Originally posted by LeRolls I do shoot RAW and honestly it's not so much accuracy of colors that I am concerned with but more about what I personally find pleasing. I like my work to have a specific mood and atmosphere to it. Something that I'm finding harder to do with the Sony files. I think I mostly just have to spend more time learning how to edit the files better. I picked up the Fujifilm X-T3 recently and just ordered the 56mm 1.2 so it will be interesting to see how I feel about those files. Also interested in the 90mm f2 as well as the 16mm 1.4 for Fuji. For the time being I will probably stick with the 35mm 1.4 and the 85mm 1.8 for the Sony.
Fuji makes great cameras and gear. I have 2 friends that shoot wedding and use Fuji. Mostly (80%) OOC JPEGs. The Fuji 56mm F/1.2 and the Sony 85mm F/1.8 give very, very similar results. One of them borrowed my 85mm F/1.8 to test on an A7III body and challenged me and several people to see if we could tell the difference between his Fuji XT-2 w/56mm F/1.2 and the A7III with my 85mm F/1.8. He was pretty proud of the fact that nobody could tell the difference and his APS-C body could match the look of a FF A7III. He is using a $1,200 lens to match the IQ of the $600 Sony FE. The Sony A7III with the 85mm F/1.8 FE is a $2,600 setup. Buying the new XT-3 with a 56mm F/1.2 is a $2,800 setup. He has the 90mm F/2 which is a great lens, but that's going to give you the look of a 135mm F/3.3 on the A7III and it really doesn't match the look of the Zeiss Batis 135mm APO or the Sigma 135mm ART. The Zeiss Batis 135mm is a lot more expensive than the Fuji 90mm F/2, but the Zeiss is an APO lens with amazing color and sharpness. The Sigma 135 ART is an F/1.8 lens that has excellent 3D pop and bokeh. The Fuji 90mm is a good solid lens, but even the 135mm F/2 Samyang is a better lens on a FF body. The Fuji 90mm would need to be an F/1.4 to match what you can do with a FF body and a 135mm F/2 lens and that would be a $2,000 lens.
I follow your work on Flickr and you have a very distinct look. I can spot your images without looking at the name because your look is so consistent (and partly because you always have beautiful subjects) . I assume you are using Lightroom, but this applies to C1 as well. You have default setting you can apply on import. You can customize this. A lot of people claim C1 does better than LR, and for some things it does, but really C1 just applies more contrast and sharpening by default so that the images import in looking better. If you import in a K-1 file into LR, DxO, & C1 you will 3 different looking images because the default setting are different. In the case of your K-1 and the A7III files that you are bringing into LR, the K-1 sensor doesn't have an AA filter and the A7III does. This just means that the A7III will need a little more sharpening and a little more contrast applied on import. I have 2 A9s and there is no AA filter on the A9, so I don't see the difference on import that you do. When I look at my A9 files and my K-1 files in LR they are very close. As a matter of fact, I use the Sony VSCO presets with my K-1 because the default color profiles are so similar. My K-1 beats my A9 in DR and resolution, but I shoot wedding and portraits, so I really don't have a need for 36MP. I end up brushing away skin detail that I never needed to capture in the first place and the rest of the "detail" is melted away in the Bokeh. It's very rare that I go into Photoshop and use frequency separation for fixing skin.
I think you will find it a challenge to use the K-1, XT-3, & A7III and maintain color consistency in your work unless you calibrate them all to the same color profile.