Emanuel

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. 

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 :- )

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.

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.

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! 

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.

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.

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

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?

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.

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:




 

I agree about it being too smooth, especially because the position of the camera isn't stabilised so there can be huge parallax movement which clashes with there being no movement in the direction of the camera at all.
I raised the topic because it would be interesting to see a combination of OIS + IBIS + Super EIS where the EIS smoothes the motion rather than locking the image completely.  It's much harder to get the locked stabilisation than just smoothing it and leaving some of the motion in the image, so it's definitely possible to tone it down a lot.
Perhaps this topic will be what people are arguing about when the GH10 and FX5 IV and R5 mk 5 are all being released on top of each other, so we've got to leave something on the table for then!

Sorry if I misread!
I have! And it's TOO smooth for my tastes. It's very impressive, but I still want some natural handheld movement. It helps with the immersion. It's why I have never used a gimbal for the ringside action. The biggest issue with action cameras, even the new ones, is the low light just isn't great in most of these venues that don't have professional lighting rigs set up. 

Actually, I was making exactly the opposite point from the one you made it sound as though I was making : D when I mentioned Lumix alongside the Oly case ; )
The other point is simply that one lens isn’t necessarily the same as another ; )) While much also depends on the way the operator handles the camera, a lens with optical stabilisation can make a night-and-day difference... speaking as someone who uses glass with and without it every day on the FX series :- )

For fast action sports where you're moving quickly it's just not sufficient from what I've seen. If you're largely standing still I imagine it's sufficient but when you're running around a wrestling ring, not so much. 
My use case though is admittedly unique. 

Never tried it but I suspect the FX30 stab would be good enough for my handheld needs which are basically ‘static’.
I move more and more however towards the combo of absolutely locked off or floating moving with nothing in between.
Lumix are great in this regard because if you have everything dialled up to the max, albeit at the expense of some cropping, these things stay incredibly still. It’s really only if there is any static foreground that you notice any movement so wider establishing shots, I always use a tripod or something.

@newfoundmass@MrSMWFX30's stabilization is not necessarily bad at all... it requires a proper operator! : P Maybe @kye is serious up there, maybe not ; ) I am :- )

The FX30s are still really great values. I realistically could get away with three of those and be set for the next half decade at least. The biggest issue I'd have is just the poor IBIS. IBIS is hugely important for my work, even more than auto focus and all the other comforts people wanted over the years. 
That's what has kept me in the Lumix camp. I plan to switch out one or both of my S5s for a S5II or S5II X here soon. Amazing IBIS and really good auto focus... no real reason to switch. 

That would not surprise me a bit and although I have not watched a single review other than the CVP one…and even that, not all the way through, I have noticed a while recent bunch of LUMIX converts posted they have one.
I imagine a bunch of them at least will shortly be posting a piece regarding why they flopped back to Sony, soon enough…
I’d have no problem flipping back to Sony myself, but it would be the FX3A and FX30’s plus A7RV, all used, because all of that kit is more than good enough for me.
The A7RV is still the best stills camera I have owned, though my S1Rii’s are better hybrid and as that is my bread & butter…
It’s an unlikely scenario though as my LUMIX gear just works and shiny new stuff for the sake of shiny new stuff, is not enough of a draw for me personally.
Still, no harm in looking and pondering from time to time!

I'm already shooting 2x anamorphic open-gate on my $30 Charmera keychain camera, so nothing new for me here.
Nice to see that Sony has finally caught up though!


 

This is a beast of a camera for sure, but man, almost $5K??? I mean, I get it, it's almost a cinema camera, but no internal ND, SDI etc....

I guess I'm just grateful you can pick up a used A7SIII for around 2K and get basically the same image at the end of the pipeline. Or even an old F5 at $1k for that matter... It's funny because I'm at the stage in my career where I can kind of choose to shoot with whatever cameras we want within reason. More often than not though, I end up going with older cameras because we get basically the same image at end of the pipeline, and they are like 10x cheaper. The budget saved can be invested into cooler on camera stuff. Spoiled for choice I guess

It's the best compact cine camera in the market, for NOW. But I'm not sure it can hold that position for long. Maybe they know this and keeping some features unavailable today to be unlocked at 2027. Firmware update these days are more a marketing policy (our product still competes) than an engineering challenge. I mean 4k240 is not some issue in the code you want to resolve. Its a switch. 

Let the chat commence…
 

the download is on their homepage -demos at Cine Gear Expo tomorrow

@Emanuelhaha well, you know, life gets in the way. Since posting that, I've stayed plenty busy growing my little Utah-based production company — we did documentary and commercial projects in 10 different countries last year — while juggling getting married, having a little baby son, with another on the way now, so becoming a YouTuber on the side never quite worked out. Thanks for checking it out five some odd years later though, lol.  I always intended to get back to it, maybe I will at some point.