerns me about the A7iii as its a great spec but the only thing I ever feel like shooting after picking up one of their cameras is myself, with a large calibre pistol.