I would prefer a beer.

Agree with Panther Fan - slightly better than what.

Like for like with the overall quality of SLRs and mirrorless, it's splitting hairs. Love the reviews, and being involved with biological plant photography am a bit of as sucker when it comes to that extra bit of definition. But in reality, it's the technique that counts. I use a D810 with a mixture of old Nikon lenses, a pocket with RAW and have stooped to a mobile on odd occasions.

Colleges use an equal diverse mix and makes, but when it comes to the meat it is what the client wants that counts and does it meet the my own criterion to produce a quality image within the constraints at the time it was taken.

Nevertheless, would love to have a nice, to quote DPReview, 'budget-friendly M-system rangefinder' to play with, but in the real world would it make my photography better - very questionable.

I think OP's referring to the combinations, not the bodies on their own.

@mxx

Well the Nikon 105mm macro is 750g
The Panasonic 24-105 F4 is 680g

So in combination the S1 is even lighter

Nikon went 24-70 f/4 to keep size and weight down.

Maybe both lenses are overpriced....

Only overpriced because you two are so cheap. I own both the Sony and Pany 24-105mm lenses, and they are worth every penny. Not for cheapskates.

Alex Hanin,
I would not have believed DPR in this case because my very first reaction when looking at this gallery was "I do not like the colors and I prefer the colors of my Canon, Fuji, and Olympus cameras..."

Grapejam.
Canon sensors do not suck for an amateur like me... I do not care if the shadows are a little bit too dark when I expose to the right, or see some noise when I try to pull them up. I rarely have to enjoy my picture at 100% magnification.
But color rendition quality is visible at virtually any print/display size, so it matters more for me than some noise in the shadwos...

Damned shame the many, many thousands of pros shooting with Canons aren't aware that the sensors in the cams suck. Like the last two official White House photographers, for example. But hey, brand warriors need to go somewhere, right?

What an absurd analogy. Trabant vs Ferrari? Way to pretend minor differences are massive to excuse your fandom.

Grapejam,
" especially when the trabant in this case actually costs more."
???????????????
My "trabant" cameras are an EOS 200D, Fujifilm X30 and Olympus OM-D E-M10 II.
And they are as cheap as a trabant compared to the combo used in this gallery.

Grapejam, look man, I get it you probably were one of those people fooled into buying into Sony. It happens. A wedding photog friend of mine did the same thing, invested into Sony and the overpriced Minolta, sorry Sony glass. A year later she is back to Canon. Sony is the biggest example of marketing hype I have ever seen from a camera manufacturer.

I wouldn't go as far as claiming Canon sensors suck, considering there are a gazillion great images taken with basically all cameras and I still love the look and color of my 5D files.

While the Sony sensors are technically superior in terms of DR, the user's experience is not the best (in my case) that adds a lot to the enjoyment of taking pictures.

There are no trabant cameras anymore. Those were cheap compacts with tiny sensors and slow lenses. They have been killed off by phones. Even the cheapest IOCs today (GX850, D3400 and the like) are more like Golf or Jetta - perfectly fine for most people. Cameras people discuss here are like comparing S600 with BMW 7 or Tesla - you might prefer one or another might be a better choice in other circumstances, but none are bad. Far from it.

"The simple fact is: Canon sensors simply suck, and Canon fans should learn to deal with it instead of trying to rationalize."

That's not a fact, it's an opinion. Just because Canon sensors are inferior than Sony sensors in some metrics, doesn't mean that they "suck".

The differences that are measured in lab tests are vastly overexaggerated when it comes to actual real world photography, for the majority of users. (Note that I'm not claiming that the differences can't be significant for some users with specific requirements.)

@Karroly

'I would not have believed DPR in this case because my very first reaction when looking at this gallery was "I do not like the colors and I prefer the colors of my Canon, Fuji, and Olympus cameras..."'

Maybe. But maybe you saw 'Panasonic', and your brain automatically switched in 'I'm not going to like these colors' mode.

@retr01976 Owning both Canon and Sony I can confirm that in the highlights as well as in the shadows Sony is superior by far. Canon has begun gaining ground with the 5D Mk. IV, and the R. But instead of further improving those to finally catch up with the Sony based competitors, they keep churning out lower-cost FF cameras (6D Mk. II, RP) with their lesser and hopefully outdated older sensor tech. I'd like to love Canon. Their UI is good. Their skintones at default settings are pleasant. But for landscapes (if you don't want to use HDR all the time), there is a looong way to go.

Just a note: I shot an event a few weeks ago, and the photos have been posted. Much to my surprise, not one comment about how much my sensor sucked. I'm stunned. Yes. Stunned.

dmanthree,
IMHO, the only thing that really sucks, with today digital cameras, is the price... ;-)

Its often $800 when bundled with S1 or S1R bodies.

It has superior stabilization to that of Canon and Nikon.
It has AF/MF Switch and a Zoom Lock Switch
It is weather sealed and has a freezeproof design benefits working in inclement weather conditions down to -14°F
Macro design provides half life-size 1:2 magnification ratio and a minimum focusing distance of 11.8" for working with close-up subjects.

To me and thousands of other people thats worth the price.

To each their own.

I’d might agree with you if you substituted “dozens” for “thousands” above. Truth be told, hardly anyone is buying the S1 or S1R because of their absurd prices and substandard AF.