noone

Canon EF lenses work great on both systems and there are lots of smart adapters for each. Canon FD, Pentax and older Nikon lenses as well as lots of others adapt well to both systems as well. I have sold of my M43 gear now but might get something again later. I liked having a couple of native lenses for each system and adapting the rest across systems.

No, sorry. The M43 mount is actually shorter than Sony E so any adapter would either lose infinity or have glass in it with a crop factor. There ARE adapters going the other way but they are very thin and only really of use with M43 lenses with mechanical aperture and focus. They are so thin that you might find some lenses wont fit (at least one of my focal reducers would not fit into my adapter when playing around to see what worked).

Never tried the T90 but I actually still have a T80 around here somewhere complete with an auto focus FD 50 1.8 lens.

Well, my pet D50 has a CCD sensor and is about the same for DR at ISO 400 as the A7s is at ISO 6400 (and the difference is greater beyond that). Still, the D50 has a flash sync with a dumb flash at 1/2000 and the Sony (or any other camera I have had) can not do that.

Yeah, my memory is faulty, it seems they were 1", APSC and APSH. I do remember seeing the prices from some of those that seem like a digital box welded to the bottom of a film SLR and thinking you could buy a (lesser) house at the time for the same amount. It does seem like the 6mp Contax was the first FF.

The Contax N digital Wiki page says it was the first FF (again, I could have sworn there were earlier ones). Though (also again), I am sure they were all being developed at the same time. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Contax_N_Digital 'The Contax N Digital was a six-megapixel digital SLR camera produced by Contax in Japan. The camera was announced in late 2000, and began to be sold in spring 2002, after several delays. The camera received mixed reviews from the press,[1] and was withdrawn from the market within a year of its introduction. It was noteworthy for being the first full-frame digital SLR, with an imaging chip the full size of a 135 film frame. All previous digital SLRs had a smaller sensor, giving a cropped view (see magnification factor). The imaging sensor was a Philips FTF3020-C, which had previously been used in the Jenoptik Eyelike medium format digital back.[2] Pentax also planned to use the sensor in a full-frame digital SLR, the Pentax MZ-D,[3] but abandoned work on the prototype in late 2001. The sensor featured ISO settings as low as ISO 25, but the reviews noted that it had a relatively high noise level above ISO 100.[4] The next full-frame digital SLRs were the Canon EOS-1Ds of late 2002, followed by Kodak's DCS Pro 14n in 2003. Nikon and Sony introduced full-frame models in 2007 and 2008 re'

The Pentax was announced in September 2000, demonstrated in Jan 2001 and cancelled in Oct 2001. Contax announced the FF N digital in July 2000 and it was a camera that existed and sold. If I remember rightly there were even earlier FF DSLRs. I think there were a couple of Kodak contraptions that used both Canon and Nikon and at least one was FF?? my memory could be faulty though. I am pretty sure that Canon's IDs which was ANOUNCED in Sep 2002 was in existence before that I don't think any of these companies copied the other but were all working on them at similar times. EDIT The first Kodak contraptions all seem to have been either 1 inch, APSH (1.3x) or APSC sensors (could have sworn they had a FF one to of about 2mp for upwards of $50,000). Kodak did have FF cameras in both Canon and Nikon flavours from around 2002.

All the ti

I guess it is just names/words. The bottom line is they have two standard ISOs instead of the previous one. That leads me to think if there will be cameras with three of more? (for shooting fully the same as in daylight after dark- IS any shutter speed and any aperture).

No, that chart is mainly about RAW stills and nothing to do with S-Log. s-log uses the higher ISO 3200 setting as base but that doesn't mean the camera isn't using dual ISO (they might just call it something different). What it means is if you are using s-log with the original A7s, you are using the second higher "base" ISO only but if you use one of the other settings besides s-log, you would use both if you went from an ISO under 3200 to over it in the same video. No?

I am not so sure about this and I think with the Sony's, it is the same sort of thing (a dual or second base ISO if you like). The video I am thinking of about the comparison with RED might have been about a blending of technologies but even then I think they have had that sort of thing for a while too. If you look at Photons to Photos chart you can see the change in DR at ISO 3200 for the A7s. http://www.photonstophotos.net/Charts/PDR.htm

I think even the first version Sony A7 cameras have dual ISO (A7s does anyway). RED has had dual ISO for ages in some way or other. Wasn't there a comparison video a couple of years ago about it?

That really is remarkable. Their new "basic" FF camera has currently the third highest low light rating in the database (only behind two medium format cameras). It basically has a similar score for low light to the original A7s without all the restrictions and better good light image quality and the much higher pixel count. Once you get to ISO 25600 and up, the A7s and A7sii might still be a fraction better but not enough to make all that much difference (and maybe only a little better DR with the other measures being pretty much identical). The comparison tools certainly show the A7iii to be better generally. I have been wondering if there really IS going to be an A7siii and this has me no wiser but if there IS, it will be beyond my wildest dreams for low light. Now, I guess the best I can hope for is a second hand A7iii in a year or two (or win the lottery).

While I am sure a Canon (AND Nikon) FF mirrorless IS due fairly soon, equally I think that was put out to try and stop some going to the A7iii. I think Canon (and Nikon) will both do very well in sales when they arrive and don't even need to beat Sony as long as they are competent enough.

I don't think it is that Canon holds back features in lower cameras any more than the others (give or take) but just that with 4k in particular, Canon has snookered itself and probably doesn't want the greater whinges that would surely come if one of the lower cameras got it better and earlier than some of the higher ones. They SHOULD have had it in a couple of more recent cameras and then there would not be this discussion but because they have been later to the party they now have to catch up but want to do it in order. I can not imagine any Canon mid to high end camera from now on wont have 4k and dual pixel but it makes sense to me to have crippled the M50 (but only because of 4k not being in anything much Canon)..

A7iii with the Sony Zeiss 55 1.8 (lens can be found a lot cheaper than list price and it is very very nice). Another slightly longer option is the FE 85 1.8 which is to my mind the biggest bargain going in photography right now as well as being just a wonderful lens in its own right.

One thing with the A7iii, you could use your G2 lenses on it with AF even via adapter(though possibly slow AF).

Thing is, that I DID buy the A7s as a stills camera and the video is secondary for me but I love it for the little I do (mostly recording live bands a song or two at a gig on occasion). Just shows we are all different. I don't need tracking AF or fast FPS or more than 12mp often but I do need what the A7s does well and I love its smaller size (to fit into a smaller bag with a couple of lenses). I doubt very many would share my opinion/uses but I don't think I am alone. That the Sony cameras are getting better at high ISO all the time makes me question if there will even BE an A7siii (I think there will be but the "s" line might not live as long as the other two).

It is ok and wide enough though the biggest issue is you have to use the M/A switch so can not just grab the focus ring (at least it wont break if you do like some others do). It has a distance window too.

I had a Zeiss Jena 58 f2 Biotar. Very very small and light though solid metal. Contrast was low but quite sharp and had 17 blades and no click stops. Only single coated (from the early 1950s I think). Wish I had kept it now, would have been fun to use FF. I have an old EF 20-35 2.8 L. Mine was unusable for a year or so until recently as I couldn't move the AF/MF switch but in desperation, I took the switch out and at least it works now. I use it MF on my Sony but have put it back to AF and loaned it to a friend and it still works great on their crop Canon (with tape over the hole where the switch was). I wouldn't call it prime lens quality (at least not the better primes) but in the centre it is very good and on crop cameras the side wont matter so much. If I didn't like using primes with clear zoom so much for jpegs and video on my A7s, I would use the lens a lot more. You have to remember this was a pro lens with film and early digital but was replaced by the 17-35 2.8 L which was replaced by the 16-35 2.8 L which was replaced by the 16-35 2.8 L ii which has been replaced by the 16-35 2.8 l iii. It is still pretty decent and a solid piece of work and I do like it though I suspect I will have difficulty prying it away from my friends daughter.

Do you need AF? I use an old manual focus 300 2.8 with a 1.4x converter if needed (though with Sony I use clear zoom variable zoom to 2x instead lately). The old 300 2.8 lenses are all quite good compared to older slower lenses and many long zooms. If lucky you might get a user condition one in budget. This was with my old Tamron 300 2.8 adaptall and with 2x clear zoom used (I think).

Stay with the A7s for now and start saving for its replacement when it dies or is behind the norm in low light for stills and dabbling in video without grading (IE filming low light rock/blues songs). There is still nothing that would suit me better for what I do and it takes the lenses I am happy with.

I still have not seen anything I want more than my now aging A7s (first version). I can not afford anything new now but if someone wants to give them to me I would take Sony A9, A7Riii and A7iii Panasonic GH5s I would not knock back more than a few others but those are the ones I would pay for if I could (while STILL using my A7s).

For video, and AFC, I agree (though AFC and video AF with native lenses is just as bad with my GX7) but for AFS, the GX7 and Kipon adapter works great with lots of lenses (about native fast and accurate). They actually are no different than the m43 20 1.8 AF lens I had that couldn't be used for AFC at all either. Ones I have used include Sigma 150 2.8 APO, Canon 135 f2 L, Canon 100 f2, Canon 40 2.8 STM (a great portrait lens on m43), 18-55 IS ii kit lens, Canon 50 1.8 ii, it wasn't too bad even with an ancient Canon 100-300 5.6 L and partly broken 20-35 2.8 L. I am selling off my M43 gear as I don't use it a lot now and have sold some of those lenses but the only lens that didn't work for AF with the GX7 and Kipon adapter is an ancient 28-90 kit lens from a film camera. I still have the 150, 40, 20-35 and IS ii kit lens though have sold the rest. My 17mm TS-E isn't a lens I like on M43 though it works as did the 24 3.5 L ii TS-E (also sold).

Not really. There is the Olympus 4/3 50-200 2.8-3.5 without even buying into the equivalence thing. It does look nice but I think I would prefer any 70/80-200 2.8 EF lens (adapted on m43) than a 2.8-4.