I have been toying with the idea of getting a Sony A7s, once the price drops below $1,000. Shouldn't be long now. I have some excellent OM lenses just waiting for a good home... not to mention a stellar copy of the CV 12/5.6.
But I an joining this thread to mention that these days, I do not think sensor stabilisation is as necessary as it once appeared. I am using a Fuji X-E2 with a few Fuji lenses (and the CV mentioned above, on an adapter) and I have Auto ISO 1 set to 1/125" and ISO 6400. In the last six months I have never needed more than this and the vast majority of the many thousands of images I have made have been keepers (at least from the technical point of view!).
I enjoy the X-E2 with the 27/2.8 more than any of the many other cameras I have bought and sold over the last ten years. It reminds me of a digital OM-1. And I mention the A7s because like many here who grew up and shot 35mm film professionally, there is still some vestigial attraction to "full frame" as it's currently designated.
But, and the reason for this post, more and more I am thinking that APS-C, especially as it manifests in Fuji's hands, is the new "full frame". I use three Panasonic G6 bodies and a bunch of excellent primes for all our video work—shooting and mastering in 1080p, and outputting and showing in 720p. Everyone raves about the video quality, so we will not be moving from µ4/3rds for this use any time soon.
I could not agree more!
First sensor stabilization - while this is definitely a great feature, especially when implemented as IBIS in Olympus cameras, I cannot see the advantage of IBIS above in lens stabilization. Further when using fast primes (which is what I prefer fro my shooting) I also can easily live without IBIS - never ever needed it when shooting either my Leica M's or Nikon SLR's/DSLR's and also do not need it on Fuji bodies. I think IBIS becomes more important when using smaller cameras (and lenses), like many m43 combos, where it becomes increasingly difficult to hold them stable during shooting because of the tiny size and low weight.
Second APSC - already since some time it manifests in my mind that this became the new FF, especially as we are getting out of the low MP sensor ranges and today can rely on stable and great performing 24MP APSC sensors. Add to that the very good implementation of Fuji (XPro2 and upcoming XT2 and XA3) and this becomes a winning combo for almost all shooting situations. Also weight wise APSC cameras and specifically designed lenses for this format are much lighter than FF equivalents. I am getting so lazy lately that even for semi-professional work I do no longer want to lug my FF D810 with some pro glass around, so it sits well stored at home ...
Third video - I have not tested the XT2 video capabilities of course but from all I read and hear I am confident that Fuji made just a perfect implementation of video in this camera, especially with the easy use of all the film simulations without the need to go into post processing for great color as well as 4K implementation (for those who really need it).
I am still holding on to my m43 Olympus gear, mainly because of the great 2.8/40-150 and 2.8/12-40, but I can see that my interest for this system might shrink remarkably when I start shooting with the XT2 and my preferred glass - time will tell. And on top of that Fuji APSC is now finally offering 24MP Fuji IQ, which is kind of my sweet spot for post work including cropping, while m43 seems to be stuck with 20MP for the next years, which is better that 16MP, but not enough for what I want.
One final word about APSC form Nikon (same would apply as well to Canon but I am only shooting Nikon at the moment) - there is no consistent lineup of upper end (Pro) APSC Nikkor lenses after so many years. So one is left with the argument that FF lenses can be used on APSC bodies, but that is some lame excuse, as FF lenses are FAR bigger than special designed APSC lenses!
