Leaderboard

Here's a preview, very early days yet but the idea is to have a wiki page for every camera that draws together all the trusted resources for that model onto one single page with a clean design, no spam, no tracking malware banners, and no clickbait. Within each page: A ranking system In-depth detailed info and specs at a glance. LUTs and downloads, such as links to firmware updates, colour profiles, etc. A box with only "trusted" high quality YouTube reviews sourced per camera. Links to the top 5 best quality written reviews, manually sourced by me per camera. That will replace DPReview and Google search results for camera models, both enshitified to the point of unusable now, with so much AI and clickbait.

As a person who is waiting for used ZR prices to drop a bit more before picking one up, this all sounds good to me. 😅

At least so it seems https://www.dpreview.com/news/panasonic-did-what-apple-sony-and-nikon-couldnt-overturn-a-red-raw-video-patent/

The ZR is a smaller and lighter body and thermal management could be the issue. The Z8 and especially Z9 have a lot of mass that includes heat sinks that help keep components cool. None of them have cooling fans. The Zf (the one with the dials) is another smaller and lighter body (compared to Z8; it is not nearly light as the ZR) and it's actually quite easy to get it to get hot in stills shooting. Nikon made a choice to keep the ZR design quite thin without a built-in fan, and to make long recording times available, they seem to have compromised on the shadow noise reduction algorithm to reduce processor load, the result is a h.265 codec which in log mode is soft. They have indicated that they are working on a firmware update with a higher quality h.265 in mind.

There is one important point here : ) A Japanese decision invalidating the Japanese patent does not, by itself, kill equivalent patents in the US, Europe or anywhere else (even if they belong to the same patent family). Patent rights are territorial and each national right has, legally speaking, its own existence within its own jurisdiction. So no, compressed RAW has not suddenly become free for everyone everywhere : ) What is interesting is something else: if the claims are substantially equivalent (and that is obviously the important bit), the reasoning used in Japan may well become useful ammunition in other validity challenges. That is why, for me, the really interesting question is what Panasonic (or anyone else) does next. If equivalent RED claims start falling elsewhere too (particularly in the US), then yes, we may be looking at a very different landscape. - E. :- )

That works for long-term storage, but there are really two separate problems here. Transcoding R3D NE to H.265 solves the archive size. It does not solve the card capacity, ingest time, temporary disk space or transcoding time. A more efficient compromise might be to keep R3D NE only for the selects that actually benefit from RAW flexibility, then batch-transcode the rest to H.265 in REDWideGamutRGB / Log3G10. So the weak internal H.265 still matters. The workaround is viable, but it moves the cost from storage to workflow.

If you can afford the cards and temporary space on an internal drive, you could shoot in R3D NE in camera and then after transferring the files to the computer, convert it to log h.265 and delete the original files. By doing this you can get high-quality h.265 and avoid the long-term accumulation of storage otherwise needed for the raw files, not much different from having a high-quality h.265 codec in the camera, apart from the fact that you would need large memory cards and some space on the computer's internal drives for this step. I'm not trying to make an excuse for Nikon for the h.265 but suggesting a workaround who have this camera for one reason or another, and need a practical workflow.

Compressed RAW is probably the part I'd focus on before adding more film simulations. For the dropped frames, a small diagnostics page could be useful: sensor timestamp delta, queue depth, compression time per frame, sustained write MB/s and dropped-frame count. That should make it much easier to see whether the bottleneck is capture, compression or storage. I'd also preserve per-frame black/white levels and WB/colour-matrix metadata where the device exposes them. Especially useful if you want the RAW processing and calibration to remain consistent across ISO changes. Interesting project.

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.

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

I bought one and ended up selling it. While the RED NE looks great, it's way to much data for what I shoot and the H265 is terrible, I can't understand how Nikon does not understand the urgency of fixing it.....

Hi everyone, I’m wondering if anyone here has tried to build a small digital RAW camera specifically around Normal 8mm / Regular 8mm cine lenses, especially D-mount zooms like the SOM Berthiot Pan-Cinor 8–40mm. The idea is not to make another action camera or phone rig, but something closer to a tiny indie digital 8mm camera: small sensor matched to the Normal 8mm image circle D-mount flange distance RAW10 / RAW12 capture global shutter if possible simple HDMI preview recording to SSD film-like color pipeline: linear matrix, log curve, gentle highlight roll-off maybe later: piezo micro-shift or a controlled “organic” sensor/optical movement to reduce the fixed digital feel I have been looking at sensors/modules such as Sony IMX900 and AR0234. The IMX900 seems more realistic as a ready Raspberry Pi 5 camera kit, but the AR0234 is very attractive because it is cheap, global shutter, 1920×1200, RAW10, and available in color and monochrome versions. The problem is the usual one: MIPI carrier board, Raspberry Pi compatibility, V4L2/libcamera driver, power rails, initialization registers, etc. The goal would be around 1080p or 2K rather than fake “4K”, because these old Normal 8mm lenses have their own character and don’t need a huge modern sensor. I’m more interested in a compact RAW camera with a real vintage 8mm optical look than in maximum resolution. Has anyone here tried something similar? I would be especially interested in: D-mount digital camera experiments Normal 8mm lens coverage on modern sensors Raspberry Pi / Jetson / RK3588 MIPI RAW capture AR0234 or IMX900 RAW workflows custom small camera bodies monochrome sensor + RGB filter experiments piezo sensor shift / film gate weave simulation I’m currently trying to understand whether it makes more sense to use a ready IMX900 Raspberry Pi kit, or to go deeper with a cheaper AR0234 OEM module and somehow solve the carrier board / driver problem. Any experience, links, warnings, or crazy ideas welcome.

I think the closest thing to what you're looking for is the cinepi project. That or there was at least some project recently where somebody removed the glass from a smartphone and juryrigged a lens mount to it. That'd be another place to start.

Hi, you are not being rude at all 🙂 happy to have a convo as we all use our gear differently. Unfortunately where I failed was assuming the H265 was normal, at the time of purchase it seemed like a perfect camera for most projects where for higher end stuff you could shoot red code and for more lower-end project (talking heads/ social content) you could shoot H265. The 2 surprises once we started shooting with it was just how massive the red code is compared to other red cameras (we also have other reds with other DOPs on projects) and how unusable the H265 is So camera was sold and we're back to using Lumix's / Sony FX for lower end projects and Pyxis 12/Komodo for higher end projects. This is just my use case in my little world..... I know we all have different wants and needs 🙂

I have very simple needs and if I was forced, I could shoot ML Raw in 1080p on my 5Diii for the foreseeable future. I posted a video here a while ago from some Nordic guy that mixed 5Diii/ML Raw with Osmo Raw drone footage and I was blown away by the Osmo Raw. At the time, the camera by itself was too rich for my blood, but I couldn't deny the image. On the complete opposite scale, I recently used my friend's Pocket 3 and I must say that it reminded me of my camcorder days, where you just collect footage in as interesting ways as possible to tell the most important thing... the story. That said, I would be an instant buyer of a $2000 raw video version of the Osmo Pocket camera... preferably with a larger sensor, but I would be okay with the 1" too if need be. I can only imagine how much fun the pro version is... even with its headaches?

Honestly, I am a little confused. Why buy the ZR if you want an h.265 codec camera? The ZR will probably be my next camera purchase but I am buying it for the RedCode Raw/n-raw and 32bit float audio. I wish there were better 4K raw options but that doesn't exist so I'm going to deal with it, I won't buy it and then say... Nikon needs to fix the lack of 4K raw options in the camera that I already knew didn't have good 4K raw options. If I decide to shoot 4K for "lesser" projects, I'll just use the ProResHQ with n-log or even Nikon Flat for certain things. I don't mean to be rude, but there are so many cameras on the market that shoot great full frame h.265. Raw video isn't for everybody, nor should it be.

Nikon are in trouble. Camera sales down 22%. RED suffering in the filmmaking downturn. Patent has lost the biased ref. 1-0 down and could be 5-0 by full time.

Ouch! I thought H.265 was fixed in the last update... I was wrong.

The main reason these patents have been considered legit in the US patent system despite the so-called inventions being obvious to any technical person familiar with photography, is probably that the US patent office's main purpose is to protect the interests of US-based companies, such as RED, against foreign businesses. Rational arguments don't necessarily apply, if the case involves a US vs. foreign manufacturer and the litigation happens in the US. Now, since a Japanese company (Nikon) currently owns RED, it's quite possible the US position also changes (not because of Panasonic's arguments but because there is no longer a US-owned business interest for the US patent office to protect). It is difficult see how a Nikon lawyer would defend these patents with a straight face, so their arguments may be ineffective. Anyway, most camera manufacturers nowadays seem to have some raw video capabilities in their cameras so the issue is not that pressing any more. It made sense for Nikon to buy RED to gain expertise and a presence in the mid and higher end video markets, irrespective of any patent issues. What do users complain the most about the first Nikon video camera? That the raw video files are too big. So, why was there so much fuss about the patents anyway, if people don't actually want to use raw video recording in practice?

This has to be fixed! I'll ask Jarred about this (particularly about the possibility of a lighter R3D NE option) and see what he says (E. :- )

You are totally correct, however a fair bit of what I (we) shoot is delivered at the end of the the day, and TBH I can't bring myself to delete OG files when our productions are in the six digits. I ended up buying two 1TB owc cards, but still download and backing up to hard drives for a client and or producer end of a shoot day and asking them to hang around for another 40 min after a 12-15 hour day is not pleasant. Also I've seen this a few times on set where they shoot Raw and convert over to PRR LT without utilizing any of the raw capabilities and then deleting the raw, which makes me always wonder why shoot raw in the first place!!!!

The FX2 makes a lot more sense than people give it credit for. If you actually need open gate, internal RAW, 4K120 or the stacked sensor, then sure: FX5. If you don't, you're paying nearly another $2K for features you may never use. FX2 gives you full frame, 4K60, S-Log3, proper AF and an EVF already built in. For a lot of jobs that's enough. Different job. Different tool.

Why does nobody talk about the FX2? Much better value for money!

I quite liked it, but do know that if you're trying to capture anything with sound, the fan noise on the raw is really obnoxious. The image was pretty nice, though!

If you have 20 mm and 60 mm as the equivalent focal lengths that are available, the wider angle makes sense for including oneself in the footage, and showing a bit of environment, which must be a common thing in social media. However, at least I would preferentially shoot with 35 mm or 50 mm a lot of the time. By starting with an 8K sensor, you can get more detailed crops that mimic those lenses at least in angle of view. Of course, you lose light in cropping so the quality won't be the same as using one of the native options, but it is probably less damaged than if you start with a 4K sensor and crop from 20 mm to (say) 50 mm. I'm personally perfectly happy shooting in 4K with a 35 mm full-frame mirrorless camera and doing a bit of cropping doesn't really bother me, but the camera that I use makes the 4K footage by downsampling from 8K resolution, so even in the 4K file (typically for me Prores 422 HQ), there is a better starting point for cropping than if I had shot with a 4K native sensor camera (due to the Bayer sensor not registering all colors for all pixels natively). I think 20 mm would be extremely wide to shoot everything with (that's what the DJI Pocket 4P's magical sensor produces, 20 mm equivalent footage), and I'd want to moderate the angle of view a lot of the time to something in the 35 to 50 mm range. Thus the sensor resolution is likely to play some role in the practical quality that can be obtained. Although I like the idea of a camera that has a gimbal and can be just taken out of the bag and used, and I commend DJI for bringing the long-in-development LOFIC sensor into an actual consumer product, neither of these cameras (luma ultra and Pocket 4P) are really for me as I basically never do videos with myself in the footage, and the 20 mm equivalent angle of view is just not what I want from a video camera. Cropping (to get an acceptable angle of view) from a small-sensor camera is going to make noise more visible and detail less clear. I think use of a gimbal on a heavy full-frame mirrorless camera is painful for the setup that is required. Eventually I think some good compromises will arise, with moderately light total weight, internal (optical) zooms that don't require recalibration after FOV change, better integration of camera controls into the gimbal user interface, and some digital signal processing that is optimized to reduce the gimbal motor noise from on-camera audio tracks (this will require work on the motors themselves and the processing) are likely to make things more practical for me, but for now most of the time my gimbal is just not being used. With regards to the dynamic range, I'm used to slide film from long ago and when using it (for still photography) it was essential to photograph in what we called good light, which meant light that was suitable for the material, with no exposure latitude whatsover, and I still try to choose where I shoot so that the subjects and the scene will look good straight out of the camera where possible. With my camera the top video dynamic range is 12 stops and I've not run into anything that would make that feel inadequate, given the starting point of acceptable conditions for photography to begin with, in fact it feels wildly liberating what kind of post exposure adjustments are possible today. I would argue that if there is a situation which requires higher dynamic range, then alternatives probably result in better quality: use lighting for the main subjects in the foreground. If the scene can't be lit then shoot in a location which gives better results without lighting. Post-processing has its limits and I would argue it is not easy to mimic really good lighting on a scene with high contrast but no light (or too little light) on the subjects in post-processing. However, if you can use and benefit from 17 stops of dynamic range, by all means use it if available. I think my life is easier by carefully choosing where the original material is shot.

I think the gap isn't another database of specifications. We already have plenty of those, and the old DPReview reviews are still remarkably useful for understanding what a camera was when it launched. What seems to be missing is a "today" layer. How easy is it to live with in 2026? Are batteries and accessories still readily available? How well does the codec fit modern editing workflows? Are there reliability issues that only became apparent over time? What does the current used price actually buy compared to newer alternatives? I'd also like to see a stronger filmmaking angle rather than just image quality. Some older cameras still have a rendering or shooting experience that makes them genuinely enjoyable, even if they're objectively behind in dynamic range or autofocus. Most launch reviews answered, "Is this a good camera today?" The more interesting question now is, "Who is this camera still a great tool for?"

Have you thought about background continuity too? With people and traffic constantly changing, wouldn't traditional coverage sometimes make things harder rather than easier when you get to the edit? I wonder if longer takes, a few selective close-ups and plenty of B-roll might actually suit this kind of shooting better. ☺️

I question the need for 8K for any use. I understand some people shoot in uncontrolled ways and would rather reframe in post than compose their shot during capture. I understand people like Fincher prefers working this way. I understand that it is great to have extra resolution for VFX. But how many users of these types of cameras need these features? We're not discussing sweeping Hollywood sci-fi epics. That said, I believe the next huge indie film, shot from some kid in the middle of nowhere, will probably use one of these cameras. So if having 8K slates helps the vision come to life... that's really great. For me, I'd rather have the extra DR and I'd love that Osmo Raw that @eatstoomuchjam referenced. Hell, I may be able to afford that now. Hmm.

Thanks, I'm looking for a more human approach though.

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 & pay the price. Almost impossible to take a different position from yours without it turning personal (if not at first, up there you kept escalating until it did, at least this time...), as if disagreeing on a point meant challenging a supposed “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!

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:

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

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.

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!

Hey gang, been a while. At first glance this FX5 felt a bit underwhelming but looking closer its a pretty substantial update. On paper the frame rate/resolution bump over FX3 looks small, 4K to 5K isn't a leap that sells itself, and I get why some are skeptical. But I don't think the gains are actually small once you look past resolution. Also want to bring the A7R VI into the conversation, since it was announced just recently and shares the same sensor, and does some clever things of its own. It varies its subsampling by mode: 8K comes from an 8.2K region (1.22x crop), while 4K is read from the full sensor width but subsampled from a 5K portion, roughly 2:1 binning, and rolling shutter scales almost exactly with that ratio between modes. That's actually smart sensor use for a hybrid body, flexible readout depending on what you need, high-res stills and video modes both on tap from one chip without a fixed binning scheme. Arguably a more versatile use of this sensor than the FX5's fixed video-only binning, if you need both stills and video from a single body. But for video-only work, FX5 still pulls ahead in what actually matters day to day. The RAW is the real story, 16-bit X-OCN, same bit depth as Burano/Venice 2, and the C1/C2 compression tiers are genuinely efficient, undercutting even the FX3's own compressed 10-bit codec at 4K24p. Triple base ISO and the selective dual-gain shadow cleanup add up to real, usable gains, albeit slower readout speeds a la S5ii. Oh and open gate, Sony finally caught up. On price, worth noting Sony's being smart splitting the handle and EVF out separately rather than bundling, it softens the sticker shock even though fully kitted you're still at a whopping €6,800 here, FX6 money for a mirrorless body with no NDs, SDI etc. That's the one thing hard to swallow. Went Canon with the C50 myself a couple months back, still very happy with it, dual OS is best of both worlds and the various crop modes and digi zoom punch-in flexibility over the 7K spec I rarely touch. For about 3K with the awesome XLR top handle included, it fit my wallet and needs, no regrets. Bottom line: For Sony hybrid users that need stills over RAW, do take a look at the A7R VI, smart camera with impressive specs. For video only, no real flaws on the FX5 and some serious upgrades: RAW, open gate, triple ISO, dual gain, tilt EVF option..all genuinely exciting if you can swing the price. Personally I wish they would have left a stills option (even 16MP e-shutter mode) but I have no doubts the FX5 will become industry standard for years to come. But I also don't think FX3 is going obsolete anytime soon either.

Exactly. What you call availablism is central here. But with Wong Kar-wai it never feels merely opportunistic. The available does not remain simply available. It becomes emotional architecture. Pre-handover Hong Kong gave him the lights, the colours, the cramped spaces, the corridors, the streets, the reflections and the limitations. But the art is in turning those given elements into mood, memory and desire. That is the difference between just using a location and allowing the location to become part of the film’s inner life. In that sense, the uncontrolled city is not only a background. It becomes a collaborator. Wong Kar-wai does not simply take what is there. He finds what is hidden inside what is there.

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:

I hear you. I was also disappointed to see the newly released DPR studio results clearly indicating that. The Nikon NEF file holds more detail at higher ISO for sure. When it comes to H.265, it is all about implimentation and we'll have to see what is not enough vs what is too much in real use. I'm not ready to make a judgement yet. The H.265 in the Z8 has been criticized for smearing and in time Panasonic might be skewered for being too aggressive with NR too, but on the contrary, I've yet to hear of compromises in detail with the S1Rii. This still is from Cam Mackey's recent video. Skip to 19:45 for more of this.

Panasonic uses NR on still RAW in a still oriented camera, let alone video. Reviewers bash Nikon for its h.265 implementation that doesn't allow to disable NR, but say nothing when Canon/Panasonic doesn't allow to disable it on RAW!