Leaderboard

Something is bugging me with camera manufacturers. We live in a world where our smartphones have these amazing high resolution screens. Super bright, super sharp, and packed with detail. Even affordable camera monitors that you can attach to your rig offer incredible image quality. So why don’t hybrid and cinema cameras come with built in screens that match this level of quality? And why are the screens they do have so small? I get it, manufacturers want to keep the cameras “compact.” But let’s be real. Once you start adding external monitors, cages, batteries, and other gear, that compact idea goes out the window. Your camera isn’t small anymore. It’s a rigged up machine A bigger, high quality built in screen could save so much time and effort. No extra gear, fewer cables to manage, and one less thing to power. It just makes sense, right? Cameras are getting better and better in every way higher resolutions, faster processing, incredible dynamic range, 32bit audio. So why not the screens? It feels like a missed opportunity. I’d love to see cameras that embrace bigger, brighter, and better built-in screens. It’s not just about convenience, it’s about making the shooting experience smoother and more efficient. What do you think? Would you prefer a cinema camera with a killer built in screen, or are you fine sticking with external monitors?

I agree and I don't think it is the heat from the ground. There are definitely a few out-of-focus moments in the cheetah chase. Perhaps it is operator error, wrong settings, or preproduction issues. I guess my point is that, especially when considering the autosport clip, the A1II's AF is much improved from the A1, where video AF was more limited in terms of AF types, performance, and subjects. For wildlife video, the R1 seems like the best AF in the business: Using a DNG converter, you could also use the R1's 14-bit RAW photo bursts as video clips, since the high-speed buffer is sustained for a good length of time (10-20 seconds).

I think EVFs are great in controlled environments or bright conditions, but they can be impractical when you need peripheral vision or quick adjustments. As for the articulating screen idea, it’s clever. A larger screen that tilts, slides, and hides buttons underneath could be ideal if designed well and built to last. It’d keep things compact while improving usability. The rotating grip is another cool idea. Canon nailed it on the XC10 and their cinema cameras. Adding that to mirrorless bodies could make handheld shooting so much more comfortable. Camera companies should really explore these kinds of features.

And gimbals. Another PITA. I’ve had mixed results using the latest IBIS in my S5ii so almost certainly picking up an OSMO Pocket 3 next Spring.

I also despise it, the form factor is terrible. Poor balance, top heavy, overcomplicated, poor battery life, unreliable, wobbly cable, you name it... And the advantage is minimal, the main use case for a rig is to make it look more fancy... in front of clueless clients.

I despise (using) an external monitor. For commercial use I get it, but for more run & gun event shooters, never mind hybrid shooters, using rigged out set ups is a PITA.

I absolutely agree that we should be seeing much more progress than we are there... Seems like a bit of a cartel thing with Sony stitching up the supply side of LCDs or something. Obviously there is a need to prioritise physical controls and body size, which means fitting in a big monitor isn't easy unless you change the design concept radically. And this is where the Japanese are very reluctant to innovate. The overall design concept of mirrorless cameras is extremely static and samey.

The worst example of this is the Apple Pencil. With a lithium ion battery the size of a pea, it often dies on people who don't use it for a month, never to be used again. This didn't happen to me, but I plug it in all the time and check it every week. What a pain in the ass!