Leaderboard

I got a Kodak Charmera keychain camera recently. It's terrible and you shouldn't buy one, but it is interesting. In case you don't know, keychain cameras are seriously tiny cameras (think smaller than a GoPro) and have gone viral in the last year or so. The Kodak Charmera is probably the most viral one, with multiple production runs being sold out very quickly and reissues etc. Here's mine in comparison to some other cameras, including a couple of GoPro-sized action cameras and some actually pocketable cameras (GF3 and GX85). Why is the Charmera interesting? I think the design is essentially perfect: It's incredibly small (obviously) and ridiculously light but it's actually quite tough It's got a 35mm equivalent FOV lens It charges from USB-C With almost any MicroSD card it has practically infinite storage It has a rear screen that is just large enough to navigate the (very simple) menu and frame shots It's super-simple to use, if you plug it into a computer it turns on, mounts as a USB drive (without needing any software), charges the battery while connected, then when you unplug it it turns off again It's a ~15Mbps motion JPEG codec It's USD $30 Why aren't I recommending it? The image quality is terrible. TERRIBLE. It says it has a 1440x1080 sensor, and that's the resolution of the JPGs and video files, but I think it's 2x2 binned, and heavily sharpened too, so it's a very poor quality VGA camera. I shot a resolution chart - the moire was practically psychedelic. JPGs are just as bad as the video files No control over anything and with its AE it's perfectly happy to clip the crap out of decent chunks of the image Why am I even bothering to write about it then? It's a new class of camera. We haven't really had cameras that were smaller than action cameras before, but not only have we got them now, but they sold out multiple times, so the world (or at least the trendy impulse buying world) has solidly suggested there is demand for them. As far as I can tell, the competitors are action cameras, or those that are smaller like the Insta360 Go, and that's about it. Those are 10x the price though, and larger and not nearly as fun to use. The image quality of them is vastly superior, but in todays market where I wish I could get a camera that was smaller, had a quarter (or sixteenth) the resolution, and was drastically cheaper, this is the kind of thing that didn't used to exist really. Even just playing with it around the house, I film things I wouldn't normally film. It feels different to use. This is a new product in the market that smartphones basically killed. Everyone used to have small point-n-shoot cameras but they all got killed by smartphones - the industry essentially got eaten from the bottom up. This is the first counter-example I'm aware of (other than action cameras). I would venture that everyone who bought one already had a smartphone, so this fulfils a niche that their expensive fragile dopamine-addicting smartphone doesn't. Retro cameras have enjoyed a resurgence recently, but I would suggest that this is different as it's a new thing rather than an old thing limping along. This might make executives take note - it's not that small cameras are dying slower than they think - there is active demand and innovation in this space. Tech gets better. Assuming this form-factor remains popular, the video quality will get better. I don't know why it wouldn't remain around.. kids aren't likely to want to record themselves less in future, tiny things won't stop being cute, having something so small it takes up zero space in your pocket (it's a keychain camera!) won't stop being handy, etc. What I'd really like to see is a 'pro' version of this camera.. one that takes real 1080p video and doesn't sharpen it like it's entering a butchering competition. Same size (or a little larger), same simple design, could be more expensive and still be interesting.

Some kid will use that camera and make a short film and upload it to YT, then he'll get a Hollywood deal. A couple will buy 30 of them and put then on the wedding guest's tables for people to snap photos and take some video. The groom will edit them all together on his phone while sitting on the beach during his honeymoon. He will also upload it to YT and probably get a Hollywood deal. lol.

Most people will probably end up buying both and using them with two different focal lengths, as in the case of the filmmaker you referred to. That level of flexibility is hard to beat. After all, they’re portable and easy to carry around. The footage matches pretty well too. I wouldn’t even mind making a few minor tweaks, if any are needed.

I've shot a no budget feature film (partially) as a DP under similar circumstances last year. we had some permissions here and there to shoot in metros and train stations for a few hours, but mostly it was outside in the busy capital city. i'll share a still of it here, if somebody wants to see more stills I can DM a link, but at the moment I think it's best it mainly stays private considering the film is not finished yet. i do kind of think best to push back against the idea of total minimalism, or austerity especially in regards to crew. Other than the director and I, we had a 1AD, a PA, a makeup artist, sound guy, a focus puller, and on some days a grip or a gaffer (on the few moments we weren't just relying on available light). our director was someone who was frankly underexperienced and would generally completely abandon our preproduction plans, change the script all the time and was unwilling to listen to anyone else's suggestions other than the actors, which caused some tension from time to time. having these other people on your side to keep you in line can make this experience a lot more pleasant since it's hard to make films, no matter how small the scope is. this was shot on a largely rigged up BMCC6K with some SLR Magic primes, and mostly on a cine saddle. I guess we we're pretty lucky with not being bothered by strangers while shooting, other than having some random people staring at the camera in a wide shot. also the thing with walking around in a medium 2-shot is that it is insanely boring, especially for a visual language. there's a reason that doesn't really happen in WKW's stuff.

Well just edited my first full set of stills and as expected, my S1RII utterly obliterates it in that regard. Even without pixel peeping, it’s instantly obvious on my MacBook. Probably on a phone or social media, would not notice, but actually editing the files, enormous gap including; detail, micro-contrast, WB handling, colour fidelity, higher ISO, you name it, it’s not any kind of contest. But I never expected it to be and it’s where and what I expected it to be and that is good enough for the specific purposes I have for the L10. Not tried the video yet and would expect that to be a closer contest. Battery life is great!

About a week now the camera section of the internet has been harping around the latest FX5 rumors. A lot of people seem disappointed that it may not have a global shutter or even built in NDs. Whether those rumors end up being true or not isn’t really my point. My point is that everyone seems to forget Lumix. Does anyone remember in 2019, Panasonic announced its 8k organic sensor tech? 8K LUMIX Instead of having the sensor basically doing everything in one layer, the light capturing and the electronics are separated. What are the benefits? Well, higher dynamic range, global shutter without the usual hit in DR, and to me the most exciting part, electronic ND built into the freaking sensor. And in this 6 years old video a Panasonic rep specifically says this tech will trickle into LUMIX cameras. It’s now been close to 7 years since the original S1H. If Panasonic has been quietly refining this technology all this time, I wouldn’t be surprised if the next S1H or a new compact cinema camera is the one that finally delivers the combination of high dynamic range, global shutter, and built in ND filters that so many people have been asking for.

I see a tons people complaining about the marketing/hype machine that is the "filmmaking sector" of YouTube, and I hate a lot of those clichés too. That being said, it has been in the back of my mind to try out for a while, so yesterday I had some free time and I finally decided to give it a go! Turns out it's actually a lot harder to film yourself and talk right to camera than I anticipated (I very quickly abandoned my plans to shoot it anamorphic, focusing on my S1, all by myself, was just way too difficult) and the whole process took me far longer to shoot and edit than I expected. Anyway, here's my (first ever) attempt at this kind of video: I'm assuming a good number of users on here consume as much YouTube as I (sometimes regretfully) do? I've always considered Eoshd as a cut above the rest of the internet filmmaking-afficcionado crowd. I'd love to see anything anyone else on here is making in this space too, and/or see if we can start a discussion about good, lesser-known channels to follow that aren't specifically about shoving gear/affiliate links and clickbait sensation down our throats.

Found this guy — no idea if he is one of us EOSHD’ers : P but if not, it would be nice to see him here ; ) https://www.youtube.com/@TheGrowingPro/videos Seems fairly enthusiastic : ) Fascinating collection of stuff to dig into, and a bit of variety among all the new releases. He’s a fan of the GH series too, with some lovely thoughts on a few cams, opinions, ideas and concepts many of us share here (brand-agnostic as well, which is always a plus in my book), and he’s also into medium format! Maybe not the kind of fancy channel people are used to seeing pop up there ; ) but that can actually be a good thing these days : D Pretty much gets my vote ;- ) @Parker I've just watched the full 6:13 video you shared with us. Thanks for that, I really enjoyed it. Pity you haven’t kept going with more stuff since then. What happened in the meantime? To borrow from your own thread title: why not? :- )

Originally posted in another thread, but given what it is, I think it deserves a place of its own. There’s something very real happening here right now. This is not just a minor upgrade. : ) Insta360 sample for focal length range. source (from Leica HQ BTW) And that detachable screen is basically an on-set field monitor. WOW What a killer combo : X

Amazing jump. One stop already means 2x light. Now imagine five stops!

Well, a bit hard to resist to 17-stops of dynamic range of the new D-Log 2, isn't it? ;- ) source More on that here, in the edit.

Can't wait to receive mine!

Looks like they’re reading this thread.

Now, about using it in summer... are we talking about a mild summer, or an actual summer that isn’t even properly hot, where the camera doesn’t need to suddenly remember it has thermal limits? Here’s a useful 45-minute guide: And last but not least, one of the best comparison tests I've found so far, if not the most interesting with a unique range of pros and cons is here, as well as probably the smartest use of a fine example for low light is there (serves as tutorial too). To those who still think this unique accessory called the POV Head Tracker is merely pointless/meaningless, take a look at what Insta360’s CEO Insta360’s CEO said on the matter, when he said he hopes “that one day everyone will forget cameras even exist” : o EDIT — Worth adding too: the new Pocket 4P/Pro filters are already starting to appear, alongside the brand-new D-Log 2 enabled by an equally new next-generation LOFIC image sensor. And what about noise texture or quality of the grain in D-Log and D-Log 2 when testing the ISO range? A 2nd test, colour included, plus a comparative analysis between the two and against S-Log3 no less*, from another reviewer here. BTW... Also not to forget the bitrate difference likewise highlighted by this old-school written comparison/review: Pocket 4P/Pro goes up to 180 Mbps versus Luna Ultra’s 120 Mbps, exactly 50% higher. The question is: what will be the real-world impact of that extra compression headroom in demanding scenes and heavier Log grading? * A 5-stop difference in D-Log 2 and a full stop in D-Log... a 4-stop gap between the two! Well, who would have guessed? ; ) + another test: compared with the full-frame a7 V [LINK] : X

Do you think it’s time for a revival? I could blog about the mission 1 however it’s not a Nikon…

😝 not sure if i should be offended or not... I vaguely remember him as a nikon guy ? i watched few of his youtubes but there was something that didn't click with me, i didn't watch much of his stuff.

Another thread where I'll mention the Insta360 Go 2/3/ultra or similar as an option. The price is definitely higher than a Charmera, but in terms of size, it's maybe even a little smaller? And with much better image quality. From what I remember, the carrying/protective case in the Go 2 is about the size of an Airpods case and I've definitely kept those in my pocket before. Matt Granger has entered the chat

Good on you for trying something different, i lost interest after the image quality comment.. For two reasons 1) i dont think it will happen, every 2 year old and up has already mastered mums phone, and their bigger and heavier than any action camera i think. Ergonomically and for useability i think there's real constraints to avoid when going much smaller in an action camera for the majority of people. If one wanted a tenfold increase in quality you'd just buy a second hand gopro i reckon or other action camera if your not a fan of gopros. 2) I think the amount of people screaming for less sharpening on camera and letting the user deal with it is a very small segment of the market. Which they have been able to ignore so far. Although with the amount of youtubes available on sharpening and grading online, manufactures may have to lift their game soon. In some instances its happening we have the mission1, now theres also 2 other action camera threads on the forum so we should be well catered for.

At $30 i'd buy one...

If it had a decent camera I'd actually be interested. But the ones I've seen will all end up as e-waste eventually. If it took photos (I don't really care if it takes video) that looked good on social media I'd be very interested though.

A couple of my cousins did this a couple of decades ago : ) with Kodak disposable 35mm film cameras. No photographer, no wedding videographer at all ;- )

Love the way you put it! : ) As everyone of your posts BTW < 3 Thanks, always a pleasure reading you : ) Great-juicy-post BTW part II ;- )

The example pictures online are actually cherry-picked. The images I'm seeing from mine are worse, to the extent I wondered if I got a fake. When I looked closer I just think they chose the nicest ones, which is really just how social media works! You'd be forgiven for thinking it's the lens, but it's really not. Here is a sample image so you can see what I'm seeing. Charmera - 1440x1080 - SOOC - 280K file size: For reference, here's a 1440x1080 280K image from my GX85 with matched FOV: The level of detail is incomparable. What happens if I take the GX85 image and 2x downscale it to 720px then upscale it to 1440 280K again? It's a lot closer, and obviously I haven't sharpened the crap out of it (just doing this quickly in Preview on Mac). But what happens if I take a 3x downsample 480px, then upscale to 1440 280K again? This is definitely lower resolution (the artefacts from the lower res are larger compared to the Charmera). Charmera crop: GX85 -> 3x downsample -> 1440px: GX85 -> 2x downsample -> 1440px: That's much closer. What does all this mean? The limitation is the processor. I believe that they're using a 1440x1080 processor (as they claim) but they're using it in a 720x576 20p readout mode, then sharpening the crap out of it, then upscaling it to 1440x1080, converting it from 20p to 30p, then compressing it to ~15Mbps. The colour isn't that great either, this may be a processing thing too, I'm not sure. The issue is that for them to use the sensor in a 1440 readout mode would require 4x the data rates, which is 4x the processing. If you want the file in real 30p instead of 20p padded out to 30p, that's another 50% again, so 6x the processing. As we know from compact cameras that try and be 4K or 6K and also small, that's overheating territory. It's also "batteries only last how long?!?!?!?!?!" territory. So it would need to be 6x more powerful. I'm not really sure how much extra space those things would require, although GoPro can now do 8K30, which is 16x the data rates of a 2K30 camera, plus its doing all kinds of stabilisation processing etc on top of that, so I'd imagine there is room for these things in such a device if someone was to make one. Someone said that this circuit is likely a very common circuit in all kinds of cameras like dash cams etc, so it's probably only through economies of scale that this can be done. There were quite a number of action cameras and other common cameras that had a real 1080p30 readout, so maybe the pro version could leverage one of those existing architectures of existing chips. That would be pretty awesome!

Me too. I see them and they look fun but the picture examples are so bad. The sharpening is the worst part of it (but likely to make up for the low quality lens.) Being the age I am, I don't get any nostalgia for the look of early digital cameras. I want a better image (even if it's small by today's standards.) It doesn't have to be raw but a higher bitrate JPEG would be great. The option to save two files, one raw (or log high bitrate JPEG) and a JPEG with an in camera filter applied would be good. Unlike the days of early digital cameras, there's no need to save storage space anymore. I once had a little spy pen camera, no viewfinder, only 1 megapixel. It only held 12 pictures but they were pretty good quality considering the size. It was fun because you just pointed in the general direction and clicked. Only later when you got home you found out what you got. Not a design thing, just the limitations of the time. I got it for ten bucks or something and it was totally worth it for a bit of fun a few times. It sat in a drawer for twenty years and now doesn't hold a charge. It's not worth it for me to replace the battery.

Some more stills from resolve, 4k today first up is a sunset, not the prettiest colours but a sunset none the less. i do think when you stop recording 4k the processing continues on for a few seconds longer than standard 1080. Not that i have timed it, that's the feeling i get. I do think the new processor is getting a good workout and there must be a fair chunk of ram hidden in there to buffer things while the processor does its thing. I think the mission1 will probably excel at timelapses as i think this image is quite nice for a still and i haven't gone past the default settings yet. Next up is a kitten image. The interesting thing ( to me ) is the kitten still is after the sunset still by a few minutes yep appear brighter, i presume the mission1 is doing some "magic" in the background to lift the levels. It is quite dark going by human eyes in the shed. Yet you would most likely think this is taken an hour earlier. If i start zooming in i see stuff i don't like pretty quickly and maybe thats from some of the magic that the mission1 employed while it was doing its thing. Overall i think the image is acceptable and footage looks ok ( to me ) on either a computer or ipad i haven't tried a 4k tv yet . I have yet to try 8k and to me 8k, seems like complete overkill. I dont mind 4k reduced down to 1080 the stills seem a little sharper / cleaner perhaps. Although @kye might be a little nonplussed about that 😉 Some motion blur that ( I think ) should indicate the mission1 is operating at a slow shutter speed. I do have some ideas about filming lowlight stuff but it won't be neon lights as theres not much of that out here. Plus there's the fact my dad had a stroke 2 weeks ago and is paralyzed on the right side, so its dad first the farm and animals 2nd and everything else when i can find a moment. Painters pole at near full extension, so thats my arms extended, me gripping the pole at the bottom with both hands and the pole at near full extension, there may have been another 150mm of travel left in the pole not sure. Still i think thats a respectable height to achieve with a gopro without strapping it to a drone. Not sure i could manage more than a few seconds of motionlessness at full height. I suspect the gimbal at the top is helping to calm things down. I reckon if i wanted to incorporate motion, more of a deliberate move from a to b may help keep things steady and maybe not trying for full extension will help as well.

@eatstoomuchjam I've always been a fan of the EF 24-70mm f/4 (IS) so def looking at that lens as an option. As for the pdmovie option, I'm ok with its limitations - but overall, I agree with alot of what you're saying. And the thing about the ZR is that bcuz my main cams are two R5Cs and a R50V, when I start hitting that $3K CAD territory (which is how much a used ZR + EF to L adapter w/ VND goes for in my neck of the woods) suddenly I'm like $600 CAD shy of a new Canon R6V, and I already own all the accessories that cam would need. Meanwhile the FP or S9 (with all necessary accessories) will run me under $2K. First world problems tho!

It's been a while, but I think it was either that or a slightly bigger cage that wrapped the whole camera. I had the option for the bottom-mounted SSD or a side-mounted smaller one. I primarily used the side-mounted one since it was overall smaller. I didn't - I don't have a lot of interest in shooting 1080p these days. If I did, I'd be more inclined to re-buy the original BMPCC (sometimes I consider this and always turn back when I see the current prices). The EF 35/2 IS is great. I don't think I have (or have used) the EF 24/2.8 IS, but it's decent. You might also consider the 24-70/4L IS. It's definitely a little bigger than the other two lenses, but not bigger than both of them together. Not as fast, but the fp is alright in low light. I personally didn't like the PDMovie at all. The one that I had used some weird little batteries and there was no way to tell it to focus on anything but the closest thing. YMMV. If it were me nowadays, I'd give a hard look at the ZR. A used ZR costs more than a used FP, but the difference gets to be less when you end up buying a DPL cage and PDMovie to make up for the FP's shortcomings - and closer yet with the flip screen mod. With the ZR, you'll get a much nicer screen, decent autofocus, and built-in raw.

These two [1*] [2] Korean hands-on videos are probably among the most useful references I have seen so far on the Luna Ultra / Pocket 4P discussion. EDIT — plus this one from another reviewer elsewhere: [3] Not because they end the debate, on the contrary : ) but since they also help show the real operational trade-offs better than most spec-sheet comparisons, while still offering some fairly clear findings on the usual comparison points, such as outcome, colour or dynamic range, whenever those aspects are covered. source *In this 1st video, right from the start, you can see exactly that approach: using this kind of camera as a serious B-cam tool (Osmo Pocket 3) in commercial work, very close to the way I have also been using small capture devices in a similar role, as mentioned before.

Here is the confrontation young upstart Kubrick had with an established cinematographer re different focal lengths ,that Mercer is referring to.Kubrick is known as a "single camera director" but used multiple cameras sometimes like in the war room sequences of "Dr Strangelove.".He often shot a scene more than 30 times to reduce the artificial acting and get the performers displaying raw emotion.Not much use have fabulous cinematography if the acting is not up to it,the audio is poor or the story dull and boring.

This is exactly why I ended up selling my fp and fp-l. I tried just about everything to keep the kit small for raw recording. And kept coming back to how big they got, even with the smallest possible external SSD (one of the DPL SSD cases in their mount). By the time I added that, I had a camera the same size as my Canon R5, but also less capable than the R5. If Sigma would release the exact same camera, but able to record compressed 12-bit raw to SD card (Canon did it on the C70 and they do it in raw lt on the C80!) - or with a CFE slot that can record the existing uncompressed raw, I'd be strongly considering it again. The default size for the fp is just so good. Similarly, once the price of the bf gets to "not silly" level, I'd be apt to get one. Anyway, the ZR seems to be almost everything that I wanted the fp to be - it's another one that I'm likely to get someday after prices drop more (or there's a crazy good sale).

I assume some of you have heard this story... when Stanley Kubrick got his first Hollywood job directing a movie, he asked the cinematographer to switch to a different lens for the next shot. Instead, he moved the camera to get the shot. Kubrick asked him to put the camera back and switch the lens like he asked. The cinematographer told him it was the same shot if you moved the camera or changed the lens. Being a photographer in his previous life, Kubrick disagreed and said the perspective changed. Unless I'm remembering this story incorrectly, the man vehemently disagreed and refused to do what Kubrick asked, so Kubrick was forced to fire him and throw him off his set. Of course there's a lot to lensing than just FOV, the question becomes how important does the perspective, in this case, matter? Kubrick was right, the shot changed and it mattered to him because it was his film. Would the audience have felt the difference in what he was trying to communicate with that specific lens, from that specific distance? Possibly. The question becomes how much does it affect yours. I remember when I first got my 5Diii and the 24-70mm f/4. I was checking the light on the talent and lining up my shot and the image looked a little flat, so I zoomed in and stepped back and the talent popped. In that instance, I used a little bit of 1,2 and 3 I suppose. I can't lie and say I did this to emphasize any theme or symbolism, I was merely looking for a shot with a bit more dimension so I zoomed with the zoom and zoomed with my feet... it was that moment I knew I was a pro in my own mind.

I think @kye’s point still stands, and maybe it becomes even clearer once you move away from the usual zooms vs primes argument. It always comes down to how much convenience a zoom actually buys you, especially when time becomes critical. On a controlled set, changing lenses can break rhythm, slow down the crew, cost minutes, and sometimes cost the shot. In uncontrolled environments, it can be even more decisive, because you may simply not have the time, the space, or the chance to change lenses before the moment is gone. So yes, a zoom can solve a very practical problem: time, reaction and continuity. That should not be underestimated. If the situation is changing in front of you, the practical convenience of a zoom can become creatively important too. But I don’t think this cancels the OP’s deeper point. There is also another kind of convenience in truly understanding a given focal length. It teaches you where to stand, how close to be, how to move, how much space to leave, and how the scene changes once your own position changes. A zoom may save the moment, but understanding focal lengths changes how you read the moment in the first place. And this is also why I have never had any patience for the 2x, 3x, 5x terminology. I always prefer the actual focal length value, because that tells me something real about the relationship between camera, subject and space. “2x” may be convenient marketing language, but “35mm”, “50mm” or “85mm” immediately tells you much more about how the image is likely to feel and how you may need to position yourself. Leonel Vieira is a good recent example of this. This June, while shooting the making-of on A NOITE, I was able to observe that very particular relationship he has with focal lengths, especially his liking for 75mm and 100mm lenses, focal lengths he has often favoured and used there. That is not just a technical preference. It affects distance, performance, compression, the way actors are observed, and the emotional space between camera and subject. With those lenses, the focal length becomes part of the staging itself, not just a number attached to the lens.

The gyro control itself is not new, correct. But I don’t think the interesting part here is simply that “gyro control exists”. Of course it does. Larger gimbals, phone apps, remote monitors and systems such as the Ronin 4D have already explored that territory. The question for me is not whether the underlying idea existed before, but whether it becomes useful in a different way once the whole system becomes small enough, fast enough, integrated enough and unobtrusive enough. Many ideas in cinema technology existed before they became truly useful. Stabilised camera movement existed before Steadicam became the right combination of body, balance, operation and image. Small cameras existed before 16mm, and later DV, changed the way filmmakers could move through reality. Remote operation existed before it became practical in the hands of a one or two-person crew. So yes, if we reduce this to “a gyro controlling a gimbal”, then it may sound like nothing new. But if we look at it as a pocket-sized 1-inch 10-bit Log gimbal camera, with several focal lengths, proper monitoring, autonomous operation and a dedicated head-tracking accessory, then the proposition changes. It is not only the control method. It is the form factor plus the image pipeline plus the operating mode. And this is also where the remote / detachable screen side becomes important. If this is not a meaningful step forward, then how do we explain that DJI, despite all its experience in this category, still seems one step behind on this specific point? Not necessarily behind in image quality or engineering as a whole, but behind in this particular operational concept. The comparison makes that fairly easy to see. DJI can offer remote control through its ecosystem, apps and accessories, but Luna Ultra brings the detachable screen, remote monitoring and camera control directly into the body concept itself. To be fair, DJI still has a major advantage in ecosystem continuity. If, apart from the optical accessories, the Osmo Pocket 3 accessories remain compatible with the Osmo Pocket 4P/Pro, that is obviously a strong point. It means users are not forced to abandon an existing accessory ecosystem. But that is a different kind of strength. It is backward compatibility and ecosystem maturity, not necessarily a new operating concept. That matters because the remote is not just a convenience feature. It changes the way the camera can be used. There are also small operational trade-offs on the DJI side that are worth noticing. For instance, the dedicated low-light video mode tops out at 4K30p, while Luna Ultra records up to 4K120p in regular video mode and offers PureVideo low-light capture up to 4K60p. Not the whole story, of course, but another sign that Insta360 seems to be moving ahead of DJI* in a few practical areas here. And yes, we have already seen Insta360 explore part of this same logic with the GO line, namely the GO Ultra. With the GO Ultra, for instance, you already have that very useful modular idea of separating the camera unit from the monitoring/control/battery side of the system. In the Luna Ultra, this logic is taken into a different class of camera: the detachable touchscreen remote allows independent monitoring of battery information for both the main unit and the remote, and the system manages charging between both parts. Even if the remote does not appear to support fully independent USB-C charging while detached, the operational concept is still important. The monitoring/control side and the image-capturing side start to behave as distinct elements of the same camera system. That is precisely the point. The more the monitoring, battery handling and control are separated from the visible camera body, the easier it becomes for the device to disappear into the situation. And for documentary, BTS, production diaries or observational work, that can be a much bigger deal than it first appears. A phone strapped to your head controlling a larger gimbal is one thing. A compact dedicated device that can sit inside a BTS, documentary or walk-around setup, become boring after a while, and follow intention without the operator constantly raising, aiming and correcting the camera is another thing. That is where I think the usefulness may appear. Not necessarily for everyone. Not necessarily for controlled narrative setups. And probably not as a replacement for a skilled operator with a proper camera package. But for small crews, making-of work, observational documentary, rehearsals, production diaries, street work and situations where the act of operating the camera visibly changes the behaviour of the people being filmed, I can absolutely see the value. In that sense, I don’t see it as revolutionary because gyro control is new. I see it as potentially revolutionary because a previously awkward idea may finally be arriving in a form factor where it can become natural, invisible and operationally useful. *And not only when compared with DJI or another compact device... ; ) take a look at this higher-end comparison too : X

Same. Well I only have one body but I'll never sell it. If not for a few modern conveniences, none of which being higher resolution, I wouldn't even bother with any other camera. I bought and returned the R50V. I actually really liked the camera, especially for the price, but its inability to display exposure tools and the View Assist LUT at the same time was way too frustrating and the Histogram wasn't accurate enough for me. But I did see they updated the firmware to allow the LUT and False Color to be turned on at the same time, so that's pretty cool. Of course that happened exactly 3 days after I returned it. I picked up a refurbed V1 directly from Canon and I like it a lot. Am using it, and the 5D3, for a short film I'm writing. That's exactly what I thought about the FP and when it arrived my jaw dropped seeing how small it is... but... then you quickly realize how big the thing gets once you add a cage and an SSD on top. I spent hours upon hours researching and testing different configurations to keep it compact. I looked at the Dark Power stuff, but I was trying to keep the camera package as cheap and small as possible. The best I could come up with was to shoot it in 8bit cDNG mode with an SDXC card and a NiceyRig handle. The 8bit quality isn't bad at all in CDNG. But the cards are expensive and you can't get much footage onto a 128gb card... plus I'd rather shoot 12bit so I got a generic cage off Amazon and bought a couple SSDs and just attached them with a phone tripod clamp. I also bought a SmallRig drive encasement and put a Samsung drive inside and that kept it fairly small. Last summer I finally had a project to shoot with it and with all my tests, I didn't really realize how quickly it ate through batteries until I was on set. Luckily, I had just enough power and drives to make the day, but I was starting to get nervous. That's a great price for the FP if you can find one. I'm probably going to trade mine in to take advantage of the ZR $100 trade in bonus through B&H. I'll get a little less for the camera, but not that much less when you add the fees and headaches of eBay, private sales. I was wavering between the ZR and R6V, I really like the idea of the 3K S16 crop mode on the R6V and I love the body style, but the ZR just offers to many other shooting options internally and the internal 32bit audio... no brainer for me for now. All that said, if you like shooting raw video, which you obviously do, then the FP is a fun camera with a bunch of little quirks that aren't necessarily deal breakers but can be frustrating sometimes.

I think the POV Head Tracker should not be seen merely as a vlogging gimmick or as another accessory for people who want to film themselves walking down the street. There are many different ways of filming, framing and capturing reality. The most “professional” approach is often understood as the most controlled one: you plan the shoot, you discuss the framing, you block the scene, you decide where the camera goes, you decide what the subject is supposed to give you, and then you execute. That is obviously valid, and it is the basis of a lot of good cinema. But it is not the only way to make images. There is also another tradition: a more intuitive, observational, physical and spontaneous way of filming, where the camera is less a machine imposing a pre-decided frame on the world and more an extension of the filmmaker’s presence inside that world. That is where I think something like the Insta360 POV Head Tracker becomes interesting. The question is not only “what can it do technically?” The question is: what kind of relationship with reality does it allow? When you are operating a camera in the conventional way, you are always doing several things at once. You are looking, framing, correcting, adjusting, deciding, reacting, and at the same time you are also visibly present as “the person filming”. That presence changes the situation. It changes the people in front of you. It changes the rhythm of what happens. It can intimidate, formalise, freeze or theatricalise reality. In documentary, this is especially important. The more you plan, the more you risk fixing the subject before you have really encountered it. You may think you are observing reality, but you are already working on a construction of reality. You are no longer only receiving what is in front of you. You are fabricating a gaze, and the subject starts to exist inside that fabrication. Of course, complete objectivity does not exist. Every image is already a point of view. But there is still a big difference between a camera that constantly announces itself as an intervention and a camera system that allows the filmmaker to remain more physically and psychologically inside the situation. This is why the POV Head Tracker interests me. It may allow the filmmaker to film without constantly “operating” in the traditional sense. The camera can follow the natural direction of the filmmaker’s attention. The image can become closer to a lived point of view rather than a pre-composed shot. Not perfect objectivity, obviously, but perhaps a more immediate form of subjectivity. That distinction matters. A head-tracked gimbal camera could be useful not because it replaces deliberate cinematography, but because it opens another mode of acquisition: a more instinctive, embodied, less intimidating mode. It lets you be present with the subject while still filming. It can reduce the gap between seeing and recording. In that sense, I see a possible historical parallel with what happened when smaller 16mm cameras became available. Those cameras did not simply make cinema smaller. They changed the grammar of cinema. They allowed filmmakers to move differently, to follow people differently, to enter rooms differently, to film streets, faces, accidents, gestures, private moments and unstable situations in ways that would have been much harder with heavier, more industrial tools. You can connect that to cinéma vérité, direct cinema, the Nouvelle Vague, the New American Cinema, Jonas Mekas in New York, underground and independent filmmaking, and later the influence of that freer, more mobile language on figures like Cassavetes, Scorsese, and the whole post-studio generation. Even mainstream cinema eventually absorbed some of that looseness, that handheld energy, that search for immediacy. Jonas Mekas is not just an abstract reference for me. I had the privilege of knowing him personally in the mid-1990s, at the Figueira da Foz International Film Festival, which he used to attend. In that same context, I was also fortunate enough to receive an award as best daily press film critic. More importantly, a project I am still developing today was born precisely from that contact with Mekas. So when I refer to him here, I am not only invoking a name from film history. I am also referring to a very concrete personal encounter with a way of understanding cinema as diary, presence, immediacy, memory and life. The technology did not create those artistic revolutions by itself. But it made certain gestures possible. And when a tool makes a new gesture possible, it can also make a new kind of cinema possible. That is how I would look at the POV Head Tracker. Not as “AI tracking for creators”, but as a small step toward a different relation between body, gaze and camera. From the end of last month and carrying into this June, I worked on the making-of for A NOITE, Leonel Vieira’s film adaptation of José Saramago’s homonymous play. During the shoot, we used the Osmo Pocket 3 alongside other cameras, including a Sony A7S III, an FX30, a Panasonic GX80/GX85 and other small-format tools, Insta360 included. The film itself was being shot on two ARRI cameras, so this kind of low-profile equipment was obviously not what people on a cinema set are most used to seeing. Even Leonel Vieira, the director, looked at the Osmo Pocket 3 and jokingly said it looked like a toy camera. But that was precisely part of the point. I took the initiative to use it without hesitation, accepting the risks of bringing that kind of device into a professional film set, and combining it with different optical tools, including black mist filters to create atmosphere, Sirui anamorphic lenses and other accessories. In that context, I became very aware of how valuable it would be to have a device that lets me film without constantly managing the camera as an object. Not to mention that 10-bit Log recording is now available on the Luna Ultra as well. In a making-of situation, the best moments often happen before people know they are “performing” for the camera. They happen between takes, in hesitations, glances, silences, rehearsals, small gestures, private exchanges, and moments when the machinery of cinema briefly becomes human again. But the moment you raise the camera, adjust the frame, move closer, correct the angle, ask for space or visibly operate, you can lose the very thing you were trying to capture. The reality in front of the lens changes because of you. And that is fundamental in a making-of context: to be as minimally intrusive as possible, so as not to disturb the set of the main film being shot. The reactions of the professionals involved are, in many ways, the real subject of a making-of, and those reactions should not be manipulated by the visible presence of the image-capturing device itself. In our case, we were working with a very small crew: two to three people at most. In fact, it was necessary to convince Leonel Vieira to accept a maximum of three people, because ideally he preferred two, and sometimes only one person could be present. In those situations, when only one person was shooting and I still needed two possible angles, a camera A and a camera B, the only viable option was to have a B camera as autonomous and unobtrusive as possible, which is exactly how the Osmo Pocket 3 was used. With a device such as the Luna Ultra and its POV Head Tracker, that kind of work would become much easier, not only during the shoot itself but also later, when reaching the post-production suite and needing more options in the edit. So a device that lets the camera follow your attention, while your hands and your body remain less occupied by the act of filming, could be extremely useful. It could allow the operator to be less intrusive, less theatrical, less visibly extractive. It could make the camera feel less like a weapon pointed at reality and more like a witness moving through it. That does not mean this is for every situation. It is not a substitute for composed cinematography, lighting, blocking, lenses, or intentional mise-en-scène. But it could be very valuable for documentary, making-of work, rehearsal footage, street filming, travel, observational cinema, and any situation where spontaneity matters more than perfect formal control. The professional instinct is often to control everything. But sometimes cinema gains power when we control less. Sometimes the most authentic image is not the one we planned best, but the one we were able to receive before reality became aware of our plan. That, to me, is where the POV Head Tracker could become genuinely interesting.

In the meantime... today, 8:30am EDT: EDIT -- 9am (less than 5 minutes to go) https://www.youtube.com/live/GW05hlCl8sw Just a small note: anyone who shoots every day, across very different and often demanding shooting scenarios, will understand why this launch (with internal 32-bit float stereo BTW when coupled to Mic Pro) is so exciting. EDIT 2 -- And here is, just released Melbourne by one of the usual suspects: