noone

From all the hype lately I was expecting all the newcomers to shit all over the Sony but it seems to me to still be the winner though the Fuji is very close and I can see why some would call it the winner. There are some very big surprises there (and disappointments). Very interesting test.

To be fair, there is no way on Earth I would have got it if you had resized it Andrew. Very few cameras use 18mp and especially ones from a few years ago and that have 60 year old lenses. Does make me think that an image can pretty much come from any digital camera that isn't TOO old (IE maybe not the real early sub 6mp ILCs or older point and shoot small sensor things.

LOL I actually do have EF, EFS and FD Canon lenses and the funny thing is they all work great (for my uses)- On a Sony! Even the cheap and cheerful Canon APSC 18-55 IS ii kit lens works ok in both APSC and even FF mode from around 24mm and up. WHY Canon does this? Any one guess?

Not soft to me but not high in contrast. I THINK there is a seagull in one of those shots? I had a Biotar 58 f2 not too dissimilar to that (18 blades and single coated on mine).

Leica M9 ? Nah that aint it. I am close though I think.

I just did a google search of photographers here and gave up counting after 6 pages (with many more to go- obviously many with multiple entries but there are PLENTY of them). There is a University here with photography and media courses including post grad and there are a couple of defence force bases that have a lot of staff rotating through that sometimes include spouses of serving personnel who are pro shooters. Most advertise as generalists but weddings seem to be the most mentioned with a few baby photographers ETC. As I said, a lot have things like a 5Diii and 5Div or D850or D750 with maybe some of the more part timers using things like 6D orD600 ETC (increasing number of Sony shooters or those ADDING Sony to other brands). The most "part time" demi-semi-pro of them would be using mid to high APSC gear with some using other formats. Not so many (that advertise anyway) using entry level gear. How about those mall package deal photographers? While they are often from elsewhere, many of them are "full time" with entry APSC gear supplied, are THEY better than someone who uses top notch gear (and knows how to use it) on weekends? Maybe they (weekend warriors) make MORE money doing something else but could still make a comfortable living shooting if they chose. Many part timers are every bit as good as full timers but may choose to be part time for other reasons (I have no problems going to a part time Doctor). There ARE far too many people hanging up a photographers shingle here for them all (or even most) to make a full time living but many are doing things like videography or lecturing or other art work alongside photography and some are students at University, either undergraduate or post graduate.

Sorry Webrunner, I have to disagree with you on this one. The small city I live in (probably under 65000) in rural Australia probably has more people calling themselves professional photographers than ever before. There are a LOT less Newspaper photogs now but lots shooting weddings, parties and anything else. There are no shop front pro photographers here anymore (other than one bloke in a low rent area) and no photography stores (used to be several within a couple of blocks from my home with one across the road) but people earning SOME money from photography is still going VERY strong (if differently to how it was). Geez, there is even a new office in the small building I live in that acts as an agent for around four pro photographers. A lot of those people are also going to be doing other things and for many it might just be a sideline but there are also still plenty of full timers. As for long and fast big lenses, well I hardly see anyone with them regardless of system (though I do use an ancient MF 300 2.8 and have used it with FF, APSC, M43 and Pentax Q). The main reason people stick to xx-300 5.6 or 6.3 zooms is the big stuff is very expensive and the number of FF pro cameras is a fraction of cameras sold so many "pros" might have a pro camera or semi pro camera more likely (5diii or 5div rather than 1dx and maybe some with lower cameras still) but not many are making money from using long lenses. Newspapers these days don't seem to even buy longer lenses except for the bigger papers or they are keeping them longer.

I have never got that either. I have found that in many instances Sony colours are more accurate to reality and in many cases people prefer Sony colours in blind tests. I think it comes down to People getting used to Canon and Nikon colours more over many years and liking what they knew. I have never had any issue with any brand for colours for stills and for video, I just use what I get from the camera. Besides, there is always a much bigger difference in what I see between the various computers, monitors, TVs I look at stuff on.

Not sure. I definitely prefer the second image as the subject stands out from the background more but as far as bokeh goes, they are pretty similar to me. Maybe too much loss of detail in the first due to noise (and a bit of the same in the hair of the second)? I am sure I wouldn't notice in the video though.

I find there to be very little difference between Jpegs and RAW (straight conversion with DXO) with Sony so I mostly shoot Jpegs. With my old Canon that I am using while my A7s is broken, I pretty much HAVE to shoot RAW as the Jpegs are woeful by comparison. Just makes Clear Zoom much better for me and would be especially useful in video in some uses.

Did you crop in post or use Clear Zoom? Clear Zoom works great for jpegs and video and you can effectively turn the lens into a 2x zoom for video with little loss of quality and use it while filming. Sigma has come a long way. I have had four things Sigma, A 28-200 zoom lens that came as a kit lens with a Pentax film camera (Pentax and Sigma had the same distributor in Australia so Sigma lenses were often bundled as kits), it was ok with film but terrible with 6mp Pentax DSLRs. A 200mm MF lens I had briefly before I destroyed it- Was a failed experiment by Sigma I think (had an extra adjustment ring from memory) and it was by far the worst lens I have had that wasn't broken or damaged. An adapter that turns Minolta MC/MD manual focus lenses into auto focus A mount ones (similar to a Pentax 1.7x auto focus adapter and a few others). A 150 2.8 APO macro (non OS version). This one I love though it does play up adapted to FF E mount. The latest art lenses look excellent and quite good value but are a bit too big for my liking generally.

Yeah, try going down the street to buy a camera today (any camera)!

Kipon updates can make a HUGE difference. I had one of the first Kipon EF to M43 adapters and it was not very good for stills as sold for auto focus, many would have said it was close to unusable but after a firmware update it was pretty close to native for AFS at least. Kipon make great stuff.

THAT would not be cheap either! Given they made not that many more than 10,000 copies of the lens in two variations and it hasn't been made for 21 years, it must have been hard to get good ones to rehouse and would not have been many available.

Not sure I agree simply because there is a huge variation between L lenses and some non L lenses are very good (some APSC lenses too). Sometimes, L lenses are better built or don't need a switch to change to manual focus but optically there might not be much difference. The better L lenses are pretty special I think but some are good- just not great. I have had five EF L lenses (and four FD L lenses) and also non L lenses like the 40 2.8 STM and EF 100 f2 and the 40 and 100 are optically as good or better than some of the older EF L lenses for instance. I also find even my EF-S APSC kit lens (18-55 IS ii) is not THAT much worse than my old EF 20-35 2.8 L (though I do love that old lens). Better Sigma lenses would also be a nice fit I think.

10-18 isn't exactly a kit lens either though a bargain priced lens. I wanted one for my Sony A7s to see how much I could use it FF and now I have a cheap old Canon APSC DSLR, I could really be happy using it. If I had a Canon R, I think it would be one of the first lenses I would get for it.

Thanks for that. Your test, you do it how you want to suit yourself. It is definitely EASIER to get shallower DOF with larger sensors. Had this been a test for DOF and not YOUR test (no criticism of yours), it would be easier to match the sensors by stopping the larger sensors down rather than the other way. The distance to subject also matters a lot more too for instance, at 18mm M43, even a difference of 1 metre can make a huge difference in DOF so all the cameras would also need to be matched for distance as well as F stop and focal length. It seem the M43 camera might have been a little further back than some of the others. It also explains why the FF camera is different to the C200 given different sensor sizes at the same lens settings. Regards skin tones, I didn't really notice a huge difference and it was more the background and overall colour that looks very different to me with the Fuji compared to all the others.

I think the background blur is not so obviously the GH5s JUST because it has greater DOF as we don't know the lenses used or aperture ETC. Yes, D is the GH5s but it is using a seemingly wider lens and the DSLR seems to be using a longer lens as well so while it was more likely to be the smaller sensor camera, that doesn't necessarily follow. I actually prefer the GH5s to the Fuji there as the Fuji Blue colours where quite different to the other three. I guess if I looked at it on a few different screens I could get different preferences too. Bottom line they all looked good to me.

That EV -6 AF is a bit misleading I believe. Compared to others it is really about the same as EV -4 or a bit better as they get that figure with a super fast lens while everyone else uses slower I think I saw somewhere.

The ones I don't get are those who "MUST" be paid to bash OTHER brands. Dunno if there are any here but some places seem to have lots of them. I just can not believe so many people are hating a company so much just for making something they don't want to use that they have to tell the world about it endlessly to put others off buying- as a hobby???

I like so many different things I can not just have one favourite focal length. My favourite LENS is 17mm but it is also a tilt shift and I use it shifted a fair bit. I do love the focal length as it means I can shoot a four or five piece rock band and get them all in shot and focus from next to the stage as well as fit in a fairly large building from up close or a building interior or a wide angle landscape. I also love 85mm as a focal length for portraits with reasonably blurred background (using generally from about f2 to 5.6) though anything from around 55mm to 150mm will work for me too shooting within a close distance. I like 150mm as a macro focal length at 1:1 I like 300mm as a focal length for sports and animals and also especially for portraits outdoors with room to move and with enough distance indoors though not often I can use that. I am not so sure I like 17mm for portraits of individuals or 85mm for MOST landscapes (it actually does work but not often for me) and certainly not 85mm and up at fast apertures for landscapes. Not 300mm for complete buildings up close or architecture or full stage band shots either at pub indoor gigs.

While I said the one lens I would have is my 17 tilt shift lens, there is no way I would ever want ONLY one lens. Screen grab from a video using the 17 TS-E (not shifted or tilted here but just as a 17mm lens). Second is a photo with the lens shifted (I always see shots from everyone else- including the newspaper and council- of this building leaning back and I HATE that). Third is photo with a 300 2.8 and no way I could do that with my 17 TS-E.

The Bokeh from that is lovely!

Canon 17 f4 L TS-E. I use it for landscapes, walk around at night, live music stills and video- even for (gasp) architecture and buildings/real estate. It makes a decent 2x zoom (Jpegs and video) as well though you currently need a Sony for that. It is my all time favourite lens. While I am without camera, it is too good to not be used so I have loaned it to a relative who shoots real estate for a property developer with an A7sii. As for another I would like (but alas will be unlikely to ever get), that would currently be the Canon 200 f2.

I still wish all the manufacturers put in a high quality digital VARIABLE digital zoom like Sony does with Clear Image zoom. M43 cameras give their teleconverter modes but they are not variable, just fixed at certain magnifications so can only be used on the fly with zoom lenses really. With Sony and clear zoom, ANY lens becomes a zoom including super fast lenses and exotics like tilt shift lenses. Given how good some primes for mirrorless have become, I can imagine if some of the new FF mirrorless like the Nikon Z's or Canon R would allow something similar that would make them cheaper (that 35 1.8 Nikon Z for instance). It isn't like they can not do it- I recently had an old small Panasonic consumer camcorder that had a 3500x digital zoom (though that was not great quality). This is a repost of my old Canon FD 24 1.4 L used as a 2x zoom. This is hand held with an unstabilized camera and just to give an idea but it is at 1.4 FF so would need a 12-24 f0.75 zoom in M43 or a 16-36 f1 with most APSC cameras. Would love to do new ones but am without a camera currently.