Leaderboard

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:

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…

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.

I treat the LX as camera for HD delivery. From my experience, it's the best ratio between size, quality, ergonomy and used market prize for good quality HD. GM1 with a 14mm is thicker, more expensive and handheld video turns out jittery very easily due to its tiny body not being equipped with a stab. I have tested the video side with my slightly taller GM5 and it's not fun to use for video. The stabilized 12 to 32 zoom makes it thicker than I like to for considering it over a GX85. The LX15 has lens stab, which works in 4K as well for holding steady, panning and tilting. HD on it is just too brittle for my taste so I see it as a 4K4HD cam. My two cents. Nice talking to you again, kye.:) @kye

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 GM1 is long gone, but here's the tiny a110 lens: FWIW, my wife and I made a doc 10 years ago using the GX7 and the GM1 (with a different lens). It was fun. I did use the a110 primes I have for a short film. Finally, I also have the a110 Pentax film camera and have started shooting with it just for kicks.

Vintage anamorphic adapters are optically imperfect in very pleasing ways, but are large, expensive, difficult to find and setup, and can be slow to use (double focusing etc). Modern smartphone anamorphic adapters are optically imperfect too, but are small, cheap, easy to find and setup, and designed for AF cameras so should be incredibly fast and easy to use. Of course, the first question is about coverage, and this might surprise you, but modern smartphone sensors are approaching MFT sensor size. GX85 with 14mm F2.5 lens (no adapter) - I took a photo so this is open-gate MFT: GX85 with 14mm F2.5 lens and Neewer 1.55x anamorphic adapter in-front of the lens (de-squeezed): Full-sensor coverage and no vignetting visible. Can it cover S35? Who knows! Looking at this image it's much blurrier on the bottom than the top, but I was just holding the adapter in place so maybe I didn't have it exactly centred vertically, but it should give an idea of the image quality. It's obviously lens-dependent though, as this is the GX85 with the TTartisans 17mm F1.4 in 16:9 movie mode (no open gate)... Coverage.... isn't ideal! However, with the 2x digital zoom on the GX85 and de-squeezed you get this: This equates to about 44mm FF equivalent, and reminds me of some of the more funky vintage anamorphics. Perhaps the most impressive thing is the form factor. This is a 1.55x anamorphic setup probably more pocketable than a BMPCC4K, and that's literally got "pocket" in the name! Those just show the adapter leaning against the lens, as I am yet to work out how to mount it properly. The challenge is that this adapter has a 17mm rear thread which is smaller than any step-down ring I can find, so I'll probably have to go DIY to mount it. People have suggested I drill a hole in a metal lens cap, or get the smallest step-down ring I can find and glue a washer to it where the inner diameter of the washer matches the thread size. I'll have to experiment, but there are options. That whole rig weighs less than my Sirui 1.25x anamorphic adapter on its own.. 627g vs 744g!! It's early days for this idea, but the coverage surprised me and I think makes it a real option for shooting actual projects. The fact that the 14mm looks so clean and the 17mm so dirty means that buying one of these probably gives you as many looks as you have lenses, so potentially quite a few. I'm yet to play with how it looks at different apertures and focus distances, but they'll probably give some variety as well. The above were shot at F5.6 or so. If you stretch the 16:9 files from the GX85 you get 2.75:1 so super widescreen and you can crop the sides if you wanted to. On something like the GH7 with a 4:3 open-gate it would be almost exactly 2:1, a very useful format. It's not just MFT either. I've heard quite a number of instances where people want to go for an older look and will use a S35 cinema camera (like a RED) in a lower resolution mode and combine that with some vintage optics to get the look they want, or used the Alexa S16 mode and S16 lenses. Lots of cool stuff has been shot like that and when you have to de-squeeze in post then cropping a bit takes very little extra time on real projects. In a way these are perfect for low-budget anamorphic experimentation if you're interested in optics with some character and getting a range of looks from just one purchase.

Again? : ) Nobody said they are equally important. Not even close. That is not the position anyone here has argued at all, but a dismissive caricature of it, no less. And misleading. Period. What has emerged from several contributions here, including yours and mine on the importance of DR, is simply that their practical value depends on the shot, purpose and workflow. Extra DR matters in both controlled and uncontrolled high-contrast scenes, perhaps even more so in the latter. Fair enough. In other cases, reach, reframing, stabilisation, VFX or high-resolution frame grabs may matter too. Budget hybrid cameras, you said? ; ) Correct. Those are real-world uses as well. So saying that none of this relates to anything anyone here actually does is rather sweeping, given that more than one person here had already pointed to practical uses for higher-resolution capture while also acknowledging its limits. Nor is this only about one camera. More will come, including the Pocket 4 Pro with those extra stops, and naturally we will discuss where such advances matter and where their limits begin. This is a camera forum : ) It is the right place for disagreement about cameras, specs, footage and real-world use. Not for theatrics, personal point-scoring, showing off or ego contests. None of us needs to perform as the final authority here, as so often happens on internet forums. “More useful for one workflow” is not the same as “practically irrelevant to everyone else”. Either way, life goes on, and so does this thread. Your contribution has been useful, as have those of others. We do not need to agree. You are one of my fav contributors here, and clearly one of many people’s favourites too. That gives your words more weight, but also more responsibility. Being a valuable contributor does not give any of us the right to be unpleasant to others. And that last reply was unpleasant. And unbalanced. Prima donna behaviour is no more attractive on a forum than on a professional set. In my work, I simply cross prima donnas off the list. I have neither the time nor the patience for them. That is worth remembering for all of us. You, me, everyone. And there is no drama here. This is only a disagreement about cameras. You were the one who announced you were “done”, as though an ordinary disagreement had become rather more serious than it really is. Perhaps you're simply in a bad mood today (it happens to all of us). But your interlocutor should not have to pick up the bill for that (and pay the price). Almost impossible to take a different position from yours without it turning personal (if not at first, you keep escalating until it does...), basically as if disagreeing on a point meant challenging your “authority” : X (phew) No hard feelings anyway, count on it :- )

This is a forum for people that shoot with budget hybrid cameras. None of the above points relate to what anyone here is actually doing with their work, or whoever they're showing it to. Completely contrary to that, Dynamic Range is something I struggle with in real-world shooting for a large percentage of the shots I take. The idea that they're somehow equally important is beyond imagination. I'm done. Feel free to continue the discussion about pocketable 8K gimbal cameras, 17K sensors, 150MP doorbells, 5000fps smartphones, or whatever theoretically true but practically irrelevant things you want.

Just chiming in to say I was working with someone recently who was extremely happy with his Osmo 4p. Never having to balance a gimble ever again etc.. However, they said the one problem with this cameras is they're too light, which makes it more susceptible to up and down movements when walking. Their solution, which really made me laugh, was to mount it onto their regular camera, Blackmagic 6kPro, and use that as basically a paper weight. I'd stupidly assumed they were getting double angles of everything!

From what I've read, this is basically correct. It can apparently add about 3 stops of extra highlight retention. On most modern cameras, changing ISO doesn't change the sensor gain unless you move into the territory that is handled by the next "native" ISO. The only exception I know to this is Z Cam (which is why they suffer some WB shift when changing ISO). Otherwise, for raw codecs, you are adjusting the allocation of stops/highlights in the recording - and for non-raw codecs, you are changing how the camera post-processes the raw that it read at the base ISO. So in theory, the LOFIC should help with any ISO that is set by the user. It should also be understood that it only helps with highlights and does nothing whatsoever for shadows - meaning that ETTR is probably even more of a thing with any LOFIC system than it was with most Bayer sensor setups.

Minor nitpick: 8K will also be largely irrelevant in cinemas! At least near me, many of them still broadcast 2K on most of their screens, with maybe one or two set up for 4K projection. Only the most eagle-eyed audience members could even theoretically notice a difference in 4K and 8K projection at a viewing distance where they could see the entire screen at once - and outside of maybe a nature documentary, even among those viewers, it's hard to imagine them caring much. Not true. Aside from digital zoom without substantial quality loss, as you mentioned, a number of VFX use cases, especially those involving masking something out, are improved by having the highest-resolution source material available. That and in theory, you'll get better color information putting 6K or 8K on a 4K timeline, assuming the use of a Bayer sensor. Remember that it's necessary to guess at the values for 2 out of 3 colors for every pixel when debayering footage. From what I remember, and I might remember wrong, this means that the readout from Bayer sensors is effectively 4:2:2. Downsampling from 6K or 8K gives you something that is more effectively 4:4:4. As to whether that matters to you, maybe none of it does. In practice, modern debayering is very good and I'm not really sure that viewers are ever going to notice a difference in 4:2:2 and 4:4:4 once at 2K resolution or above. Correct. A 4.6K Arri is still preferred in many productions to an 8K camera from another vendor. The FX5 is going to sell a million bazillion units despite being released as a 5K camera in an era when all of the competitors are at 6K or higher (also assuming that some of the firmware weirdness and constant rebooting to change settings can be fixed). There are still cameras being released today using the same IMX410 that was in my Z Cam E2-F6 that I bought in 2018. The Ronin 4D was one of the best product ideas that DJI ever had (really, the Osmo Raw was, but the execution was too clunky). They were never going to compete with Arri in the space where people use Arri - so take a real pain point from a lot of productions (gimbals are irritating to use/balance and are often disconnected in operation from the attached camera) and fix that. Now you see the 4D showing up in all sorts of productions - because it's the best camera ever made and wins the spec sheet wars? No. But the quality is good and it's an elegant solution for some problems.

Everything you said above can be copied and pasted a decade from now when people are arguing if a 32K sensor is better than a 16K sensor. On the 32K sensor you can crop in more.. it's great for high-res frame grabs.. cropping in 9 times instead of 8 times! The problem with such discussions is they're unconnected from reality. What CAN you do with an 8K image that you CAN'T do with a 4K image? Both have enough resolution for cinema. Both have enough resolution to pull frames and print them on billboards. Both have enough resolution to win an Oscar... etc. All this is beginning to sound like people arguing they need a 150MP doorbell camera to be able to live with themselves.

The one thing I have not tried is the e stab, but straight out of the box with zero set up other than a quick balance, on the RS4 mini with the optional tracking module, it worked superbly. Not even close to anything like overheating, but then so far, I have only really been shooting stills with it. Start up time must be fine as I have not noticed anything other than it takes a second or so for the zoom to find it’s last setting, either; 28, 50 or 75mm as I have it set. Battery life excellent. I just came back from a week long trip to Scotland and shot well over 1000 frames and battery still showing 2 bars.

If the camera shoots 4K then you'd be silly not to, and I was really looking for the smallest 1080p camera, not the smallest 4K camera, but I did include a couple for reference so that's my fault for not being clear. I guess really this thread was a bit of a fantasy that I could trade spec for size, but we all know that's not how it works. Even 10 years ago the tech was there to make a camera with a GoPro sized body and a P&S lens on the front. I have one of my daughters old cameras - a Fujifilm J20 from 2009, which is an SD P&S but it's just under 20mm / 0.79 inches thick and has a 3x optical zoom lens. This is the J20 pictured with a fake SJ4000 action camera, which is basically the size of a GoPro. Combine these and they could have make a 1080p camera with 3x optical zoom in a body thinner than a GoPro and by making it slightly wider they could have made room for the battery and given a little grip to hold it with. Given that it might have been a big seller back then, I was hoping they'd be a forgotten classic and around for a couple of hundred, but really it's just a fantasy. The idea is the "smallest 720p or 1080p P&S camera" not the "highest resolution P&S camera". Sensible people don't want the best specifications available in the camera so large they can only just operate it, they want the nicest possible shooting experience with a camera that has the spec they need for their given situation.

2x digital zoom was without artefacts right? 4x has to be aliasing extravaganza though!:) I could test it myself. But then, why not ask a GX afficiando like you!:) I still love mine. Got a second one so I carry two sometimes when doing a phototour. Up for a 2026 8bit challenge btw?:) Would be nice with more than two challengers though of course.:) @kye

I was very impressed with the results I saw from various people testing it. The GH7 sensor is good, the lens in the L10 is also good, and V-LOG and the codecs available are more than enough, so it should be a great combo. In terms of the lack of IBIS, that's definitely a thing, but if you're able to steady it with almost anything (tripod, gimbal, monopod, even just a large handle of some kind) then it should be pretty stable.

The CineD lab tests disagree with you about there being NR. Below I have linked to where they talk about NR test results and they say "very little if any noise reduction" (linked to timestamp): I believe your impressions about how the final images look, but Nr can happen anywhere in the pipeline, so maybe it was something done elsewhere in the process? YouTube compression is absolutely brutal on grain, acting as a pretty serious form of NR that is applied to every upload, so maybe that's part of what you're seeing too?

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 already posted up there or directly here] 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.

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.

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.

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.

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 old DPReviews are still the best outside the regular modern blog posts and Youtube vids of the cameras being revisited. Unfortunately that recent DPR re design wasn't kind - the site is almost unusable now.

It might be an unpopular thing to say, but ChatGPT might be useful in at least pointing you towards models you didn't know about. I've used it from time to time to ask about various things (recently about tiny FHD P&S cameras, but about other types of products too) and it seems to have reached a level now where it doesn't hallucinate much, especially if you're just asking it for products that meet a set of criteria rather than asking it to list the full spec sheet. You still have to fact check anything important, and it's also quite biased (anything trained on the internet will be pretty skewed but camera content is probably more skewed than average!) so I'd suggest it's probably about as good as the average camera forum user, who is just as likely to have irrational brand opinions and loyalties and gaslight you about resolution and lens sharpness etc!

The LX10/LX15 is a solid little camera. The big differentiator (aside from price) over the Sony 1” cameras is the f1.4 aperture at the wide end. That comes with a couple of caveats in that it doesn’t stay f1.4 very far into the range and shooting in 4K there is a bit of a crop. It takes my cinelike-D hack and I also put a magnetic filter thread on mine that enables you to put ND on it and/or in my case a Sony 2x TC that you can quickly pop on and off to extend the range. These are some grabs from mine. The top panel is lens at it’s widest, the middle is maximum zoom and bottom is maximum zoom with the TC on. If you want to have one with a natural long zoom range on it then their other 1” from the time the TZ100 has a 10x optical zoom. Can also take the cinelile-d hack.

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.

When I was younger I got some idea that all movies were made this way. I don't know where I got that idea but maybe heard something about the methods on TV. I was surprised that, after a long time in the indie film and video art world to then enter the world of the commercial conventional film industry and see the scripts and crew people all the work to make sure things go exactly as planned. (It kind of takes the fun out of it.) Wan Kar Wai's "look" really comes out of availablism. He was living there and went out and shot it. This was pre-handover Hong Kong where space was limited. The lights, colours and "sets" were already there. The art is in taking what's around you and framing it for a story.

Yeah there's definitely an "I don't care what you're doing" thought process in NYC but I think it's more of a survival instinct than anything else. It's actually quite odd. You can walk by someone, make eye contact and nod or smile and they will completely ignore you. I'd imagine if you lived there you'd get used to it, but it seems like you're alone in a sea of people. But for filmmaking on the sly, that's great. Without knowing the exact concept (I'm picturing a Before Sunrise kinda thing) I stand by the idea of keeping a small footprint and understanding the POV of the camera in the story. As @Bioskop.Inc said, if you can keep the dialogue minimal, by utilizing the mood and tone of your locations, then all the better. Also make sure to get clean dialogue takes so you can cut to a different take and use the dialogue over it... eventually people will look at you as they pass by. Otherwise stay small and nimble and flexible with your locations. If you can make a scene work on a park bench instead of walking... even better.

So far, we have: The French Connection The Day Of The Jackal Escape From Tomorrowland Chubby Rain Woody Allen (Annie Hall, Hannah and Her Sisters, Deconstructing Harry) Lost in Translation I think this is a great list! I know that Sean Baker’s Tangerine was shot this way, but I’d rather not sit through another of his films. I've written a drama short. Two characters, 11 pages, lots of walking around town. I live in Portland and I’ve shot all over town before without ever once being hassled (except by some in a crisis of mental health). But I’m really more interested in seeing what kind of aesthetic choices might even be available to me when balancing that with coverage needs, moving quickly, and not attracting too much attention. I'm always so envious of New Yorkers for this very reason. You can fill the frame with sidewalk commuters and often no one will even bother to give you a second glance. I can’t think of any other US cities where this is true. Lovely screen grabs, Kye. If any of these were publicity stills for a film, I’d want to check it out. Especially the 68mm shots. Great mood and sense of place. I think that this quote sums up some of the decision-making that I am facing. I could totally go in there and “wing it”, just figuring out my shot as I went. But I want to rely on natural light, which means timing certain shots for certain times of day, and then that raises the question of how much planning I want to put into each scene, and ultimately how the visuals will compliment the story. I’d rather not lean too far into the documentary aesthetic. After shooting my last five shorts with my C70s, I’m actually thinking about shooting this film on a hacked EOS-M with c-mount lenses. I’ve been collecting them for a while and have three sets of primes, plus some great zooms. I’d personally put the aesthetic available with this (windowed) sensor and these lenses up against anything, I like it that much. I think the reason that no one really wants to do this is because it’s one of the most difficult digital cameras to work with, AND on top of that, the most difficult lenses to work with. But I’ve been tackling the challenges presented by these one by one, and I think I have them pretty well sorted. We shall see! Current plan is to hide a Deity PR-2 recorder with a lav on each actor and attach a timecode box to the audio input of the camera. Stabilize with a steadybag. Transmit the image wirelessly to a producer and make up artist in a car, along with refreshments for the actors. If I end up working with long zooms, I might give direction over a phone and provide a discrete earbud to each actor so that I could also monitor.

What are you trying to do? As long as you don't have a big rig with lights and a shotgun mic, then you should be good. I've walked around Philly and NYC and see plenty of people shooting video everywhere with gimbals and even tripods sometimes... although I wouldn't recommend that. The key is to look like a tourist and find locations where there aren't many people passing by, or it's so busy, people don't even look twice at you because you look like a tourist. And be prepared to move to a different location if you have to. Philip Bloom, hardly a narrative filmmaker, but his use of super long lenses gives him the freedom to be a little far from the talent. Separation between camera and talent can be a good thing if you're trying to steal shots.

I had ruled out the GX9 for some reason, thinking it didn't have IBIS, and then I randomly heard that it did have IBIS and so I got confused about why I had written it off, so hearing about the crop made me wonder if that was potentially the reason. 200Mbps is a great bitrate, especially for HD! I don't recall hearing about this. Yes - there's even a thread about it that just started! I haven't looked at it myself yet, but if it's a one-stop solution for film emulation then it seems promising. I've heard it's pretty slow still, but it's still early days and perhaps optimisations will change that at some point. For me, and this GX85 Super-16mm film camera project, it was more about the GX85 and me finding a place for it. I have equipment I like, shooting situations / scenarios I prefer to shoot, and images I like, and the goal is to find combinations that work well. This project has resulted in me successfully discovering and developing the combination of: GX85 plus 14mm F2.5 pancake lens at 1x / 2x / 4x digital zoom Shooting street scenes in uncontrolled / available light, hand-held, from waist height Passable S16mm film camera emulation for gritty images with a strong vibe I'm actually really heartened by the GX85 and will be testing how far I can push it in other ways. Emulating a S16 camera is a lot easier than a S35mm camera, for example, so I'll see how I go with that. I'm effectively done with the S16 film camera emulation but not done at all with pushing to get the most from the GX85.

I was excited for a microsecond when they said "vista" - but thats just name only. There is so much left to be desired... the full-frame 6K space is over saturated. Nobody is doing Medium Format above 4K. You want to invigorate and/or disturb the cinema space in 2026 and going forward??? Bring affordable IMAX 12K sensors into a small body.

Been a while since I've been here. I recently got a GreatJoy 1.35x anamorphic adapter and I love it in spite of it's hefty weight. Here are some recent test videos: