Emanuel

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? :- )

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. 

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

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.
 

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.

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

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

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!

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:
 

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 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.

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.

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

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 ;- )

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. 

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.

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. 

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.

I really wanted to like the PDMovie.  I had the previous version (Air 3 Smart?  Something like that) for a bit and ended up selling it after trying to use it just a few times.  The weird batteries were a little annoying, but I could have lived with them if not for the complete lack of ability to choose what it focuses on.  As far as I could tell, the focus would always be on "whatever is closest"
With DJI focus, the hand grip has a little screen where you can at least tell it where you want the focus to be - and it'll successfully focus on that thing about...  well, 85% of the time.  For me, the systems that fake out PDAF are more exciting.  I hope that someone comes out with one for RF mount sometime - or even better, for EF mount.  Otherwise, the ones with a little motor are kind of neat - though moving the lens back and forth is not quite the same as adjusting the focus (though usually it's a relatively petty distinction).

Which apps can do the trick?
 
Brian Williams wrote:
Looking forward to this app! 🙂👍

The LiDAR stuff is actually pretty interesting for manual focus setups. Even if it’s not perfect AF, having distance data as a focus aid could still be super useful for run-and-gun shooting or low light situations. Curious to see how reliable it gets in real-world use.

https://www.cined.com/lidarac-app-for-tilta-nucleus-m-ii-and-nano-ii-introduced-turn-your-iphone-into-a-lidar-rangefinder/

https://www.newsshooter.com/2026/04/12/lidarac-app-for-the-tilta-nucleus-nano-ii/