frontfocus

http://www.fujifilm.com/support/digital_cameras/software/lut/

And 2.8f, and no IS.
Not the modern workhorse lens that everyone else has.

yes, it's the mk ii. 
It ways a bit, but it's relatively compact. Fells like a small rock ?
If it can be your main prime depends on what you are doing. For photography shooting it wide open in daily situations is a bit problematic even with all the manual focus aids. But it has that special look to it.
For video I love it, since the manual focus is just nicer than most fly by wire lenses. And as said, it has a stepless aperture. Personally if I were to get just one 35mm for Fuji, it would be the f/2.0 since it has autofocus and is nearly silent. But I prefer the combination of Mitakon and Fuji f/1.4 ?

if you work with sliders, gimbals and other forms of stabilisation, you don't need to get the OIS lenses. If you want a zoom, I would go for the 16-55mm f/2.8, even though it has no OIS.
if you are recording audio near camera, don't go for 35mm f/1.4, 18mm f/2.0, 60mm f/2.4 those are loud to focus
I also wouldn't recommend 23mm f/1.4 and 56mm f/1.2 since you can hear those too. 
Optically even the cheaper lenses are very good, so you can't go wrong. 

if you work with sliders, gimbals and other forms of stabilisation, you don't need to get the OIS lenses. If you want a zoom, I would go for the 16-55mm f/2.8, even though it has no OIS.
if you are recording audio near camera, don't go for 35mm f/1.4, 18mm f/2.0, 60mm f/2.4 those are loud to focus
I also wouldn't recommend 23mm f/1.4 and 56mm f/1.2 since you can hear those too. 
Optically even the cheaper lenses are very good, so you can't go wrong. 

LOL! The long time relationship Sony has with overheating mirrorless cameras carries on.....

You did that joke before and noone laughed. Read your room.

Video was giving me Red flags.
Just seems kinda fishy with some of these video comparisons showing one camera blowing another completely out of the water and other videos with completely opposite results. ?
 
A7III lowlight test used Super 35 instead of FF, then used SLOG 3 for the low light test IN Super 35
Then they used improperly exposed SLOG 3(once again in Super 35 crop mode) indoors and zoomed in on the shadows. Pretty sure in 2018 everyone and their grandma knows to avoid SLOG 3 on the 8 bit Sony bodies. 
 
 
Okay but to be fair I knew going into this video with Armando and Potato Jet presenting that it would be loaded/unbiased in favor of Canon.

The proper test for photos should be how does your software of choice develop your raw files. Yes, raw files can be manipulated but the development you get from lightroom very much represents, if you are using canon, the canon look (or if you are using another manufacturer - then that manufacturer). I don't think comparing the default jpeg profile means anything because literally no one will be shooting full frame cameras like that. The program process the raw for you then you edit. I can only make soony look like canon if I know what the end point is - and I would need a canon for that. 
The people on here who actually think there is any validity to this test should actually take it: https://docs.google.com/forms/d/e/1FAIpQLScDnq2nCYioH628uZXG_oVevanWlAeX0w8wRPXEFlls3aRq6g/viewform
Look at how small the pics are - it is a joke.  
The bigger joke is thinking that this applies to video as well.

Oh Gawd....don't go giving them ideas for new episodes...

For me even the way the RAW files look on default Photoshop (ACR) settings is a factor in my decision to like that camera or find it a completely pain in the ass.
Leica M9 for instance - bang. Perfect. Barely need to touch the RAWs in Adobe Camera Raw.
Sony Raw - eh.
Honestly most photographers do simple changes. Contrast, curve maybe, saturation, that's about it. They don't go fine tuning individual hues or luma / sat curves and mess with advanced colour channel settings or profiles. They just want it quick and easy.
For me it is a complete mystery why the manufacturers cannot grasp this simple point!
Sony's RAW files look so flat when you open them. It's another stupid default setting decision.
Stephen is right above - that the colour science is now in the software and not the camera, apart from the fact you are seeing raw sensor data - so it's representative of the hardware in that sense.
And he is definitely bang on the money to say Tony throwing video into his RAW colour science (actually just a white balance test) is total nonsense and misleading bullshit.

There are no colors yet in RAW. What to test then ? The color science of the developing programs or the skills of the person working with it ? For photography everybody is using RAW for serious work but yet argue about BETTER color science which affect only JPG and is different for different profiles and is subjective at the end. Better doesn't mean accurate. Better is very subjective. In this part he's right IMHO.  
For video however it's different. For those mirroless / DSLR cameras we don't have the choice of using RAW video. We still can tweak the colors but are much more limited, white balance is backed in. Tweaking the colors the way we like them is not that easy in video as to take a RAW file and fix the white balance. Getting the colors close to the final edit straight off the camera for video may save tons of time and effort. So don't agree with him when he throws video in the argument but does only test photo.

Tony in the video has shot his hallway which is practically monochromatic.
The main differences in colour are a result not of the colour science, but of the white balance settings.
So this is not a Colour Science video. It's a White Balance test in artificial light.
The shot in the hallway he said everyone loved, because "warm" - looks YELLOW when he shows it full screen on YouTube, typical Sony style, but warm and good looking on the TV monitor behind him.
At the end he ranks the colour voting and Sony comes out on top by a wide margin, going against everything I know from direct experience making EOSHD Pro Color and shooting with almost every camera on the market, over a period of over 8 years running this site. It also seems to be confirming not just the channel's strange Sony bias which has been commented on before but the bias Tony himself pointed out of Sony users earlier in the video, which made me chuckle a bit.
Nikon and Canon come out bottom, FOR NO OTHER REASON because their white balance settings were presumably set to keep absolute white rather than to keep the ambience of the scene, which is a built-in default setting Canon/Nikon strength and always has been.
Again proving that is a test of white balance, not colour science.
He even took a page out of Max Y's book and didn't bother detailing in depth the camera settings used.
Nice try Tony.
He really is the Clickbait Emperor. Gets us talking every time.
Maybe try again, do an actual colour science test not white balance.... And don't try and pretend it's scientific.

I find that to be incorrect. Even when adjusting raw, the original color science is in effect and dictates how and how much adjustments are needed. Otherwise for example all LUTs would work the same on all footage. But they don't. Anyone with two different raw capable cameras can easily try for themselves. Take a side by side. Adjust one and copy the settings to the other. It won't look the same.

And that is the key. Sure I can fiddle with images but sometimes there are a lot of them. In a project I was leading recently we where a couple of photographers that took roughly 15 000 photos. And I edited out maybe 5000 keepers that are going to be used in various marketing material. I was pretty happy that it was only one photographer that used a different brand and the rest of us all had the same color science.

If I ever for some reason would start to work full time as a photographer or filmmaker again. Spending a huge amount of time processing pictures. Then I would definitely want to minimize the time spent in post. 

He was shooting jpeg on god knows what color profile for each camera. The test has zero relevance for shooting professionals. I give u slog2 on a a7sii and clog on a Canon, and you better believe there is a significant difference. There is a direct comparison done by that potatojet guy. Same thing, blind test. 80 percent picked canon. All of a sudden we are all miraculously wrong and Sony is really the best lol. 

Excellent stuff. Tony really knows how to do clickbait with style.

Fujinon XC 16-50mm OIS
Fujinon XC 16-50mm OIS II
Fujinon XC 15-45mm OIS PZ

Then the two lenses talked about, 18-55mm OIS and the only non IS standard zoom, the 16-55mm 
There is also the 18-135mm, which OIS is excellent. And you mentioned the upcoming 16-80mm OIS. 

Out of those 7 lenses, that cover the standard zoom range, 6 are OIS, one is not. 

Personally I'd go with the 18-55mm because it's incredible good value. And it pairs nicely with the 10-24mm OIS

Yes, unlike the P4k the X-T3 has no IBIS. It has to make do with lens stabilization only. Oh wait, the P4k doesn't have IBIS either... and the OIS does not work well on the P4k? I guess that makes it doubly useless of video?

Sensor crop aside, these are F1.2 lenses, not F1.8. Crop does not mean these are somehow not what they are designed to be. Stick the Fujinon lens on a full frame camera and you would indeed see it is F1.2 not F1.8. Conversely, put one of those full frame Sony lenses on a Sony APSC sensor camera and tell me if the F1.8 is still giving the same DOF as it does on the full frame model? Now I understand that the Fujinon lenses are designed for use with APSC/S35 cameras. But this does not change the fact that it cost more to produce a true F1.2 lens than it does to produce an F1.8 lens.
Bokeh: If the lemon shaped bokeh that the Sony lens puts out is good enough for you then congratulations... you can save a boat load on your lenses. Also the AF test was done with the Fuji at 400 iso vs the full frame Sony at 800? He seems to double the ISO for all of the Sony lenses look here or here ... or here for example. Hmmm? Could it be he's getting more money by referring would be chumps erh buyer to purchase Sony gear in his affiliate links? Hmmm?
Hey maybe I'm confused... Sony makes an APSC lens that is F1.2? Really? Which lens is that?  You say they make an F2.8 constant aperture  50-140? What was that model number again? Hmmm... that's what I thought.

even the sharpened Eos R file is missing some detail in comparison. The small branches on the right are easily distinguishable in the Fuji image, but neither in Canons unsharpened nor oversharpened image.
But I agree with the generell idea, that sharpness nowadays is way overrated and there are many things that are more important. 
At the same time I don't get, why anyone should praise the Canon for things that it's not. This is the reason why canon gets away with a lot of awful decisions 

I don't know...
Even when NOT zoomed in - at 100% - on my low resolution monitor the EOS R looks pretty soft. On my slightly higher resolution monitor it looks decidedly softer than the others even before zooming in.
Will wait and see what people who have access to the EOS R and the Z7 can do with in camera sharpening / sharpening in post to create some samples before making a final judgement.
But for someone like me who often uses zoom in post on 4K clips and exports at 1080p, I think the X-T3, a7 III and BMPCC4K would be better for MY needs.

They skipped FF and choose instead to go with medium format. Where are the Medium format offerings from Canon, Sony and Panasonic etc... ?

that's possible, but what are those things? 

that's possible, but what are those things?