BenEricson

I did it guys. I went back to the Sony F3! Finally found a descent deal on it. 2.1k for all this. Since I don't need the 4k I was between this, a canon c300, c100, Sony fs5 and fs700. 
The F3 with 444 has 850hrs and the pix e5 came with 960gbs of storage. 

I was told it was the same sensor as the FS7? I guess they were misinformed. 
I kinda think something like a C300 Mk2 Or C200 might make sense at that price point. (Unless you want all the high speed stuff.) 
I haven’t seen another model of Sony camera that has the magical quality of the F3, besides the F35. 

It's unclear if the FS7 sensor is a stripped down version of the F5 sensor or an updated version of the FS700's, but either way it doesn't offer any unique look or capabilities. 

No it's the 12 Pro Max that has the most improved camera and 5 axis IBIS
The 12 Pro and standard 12 are just very incremental improvements with small sensors.

Looks pretty good for a phone. I'm having trouble seeing any improvements over the XS or iPhone 11 though. Is this the one with the supposedly larger sensor?

Some nice highlights.

I totally agree.

@Andrew Reid considering how good these things are getting, is it now possible to start ranking phones against cheaper cameras?  All the discussion is phones vs phones or cameras vs cameras, but I'm curious when we can start comparing them directly.
Or maybe it's obvious and I'm out of the loop because I'm still using my iPhone 8..
It will be a great day when the image quality of a consumer device mimics Zeiss Master Primes.
Cameras are tools, and currently the best tools are inaccessible to the vast majority of people who would like to create with them.  Democratisation of image quality is good for art, good for creators, and good for society in general.  The only people it's not good for is technical elitists, or people that are obsessed with equipment and don't care about art.
You do realise that if my camera gets better then yours doesn't get worse, right?
and smartphones don't crawl from your nightstand and inject you with heroin while you're sleeping...  improving the camera in a phone will help you to get access to traditional camera equipment, not hinder it, and owning a phone doesn't automatically mean that you are forced at gunpoint to browse social media.
These things are tools.
Agreed.  It's a tough job to convince many people that a photographer is more than a camera-transportation-device, but the more that smartphones get better and people take photos and realise they're not that great even though the picture quality seems fine, the more they'll realise that there is a skill component to things.
The best way to educate the public is to give them the tools and then watch as they discover it's not so easy.
This transition from photographers being technicians who restrict access to the equipment to photographers being artists has been occurring for a very long time.  It used to be that accessing and operating a 8x10 camera wasn't accessible, then it was lenses and lights, then with digital it was the megapixels and lenses, now it's just lenses, and once fake-bokeh is convincing then there will be no technical or ownership barriers at all, which is why the good photographers are the ones who specialise in lighting, composition, posing, set design, concepts, etc.
It's pretty easy to make an Alexa look like a home video.  The equipment won't save the amateurs from needing to be artists.

I take pictures with my iPhone every day so better image quality is welcome.
One thing this may excel at is shooting in public places without a permit or kit.  A couple of self recording lavalier mic body packs and you could shoot a conversation at a table in a mall that would probably look pretty good.  Also, car interiors could be a good application.
The saying used to be “lights, camera, action” now it’s “no lights, no problem, I got the new iPhone“
Anyways, someday the photos I take of paperwork at work (instead of scanning them) will be ready for the big screen.

Amazing video and great script for a commercial. Is this yours?

BRAW. 
 

That really did not look good to me. Pretty scenery sure, but the image itself didn't blow me away. Overly sharpened with a high shutter speed, surprised he didn't use an ND on it. 

I actually like the IPhone 12 Mini the most. My favorite iPhone was the boxy 4S. I’m tired of paying $1200 for a huge phone. It’s a tool for me. It should slip in my pocket and disappear until I need to navigate, call, messaged, or lookup public transit times.
So glad they went back to the boxy shape and smaller size with the mini. Price is still pretty high.

I guess the camera does actually matter! 😬

I think chivo earned a pretty penny for this one. 

Allthough it was not great. Looks like on the video side they are still some years behind mirrorless/dslr's and cinema camera's. 

These specs always sound good, but when a client actually sends me video from their iPhone to use in a project it always looks soft. Granted, they're not professionals, but I've never really been blown away by video shot on any phone. 

Confusing? Please stop.
 
This introduction is actually remarkable...
I never discuss what some other people want. Don't neglect what you don't need.
Enthusiastic product tester here... who knows probably adopter? ; )
 
I am looking this product since a decade ago at least... 3x GH1, 4X G7... does this say something to you?

Fair enough. I didn't realize you were talking about reversal film or film prints. Reversal was extremely popular at that time. The Dark Knight was shot negative but done with a traditional film print work flow and saying it has poor dynamic range and is comparable to ML is a tough sell. The roll off on highlights is just so damn pretty!
From my experience with color negative film, the amount of range and especially highlight detail far exceeds what you would ever need to pull out in post. An exposure needs to be set in the grade, but like you said, you have a ton of leeway. It is quite remarkable what you can pull from even a 16mm negative film.
I am definitely interested in that book. It was written in 2006 and the scanning technology we have now didn't even exist back then, but I am interested in that more classical style of shooting and finishing contrast than the DI style grading. Thanks for the recommendation. 

That explains why Endgame looked quite soft to me in places both on my local cinema screen using 4K projectors and also on my 4K Bluray.   Ironically movies shot on 35mm decades ago, look more detailed than many stuff shot more recently.  

Fair enough. I didn't realize you were talking about reversal film or film prints. Reversal was extremely popular at that time. The Dark Knight was shot negative but done with a traditional film print work flow and saying it has poor dynamic range and is comparable to ML is a tough sell. The roll off on highlights is just so damn pretty!
From my experience with color negative film, the amount of range and especially highlight detail far exceeds what you would ever need to pull out in post. An exposure needs to be set in the grade, but like you said, you have a ton of leeway. It is quite remarkable what you can pull from even a 16mm negative film.
I am definitely interested in that book. It was written in 2006 and the scanning technology we have now didn't even exist back then, but I am interested in that more classical style of shooting and finishing contrast than the DI style grading. Thanks for the recommendation. 

Yeah, the OG pocket cam is S16 and also has a similarity in the highlight sensitivity. Ergonomically though, beyond terrible, any of those cameras mentioned are like Fisher Price toys compared to the Eclair. Nobody ever even bothered to create a modern zoom lens that could compete with the old S16 ones. Maybe the Canon 18 - 80 on a C300?

I have watched some things captured on 16mm film, and I have shot one or two projects with the Eclair NPR.  Additionally, I own an EOSM.
 
 
The reasons why the EOSM is comparable to the NPR is because:
  some of the ML crop modes for the EOSM allow the use of 16mm and S16 optics;   the ML crop modes enable raw recording at a higher resolution and higher bit-depth.  
 
By the way, there have been a few relevant threads on the EOSM.  Here is thread based on an EOSHD article about shooting 5k raw on the EOSM using one of the 16mm crop modes.
 
Here is a thread that suggests the EOSM can make a good Super-8 camera.
 
Certainly, there are other digital cameras with 16 and S16 crops, and most of them have been mentioned in this thread.  The Digital Bolex and the Ikonoskop A-cam dII are probably the closest digital camera to a 16mm film camera, because not only do they shoot s16, raw/uncompressed with a higher bit depth, but they both utilize a CCD sensor.
 
 
Of course, one can rig any mirrorless camera set back and balanced on a weighted shoulder rig, in the same way as you show in the photo of your C100.  You could even add a padded "head-pressing plate!"
 
 
Just build a balanced shoulder rig and keep it built during the entire shoot.
 
 
I've always wanted to try one of those!:

Just going to bump this and mention you can watch this for free if you happen to be subscribed to HBO max. The bmpcc still delivering. Looked great streaming on my TV.