noone

A first version A7s (or second for that matter but dearer) and it does not MATTER what lenses you use as it is only getting warmed up at ISO 6400. You could use your existing 17-40 Canon f4 (as well as the others) with a cheapish adapter as long as you are happy with manual focus (AF is very slow with Canon lenses on the A7s). Even ISO"s like 25600 and higher still are usable in many cases with it ( I have had ordinary photos of bands published in newspapers at decent size at ISO 51200 with my first A7s). It can do 4k with a recorder later if you need it as well has having some of the best native 1080 still. You can also use it with fast (or any) primes as a 2x zoom if you like as well as having ok APSC mode (APSC is a bit limited for stills but fine for video use if not as good as FF). A7s , ISO 12800 with a Canon f4 lens (at 5.6) and ISO 102,400 again with a Canon f4 lens this time at f4 (in order to use a very fast shutter speed in low light)

Not arguing with the maths and you may be right for the death rate of those who are hospitalized but I think for those those getting it at all, the death rate is a lot lower. It seems as if many more people go to hospital as a percentage than do for flu but some strains of flu do kill more people and the worst thing about this (and why it WILL spread everywhere) is that you can be infected by someone long before they get sick and by the time anyone knows they have it, it is too late for those they are in contact with. Good thing I am anti-social.

Time to start a thread..."Canon closes down five factories" No? Seriously, I do not think this is all THAT serious as an illness (ok it IS bad) even though I am now (just) over 60 and diabetic. It seems to be much LESS fatal than many flu variants and many do not even really get sick (not to downplay it, many do). I guess sooner or later we will all get it unless a vaccine comes fast. I feel for the people who are going to lose money and jobs over this though...especially in tourism related jobs in the first instance and quickly to others after. Oh well, I just wish I had the money to produce a few thousand designer masks to flog

To me, the colour is better than others in low light (once you have your WB set) maybe because noise gets out of the way. in low light, people do not see anywhere near as great a DR as we do on good light so it does not matter if it is reduced but the A7s just has the DR reduce at a more gentle rate than other cameras. The AWB is a bit off at any ISO in artificial light (EG for long exposure at ISO 100 at night along a city street). It is fine in daylight.

Again, I disagree there IS a problem. The Live view grading app is just meant to give those who want it millions of settings to apply in camera. Most would find something they like fairly quickly but if you WANTED to check every setting, that could take years but you do not have to. The colour "issue" to me is the AWB in (some) artificial light and that takes a couple of seconds to change.

I disagree about alien colour though AWB colour can be very off at night. If you want to play with things in camera, there is the Sony live view grading app. You could play with hundreds of combinations every day for years and still not exhaust them. And as stated, Andrew's colour profiles.

The A7s is still my all time favourite camera for both stills and video. I had one for around four years until it died and no way i can afford another one but my family recently got me a new one for my birthday. There is STILL no camera i would take over it in really low light (there are now some that are close and even a few that are better in the ISO 3200-12800 range but above that, no, I do not think so). The A7s has greater DR at ISO 25600 for instance than many cameras have at ISO 6400. It is NOT a camera for anyone that wants a massive pixel count and forget about AFC but it is still actually a pretty good camera even for daytime use. Its 1080 is still some of the best native 1080 (some 4k cameras downsized beat it now though) and while auto focus kinda sucks, in one respect it is better than most for AF and that is its ability to focus for AFS in stills at least in almost no light. (AF in video IS ok if your subject is moving fairly slowly in a limited area EG a rock band that is not too high energy). Auto WB sucks a bit (depending on the light). I find the colours from it to be great (closer to realistic than most) and if you want more colour choice, this is a camera that can take the Live View grading APP from Sony (costs about $10) and gives you years worth of combinations in camera. To me, it shines for low light still and video and that included sports with a manual focus 300 2.8 as I can still be shooting at high enough shutter speeds long after I would have had to put other cameras I have had away. ...I also like walking around at night with a tilt shift lens hand held. The EVF is good enough that along with the cameras high ISO, you can see through the EVF (or LCD) in light that i can not see with my eyes alone. So for ME, it is still as good as it gets but others would absolutely hate it.

Funny thing is I had the Nikon 35 1.4 and hated it. To be fair though mine had issues when i got it that I knew it had before I did. It was just a bit too "vailed" for me wide open and I thought it was not really usable wide open so I would have been better with a slower 35. I might have thought better of it with a better copy though and 35mm lenses have not been a thing for me really either. It probably did not help that i mostly used it mounted bare on Pentax DSLRs at the time (they fit kind of mounted on Pentax turning the other way but as ever, do this at your own risk). You have showed that may well have been just my copy.

So what program should I get/use to upscale video from my late Dads ancient Canon G10 that only does SD at best (but has really nice stills at base ISO and inbuilt ND filter).

Yes, I probably will use it to video a song or two. I have not been shooting concerts often for ages since my first A7s broke but my family got me a new one recently for my birthday so I have been doing the odd show. I am getting old now and some of my favourite venues and festivals have closed/ceased too so just the odd show for friends and bands I like now and maybe some Blues club events. It actually DOES see in the dark or at least as close too as is possible I think ( there has to be SOME light somewhere but that can just be an LED on an appliance and certainly far better than my eyes can see).

Stills. I am looking for something to shoot video with this. As I said, it is all I am going to use for the next few weeks (well maybe my late dads Fuji superzoom if a battery turns up for it soon). I love the original A7s , my all time favourite camera. AWB is off though something I did not pay as much attention to as I should have with my first one. I may have been wrong about the two 24s having different number of blades (I could have sworn I saw that recently).

Yeah the prices of some are just plain silly. There is a bit of myth/legend about the first FD 24 1.4 though. I guess they probably did not make too many of them and while optically the same (I think) the first version has an extra blade so i guess many of those are really for collectors now. Then there is the fact that no one else made a 24 1.4 for a very long time (even now there are not that many....just the 2 FD versions, the 2 EF Canon versions, 1 Nikon, 1 Sigma and 1 leica (edit and the new Sony) and maybe one or two others at most and most of them have come in the last 10 to 15 years or so). I really did love the 50 1.2 L but I like the Sony Zeiss 55 1.8 even more though I still regret selling the FD 50 L. I wish my 85 did not have the dissolving bearings thing too and I think the three lens set of FD Ls 24/50/85 is pretty special still and differs from any other legacy lens set in all having those large hand ground aspheric elements. A few more from the 24 (the first stopped down a fraction, the second wide open as is the third)

A lot of larger size lenses use filter holders with filters to fit. I have a polariser with filter holder for my Canon 17mm tilt shift lens (not that i use it much) that fits on the front of the lens. Then there are also some filters that fit into rear filter holders on a few lenses (EG Canon 17-40 L) and some longer telephotos have a filter holder that slots into the lens (means a small filter can be used on a large lens...EG my old 300mm 2.8 Tamron adaptall)..

Come to think of it, while there is nothing to stop him using it as art, Fuji using it as an advert could be an issue (what if some of those people work for other camera companies?). or if they insisted they did not want their image used in an ad for any reason really. I do not like having my photo taken (I once had a couple of girls photograph me when i was getting money out of automatic teller and i was pretty ticked off about it).

I have had this lens for ages. Not something I have used a real lot but I do love it and think I am going to use it as the only lens I use for a few weeks. Mine does not have a build date mark (that I can find anyway) and is a battered old copy externally but nothing wrong with the glass. A small lens for the speed. Is actually usable in a pinch for landscape infinity shots though much better stopped down or close in. Has a large hand ground front aspheric element. On Sony it also works great as a super fast 2x zoom for jpegs and video. Well worth getting if you can get one at a decent price (there are some that are at collectors prices on Ebay). Just snaps walking around. wide open and 5.6 at distance. Close in at 1.4 and again at 2x clearzoom. I took a photo of a friend I met that i would love to post but do not think she would appreciate it. Will have to find a nice stranger to shoot and post as well as video from it.

No answer regards the camera but I would go for old FF manual focus lenses on a no budget budget as they can fit both cameras regardless of sensor size. Focal reducers are not free so there is some cost (not sure what prices are like for you). There are some cheapish brands on Ebay though maybe not for the FF Pana yet (REAL speedboosters ...a brand name, are quite expensive). There ARE some that are almost free but that is because they are terrible (Light Cannon was originally a focal reducer for M43 and maybe others but ended up being sold as "soft focus adapters" and even given away free with other products).

Not for me but seems like a brilliant camera. I briefly had my late dads original X100 and X100f before giving them to relatives.

Again, I used MY kit which is mostly old stuff that does not cost that much. Of course a 1.4 lens on a larger sensor has shallower DOF than the same lens on a smaller sensor. My point is simply there is much more choice AVAILABLE for shallower DOF with FF than there is currently with a GFX. There are actually lenses made for larger formats that blow away anything made for FF (EG there is even 250mm f0.75 large format lens and 150mm f0.75 medium format lens both for aerial photography...not that i would ever see either of those)...those are not used for shallow DOF though but more for their speed....how would one of THOSE go on a FF camera with a speed booster? (actually probably not great as it would probably not give any increase really for technical limits). I actually do not use shallow DOF all that much but rather I use the RIGHT DOF for MY purposes. Even a f0.75 lens can have infinite DOF at some distance (those aerial lenses for instance are made for use at distance). The problem with using fast lenses wide open for landscapes for example where the result might not be great with fast wide angles is more likely to be a field curvature issue than anything else. My 85 1.2 lens was/is (it needs a repair though still works) usually used stopped down to f2 or 2.8 or even f4. Same with the 50 1.2 lenses I had. My 300 2.8 I mostly use AT 2.8 but that is because I think that is the sweet spot for human sized subjects at the distance i use it and giving me high enough shutter speeds (especially at night) at a subject isolating DOF. When I had the money, i almost purchased an old Nikon 300 f2 though am glad i did not now that I am getting old. Again, I AGREE that IF you have the lenses larger formats give more DOF control but again, the lenses are just not there. If you just want a lens to fit, well FF Sony can pretty much take any lens made ....there are even adapters for M43 but they mostly have a huge vignette (though you can remove that in camera using clear zoom). Or a lens like the Ibelux 40 f0.85 that is actually made for E mount (again APSC with vignetting FF that can be removed with clear zoom)....Lots of isolated adapted choices either way. but "normal" lenses?

Just pointing out that you are using a few examples that get you close to getting AS shallow DOF with it than is readily available FF but those are few and far between and do not get you SHALLOWER than what you can get for the most part. There are many valid reasons to get the GFX and I think the OP SHOULD get it over the Canon from what he has said but given existing lenses that are available, shallow DOF still usually goes to FF over the GFX for now anyway for the most part. If you just use slow lenses on either, then yes, the GFX DOF control is "better" (my opinion). 300 2.8 is a sweet spot for FF for me too since I use it sometimes for live bands outdoors at night or low light gigs with room and I need the high ISO I get withmy FF camera.

You still have the same issue, even with speedboosters/focal reducers for larger format lens in that there are not that many that are available that become any faster than lenses already available for FF. You will have some that will be about AS fast but not really any faster and of course, any lens you can speedboost for MF you should be able to do likewise for FF. FF lenses are sometimes not that far off of the limits to speed that can be made readily which is why that seems to be the sweetspot in that you can make "affordable" lenses that are only a stop or two slower than the limits in air (f0.5 or 0.6 is it?) Bigger than FF and the market is a LOT smaller, and the lenses are bigger so they cost more and do not usually get made in any great numbers and especially at faster speeds. My kit of (mostly) ancient lenses includes a 24 1.4, an 85 1.2 and 300 2.8 and I used to have a couple of 50 1.2 (oh and I have a 135mm 1.8 even if it is not very good) lenses used FF ....what would I use to replace those with the GFX that had shallower DOF? No question that it should work if there were the lenses available but there are not. I would also love to try my Canon 17mm f4 L TS-E on a GFX as it would fit without vignetting and be wider.

Only if all things are equal and they are not as there are not as many fast lenses for MF than there are for FF. There are actually some MF lenses (mainly for aerial photography) that are just silly fast but are very rare and very expensive while more "regular" lenses favour FF for speed at the moment. The fastest lens for the GFX is what, 110 f2? So about a 87mm 1.2 equivalent? There are a few f1 lenses for FF as well as 1.2 and lots of 1.4.

I am sure the S1 does for versatility as does probably every other FF camera made in the last four years. Above ISO 12800 though (which is what i am often at for stills and my limited video use, I would prefer the A7s). I do not need 4k yet.

My camera owning plans for 2020 is to still be alive to continue to own my new first version A7s. There is still no other camera I would take over it for my needs shooting in low light for stills and video (a few cameras are better now around the ISO 3200 range but at ISO 25600 it has greater DR than some cameras do at much lower levels). My lenses are pretty much were I want them and settled for the A7s. I Will probably be letting go my other digital ILC's and MAYBE later this year buying another cheap APSC E mount back up. I WILL be buying lots of very cheap P&S and camcorder type cameras and similar to play with for next to nothing . Makes me interested in at least half decent video up resizing software (the P&S cameras have only 720p video and the camcorders often even only SD)... my Dad' ancient Canon G10 with a built in ND and much better stills than a tiny P&S sensor of its age should have (but low res video) Want a battery for my late Dad's other camera, a Fuji superzoom to give it a try (small sensor and only 720p)

Then again, if this was just an ordinary FD lens I would just bin it but some are still quite expensive (24 1.4L, 50 1.2 L, this 85 1.2L still go for as much or more than many half decent new lenses) and then there are some real exotics in longer lenses like the 300 2.8 L ETC and the there are real starts like the 200 1.8 L. The type of repair of those would depend on what it is. The problem with my 85 1.2 L is the focus throw has become quite loose most likely due to bearings "dissolving" so I do not THINK it would be all that dear as nothing to do with anything optical.

HMM, OK, Thanks. Guess I just use it sparingly when I can take my time focusing with it.