noone

It isn't AS needed as it used to be but there are still some needs/uses for faster glass. IE if you are in REALLY low light, it can mean the difference between a useable ISO or not so (again, later FF cameras can go a lot higher than before). If you are in fairly low light and need a faster shutter speed, having super fast glass can be of use. Remember, even an F0.95 lens can have infinite DOF if the subject is far enough away (and why I think a lot of aerial photography medium format lens were very fast for their focal lengths for instance). I like using fast lenses FF though I do tend to stop them down a bit for most uses (FD 85 1.2 L I would mostly use around f2) but it can be just nice to have a choice.

Could it be all about ML? Hmm no it probably isn't since DPR still reports on ML stories.

I wish the Sony Zeiss 55 1.8 was EF mount and not FE. Would love to use it on other mounts besides Sony. Can often be found a lot less than the $900 stated in that video and has cured me from wanting pretty much any other lens in the 50-60mm range. Sharp wide open and across the frame, AF and covers FF. This 1.1 lens does look nice for the price but I still think there are a few others that are similar in some ways I would prefer (FD 50 1.2 L is a very nice lens though priced between this and the 55 1.8, the Pentax 50 1.2 K I had was a favourite too for cheaper). I also think I would rather the 50 f0.95 Mitakon though again, for more money. I don't always like swirly bokeh but it can be nice in some situations so I guess there would be times this lens would be very nice to use. I just wonder how often it would be.

https://www.playmemoriescameraapps.com/portal/usbdetail.php?eid=IS9104-NPIA09014_00-000010

For video colour from the camera, the Sony liveview grading app was/is brilliant. Adds more choices in settings to the cameras than most people could possibly properly try in several years. Pity it isn't useable with the third version A7 cameras (though it is with the A6500 and A7sii).

Thanks, I guess for now I am happy enough with 9 since it works great with my old cameras. Will upgrade when I get a new computer.

I really like DXO (using version 9 they released free a while ago). I don't see any big difference between Sony processed RAW and out of camera Jpegs though. Plenty of FF shooters shoot jpegs for various reasons (lots of newspaper and sports shooters do still I would think). It is a lot easier if I shoot a concert/gig and have hundreds if not thousands of photos to go through.

I have mostly liked Sony colours but have never had an issue with any brand for colour though (Sony, Pentax, Olympus, Panasonic, Canon and Nikon ILCs used). For stills I mostly shot jpeg with many just using RAW when it was important to me. MY favourite camera is still the Sony A7s but it is still out of action so am shooting stills with an ancient Canon. I almost always shoot jpegs on the Sony but have to shoot RAW only with my current old Canon as the jpegs are horrible compared to processed RAW. That said, most of the time someone does a blind test, it seems Sony comes out on top and while the tests are almost all flawed in some way as this one might be, it is should still be noted that it still comes down to these being the results that OTHERS gave, NOT Tony and applied based on the colours that those people saw. It isn't to say the Canon and Nikon colours were BAD, but that is what the people said alongside the others. Had they been seen by themselves and with people told they were Canon or Nikon and I am sure people would have been more positive. Geez, I actually think if you used Sony colours and told people they were Canon, you would get a lot more positive reactions than if you told them they were Sony colours on places like photography forums. A lot of it comes down to Canon being the most popular cameras for many years now and people being used to Canon and people tend to like what they know. If you have never tried a mango, how do you know if an orange is better? (yeah lame but you know). I dont think anyone makes any really bad colours and you can always change the settings.

While the wire doorbell is ALWAYS going to be faster, the difference isn't huge and it more comes down to the size of the buttons and cost (including installation). So I would guess I would take a wireless one (as long as it isn't made by XXXXX - I never get on with their stuff and their users are fanboys and trolls on the doorbell forums). Colour is important to me to and XXXXX just can NOT make a doorbell colour that I like. As for ergonomics, It has to have a nice size button with a firm push. Regards the ring tone inside, well for me it HAS to be analogue (with bells), none of this digital rubbish. YMMV.

Looks like taking things a step further than their clip on cameras for phones. While I liked using Canon lenses on M43 cameras (and you have the added benefit of being able to use focal reducers), this makes sense to me for people who want a ILC in a phone but who have Canon lenses (which is a LOT of people even if just a APSC kit lens or two for many). A larger sensor would add to cost so M43 is fine by me for it and looking at it as a "better" phone camera rather than as a smaller camera works for me. I guess this is the sort of thing we will ALL be using in a few years for all things photo/video other than specialist subjects. Might be one of the cheaper ways of getting 4k with mic and headphones still though that remains to be seen. As to size of lenses, well SOME Canon lenses are quite small (40 2.8 STM makes a nice portrait lens on M43).

I watched them and nothing changes! Why comment on my comment?

I am not sure what you are disagreeing with me (or equivalence) about? If you agree with Great Bustard, then you DO accept equivalence is real (as it is). When things CAN be matched, there is nothing favouring FF (or any format). It is only when things can not which is mostly because there is not an equivalent lens available that some formats may have an advantage (in terms of shallow DOF). Most people look at lenses shooting from the same spot (from my experience anyway) and using different lenses rather than using the same lens at different places.

Distortion is going to be down to each lens and how it is made for the most part (pincushion and barrel distortion) My 17mm Canon tilt shift lens has very little distortion but I had a 28mm Vivitar that had really bad distortion. What is called perspective distortion would look pretty much the same with a 12mm M43 lens against a 24mm FF lens (I liked my Olympus 12mm f2 but not as much as my old Canon 24mm).

FF isn't any better at shallow DOF than M43 and equivalence doesn't say it is in theory. It does work out that way practically though because of what is available (not because of equivalence). The same applies with FF against MF. MF though has far fewer options and except for some rare expensive aerial photography lenses, MF lenses are not that fast generally. I have a lovely old FD 24 1.4 L that I miss using on my A7s while it is (still) broken. To match the DOF on M43, I would need a 12mm f0.7 (and it would then not be an EXACT match so there would be differences). How many 12mm f0.7 M43 lenses are there? Same with my old FD 85 1.2 L, for equivalence purposes I would need an M43 42.5 f0.6 aprox lens and to get equivalence with a lens like a FF 50mm f0.95 lens well that one technically you can't use equivalency as you would need a M43 25mm lens slightly faster than f0.5 which is as fast as you can use in air I believe (though stand to be corrected) though a 25mm M43 f0.5 lens would be close- Any of THOSE available?

Seriously? Look at the post by "Great Bustard" in particular https://***URL removed***/forums/thread/4002825?page=3#forum-post-57746271 but others as well. Unless someone ever does a set up to match EXACTLY, there will always be some small differences but in the real world it is close enough for those that need to match things though again, it isn't something that matters much to me as I use whatever I have to get the shot and don't try to shoot something so it matches what another camera/lens combination would get. As long as I can get the DOF I need using the ISO, focal length and shutter speed I have available, I am happy (with enough pixels).

F stop AND focal length AND distance to subject determines depth of field. You can have infinite DOF with a f0.95 lens and you can be out of focus at f8. Speed Boosters and other focal reducers do NOT turn APSC cameras into FF ones, they do not affect the sensor at all. All they do is change the lens, just like adding a tele converter does so you change the angle of view so it matches what it would be if it was on a FF camera and the give a boost in speed as well of around a stop so you can use a lower ISO on the boosted camera against the FF camera for similar result. If there were native lenses the same as the speed boosted lenses it wouldn't be confusing would it? Equivalence is real and any differences are down to things not being EXACTLY matching (I would almost never try and get things the same between sensor sizes and I have owned ILCs with sensors of most sizes -Pentax Q, M43, 1.5x APSC, 1.6x APSC, FF and MF with film). With regards the cameras closest to ISO 6400 measured VS manufacturer above, that might be the A7s at ISO 5407 measured but again, those are all for RAW stills and video might be very different and why I doubt the P4k will be measured by DXOmark.

I would have done it for $85,000. Actually, I wouldn't have done it at all but paid some starving students using borrowed gear $20,000 and pocketed the rest. I didn't actually watch them though.

Out of curiosity, I just looked at a heap of cameras from most manufacturers and compared the various manufacturers settings on DXO versus the measured ISOs. Things are all over the place. Fuji does not get scored these days (because of the X trans thing I think). I looked at five different ISOs and things vary at each settings but there were a few things that surprised me. I think Sony and Samsung WERE probably overall the closest to measured standards* but the recent Sony cameras have dropped back a fraction so they are similar to the others. Samsung was closer to the measured amounts too but they stopped making cameras around the same time as Sony dropped a bit. (It probably goes something like Sony, Samsung, Samsung Sony). If I had looked at different ISO settings I might have seen something slightly different. It does seem that at least for the thirty odd cameras I looked at and at the five ISOs I looked at the closest to measured might be the original A7s and then the NX1. At some ISOs the Samsung is closer and at others the Sony. The Samsung NX300 is also close and then maybe the Sony A3000 (I looked at the usual suspects and some cameras I have owned and some I am interested in and some historic ones). EDIT A7s is closer to measured over more ISOs in their common range than the NX1. At some ISOs, some cameras that are overall quite a way from the measured ISO are better than others. For instance, at ISO 100, the cameras closest to 100 are the Canon 7D and 7Dii (both 94) and then the Panasonic GH4 (88) but they all drop away a lot above ISO 100. Despite the Canon 7d pair being so close to measured ISO at ISO 100, the other Canons I looked at are all further away than most APSC or larger sensor cameras. Panasonic GX7 is also close but at ISO 125 instead of 100 (108 measured). The Olys ARE quite a way behind (EM1 ii measures 83 but at ISO 200). All this really means NOTHING but I was curious and find it interesting. * Fuji isn't tested these days and does have a reputation for being further away from measured ISO but the camera I found to be closest overall was actually the Fuji S5 (and was closer to measured ISO at all three I looked at including 100 (95). Again, this means NOTHING and if I looked at other cameras and other ISOs things might be different. Oh and DXO is a great guide but it isn't Gospel ( I do love their RAW conversion software though).

My experience is that Sony IS probably the most accurate and it is pretty much across all (most) of their cameras. That said, I don't think most manufacturers are "fudging" and I think it is just a way for DXO to match them up (maybe a couple do seem to be almost a stop different to others Fuji for instance at least historically). I always like to use the dynamic range charts on DXO for a(rough) comparison as that has the DR and both measured and manufacturer ISOs.

Well you CAN use it on Sony and in a variety of ways. With a FF camera, FF with vignetting, FF without (using clear zoom), APSC with vignetting and APSC without. Probably not going to be very nice with a LOT of vignetting FF without clear zoom I would think.

And HIS professor might have told him he only needed three lenses, A 28mm, a 50mm and either an 85mm or a 135mm. Zooms? pfffft!

Agreed, though it has very little to do with bokeh in itself. I love SOME fast lenses and SOME slow ones too. With the faster ones I like, the bokeh IS a big part of why I like them while other fast lenses have bokeh (and other characteristics) that is to me horrible. As for needing faster lenses as you get further away from the subject, another factor is focal length of course. Even 5.6 or f8 on a FF camera can blur a subject quite a bit with a longer lens. Fast lenses have their place as do slower ones. I think with regular subjects (people for instance at normal shooting distances), certain focal lengths work better with particular sensor sizes. One example is 300 2.8 and FF. You can have a persons whole head in focus but at the same time have just a bit behind them completely blurred out. For THAT sort of shot, I would think many would prefer over having more of the background visible to some degree but for other types of shots, JUST having the subject might be less desirable.

AAAAAAAAGGGHHHHH Amount of BLUR is NOT repeat NOT, BOKEH! Bokeh refers to the quality, not quantity for want of a better expression. The Bokeh in that video is actually quite similar (as it should be since the shots are taken with the same lens, just at different stops). Had he used different lenses giving different bokeh, even at the same f stops it would have been more relevant for what he was saying. What he was comparing was simply looking at ONE lens, used at different apertures and looking at the subject/background and asking what people liked.

I thought the colour differences MIGHT have been down to the time of day as I think they were likely used at different times and if (say) in the afternoon, light can make a big difference to the sky or on buildings sides.

For low light comparison, I would do a Google search "GH5s vs A7iii low light". The ones I looked at mostly seem to have the FF camera on top (which is as it should be) though the GH5s does get a lot closer than it should. If it was my choice, I would try both if possible and then pick myself on what works better for me.