Ilkka Nissila

The FX5 is 5599€ here, the ZR is 2449€. I think most customers understand the ZR is not meant to be an FX3 or FX5 at half price.

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.

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?

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.

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.

Maybe. It could also be how the lens renders people, that gives me the sense of artificiality. I do see a significant image (and sound) quality reduction when uploading my own video to youtube at the settings and video format recommended by youtube. I've been trying to figure out how to minimize this issue, and one way is to use the highest-quality format as an intermediate for uploading (QuickTime with Prores HQ). I've not gotten to test this enough to come to a conclusion. I think to evaluate noise reduction and other algorithmic processing done by the camera, one would need to look at subject detail also, and how faithful the details and color in the image are to the subject. This is affected by the lens in addition to digital image processing and compression, but when evaluating a fixed (non-removable) lens camera, it is fair since the user can do nothing to change the optics. Anyway, if this sensor and optics available for 1" sensors satisfy the video community then a lot of money can be saved by not having to invest in larger sensor cameras. It also means making videos of satisfactory quality (or quality that is perceived as very good by the public) will become much more accessible to the general public and thus worth less in the job market, as has become the case for still photography. However, I'm not really convinced just yet.

No, I have only viewed DJI's and various youtubers' material of the Pocket 4P. I assume everyone will use settings that will make the footage look its best as they would for their normal work, what would be the point of using settings that produce subideal results? Some of the youtubers did mention tweaking the settings to their preferences. A lot of cameras don't have any settings that would reduce noise reduction of their video files to zero, I would not be surprised if this is the case here as well.

I noticed when watching various videos made with the Pocket 4P using my TV that the images had a processed appearance, especially faces seemed overly plasticky in appearance, like they were not of real people. This could be due to image processing (noise reduction & sharpening) and partly due to the characteristics of the lens. However, the dynamic range did seem spectacular and it is only this processed appearance of the main subject that bothered me. Is the processing something the manufacturer applies due to smaller area of the photodiode vs. conventional BSI sensor, the small overall sensor area or due to the expected requirements of the user base (which may be social media mainly viewed using small mobile device screens, and used to processed outputs from mobile device cameras)? The Pocket 4P image appearance wasn't that bad compared to typical mobile phone output, I would say it was very good in that category, but the overly smooth and dolled-up appearance of faces did bother me and it would make me question whether I would be willing to work with such a compromise, especially if there is no option to turn the NR down or off. I believe DJI has used dual gain paths before and combined the two ISOs in their cameras before (e.g. my Mini 5 Pro when in Auto ISO mode) and while my initial reaction was that this looks processed, I don't notice that so much any more, it seemed to help things when I set the camera into Pro mode rather than the default (Auto). I'm talking about still images in the case of the drone though. Is this kind of combination of dual gain signals prone to artifacts (I can see why it might be, but it depends on how well they can get the technology to work). I've happily used two different 32-bit float audio recorder products and not noticed any artifacts in the results despite at least one of the two using dual ADCs and combining the outputs into one signal. Canon use DGO in the C70 and C300III Super 35 mm cinema cameras but not in their recent full-frame C80 and C400 models, is this because they can't make it work or produce economically in 35 mm full frame size, or are there problems with the technology which lead them to use a different design in their newer products? Although this hand-held gimbal camera might not be my cup of tea (due to the processed appearance of the image, and lack of support for bluetooth timecode and requiring an adapter to take a 3.5mm audio signal), I am interested in seeing if DJI will be bringing out drones with this new 1" sensor, such as in Air 4 or Mini 6 Pro, and if the technology is applicable to still photography. I find that in my Mini 5 Pro, the image quality on flat days is quite good, but in high-contrast environments such as streets between tall buildings, I find the images quite noisy, and not sure what could be done about it while staying within C0 or C1 classes that can be flown over or near people. I have noticed the drone camera in Auto ISO mode (still photography) seems to select excessively high shutter speeds in order to be able to use both base ISOs (100 and 400, if I recall correctly) for a combined image with larger dynamic range. I might not quite make the same choices myself, as I usually am more concerned with the signal-to-noise ratio in the main subject areas of the image. Anyway, more transparent and manually controllable logic in these devices would be useful. I am not keen on purchasing a Mavic 4 Pro (with the larger sensor camera, presumably with less noise) because it cannot be flown over people even accidentally (lawfully), and in the type of environment where I would be mostly interested using the drone, there are usually uninvolved people. I would be keen to try out a new C0 or C1 class drone with this LOFIC sensor, to see what kind of images it would produce in my applications. I think the 20 mm equivalent focal length of the main camera makes sense in the Pocket 4P as it is probably intended to be used frequently to record video of the operator using it at arm's length and to see at least some environment, the wide angle is needed. Also, one can take the 4K video and crop a bit to get a more normal angle of view (40 mm equiv) while still preserving 1080p quality. The sensor area used for this crop would be quite small though, and the image quality can be a concern. Even in full sensor size (no crop) the images don't show that much real detail based on the videos I saw. I think for social media and news usage this is probably fine for special situations such as videos of action (racing cars or bikes, with the camera mounted on a moving platform, or when the operator walks around the subject to capture it from different sides, while the device automatically keeps the subject in the frame). For quick clips of such subjects I am sure it is a great device, and very tempting. But if the purpose is to make video that looks really beautiful, and where the automatic subject tracking is not a priority, I would still assume larger cameras are preferred. The Pocket 4P doesn't have an adjustable diaphragm, and the ND filters have to be clipped onto the lenses, and the Auto ISO doesn't work in the high DR log2 mode (if I got this correctly), which means the operator may often be relying on the dynamic range to get acceptable results rather than controlling exposure. A lot of users will probably let the shutter speed vary, leading to not so smooth motion, but this might not be obvious or completely objectionable when viewed on tiny screens at reading distance away. I am surprised that the integrated gimbal cameras have the options of these tiny devices (230 g) and then the next step up is the Ronin 4D at 4.67 kg. The other options in between include using a generic gimbal and mirrorless camera which can lead to quite heavy setups as well. I would assume there would be space in the market for some intermediate options, such as micro four thirds sensor size with dual lens(cameras) but no interchangeable lenses, that could weight around 500 g or so. Is there something in the market with those parameters?

It's more likely that some features are not considered a high priority as many would not necessarily use them at all, and so to get the hardware product (with early firmware that supports the main features) out earlier they do not release all the features they are working on. They can then use the revenue from early camera sales to fund further work on the firmware. 4K240 produces an enormous amount of data and there could be serious challenges in implementing it, including (1) how to compress the data so that it will be possible to write on CFexpress type A cards, (2) how overheating can be avoided, (3) what kind of compression to apply, and (4) what kind of dynamic range is possible given the sensor read time (dual gain output readout) and high frame rate (240 fps). Finally all the aspects of the feature need to be tested thoroughly before releasing the firmware out to the users.

Voigtländer made a 90 mm f/3.5 Apo Lanthar for DSLRs. Nikon made a series E 100 mm f/2.8 that is very compact. I think most people today prefer to use zooms for landscape photography. Short tele lenses of smaller maximum apertures typically have some close-up capability or even may be optimized primarily for close-ups. I believe for the most part, manufacturers follow sales and make their product lineups based on sales data combined with estimated future demand. Often users just have to adapt to what is available if they want to use new lenses. Even popular lenses can be neglected or discontinued if the manufacturer wants to promote something new. One issue with non-macro primes of smaller apertures is that manufacturers find it easier to market product lineups where there is a clear line of progression from one level of product upwards to the mid-level and top-of-the-line, and every parameter of performance should improve along the way. This means that although it would be easier to make smaller-aperture lenses better optically than large-aperture lenses of corresponding focal lengths, the manufacturers will make every effort to make the reverse true and the larger-aperture lenses better in image quality, focus speed, etc. and sometimes this means the smaller aperture lenses don't get all the quality they could have. This is unfortunate as I believe there is significant demand for compact, very high quality lenses.

Perhaps it is the algorithms giving me content I am likely to be interested in, but none of my social media feeds give me posts where old camcorders or old digital cameras are seen as desirable from the point of view of achieving a particular look. I have heard about it, but I suspect it could be mainly in particular algorithm-created bubbles. People who are interested in serious photography and video work with good image quality tend to be given that kind of posts and so on. 🙂 There are certainly people who are fascinated by old things. I like steam engines myself, and sometimes photograph steam trains because of the visual and auditory aesthetics, although I recognize that the steam engine did gross harm to the environment, air quality, caused fires, lots of CO2 emissions etc. Despite these I really like the sound and feel of it. 🙂

I find it difficult to believe that worse quality as such is the motivating factor, but a less polished result, a less artificially processed and perfected result may be desirable when one wishes to appear authentic and I do believe a lot of people are tired of the ultra-processed images from mobile phones and editing apps. They may also be tired of commercial images for partly similar reasons: DYI images may look more real and home-made, and somehow more true to the person in the photos, even if not captured by extended arm holding the camera but someone who truly knows the person in the picture. In some cases, commercially produced portraits which often reflect the photographer's tastes and some product or image style that the photographer has found successful and applies to all their clients. Doing it yourself for an authentic feel doesn't mean the quality of the photo has to be poor. Of course, it's possible that some people specifically want a "different" look such as 8 mm film etc. but I don't think this is common or at the core of the issue, the excessive processing and manufactured "perfection" is much more likely to be what triggers a change in fashion (or perhaps I am just wishing that). You may be correct that the smartphone generation sometimes just wants to use something other than their smartphone, that's perfectly understandable and would be a healthy development. In my mind "high quality" and "smartphone" are difficult to put in the same sentence with a straight face. High quality for some things, yes, but for a lot of things, not good quality at all.

This is quite misleading as mirrorless cameras can be set up to do a similar thing where the image is tone-mapped and written to a rec 709 video, usable immediately. The use of a log format and pretending that it is meant for direct viewing and comparing that to a highly processed video from a different camera is a bit disingenuous when cameras have menus with processing settings that allow the user to get a video without editing, with less AI for sure, but with good algorithms that do a roughlysimilar thing more predictably and with higher quality. I am not familiar with how Canon or Sony cameras do things but on Nikon I often use ADL which is their tone-mapping algorithm and it allows me to shoot high contrast, suboptimally lit scenes and get good results without editing. Log video is specifically a storage format and not meant for immediate viewing, which you of course know. Extremely edited night time footage where subjects have been dug out from the shadows will never look very good, and using appropriate lighting and/or making the video in conditions where the existing lighting is half decent is better than relying on extreme AI processing. This is probably one of the reasons why compact cameras are enjoying a resurgence: people are sick and tired of the sickly-looking overprocessed results from smartphones, and even a compact camera that has a small sensor but does not overprocess the image is preferred.

The sensor isn't all one flat plane, there are filters in front of the photosensors and the dust is on top of the outermost filter surface. It definitely shows up more clearly at small apertures than wide open.

I think it's inevitable that the original footage is not kept and only the edited and exported video is stored for the long term. If you want to be able to re-edit footage in the future then the intermediate storage format has to be selected to accommodate this. The 7K comes from use of a sensor that has sensible resolution for a broad variety of still photography applications and saving costs by re-using the same sensor in a bunch of cameras. A camera that is genuinely made for video and only video would likely be more expensive, and so video users have to deal with the large files if they want to shoot original files with the best quality. But one can presumably choose to shoot 4K or even 1080p and the problem is alleviated. It's a bit like with cars: top speed helps to sell them even if it can never be actually used.