Looking to maybe replace a couple of aging GH2s

[FLruckas]

But I'm not seeing a lot of options.

I'm looking for something in the same size that has a fully articulating screen and shoots decent 4k.

Looking to say with the m4/3 mount.

Also not super interested in cameras introduced 2 years ago.

Not really a fan of the GH5s. If I'm going to get a camera that big I'll just go ahead and get an APS-C or FF camera.

I really like the form factor on the GH2.

It's way more stealthy than my C200 or Blackmagic cameras.

I might be interested in the new pocket, but I don't like the big screen where everyone can watch what I'm doing, and I doubt it will have decent focus. I'd really wished they'd offered an EVF version and it will draw more attention than my GH2s do.

I'm a bit spoiled with the DPAF on the C200.

I'm just not seeing anything that checks off all my boxes.

 

[yazcui]

If you're looking for stealth and focus, why not just go for a sony a6500 (for 4k) or EOS M100?

 

[caterpillar]

But I'm not seeing a lot of options.

I'm looking for something in the same size that has a fully articulating screen and shoots decent 4k.

Looking to say with the m4/3 mount.

Also not super interested in cameras introduced 2 years ago.

Not really a fan of the GH5s. If I'm going to get a camera that big I'll just go ahead and get an APS-C or FF camera.

I really like the form factor on the GH2.

It's way more stealthy than my C200 or Blackmagic cameras.

I might be interested in the new pocket, but I don't like the big screen where everyone can watch what I'm doing, and I doubt it will have decent focus. I'd really wished they'd offered an EVF version and it will draw more attention than my GH2s do.

I'm a bit spoiled with the DPAF on the C200.

I'm just not seeing anything that checks off all my boxes.

 

[FLruckas]

If you're looking for stealth and focus, why not just go for a sony a6500 (for 4k) or EOS M100?

"Looking to stay with the m4/3 mount."

 

[kooistraalexander]

Thats because it's an impossible set of features you want. Something has got to give.

I'm just not seeing anything that checks off all my boxes.

 

[FLruckas]

But I'm not seeing a lot of options.

I'm looking for something in the same size that has a fully articulating screen and shoots decent 4k.

Looking to say with the m4/3 mount.

Also not super interested in cameras introduced 2 years ago.

Not really a fan of the GH5s. If I'm going to get a camera that big I'll just go ahead and get an APS-C or FF camera.

I really like the form factor on the GH2.

It's way more stealthy than my C200 or Blackmagic cameras.

I might be interested in the new pocket, but I don't like the big screen where everyone can watch what I'm doing, and I doubt it will have decent focus. I'd really wished they'd offered an EVF version and it will draw more attention than my GH2s do.

I'm a bit spoiled with the DPAF on the C200.

I'm just not seeing anything that checks off all my boxes.

 

[Jon555]

You're not getting decent video-AF with m43 (it's really just Canon, with Sony the only other one worth considering).

So:

(1) Get a GH5, it's been out a while and there are some deals around (I got a stonking one BTW). Why? 'Cos 4k 10-bit 422! Oh and Dual-IS2 with a suitable lens (so a kit with the 12-60 Leica is always a plan). But? The video AF is really just for masochists.

(2) Get a Sony RX100V (I also got a great deal on mine). Why? Teeny and really good 4k. But? IS isn't great in 4k.

(3) Wait for Canon to do a EOS-M camera with DPAF that works in 4k. Might be a while tho...

 

[yazcui]

You're not getting decent video-AF with m43 (it's really just Canon, with Sony the only other one worth considering).

So:

(1) Get a GH5, it's been out a while and there are some deals around (I got a stonking one BTW). Why? 'Cos 4k 10-bit 422! Oh and Dual-IS2 with a suitable lens (so a kit with the 12-60 Leica is always a plan). But? The video AF is really just for masochists.

(2) Get a Sony RX100V (I also got a great deal on mine). Why? Teeny and really good 4k. But? IS isn't great in 4k.

(3) Wait for Canon to do a EOS-M camera with DPAF that works in 4k. Might be a while tho...

Good points. That's what I'm actually doing. There is a rumored canon camera geared towards video with an EF mount, might be revealed around Photonika *september* . In the meantime I bought a used EOS M6, and if my dream camera comes out, I just sell this for nearly the same price I bought it. Not a big loss.

 

[caterpillar]

But I'm not seeing a lot of options.

I'm looking for something in the same size that has a fully articulating screen and shoots decent 4k.

Looking to say with the m4/3 mount.

Also not super interested in cameras introduced 2 years ago.

Not really a fan of the GH5s. If I'm going to get a camera that big I'll just go ahead and get an APS-C or FF camera.

I really like the form factor on the GH2.

It's way more stealthy than my C200 or Blackmagic cameras.

I might be interested in the new pocket, but I don't like the big screen where everyone can watch what I'm doing, and I doubt it will have decent focus. I'd really wished they'd offered an EVF version and it will draw more attention than my GH2s do.

I'm a bit spoiled with the DPAF on the C200.

I'm just not seeing anything that checks off all my boxes.

 

[Jon555]

But I'm not seeing a lot of options.

I'm looking for something in the same size that has a fully articulating screen and shoots decent 4k.

Looking to say with the m4/3 mount.

Also not super interested in cameras introduced 2 years ago.

Not really a fan of the GH5s. If I'm going to get a camera that big I'll just go ahead and get an APS-C or FF camera.

I really like the form factor on the GH2.

It's way more stealthy than my C200 or Blackmagic cameras.

I might be interested in the new pocket, but I don't like the big screen where everyone can watch what I'm doing, and I doubt it will have decent focus. I'd really wished they'd offered an EVF version and it will draw more attention than my GH2s do.

I'm a bit spoiled with the DPAF on the C200.

I'm just not seeing anything that checks off all my boxes.

--
,,,The Ring,,,

Would a G85 interest you? it is still a big leap now from the GH2. It's even better in some areas vs the GH4, though when it comes to true and blue video controls and features the GH4 wins. But for most other thiggs, the G85 is more advanced. The g85 is slightly bigger than your gh2, but maybe it's good enough for you. Here is the comparison sizes of the GH2, GH5, G85, and I put the new Sony A7-iii just to see how that goes.

https://camerasize.com/compact/#777,166,689,698,ha,fy

I thought of putting the smaller GX85, but that has no mic input, and is not fully articulating. That is cheaper and smaller to your liking. Has IBIS too. Personally, I can live with the lack of full flippy screen. I can always use my smartphone and the lumix app to have a reverse view.

In the lineup, I got the A7-3. No regrets on video and photo. AF is top notch. Good all around. Has mic input and audio out, good long battery life (2.5 hours 4k video), etc. What you may not like is the lack of a fully articulating screen. I can live with that minor lack, not sure about you. The touch screen is also on focusing and tap to zoom in and out only in photo review. Not in all context like the gh5, ,g9, g85, etc.

The other hindrance to the A7 iii is the U$2,000 price tag. Plus the need for 35FF lenses. You can use adapted canon lenses (that's what I use now), but you will not have AF-C, and lose some other features. But the eye focus and face detection is really very effective and useful in photo mode. I sold my G85 and 2 canon cameras for this (But I like the g85 that I might pick up one in the future). I use canon lenses for my lenses now, but plan to get the native E-mount lens of Tamron (28-75 f2.8) when it becomes available.

Think about these carefully because any choice you make outside of MFT will involve a bit of a cost, and the need for a new lens lineup. The reason I went for the A7 iii is I think this model will be very viable for the next 5 years at least. Whatever the A7 iv has in the future, I think it will still not invalidate the A7 iii. I think it will last 7 years on avg. And any new update I do in the future, the A7 iii can be used as a backup or 2nd camera.

I don't know much about Olympus, but as far as Panasonic goes, I like them too. In fact, I will go dual system (I still have my 15, 25 f1.4, 45, 12-35 f2.8, 14-150, etc lenses). I'll just wait for the g85 replacement or pick up a used g85 next year when it is replaced. It should go down to U$500 or so like what the G7 is now.

--
------------------
- Caterpillar
'Always in the process of changing, growing, and transforming.'

I think you're right on the G85. It is as close as I can get, although it's almost 2 years old.

In my experience, it all depends on what innovations are there in the last 2 years. Canon has hardly made anything that leaps out of the box the past 10 years or so. For example, when the 5d2, came out, it was revolutionary in 2009. But it is now 2018 and significant jump there is putting maybe 3-4 dozen more AF, and the 4k is a pain to use. With Sony, you have 4.5 years only from the first A7, and yet, you see a massive jump in innovation. From no 4k, no IBIS, etc to what the A7-3 is now. Even the 5d4 at U$3,200 is beaten by this camera costing only u$2,000! And it is about 50% at least of what the it's top dog, the 1Dx2, at U$6,300 or so, can do! And even that camera can't do as well some things that the A7-3 can!

Except Canon are the only people with a video-AF system that works well (unlike my GH5, for example).

As far as the G85, that made up a lot of tech jump from the G7 and even the Gh4! The IBIS now is really so good, no more shutter shock, AF is way faster, etc. I know because I still have the Gx7 which is still very good, though it's 25 AF-points and no 4k is already showing its true age. The newer GX9 isn't much better. It's like a GX85 plus only, not really the successor to the GX8.

So, no, 2 years in this case isn't a cause of concern. Now, 16mp may bother you, as the others are already 20mp. But then again, that is 16mp without any AA filter! I compared the output of that in rez with my now sold 5d2 (20mp) and it is on par with that sensor w/c has AA filter. So, unless you really need more pixels, for other types of photography, 16mp is just fine. Right now, I am only at 10mp with my A7-3 as I am just using my aps-c E-mount lenses in crop mode, and that doesn't bother me. In 2004-2010, we've shot weddings using 8mp and later 10mp only, and that didn't bother anyone. So, 16mp and 24mp is really plenty already unless you do serious landscape or you have to crop heavily.

The camera size comparison you did is nice.

That looks like a good website for comparing camera size.

Yes, it is. You can attach some lenses too and see how it compares to the others if you want to see how the total package will look. You can do a top viwe and side view too.

I respect the Sonys.

I just don't have the budget for a 3rd lens ecosystem.

I understand. That was my predicament too. But in my case, I already had Canon mount lenses so, I knew I could transition with those + a good adapter.

And I prefer native lenses in any format to adapted.

To some extent, in my case. yes. For wides, and non critical work, maybe no need. For example, my canon mount tamron 17-35 f2.8-4.0 Di is just fine (for now?) + adapter. I don't need the AF as that has a deeper DOF. I can go manual focus and focus about 7ft at f5.6-7.1 at 17mm and I should get a very deep DOF to about infinity. If I buy the native lens (16-35 f4), that might set me back another U$1000+ !

But for other things, like maybe the std zoom lens, I have to go native. Good thing that Tamron 28-75 f2.8 RXD came along just in time. Saves me a lot of money. The rest, the 50 stm, 85 f1.8 usm, will still be canon + adapter. Again, those will probably save me another U$1,100 at least.

But then again, that's only because I can use my canon lenses. If you don't have those, that will cost more unless you go 3rd party or sell off your old gear and switch. But of course the gh2 is not exatly new anymore so, you will probably still spend a lot more to switch.

I would be probably more inclined to update my aging Canon lenses before buying into Sony as well.

Thought about that too. But in the long run, we are going to be switching to MILCs. My forecast is 3-5 years, with 3 years as the turn point where MILCs overtake DSLR sales (over 50%). The funny thing is, once Canikon moves into this direction, they will even accelerate this switch faster, so that could happen even in 2 years time. Then another 2-3 years before we see a 85-90%+ of MILCs.

Depends which mount Canon use for FF mirrorless, might be EF (not sure that would be a great idea, but you can see the logic, 110M lenses and all).

If such scenario comes true, and most likely it will, I see no point in investing in canon dslr lenses, unless they are the cheap ones (eg 50 stm, 85 f1.8, 100 f2.0, 35 f2.0, etc). Anything mroe than U$850 is not ok for me.

Pretty sure DSLRs will still be working in 10 years time. The question is whether someone comes up with some new advances that are must-haves, as frankly most of the recent improvements are irrelevant to the bulk of people out there.

I have a C200 and a BMPC and since I'm becoming more video centric I'm still leaning heavy on the Canon glass.

Glad to hear the A7 3 is working well for you.

It is. It is fun to be able to use my canon lens in Sony while I figure out which ones I need to get native. I am sure I need the tamron 28-75 f2.8. But the rest, I'll just use my canon lenses and when I hit some bumps using them and it starts to limit me, then I know for sure, I need to replace them. In my estimate, I need to get a better wide angle zoom and the tamron 17-35 may be the first casualty. But then again, that depends on the usage. I'll know in the next few months.

The other good news is, I may not get the 16-35 but the 12-24 instead. Go wider. It's also cheaper. Or... go primes. The laowa 15mm f2.0 is small, light, optically excellent with hardly any distoritions. Yes, it ia a manual only lens, but then again, at that wide, the DOF is still going to be deep anyway, that you can set your focus the hyperfocal distance and leave it there.

As I said before, there are times, that tech just leaps way ahead. The 5d2 was one such tech, so with the Nikon d90. And sometimes, the camera just matures and hit the sweet spot on everthing. That was the 20d with me in ca 2004. You know that if you get these things, you will last 5-7 years and be relevant regardless of the next iteration. The A7-3 is one of those.

Still have my 20D and 5D2, although they don't get used
(Well, the 5D2 occasionally.)

As for the g85, I suggest you take a good look at that. I like that camera. Weather sealed., decent battery life, no overheating in 4k video, excellent IBIS (not as good as Oly but very, very good still!). very sharp images, good colors, good video tools (not as comprehensive as the GH family, but still decent), flip screen, etc. The only weakness of that camera is AF-C is still not as good as the Sony or Canon DPAF. So, if you are shooting sports/action in photo or video, you may experience lots of mis focus. With the G9, things have improved a bit. I am sure that R&D is burning to make that problem go away. I expect the Gx90 to be able to AF-C reasonably well even in moderate action. But for other things, for me, the g85 still ticks a lot of good points to be of use. Just be aware of its limitations.

Thanks for writing such a detailed response.

Anytime!

--
,,,The Ring,,,

--
------------------
- Caterpillar
'Always in the process of changing, growing, and transforming.'

 

[caterpillar]

I think you're right on the G85. It is as close as I can get, although it's almost 2 years old.

In my experience, it all depends on what innovations are there in the last 2 years. Canon has hardly made anything that leaps out of the box the past 10 years or so. For example, when the 5d2, came out, it was revolutionary in 2009. But it is now 2018 and significant jump there is putting maybe 3-4 dozen more AF, and the 4k is a pain to use. With Sony, you have 4.5 years only from the first A7, and yet, you see a massive jump in innovation. From no 4k, no IBIS, etc to what the A7-3 is now. Even the 5d4 at U$3,200 is beaten by this camera costing only u$2,000! And it is about 50% at least of what the it's top dog, the 1Dx2, at U$6,300 or so, can do! And even that camera can't do as well some things that the A7-3 can!

Except Canon are the only people with a video-AF system that works well (unlike my GH5, for example).

You have not heard of Sony?

Having tested the Panasonic G9, the AF-C has improved. Still not Canon-Sony class, but it is a definitive step. How they can do this with CDAF instead of PDAF or DPAF, shows you that there are many ways to skin the cat. I hope in their 2019 releases, they refine this way better and introduce it to their lower end models.

As far as the G85, that made up a lot of tech jump from the G7 and even the Gh4! The IBIS now is really so good, no more shutter shock, AF is way faster, etc. I know because I still have the Gx7 which is still very good, though it's 25 AF-points and no 4k is already showing its true age. The newer GX9 isn't much better. It's like a GX85 plus only, not really the successor to the GX8.

So, no, 2 years in this case isn't a cause of concern. Now, 16mp may bother you, as the others are already 20mp. But then again, that is 16mp without any AA filter! I compared the output of that in rez with my now sold 5d2 (20mp) and it is on par with that sensor w/c has AA filter. So, unless you really need more pixels, for other types of photography, 16mp is just fine. Right now, I am only at 10mp with my A7-3 as I am just using my aps-c E-mount lenses in crop mode, and that doesn't bother me. In 2004-2010, we've shot weddings using 8mp and later 10mp only, and that didn't bother anyone. So, 16mp and 24mp is really plenty already unless you do serious landscape or you have to crop heavily.

The camera size comparison you did is nice.

That looks like a good website for comparing camera size.

Yes, it is. You can attach some lenses too and see how it compares to the others if you want to see how the total package will look. You can do a top viwe and side view too.

I respect the Sonys.

I just don't have the budget for a 3rd lens ecosystem.

I understand. That was my predicament too. But in my case, I already had Canon mount lenses so, I knew I could transition with those + a good adapter.

And I prefer native lenses in any format to adapted.

To some extent, in my case. yes. For wides, and non critical work, maybe no need. For example, my canon mount tamron 17-35 f2.8-4.0 Di is just fine (for now?) + adapter. I don't need the AF as that has a deeper DOF. I can go manual focus and focus about 7ft at f5.6-7.1 at 17mm and I should get a very deep DOF to about infinity. If I buy the native lens (16-35 f4), that might set me back another U$1000+ !

But for other things, like maybe the std zoom lens, I have to go native. Good thing that Tamron 28-75 f2.8 RXD came along just in time. Saves me a lot of money. The rest, the 50 stm, 85 f1.8 usm, will still be canon + adapter. Again, those will probably save me another U$1,100 at least.

But then again, that's only because I can use my canon lenses. If you don't have those, that will cost more unless you go 3rd party or sell off your old gear and switch. But of course the gh2 is not exatly new anymore so, you will probably still spend a lot more to switch.

I would be probably more inclined to update my aging Canon lenses before buying into Sony as well.

Thought about that too. But in the long run, we are going to be switching to MILCs. My forecast is 3-5 years, with 3 years as the turn point where MILCs overtake DSLR sales (over 50%). The funny thing is, once Canikon moves into this direction, they will even accelerate this switch faster, so that could happen even in 2 years time. Then another 2-3 years before we see a 85-90%+ of MILCs.

Depends which mount Canon use for FF mirrorless, might be EF (not sure that would be a great idea, but you can see the logic, 110M lenses and all).

And that's the rub - ït depends." And we are still 1 year away with what they will come out. What is certain is this - all those who went MILC dumped what they had and started all over again. Yes, they can take the best of the old tech, but mostly, they started again from scratch. There is wisdom in that and if it eludes many, well, just wait if Canikon tries to maintain the EF mount and use that in MILCs.

If such scenario comes true, and most likely it will, I see no point in investing in canon dslr lenses, unless they are the cheap ones (eg 50 stm, 85 f1.8, 100 f2.0, 35 f2.0, etc). Anything mroe than U$850 is not ok for me.

Pretty sure DSLRs will still be working in 10 years time. The question is whether someone comes up with some new advances that are must-haves, as frankly most of the recent improvements are irrelevant to the bulk of people out there.

Tell us something we don't know. I can still use my 1983 Nikon lenses on Sony MILCs. So with FD lenses. But do they AF? If they AF, are they video ready in AF? I just brought out the granddady of the 70-200 f2.8L, the 50-200 f3.5-4.5L. Does it still work? Well, the AF logic chip is busted. But even if it were working, the AF is noisy, and it is not as fast for real action shots.

Riddle me this - why did Sony have to invent the E mount, when the lense lineup in the MInolta A-mount is there for the taking? What do Olympus, Sony, Panasonic, and Fuji know that they had to create a new electronics-mount when they went MILC?

It's not a question of whether they will be working. They will be, with the proper adapters. The question is will they be ready for what MILC and future imaging will be? I have a C200 and a BMPC and since I'm becoming more video centric I'm still leaning heavy on the Canon glass.

The recent improvements are not irrelevant. I will not elaborate because in time, when you enter the high performance MILC, you will see why even the latest L lenses will fail. To those who know, they are very, much relevant. I know that because I am seeing the limits of my Canon lenses mounted on the A7-3.

Glad to hear the A7 3 is working well for you.

It is. It is fun to be able to use my canon lens in Sony while I figure out which ones I need to get native. I am sure I need the tamron 28-75 f2.8. But the rest, I'll just use my canon lenses and when I hit some bumps using them and it starts to limit me, then I know for sure, I need to replace them. In my estimate, I need to get a better wide angle zoom and the tamron 17-35 may be the first casualty. But then again, that depends on the usage. I'll know in the next few months.

The other good news is, I may not get the 16-35 but the 12-24 instead. Go wider. It's also cheaper. Or... go primes. The laowa 15mm f2.0 is small, light, optically excellent with hardly any distoritions. Yes, it ia a manual only lens, but then again, at that wide, the DOF is still going to be deep anyway, that you can set your focus the hyperfocal distance and leave it there.

As I said before, there are times, that tech just leaps way ahead. The 5d2 was one such tech, so with the Nikon d90. And sometimes, the camera just matures and hit the sweet spot on everthing. That was the 20d with me in ca 2004. You know that if you get these things, you will last 5-7 years and be relevant regardless of the next iteration. The A7-3 is one of those.

Still have my 20D and 5D2, although they don't get used
(Well, the 5D2 occasionally.)

Will keep my old friend the 20d. Sold the 5d2 + grip 2 months ago. Glad I did. .Now the same old Canon lenses work way better with the A7-3.
------------------
- Caterpillar
'Always in the process of changing, growing, and transforming.'

 

[caterpillar]

You're not getting decent video-AF with m43 (it's really just Canon, with Sony the only other one worth considering).

So:

(1) Get a GH5, it's been out a while and there are some deals around (I got a stonking one BTW). Why? 'Cos 4k 10-bit 422! Oh and Dual-IS2 with a suitable lens (so a kit with the 12-60 Leica is always a plan). But? The video AF is really just for masochists.

(2) Get a Sony RX100V (I also got a great deal on mine). Why? Teeny and really good 4k. But? IS isn't great in 4k.

(3) Wait for Canon to do a EOS-M camera with DPAF that works in 4k. Might be a while tho...

Good points. That's what I'm actually doing. There is a rumored canon camera geared towards video with an EF mount, might be revealed around Photonika *september* . In the meantime I bought a used EOS M6, and if my dream camera comes out, I just sell this for nearly the same price I bought it. Not a big loss.

I am not going to bet too much on that. Surely, they will put something on the table, but I don't think it is enough to make heads or tails out of it. They are still burning the midnight oil in their R&D labs. With their 3-5 year tech lag, unless they license some of those tech, they are still going to be behind.

Remember also this - whatever Canon comes out with, regardless if this year or next year is still version 1. It will have many bugs. It will have many things done wrong that cannot be fixed by firmware updates. IF you look at the progression of sony cameras, you will see that their first efforts, even if well thought out still failed in many areas.

If you say that they have had the M series to learn from since 2012-2013, remember that Sony also had the NEX aps-c line to learn from prior to the A7 series. And those years still did not spare them from the version 1 curse.

Finally, I got the M6 last dec on a special x'mas sale for ony U$541 kit. Sold it in 3 months. It just doesn't work for me. The AF is flaky and not as fast. The video AF-C was fine. But the 1080p was so-so, and there's no way to improve the codec, not counting the tools for true video is very basic, if not sparse. Good thing I was able to sell it for the same price.

YMMV, but if Canon's 35FF MILC is anything like the m6 or even 4x of that, it is going to fail vs the Sony a7-3. So, waiting is good. Patience is good. I waited for about 10-12 years for the right 35FF camera. I think I waited about 6.5 years for the right MILC to come along. I bought lesser models in the interim, but that was only by around 2016 when I realized that the ball is rolling for Sony and soon we will have a camera that really delivers the goods. 2 more years, and the A7-3 surprised us all.

 

[Jon555]

I think you're right on the G85. It is as close as I can get, although it's almost 2 years old.

In my experience, it all depends on what innovations are there in the last 2 years. Canon has hardly made anything that leaps out of the box the past 10 years or so. For example, when the 5d2, came out, it was revolutionary in 2009. But it is now 2018 and significant jump there is putting maybe 3-4 dozen more AF, and the 4k is a pain to use. With Sony, you have 4.5 years only from the first A7, and yet, you see a massive jump in innovation. From no 4k, no IBIS, etc to what the A7-3 is now. Even the 5d4 at U$3,200 is beaten by this camera costing only u$2,000! And it is about 50% at least of what the it's top dog, the 1Dx2, at U$6,300 or so, can do! And even that camera can't do as well some things that the A7-3 can!

Except Canon are the only people with a video-AF system that works well (unlike my GH5, for example).

You have not heard of Sony?

Their PDAF is certainly better than Panasonic, but the Video-AF still isn't quite reliable enough for anything you can't do twice and really have to work.

Having tested the Panasonic G9, the AF-C has improved. Still not Canon-Sony class, but it is a definitive step. How they can do this with CDAF instead of PDAF or DPAF, shows you that there are many ways to skin the cat. I hope in their 2019 releases, they refine this way better and introduce it to their lower end models.

As far as the G85, that made up a lot of tech jump from the G7 and even the Gh4! The IBIS now is really so good, no more shutter shock, AF is way faster, etc. I know because I still have the Gx7 which is still very good, though it's 25 AF-points and no 4k is already showing its true age. The newer GX9 isn't much better. It's like a GX85 plus only, not really the successor to the GX8.

So, no, 2 years in this case isn't a cause of concern. Now, 16mp may bother you, as the others are already 20mp. But then again, that is 16mp without any AA filter! I compared the output of that in rez with my now sold 5d2 (20mp) and it is on par with that sensor w/c has AA filter. So, unless you really need more pixels, for other types of photography, 16mp is just fine. Right now, I am only at 10mp with my A7-3 as I am just using my aps-c E-mount lenses in crop mode, and that doesn't bother me. In 2004-2010, we've shot weddings using 8mp and later 10mp only, and that didn't bother anyone. So, 16mp and 24mp is really plenty already unless you do serious landscape or you have to crop heavily.

The camera size comparison you did is nice.

That looks like a good website for comparing camera size.

Yes, it is. You can attach some lenses too and see how it compares to the others if you want to see how the total package will look. You can do a top viwe and side view too.

I respect the Sonys.

I just don't have the budget for a 3rd lens ecosystem.

I understand. That was my predicament too. But in my case, I already had Canon mount lenses so, I knew I could transition with those + a good adapter.

And I prefer native lenses in any format to adapted.

To some extent, in my case. yes. For wides, and non critical work, maybe no need. For example, my canon mount tamron 17-35 f2.8-4.0 Di is just fine (for now?) + adapter. I don't need the AF as that has a deeper DOF. I can go manual focus and focus about 7ft at f5.6-7.1 at 17mm and I should get a very deep DOF to about infinity. If I buy the native lens (16-35 f4), that might set me back another U$1000+ !

But for other things, like maybe the std zoom lens, I have to go native. Good thing that Tamron 28-75 f2.8 RXD came along just in time. Saves me a lot of money. The rest, the 50 stm, 85 f1.8 usm, will still be canon + adapter. Again, those will probably save me another U$1,100 at least.

But then again, that's only because I can use my canon lenses. If you don't have those, that will cost more unless you go 3rd party or sell off your old gear and switch. But of course the gh2 is not exatly new anymore so, you will probably still spend a lot more to switch.

I would be probably more inclined to update my aging Canon lenses before buying into Sony as well.

Thought about that too. But in the long run, we are going to be switching to MILCs. My forecast is 3-5 years, with 3 years as the turn point where MILCs overtake DSLR sales (over 50%). The funny thing is, once Canikon moves into this direction, they will even accelerate this switch faster, so that could happen even in 2 years time. Then another 2-3 years before we see a 85-90%+ of MILCs.

Depends which mount Canon use for FF mirrorless, might be EF (not sure that would be a great idea, but you can see the logic, 110M lenses and all).

And that's the rub - ït depends." And we are still 1 year away with what they will come out. What is certain is this - all those who went MILC dumped what they had and started all over again. Yes, they can take the best of the old tech, but mostly, they started again from scratch. There is wisdom in that and if it eludes many, well, just wait if Canikon tries to maintain the EF mount and use that in MILCs.

If such scenario comes true, and most likely it will, I see no point in investing in canon dslr lenses, unless they are the cheap ones (eg 50 stm, 85 f1.8, 100 f2.0, 35 f2.0, etc). Anything mroe than U$850 is not ok for me.

Pretty sure DSLRs will still be working in 10 years time. The question is whether someone comes up with some new advances that are must-haves, as frankly most of the recent improvements are irrelevant to the bulk of people out there.

Tell us something we don't know. I can still use my 1983 Nikon lenses on Sony MILCs. So with FD lenses. But do they AF? If they AF, are they video ready in AF? I just brought out the granddady of the 70-200 f2.8L, the 50-200 f3.5-4.5L. Does it still work? Well, the AF logic chip is busted. But even if it were working, the AF is noisy, and it is not as fast for real action shots.

Riddle me this - why did Sony have to invent the E mount, when the lense lineup in the MInolta A-mount is there for the taking? What do Olympus, Sony, Panasonic, and Fuji know that they had to create a new electronics-mount when they went MILC?

Yes, but Canon already have a fully-electronic mount so they don't have to change (EF-M is really just EF electronically).

It's not a question of whether they will be working. They will be, with the proper adapters. The question is will they be ready for what MILC and future imaging will be? I have a C200 and a BMPC and since I'm becoming more video centric I'm still leaning heavy on the Canon glass.

The recent improvements are not irrelevant. I will not elaborate because in time, when you enter the high performance MILC, you will see why even the latest L lenses will fail. To those who know, they are very, much relevant. I know that because I am seeing the limits of my Canon lenses mounted on the A7-3.

Since my "latest L lenses" do great on my 5Dsr I'm tempted to disagree. But adapted lenses are always brave (although I might be tempted by an A7sIII if it ever arrives, plus fixes the stuff I don't like in the II).

Glad to hear the A7 3 is working well for you.

It is. It is fun to be able to use my canon lens in Sony while I figure out which ones I need to get native. I am sure I need the tamron 28-75 f2.8. But the rest, I'll just use my canon lenses and when I hit some bumps using them and it starts to limit me, then I know for sure, I need to replace them. In my estimate, I need to get a better wide angle zoom and the tamron 17-35 may be the first casualty. But then again, that depends on the usage. I'll know in the next few months.

The other good news is, I may not get the 16-35 but the 12-24 instead. Go wider. It's also cheaper. Or... go primes. The laowa 15mm f2.0 is small, light, optically excellent with hardly any distoritions. Yes, it ia a manual only lens, but then again, at that wide, the DOF is still going to be deep anyway, that you can set your focus the hyperfocal distance and leave it there.

As I said before, there are times, that tech just leaps way ahead. The 5d2 was one such tech, so with the Nikon d90. And sometimes, the camera just matures and hit the sweet spot on everthing. That was the 20d with me in ca 2004. You know that if you get these things, you will last 5-7 years and be relevant regardless of the next iteration. The A7-3 is one of those.

Still have my 20D and 5D2, although they don't get used
(Well, the 5D2 occasionally.)

Will keep my old friend the 20d. Sold the 5d2 + grip 2 months ago. Glad I did. .Now the same old Canon lenses work way better with the A7-3.

Which adapter? They still seem to have lots of limits. I'd cut-and-paste the metabones issues, but they are a bit long...

Metabones®

------------------
- Caterpillar
'Always in the process of changing, growing, and transforming.'