All Activity

No, I have only viewed DJI's and various youtubers' material of the Pocket 4P. I assume everyone will use settings that will make the footage look its best as they would for their normal work, what would be the point of using settings that produce subideal results? Some of the youtubers did mention tweaking the settings to their preferences. A lot of cameras don't have any settings that would reduce noise reduction of their video files to zero, I would not be surprised if this is the case here as well.

Have you actually shot with it? Sharpening, noise reduction and the other image-processing settings can obviously be set to the minimum ;- )

I noticed when watching various videos made with the Pocket 4P using my TV that the images had a processed appearance, especially faces seemed overly plasticky in appearance, like they were not of real people. This could be due to image processing (noise reduction & sharpening) and partly due to the characteristics of the lens. However, the dynamic range did seem spectacular and it is only this processed appearance of the main subject that bothered me. Is the processing something the manufacturer applies due to smaller area of the photodiode vs. conventional BSI sensor, the small overall sensor area or due to the expected requirements of the user base (which may be social media mainly viewed using small mobile device screens, and used to processed outputs from mobile device cameras)? The Pocket 4P image appearance wasn't that bad compared to typical mobile phone output, I would say it was very good in that category, but the overly smooth and dolled-up appearance of faces did bother me and it would make me question whether I would be willing to work with such a compromise, especially if there is no option to turn the NR down or off. I believe DJI has used dual gain paths before and combined the two ISOs in their cameras before (e.g. my Mini 5 Pro when in Auto ISO mode) and while my initial reaction was that this looks processed, I don't notice that so much any more, it seemed to help things when I set the camera into Pro mode rather than the default (Auto). I'm talking about still images in the case of the drone though. Is this kind of combination of dual gain signals prone to artifacts (I can see why it might be, but it depends on how well they can get the technology to work). I've happily used two different 32-bit float audio recorder products and not noticed any artifacts in the results despite at least one of the two using dual ADCs and combining the outputs into one signal. Canon use DGO in the C70 and C300III Super 35 mm cinema cameras but not in their recent full-frame C80 and C400 models, is this because they can't make it work or produce economically in 35 mm full frame size, or are there problems with the technology which lead them to use a different design in their newer products? Although this hand-held gimbal camera might not be my cup of tea (due to the processed appearance of the image, and lack of support for bluetooth timecode and requiring an adapter to take a 3.5mm audio signal), I am interested in seeing if DJI will be bringing out drones with this new 1" sensor, such as in Air 4 or Mini 6 Pro, and if the technology is applicable to still photography. I find that in my Mini 5 Pro, the image quality on flat days is quite good, but in high-contrast environments such as streets between tall buildings, I find the images quite noisy, and not sure what could be done about it while staying within C0 or C1 classes that can be flown over or near people. I have noticed the drone camera in Auto ISO mode (still photography) seems to select excessively high shutter speeds in order to be able to use both base ISOs (100 and 400, if I recall correctly) for a combined image with larger dynamic range. I might not quite make the same choices myself, as I usually am more concerned with the signal-to-noise ratio in the main subject areas of the image. Anyway, more transparent and manually controllable logic in these devices would be useful. I am not keen on purchasing a Mavic 4 Pro (with the larger sensor camera, presumably with less noise) because it cannot be flown over people even accidentally (lawfully), and in the type of environment where I would be mostly interested using the drone, there are usually uninvolved people. I would be keen to try out a new C0 or C1 class drone with this LOFIC sensor, to see what kind of images it would produce in my applications. I think the 20 mm equivalent focal length of the main camera makes sense in the Pocket 4P as it is probably intended to be used frequently to record video of the operator using it at arm's length and to see at least some environment, the wide angle is needed. Also, one can take the 4K video and crop a bit to get a more normal angle of view (40 mm equiv) while still preserving 1080p quality. The sensor area used for this crop would be quite small though, and the image quality can be a concern. Even in full sensor size (no crop) the images don't show that much real detail based on the videos I saw. I think for social media and news usage this is probably fine for special situations such as videos of action (racing cars or bikes, with the camera mounted on a moving platform, or when the operator walks around the subject to capture it from different sides, while the device automatically keeps the subject in the frame). For quick clips of such subjects I am sure it is a great device, and very tempting. But if the purpose is to make video that looks really beautiful, and where the automatic subject tracking is not a priority, I would still assume larger cameras are preferred. The Pocket 4P doesn't have an adjustable diaphragm, and the ND filters have to be clipped onto the lenses, and the Auto ISO doesn't work in the high DR log2 mode (if I got this correctly), which means the operator may often be relying on the dynamic range to get acceptable results rather than controlling exposure. A lot of users will probably let the shutter speed vary, leading to not so smooth motion, but this might not be obvious or completely objectionable when viewed on tiny screens at reading distance away. I am surprised that the integrated gimbal cameras have the options of these tiny devices (230 g) and then the next step up is the Ronin 4D at 4.67 kg. The other options in between include using a generic gimbal and mirrorless camera which can lead to quite heavy setups as well. I would assume there would be space in the market for some intermediate options, such as micro four thirds sensor size with dual lens(cameras) but no interchangeable lenses, that could weight around 500 g or so. Is there something in the market with those parameters?

Big portion of that 16 stops is unrecoverable due to heavy baked in raw processing and NR. LOFIC low light performance is intrinsically poor, so they have to use two or even three readouts with conventional approach and combine them all (which is not very linear) then add some sharpness tricks to reconstruct the degraded quality. At this sensor size and consumer level, nobody cares and the only thing matters is that it makes truly HDR image. To implement this tech in bigger sensor for pro bodies, that process should be way more refined.

I think “completely and utterly” may be doing a little too much work there @kye : P There is also a slightly amusing irony in relying on CineD here, given that Andrew’s forum rules have historically discouraged linking to the site whenever possible, although, of course, he also made clear that such links would not be censored. That aside, the DJI result is undeniably impressive. The 20mm LOFIC camera in D-Log2 seems to be in a different league when it comes to measured dynamic range and exposure latitude. I’m just not sure that this particular test supports such a definitive verdict on the two complete camera systems. Those spectacular figures apply specifically to the 20mm camera in D-Log2. The 60mm camera does not offer D-Log2 and produces considerably more conventional results. On the Luna side, the CineD test seems mainly to reveal that its current I-Log processing is seriously problematic, particularly because of the aggressive internal noise reduction. They did not test the standard profiles, which they themselves suggest may currently be the better option. So, to me, the fair conclusion is that DJI’s best sensor and profile comprehensively outperform Luna’s present I-Log implementation in these specific laboratory tests. That is still a major win for DJI. Just not necessarily a complete and utter defeat of the Luna in every respect. In these comparative tests [A | B] though ; ) the result is rather less one-sided : ) Now compare the Luna’s 8K with the Pocket’s 4K [1 | 2] and judge for yourself ; ) Lab tests are extremely useful because they isolate specific variables and give us repeatable measurements, but they are not the same thing as real-world shooting. They cannot fully account for colour, detail rendering, motion, sharpening, texture, highlight roll-off, subject separation or simply which image looks more convincing in an actual scene. As these comparisons and the footage itself demonstrate, a camera that appears decisively superior on a chart does not necessarily produce the preferable image once we step outside the lab bubble and look at the actual footage. LU I | LU II | LU III | 4P I | 4P II | 4P III Part of it has already been posted, among others, for instance right there. Both are irresistible to me. Whichever one comes out ahead in any particular test, I think both cameras are genuinely worthy of the OOAK label. The Pocket 4P is unique in what it achieves with its 20mm LOFIC sensor and D-Log2 in such a small body, while the Luna Ultra is equally singular in its modular design, detachable remote screen, internal 32-bit float stereo audio and overall shooting concept, particularly with its innovative POV Head Tracker. They are not merely two versions of the same product competing on a laboratory chart; each offers something that currently exists nowhere else.

Yeah, “Unconsciously Stumbling Upon The Appropriate Lens Choice Since 1978” is definitely something I’d like to have as an epitaph.

L10 update… Shot 5x wedding ceremonies plus their day prior & post events exclusively on the L10. Stills only so far… The experience and results have been great. Not S1Rii great or even S9 great (but in isolation more than good enough as a back up camera stepping up to do a job) the latter of which is supposed to be my back up camera but was in the shop being supposedly fixed…but as it turned out the fix was going to cost more than buying another mint used one, I bought another. Also one week long family adventure as my sole camera. Also perfect for that. However, now that I am back with 1.5x S9 camera bodies, I have decided to repurpose the L10 as; personal plus back up plus dedicated gimbal unit. Bought my 4th gimbal but this time determined to actually use and keep it…my previous issues being a combo of; reliability, weight, too much kit, user ineptitude…but as it’s an RS4 Mini with the tracking unit and L10, it should be a pretty sophisticated and lightweight unit. Only 3x more jobs that have video this year but at least it will be a good test ahead of 2027 where every job is hybrid. Should be GH7 level results, albeit with a fixed lens and the lack of IBIS the L10 has removed and improved…

Real 1080p on compacts is a unicorn. None of them do it, they are all pixel binning the 1080p and 720p. There's a wide variance in binned image quality though - some pixel binning techniques get close to native res 1080p. Pixel binning works well on the RX100 M1/M2, these use a good sampling method. Cleanest 1080p for the price, with the fast aperture zoom and the size is as small as it gets. The RX100 M4 or newer got the fast stacked sensor, so they CAN do a full pixel readout for 4K, no crop, but the 1080p is still binned. LX15 I can recommend as an all-round stills compact with 4K, but it still cannot sample the full width for a full pixel readout, the 4K is a crop and the 1080p is binned. I never used it for 1080p so can't vouch for the binning quality. I always 4K'ed it.

I’m getting a Pocket 4p in hand in the coming days. Looking forward to seeing how it matches up with the S1ii and Pyxis 12K. The videos I’ve seen truly are remarkable.

AFAIK Panasonic don't use Sony for all of their sensors - they've implied the GH6/GH7/G9ii sensor is not from Sony (I think the words were 'it's not made by who you think it is' in response to a question at a launch event). OmniVision are also in the LOFIC game - the OV50X50 is a 50MP 1" sensor with both dual-gain and LOFIC - https://www.ovt.com/products/ov50x50/ 'TheiaCel® technology' is their version of HDR capture including LOFIC - https://www.ovt.com/technologies/theiacel-technology/

The reality is although I would desire 1x SL3-P over 1x S1Rii… …2x S1Rii + 4x primes kills to death, any (existing) single camera lens combo from any manufacturer. The closest today might be the Nikon Z8 or the Sony A7Rvi with f2 28-70, but even then, 28mm is nowhere near 18mm and 70mm is not 85mm. And that is the ‘one & done’ camera/lens scenario, ie, it does not exist without a substantial compromise. Real world, I shall soldier on with my pair of S1Rii’s with my 4 primes because they just work. I’ve been trying to find even a single criticism of the S1Rii and other than overheating shooting even ‘just’ 4k on longer takes on hot days (no longer an issue now I have my audio-less S9 and second S9 in the house), I can’t find one. Loved my S1H and my S1R’s, but this developed hybrid of the two is better real world tool and one of the best hybrid cameras in existence to date.

Good discussion and I think this cuts to the heart of how different the thought process really is. If I'm shooting in public with a single prime then this is how I am thinking about it: - I have a fixed FOV, but I can move around and closer/further and when I do that I change all of the following at once: - the size of the subject in the frame - the perspective I have on the subject - the size and position of the subject compared to the items in the foreground and background - my distance to the subject - my influence on what I am shooting - So I visualise the situation in 3D and estimate where I need to move to create the composition I want - I move there and refine the camera position and take the shot If I'm shooting in public with a zoom then this is how I am thinking about it: - I have a flexible FOV and I can move closer/further so when I do that I can: - zoom, which changes the size of the subject and foreground and background in the frame without changing their relationships, or my distance, or without changing my influence on the subjects - move, which changes the perspective I have on the subject and therefore the relationships of the objects in the scene to each other, and it changes the subject distance and my influence on what I am shooting - So I visualise the situation in 3D and estimate a line/cone of positions I can be in to create broadly the composition I want through varying combinations of focal length and my position - I weigh up my priorities, trading subject distance, my influence on the subject/scene, and composition against each other to work out what I think is the best balance - Depending on the layout, I also consider how fast I can get there compared to what is happening in the scene - I move there and refine the camera position and zoom simultaneously, and take the shot One is starting with a single FOV and working from there, the other is starting with an infinite number of FOVs. The thinking is completely different. When I'm using a prime the idea of zooming is completely alien and when I am using a zoom the idea of there being set focal lengths is completely alien. It's like I have two programs in my head, one for primes and one for zooms, and I just run the appropriate one for what lens I am using at the time. The idea of taking a zoom and limiting it to preset lengths might seem like a miracle compared to having a prime, but it's a disaster compared to having a zoom lens. I spoke more about this in my dedicated thread about it, and once you start thinking beyond composition and into aesthetics and tone the idea that a 35mm vs 50mm FOV are 'similar' is about as ridiculous as a photo editor only allowing you to crop the image by 0% or 30% (this is the difference in FOV between a 50mm and a 35mm). I'm sure you're aware of these fundamental differences from your own shooting and you'll have been doing all this consciously or unconsciously. If you start from a technical perspective then a zoom is just like a set of primes, but from a creative perspective it's nothing like a set of primes whatsoever.

It depends on the range really. A 24-70mm is definitely 3-4 primes for me but something like the Canon 35-350mm is a different animal. Leica used to do these two lenses They are referred to as MATE (Medium Angle Tri-Elmar) and WATE (Wide Angle Tri-Elmar) and are “zoom” lenses with fixed focal length stops. The MATE is stepped at 28-35-50mm and the WATE at 16-18-21mm which on their intended use (Rangefinders) were used with a specific ad on viewfinder that was so clunky it is known as the Frankenfinder. They are not fast but are compact and have focal length stops that make sense so are very much a bag of primes (and very much more useful adapted on to an EVF body). Some Panasonic fixed lens cameras (LX10 and LX100 spring to mind) emulate this by allowing you to use the zoom ring to increment to fixed focal lengths and it is a good feature especially on those with return to position on power on functionality. I *think* some of the Sony RX100 do this as well.

Apparently Sony is working on a smaller LOFIC sensor now, so swapping to LOFIC may well mean sticking with Sony, especially if you already have a deal of some kind worked out.

I suggested in the other group that Panasonic should put LOFIC sensors in their ILCsand someone went on about mythical organic sensor, which quite frankly may remain just that. Panasonic should just put LOFIC sensors in all their new cameras, and ditch Sony if it doesn't improve sensor tech enough. I would love to see an Even Smaller GX camera with a 20-50MP 1inch LOFIC sensor. The LX10 is frankly too large for most pockets.

I recently watched a video where a street photographer tested his first 40mm lens, after only ever shooting with 35mm and 50mm lenses previously, and he couldn't really make heads-or-tails out of it in the week he had it. You could tell from the video that he found it different than a 35mm or 50mm, and that didn't surprise me, but what did catch my attention was that he didn't really even know how to explore and learn a new focal length. After reflecting on that video for some time I realised that: Lots of people must "learn" the focal lengths by sort-of memorising them based on external influences rather than just using them and learning first hand through experimentation With MFT and S16 cameras I'm used to using all sorts of "odd" focal lengths because I'm adapting all kinds of lenses from other systems with/without speedboosters and add-on anamorphic and spherical adapters I'm also used to getting a new focal length and using it blind and over the course of many outings of shooting with it gradually learning what impacts it has on what I shoot, how I shoot, how I walk around, how I begin to look at the world, how the world adapts to me once I adapt, how I feel when the world reacts to that, etc.. Using a zoom isn't like having a complete set of primes at all, it's almost like a different genre or different type of shooting entirely, but I'm quite familiar with that as well Now, when I think about using a particular focal length that I'm familiar with, all kinds of stuff comes to mind, and when I think about using one I am not familiar with, I don't know how to think about it at all.. the focal lengths are all so incredibly different. Having a camera with a 20mm and a 60mm seems like: - the people who don't know what they're doing won't notice (as they're confused about everything already) - the people that are used to shooting with primes will have an awkward and steep learning curve that they might not navigate that well - the people that know how to learn new focal lengths will probably adapt, but given the 35mm and 50mm FOVs are at the worst end of the main lens, they'll likely have a difficult experience choosing between a 2.5x crop of the main camera to get 50mm, or losing the DR and colour profile on the 60mm lens It might be that these are actually ideal for the type of shooting that people will use this camera for, and it's the normal FOVs that are ill-suited, but if you've "learned" the 24/28/35/50/85/100mm FOVs then it'll be a serious transition to navigate.

It lets them hit attractive spec points like 3x optical zoom and 12x zoom when using the digital shenanigans. Although the 3x optical zoom is actually 3x switch as the intermediate points are digital and if you are in D-Log2 then it’s a hard switch as there is no digital zoom. I think 45mm equivalent would’ve been better from a practical point of view but 2.25x optical zoom and 9x total zoom doesn’t look as good in the marketing. Even though 20-190mm equivalent is still not too shabby ! A good practical look at the challenges around shooting with it in this video.

This is the wide angle adapter. Wouldn’t take much of a leap for them to have a wide angle adapter in the unpopulated area where the tele lens sits behind. Or make one with removable magnetic tc/wa adapter set to choose which one you want (or not) in front of which lens. I expect Ulanzi will have such a set out within the month 😂

Yeah, as someone who shoots out and about (but doesn't vlog) 20mm and 60mm equivalents seem a little odd to me, although the 20mm makes sense for vlogging as it's just wide enough, and I guess having anything shorter than 60 would be a little too close to the 20 perhaps? Then again, I've worked out that I can do this odd thing called "cropping" which involves getting less than 4K in the final image, which is why no-one has ever thought of it before. It all still seems very cumbersome though. The log profile swapping etc smells like they'll release firmware updates to make it much easier. I often get the impression that the manufacturers get their product design feedback from people who film very deliberately and slowly, and only when it hits the market and people all point out the workflow gotchas that firmware updates eventually fix strange things like this.

There are already wide converters to put on the 20mm lens. How long until someone releases one for the 60mm tele. You could sell a set of 30 / 40 / 50mm attachments. Or a tele converter to turn the 20mm lens into 60mm and then you can keep D-Log2.

The 'Enhance' feature on CCTV is not longer reserved for detective series.

video surveillance is about to get REAL good!

The niggle with the P4P comes with the tele lens. The first being that 60mm equivalent might actually be a bit too tight for some purposes. It has an alluring shallow depth of field that vloggers will be drawn to using for filming themselves but it’s just that too tight to be held at a distance that will give a decent framing. The second of course is that it can’t use the new D-Log2 as it’s got a different sensor which means another step in post in swapping in correction LUTs on shots that use it. This is compounded by the utterly ridiculous limitation that you have to stop recording and manually change profiles. So if you are on the 20mm enjoying your bonkers 17 stops of dynamic range you can’t zoom through to get a tighter shot without stopping recording and selecting the lower profile. The answer is to always stick in the lower profile )or even a standard non-LOG one) but DJI really need to have a firmware update to allow a way of automatically transitioning if you are using DLog-2. It will still require the recording being stopped (automatically though if they implement it) and the extra step in post of making sure you have the correct LUT for each type of shot but it avoids the titting about with the small touch screen to change profiles, something which will be become very old very quickly. For me, I’d keep it in the standard Dlog profile for general use and treat the D-Log2 as more of a special case when I need more stops than a church organ. The lens though is not something that can be solved with a firmware update and for some people (not me as I am as averse to my own face as other onlookers are) it will be an issue when they start using it in earnest.

CineD tests are published, and the DJI kicks the Insta360s butt completely and utterly. https://www.cined.com/dji-osmo-pocket-4p-lab-test-rolling-shutter-dynamic-range-and-exposure-latitude/ https://www.cined.com/insta360-luna-ultra-lab-test-rolling-shutter-dynamic-range-and-exposure-latitude/

Cined just published their tests of the DJI OSMO Pocket 4P camera, with the new LOFIC sensor, and oh boy does it deliver! Highlights from their testing (of the wide camera): 16 stops at SNR=2, and 17.2 stops at SNR=1, with no internal NR (better than the Alexa 35 and any other camera they've ever tested) 10+ stops of latitude (second only to the Alexa 35) and potentially limited by the 10-bit codec and maybe not the sensor 11ms rolling shutter (not bad, and better than DGO designs) Their studio lights weren't powerful enough to clip the sensor, it has that much DR! The telephoto camera from the DJI isn't a LOFIC sensor and despite testing very well it's not at the same level of performance. The full test: https://www.cined.com/dji-osmo-pocket-4p-lab-test-rolling-shutter-dynamic-range-and-exposure-latitude/ In watching their podcast presentation they revealed a bunch of other interesting info: This is the first of these (tiny consumer) devices that isn't trying to adapt itself to the scene, so it's a "real camera" in the sense that it's not heavily processing things They mentioned they had the iPhone 17 Pro in for testing and even when it was in full manual mode, just by moving the focus point it would change the test results etc As the main DJI camera is ~20mm FOV, they had to develop a new testing setup so the bright patches of the Xyla didn't reflect from the camera onto the dim patches etc LOFIC sensors are likely to be coming into smartphones soon, as this is where the money is in the R&D Sony are working on a smaller version of a LOFIC sensor which would be suitable for smartphones and also for the telephoto camera on the DJI Also, the OG BMPCC got a mention, as they were talking about how it would be great to have such a sensor in a "real" camera body and with interchangeable lenses etc, but MFT sensor size isn't that far away from this, so that could also happen too. Panasonic went DGO and maybe would do this too.. I'm stoked for the GH8!! Just incredible, and I second the idea of fitting one of these to a body like the OG BMPCC! Images. Waveform plot for the DJI OSMO Pocket 4P 20mm wide D-Log2 ISO1600 Imatest result for the 20mm wide camera, D-Log2 at ISO1600 Latitude tests of the wide camera: The 4-stop over, which due to their lighting restrictions was still probably 1-2 stops from clipping: