You are correct, the A6000 has an electronic viewfinder, and it blacks out the screen when you lift the camera to your eye (or too close to your hand or whatever.) The "black out" and "return" are not as fast as some more expensive cameras, but fast enough that it will not bother you.

The person who said it did not have a viewfinder may be thinking of the A5000.

Anyway, the viewfinder on the A6000 is good, but not great. It is not as fast (or as large) as the viewfinders on the newest cameras, but it is still as fast (and as large) as the viewfinders on most cameras. For the money, and for the size, it is hard to beat

When the A6000 came out, it was the first mirrorless APSC that I can remember with autofocus as fast as a DSLR. Since then, autofocus has gotten slightly faster, but not so much that the A6000 is out-of-date. It is fast enough to catch kids running around, and dogs (in good light), and even indoor sports if you invest in a new lens.

If you put an A6000 up against new $800 cameras, for almost any level of light, the A6000 will be the fastest, or near the fastest. You have to get up to $1500 or so before you find a camera that can focus faster than the A6000.

The tiny kit lens on the A6000 has a lot of distortion, but the camera corrects for it automatically. Unless you turn off the "correction", you will find that the kit lens is sharp (enough), fast (enough), has good color, and good lines. If you turn off the distortion correction, it is kind of a mess.

If you want something cheap and sharp, Sigma makes (or used to make) a 30mm 2.8 lens that was almost ridiculously sharp. It was not stabilized, but it was about $75. Although there are a lot faster lenses now, it is tough to find a sharper lens even at $350.

The first accessory I would get for the A6000 would be a good inexpensive tripod and a Godox 350 flash. With the two of those, you will be able to shoot indoors even with the kit lens, and have the result come out better than you might think.

My first thought given this budget was a Sony A6000.

The A6000 is the most popular camera of all time, and for good reason. (It is cheaper than anything better, and better than anything cheaper.)

Because Sony has "moved on", the A6000 can be purchased new, with a kit lens, within the budget you mentioned. But as far as focus speed, image quality, camera size, (and available accessories for future birthday presents), there is no way to beat the A6000.

Beautiful contrast in the photo. Is that the advantage of this system?

Generally speaking, in any situation where you have good light, a slow-moving subject, and no need to blur the background, a cell phone will take better pictures than a large-sensor camera.

In dim light, or with a fast-moving subject, or when you really need to blur the background, the bigger sensors will work better.

The newer cameras have narrowed each gap by making several sensors work together, but they don't have the light-gathering capability to match a single large sensor. If you are taking pictures of your kids playing basketball under (terrible) high-school gym lighting, you will need a big camera with a big sensor.

For now.

Many people take pictures of their wives (or husbands or whatever) and love the picture because they know and love the person. Someone else viewing the same picture might find it uninteresting.

Good photographers have a knack for understanding what the camera "sees", and composing pictures where the lines, shadows, and framing are enjoyable even without the context.

Great photographers also figure out a way to imply the context.

Remember that at high speeds the whole shutter is not open at once. (So, for example, the bottom of the shutter is not "opened" until the top is already "closed".)

If the flash fires in the middle, then you will have a bright band in the middle, with dark bands at the top and bottom.

HSS flashes overcome this by firing three (or more) flashes rapidly. The little flash built in to the camera doesn't have enough power to fire three times that quickly.

Doubtful.

If mirrorless was better in every way, then people would switch. But right now it is only a little better (in one or two ways), equal (in most ways), or slightly worse (in one or two ways.)

It is like going from 8-track to cassette. Meh.

They are both great cameras. I don't think you can go wrong.

The Z7 has built-in image stabilization, so if you shoot a lot of hand-held at 1/80, then the Z7 might be a better pick. The Z7 also has faster "live view" (video) focus. The D850 video focus is pretty good, but the Z7 is better for video.

Still, the D850 has a batter "camera" autofocus system, particularly in low light. (The Z7 also can't use the AF assist light on Nikon flashes.) If you use a lot of 3D tracking, then go with the D850. (Don't be fooled by the faster processor in the Z7, the D850 is still one of the best tracking cameras you can buy.)

I would say that most people will be happier with the D850 unless you shoot a ton of video.

16mm film was (and still is) a great look. Lots of dynamic range, great colors, and just enough grain to give it a "real" feel.

If you are going to try to re-create that same look in digital, the micro four thirds cameras are your best bet. Not only will they give you a similar depth of field, but the video capabilities of the new Panasonic and Olympus are competitive with much more expensive cameras. In addition, since these are (usually) a lighter weight, once you add the lens, you can use a smaller gimbal.

The exception is the Olympus EM1X, which is a big chunk of camera, but uses the excellent OM-LOG video profile. Even people who dislike the size and weight of the EM1X usually admit that OM-LOG400 has amazing color, and extremely low noise.

Even though the Image Stabilization on these cameras is excellent, you still might want to consider a gimbal for professional work. The newest MFT cameras can give you 5 or 6 stops of stabilization (so for example, 1/60 to 1/30), but if you are shooting "restaurant lighting", what you really want is a stable frame for 20 to 30 seconds. The EM1X has creepy-good image stabilization, but will still only let you shoot handheld if you have REALLY steady hands.

You could use a tripod of course, but if you have been shooting S16, then I am guessing you do a lot of hand-held work, or other work that requires the camera to move.

Resist the urge to try to get the grain by using ISO 12800. High ISO on a digital video camera is completely different from the grain on an S16. If you really are shooting in candlelight, then you need to get one of the big new full frame sensor cameras so you can shoot clean at 12800, and then add the grain in post production. The EM1X is about the best of the MFT right now, and it is good up to about ISO 3200. At ISO 12800, most modern full frame cameras still have a "professional" looking noise profile, but the MFT cameras do not. They are still plenty good for small-screen work (like on a laptop), but that's it.

There are a bunch of differences between Sony, Canon and Nikon when it comes to full frame video, so you may need to read the reviews to determine which is best for you. There is also a new Panasonic Full-frame making waves right now, so if you have the budget, that is also a consideration.

Good luck.

Generally speaking, any feature that starts off working fine and then stops working after 100 shots is suffering from a heat problem.

The Sony A7Riii mostly solved the heat problems of the A7Rii, (and when the camera does overheat, you usually see the "overheat warning" come on), so yours might be a different issue.

But I would still do an experiment some time to see if it is a heat problem: Lay the camera down in front of a fan when it starts acting up, and switch the battery out to a fresh one that you have kept in your cooler. If the focus starts working again, then the processor in your camera is overheating.

The Panasonic S1R kind of looks like the box that the Sony A7Riii came in.

I was wrong - I just looked it up. Apparently Panasonic designed and manufactured the 47MP sensor, and it is going to be used in upcoming Leica cameras.

The sensor that they share with Sony appears to be the 24MP sensor in the S1, which is the "low cost" version of the S1R.

Actually the new S1R uses Leica L-mount lenses. Sigma recently released a 14mm 1.8 for this mount, which would be a really strong combo. The Leica 24-90 (F2.8 to 4) would also be a fantastic lens choice, but that would add another $5000 or so to the price tag.

The Panasonic is obviously a very good camera.

I am surprised that any of the sensor stats beat the Sony A7Riii, since they appear to be using the exact same sensor.

My experience is that the first $2000 you spend on a camera+lens gets you about a 30% to 60% improvement in image quality over a cell phone, depending on what you shoot.

The next $2000 gets you a 5% to 10% improvement.

After that, the improvement in image quality is so minor that the average viewer won't know the difference. The D850 is a very good camera, and the difference between that and a Fuji GFX 50S (for example) is going to be incremental.

If you can look at the pictures and identify the difference you are trying to achieve, then it might be worth the extra money. Remember though that the GFX 50S uses a traditional Bayer Sensor array, rather than the Fuji X-Trans, so some people will actually prefer the "look" of the Fuji ASPC.

Rent one and see. Even if you dislike the size, you will still get a weekend's worth of medium-format pictures to mull over.