noone

Big sensor, small body - has always marketed well to photographers....

First picture leaked.


Looks like the result of a Panasonic GX85 and a Sony A7III having a date and forgetting to use condoms. 

Talking seriously - as in the A6xxx line, no front dial AGAIN, Sony?
 

The TS thing is THE reason I can only do this with FF.     People either get the tree in full from far off or they get people/ a person in shot with a small PART of the tree but never both or even the full tree by itself from up close (it is a local instagram thing). 
As I said above, WHEN there is a high quality 8.5mm TS for M43 (that works in low light to at least ISO 25600 with decent DR, THEN M43 will come back into it for me.
I can  do the 120p (in NTSC mode 100p in PAL but it is not even full HD I think) with my old A7s.
 
As for "reach", I actually would prefer Panasonic ETC to be variable like Sony clearzoom...I CAN in a pinch get to 6300mm with my A7s but it would not be pretty  (1200mm equivalent would be better if still not great) but again, if I want a lens longer than my 300 2.8 (600mm with 2x clearzoom) I will use my Fuji superzoom.
 
I am looking for four thirds (not M43) lenses to use cheaply to experiment with since I have discovered some of them cover APSC fully and are not far off covering FF.
 

Just poking fun..  people get so absolute and polarised.  FF is either unusable or non-FF images are unsaleable!  Brand X either has garbage CS or mandatory CS!  
We've lost the nuance of saying that everything has pros and cons.  Even if someone offered me an Alexa 65, I still couldn't use it because it's too big and heavy for what I do and I'd be nervous about it getting stolen, so I have my GH5.  Is my GH5 perfect?  Hell no.
So, the correct answer to every question is "it depends", except for questions about something being mandatory or usable, in which case, nothing is mandatory because everything has a work-around, and everything is usable, in some situation at least.

I do not think that is the case.
While Sony is the owner, the semi- conductor business is run apart from the camera business and Sony semiconductor will sell sensors to ANYONE.     Sony USED to be the major shareholder in Olympus but sold out not so long ago (they must have seen the writing on the wall).
Sony still owns about ten percent of Tamron.

Exactly. And this is why i am getting mad every time i step on arguments like “What if the R6 overheats? No one forces you to buy the camera so look somewhere else”. Because if that “somewhere else” dies then we are stuck with a couple of companies that are so hungry for cash that will do anything to make us pay more for less.

I'm not speaking in absolutes, but some buy speedbosters to get shallower DOF or reduce the crop factor. That's why I said its an individual thing. I'm aware of the other aspects, but that's not what I was talking about. Yes there's no FF specific aesthetic, but there's no lens available that gets me the same thing I get with a 24/1.4 or 135/1.8 with smaller sensors. Aesthetic was just a poor choice of words for DOF at a given FOV.
But again its an individual thing, I shoot with available light and I need photos for everything I shoot. For me FF has significant advantages over everything else, its the sweet spot of size/cost/IQ - for me. YMMV.
Cheers
Chris

Its such an individual thing, its an impossible discussion to have - hence the millions of mind-numbing arguments about equivalence. They're all tools that can get the job done. IMO the best balance of IQ with camera/lens size and cost is FF for stills and now - for me - video too. I need great AF, and really don't want to juggle two (or more) sets of lenses anymore. Now that FF cameras have some mind blowing video specs, its all come together - again for me. Personally I like the look of a fast wide, my 24 or 28/1.4 is my favorite, and I can only get that on a FF. Fuji's 16/1.4 and various m43 options come close, but its just not the same. I can't imagine the size of a Fuji equivalent to Sony's minuscule 24/1.4 GM since they said the 33/1.0 needed a tripod collar for support and was too large/expensive to make a reality. The new 50/1.0 is huge. I like the creative options with shallow DOF at times too, and again its much easier with FF. But I recognize everyone has different needs, I'm not trying to say one is better, I just prefer the IQ and aesthetic options FF gives me.
The arguments against FF years ago - mainly big/expensive lenses and bodies - are a thing of the past when you look at the Tamron zooms and lenses like the Sony 20G, 24GM, 85 1.8 and so on - compared to Olympus Pro primes or something like that new Fuji 50/1.0. Unless you shoot Panasonic's S lenses LOL! Its easy to go small/light, or no compromise with IQ or speed and thanks to so many jumping in on the E-mount, there are more 3rd party options than anything on the mirrorless side. I'm deliberately ignoring DSLR stuff because I don't shoot anything with a mirror anymore. But when you look at the popularity of speedboosters, lots shooting sensors smaller than FF are still looking for that FF aesthetic. IDK, just my perspective.
As always YMMV.
Chris

Add words Meike and Bokeh to the same sentence and the pronunciation possibilities are endless

Yes, Lensbaby’s add character into the lenses that you can modify to your taste.
For instance, the Twist 60 has a petzval effect and the Sweet 50 has a dramatic “sweet spot” effect. You can’t do this with a normal tilt shift lens. 
Also they do standalone lenses. The Sol45 gives a stunning warped bokeh effect, the Burnside 35 a wide angle swirl effect. The Velvet range, a soft focus dreamy effect. 
I love the Omni filter kit. I initially dismissed that system from the online samples but after using it, it can help you produce incredibly abstract and ethereal images. 
These are not lenses for anything moving fast. The focus can be so unbelievably shallow at the most extreme usage case. It takes a very delicate approach. Also I wouldn’t shoot in a softer recording option such as line skipped 1080p 200fps. 
I’ve only been using them the last few months, and recently on some pro shoots. The image and character certainly turns heads and gets people asking excitable questions. 
I sound like a Lensbaby ambassador haha. I am not. These would be terrible lenses for some people. They are not for everyone. But they are certainly not naff. For the right purpose, they are absolutely excellent. 

I can not believe that Ebay "thinks" my ancient Canon 24 1.4 L FD is worth more than my Canon 17mm tilt shift?
This photo with the TS (with a lowly 12mp "non photo" camera) got a highly commended at the Mono awards 2020 (Australian B&W photo competition that attracts thousands of entries) and highly commended means it got past the second short list but not the final thirty.
IF live music ever starts up again, I look forward to getting back to using the TS for both video and photos of full bands from next to the stage.
 
 

i bought the viltrox  nikon plain adapter (no glass )to m4/3 to adapt the almost cult like tokina 28-70mm atx pro, a promist 1/8 lives on the front of it most of the time and i use the tokina pretty much half the time. it seems to work alright. The rest of the time it has some kind of  m42 ish to ef lens mounted up to the p4k.
I have an irrational fear of the crop factor, Its mostly in my mind....i think.  I tend to try to claw back every mm that i can. To that extent i bought the vitrox  speedbooster ef to m4/3 it works ok as well. Although there is abit more play around the locking pin than i would like. So far everything seems to mount up and work ok except 2 russian lenses that i bought.
I'd like to get the 0.64 metabones at some point. but other stuff keeps getting in the way and i haven't found one at a price point i'd pony up for yet 🙄
Theres also a cheap fd adapter i have thrown into the mix so that i can use some of my fd lenses from the film era.
I dont really think you can go wrong with any of the current speedboosters.  Mattias burling did a review on the popular speed boosters 12 months or more ago, so did tom antos although he only compared the 3 meatabones on the p4k
 

It would be interesting to see how they measure.
I've said all this before, but I think people gloss over things a lot of the time, so I'll share some links again.
People are very critical of the Voigtlanders and consider them to be inferior because of how soft they are at apertures that other lenses don't offer.  People then seem to extrapolate this to them being inferior to the alternate slower offerings, and in fact, this is false and it's just a lack of education on their behalf, because the Voigts are similar or better than the other MFT contenders at a similar aperture.
https://www.lensrentals.com/blog/2018/03/finally-some-more-m43-mtf-testing-are-the-40s-fabulous/
https://www.lensrentals.com/blog/2018/01/finally-some-m43-mtf-testing-25mm-prime-lens-comparison/
https://www.lensrentals.com/blog/2012/05/wide-angle-micro-43-imatest-results/
Of course, people can always look at these and then react with "oh, ok, so they're sharper or almost as sharp in the centre as the competitors that 5 minutes ago I was saying kill them completely, but look at how the sharpness falls off at the edges".  This is true.
If you value edge-to-edge sharpness then that's great, don't buy these.  Being fully manual and with easily de-clickable apertures, they're not really photo lenses either, they're really video lenses.  So if we're going to start talking about video lenses then we need to change our entire frame-of-reference because sharpness is the holy grail in photography but not in cinematography.
If you haven't already, go read up about the lenses that are lusted after and are the go-to Hollywood lenses.  Then go find tests for them and see how they really perform.
Once again, lensrentals is a spectacular resource here.  The tests of the Zeiss CP.2s and Super Speeds, of Canon and others, reveals they're not that sharp, and they fall-off drastically in the corners.  Have a scroll through and see how the graphs look:
https://www.lensrentals.com/blog/2019/06/just-the-cinema-mtf-charts-zeiss-cine-lenses/
https://www.lensrentals.com/blog/2019/05/just-the-cinema-lens-mtf-charts-xeen-and-schneider/
https://www.lensrentals.com/blog/2019/06/just-the-cinema-lens-mtf-charts-canon-and-sigma/
I think it's really just a sign of how things are on the internet, people judge at face value and don't actually look to see if their beliefs are true, even when there is data available.  And perhaps the bigger challenge we have on camera forums, we idolise how Hollywood has done things for the last decade (shoots 1080p with soft lenses) and then immediately disregard that and start banging on about how everyone needs 6K at a minimum and that lenses should be judged by how sharp they are.
When I joined the forums I was no different.  I wanted 4K and sharp lenses because I'd just come from shooting stills and I'd recorded 1080p with my Canon DSLR and found it way too soft and didn't realise that the fuzzy mess was Canon-related not 1080p-related.  My journey of learning video has benefitted the most from un-learning the falsehoods that were already there, rather than to learn new things in addition to what I knew.

To be fair Kye, the cheaper Zhongyi Mitakon f0.95 lenses for M43 are not THAT bad and neither is the Kipon Handevision  40mm 0.85 (though that is expensive)   The Kaxinda (never heard of it before and it may just be one of the others rebadged) 25mm 0.95 is an unknown quality to me, 
The SLR Magic 25 0.95 is probably the Mitakon altered slightly.
I do think the voigtlanders are nice though!

To be fair Kye, the cheaper Zhongyi Mitakon f0.95 lenses for M43 are not THAT bad and neither is the Kipon Handevision  40mm 0.85 (though that is expensive)   The Kaxinda (never heard of it before and it may just be one of the others rebadged) 25mm 0.95 is an unknown quality to me, 
The SLR Magic 25 0.95 is probably the Mitakon altered slightly.
I do think the voigtlanders are nice though!

Generally, the quality of a lens is better in the centre and usually gets softer toward the edges. Using a straight through adaptor with no glass means you are using more of the centre of the lens which, in theory, is a good thing.
Saying that, Metabones claim that using a speed booster actually increases sharpness and clarity but i doubt you will see any difference in reality.
I really wouldn't worry about the image quality. The 18-35 1.8 is a fantastic lens with or without the speed booster. Having the two adaptors is kinda like having two lenses. 
 
 

Spending more time with the 28mm, I'm thinking this would be one I'd choose for cinematography. It's not super-sharp, which is a good thing, and everything I shoot with it ends up looking like a painting.
Barrage et Inukshuk by Brad Hurley, on Flickr
Clouds over Montréal-Nord by Brad Hurley, on Flickr
Daybreak by Brad Hurley, on Flickr

They probably have a deal with RED. “We’ll give you an RF license if we can use internal RAW.” Or something. 

You are wise to make switching very seriously, as it is a huge cost on many fronts (lenses, getting that second nature back with the new platform, different workflows, different software/drivers, etc, etc.   I was about 3 months away from switching, because for my video needs, I required 10bit color in a small body size.  My a9 meets most of my photography needs, and a7R3 the rest.   I'm heavily invested in GM glass (24, 16-35, 24-70, 85, 100-400) and some additional choice primes that I would hate to be without the Sony 90mm macro f/2.8 and Sony/Zeiss 55 f/1.8.  
But on my radar was the S1H, X-T4, and R5 was in the running (until it was clear that camera is not going to be a work horse).  If I could bring a Sony FX9 to the places I shoot, then I would have just gone with one of their FS or FX cameras.  Now with my commercial video and corporate work kicking up, I can justify an FX9 level camera now (just still couldn't bring it where my passion projects are shot).  That a7SIII may end up being my solution for both professional work and passion projects, so for me I don't have to think about switching any more.
It is no small decision to switch, so hopefully the X-H2 is everything you need.  From what I have seen Fuji doing with video lately, they will likely hit that one out of the park.  You may be looking at having S1H level video with decent tracking based AF.
I wish you good luck!

This is pretty much the camera I said I wanted a few years back. An XC-10 style S35 Cinema EOS up to 4k120. 
But I wouldn’t get your hopes up as this lives in the world of the C200, 300 and 500. So the cripple hammer will exist. 
It will do something weird like shoot at 4k120 but only in RAW at 5000mbps, and 4k60 at 8 bit only with DPAF disabled intermittently. 
Jokes aside, if you’re buying RF glass then this becomes C300 III and even C500 II price range. Don’t get too excited, we all did by the R5 and that managed to win the Crown of Cripple Prize 2020. 
 
 
 
 

I recommend you giving me $6K so I can but that lot.

Some tests and a review from Brandon Li.
Chris
 

Voigtlander 40mm f2 on Panasonic S1

I use the 17 f1.2 a lot. The lens is great and I love the manual focus.
The only thing that bugs me is that my Canon 40mm f2.8 is 1/3 of the weight, 1/6 of the price, is sharper, and gives me pretty much the same field/depth of view on a full frame Canon.
It doesn't take away the fact that the Olympus on my GH5 currently gives me the best video quality I'm able to produce, but makes me hesitant to buy more Olympus lenses since I've got the R5 ordered.
 
Sources:
https://www.opticallimits.com/m43/1082-olympus17f12
https://www.opticallimits.com/canon_eos_ff/752-canon_40_28_ff
 

The "hack" only removed record time limits and the NTSC/PAL warning, all of which is no longer an issue with the current gen cameras. I seriously doubt the chance to sell $10-20 apps was derailed by someone bypassing that annoying NTSC/PAL warning. They said it was changes in code that made the newer cameras not compatible with the apps. Though I wonder if there was any profit in the apps, not sure if they sold in the volume needed to continue development, its not like smartphone apps that are downloaded by the tens or hundreds of million.
Chris