kye

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.

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.

On 8/4/2026 at 5:07 AM, PannySVHS said:

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

I only ever pay attention to what is visible when I apply my entire image pipeline, so I didn't know offhand, but I just shot some test clips and viewing them straight out of camera I don't really see aliasing.  I do see some artefacts in the 4x mode that are hard to describe, a bit of noise (and perhaps some processing artefacts on the noise?) but definitely not aliasing, even when I shot hard edges and rotated the camera slowly to try and reveal any aliasing.  The 4x mode is soft, obviously because it's sampling a small area of the sensor and then upscaling it to 4K, so maybe that smooths over things perhaps.

I could do a 8-bit challenge...  maybe we should make it interesting and limit the entries to 720p or something just to add a spin.  I'd be tempted to enter the Charmera.  To say that it's 8-bit is perhaps the understatement of the year!

2 hours ago, Emanuel said:

Fair enough, and I think “it really comes down to your perspective” is already much closer to what I have been saying from the beginning : )

 

I would only question “completely irrelevant”, 'cause and when you immediately acknowledge the principal practical justification for an 8K sensor:

Cropping twice into a 4K image ; )

That is precisely where the additional detail becomes visible in the comparisons posted above, particularly with the tele shots and whenever the image is cropped and magnified.

8K is also useful for extracting high-resolution frame grabs : P

 

So yes, I concur that the Pocket’s additional latitude may be much more valuable in a wide, uncontrolled, high-contrast exterior scene. The Pocket 4 Pro remains high on my wish list, of course : )

But in a shot requiring additional reach, reframing or magnification or yet, genuine DSMC use ; ) the Luna’s resolution may be the advantage that actually matters too : )

Which brings us back to perspective, purpose and the particular shot, rather than to any single universal verdict on the two cameras.

 

Let alone the POV Head Tracker, detachable screen, internal 32-bit float stereo audio (all game-changers) and the rest of the Luna’s modular shooting concept ; )

 

E. :- )

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.

19 hours ago, Ilkka Nissila said:

 

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. 

Interesting idea that the lens might be contributing to this impression, and I would tend to agree with you.  In my testing I routinely found that if you change almost any variable then the aesthetic impressions of almost all the image characteristics are changed.  This is one of the reasons I am so critical when people compare cameras side-by-side but don't match WB and/or don't use the same LUTs or colour pipeline, they're effectively saying "I've compared these cameras in identical conditions except for the colour which is different in every way and impacts your perception of basically every aspect of the image".

My testing of YouTube suggests that for 4K uploads Prores HQ isn't much better than H264 at around 100Mbps, and maybe also 50Mbps, but it's likely to be pretty subject specific (like if you have lots of demanding shots like big fountains or rain or snow or waves moving across water etc - things with huge amounts of motion).  I'd suggest experimenting, and hopefully that gives a place to start.

Impacts of these sensors to the market value of videography is obviously a hugely complex topic, but in general terms if this reduces the barrier to entry then more people will come into the market and more supply without more demand means the price goes down.  I'm not sure that the extra DR of these sensors really has that much impact on this though.  I watched Peaky Blinders The Immortal Man on Netflix the other day and there's a wide shot taken from a long way away with a large fire on top of a hill and no other lighting in the rest of the scene, taken at the dim end of blue hour, and the fire is clipped to absolute hell, basically being just a solid yellow blob.  Whatever cameras they used were fine for the rest of the film but clipped on this.  The market for DR is there, but the better the tech gets the thinner the tail is.  Still, if every camera had Alexa 35 level DR, that would be a nice bump in quality for all footage for sure.

9 hours ago, ND64 said:

They only rely on IMATEST and it doesn't reveal everything. Especially these days that temporal NR algorithms are doing magic work. The RAW files of these devices are nothing like conventional RAW still images from a mirrorless camera, let alone their 10bit h.265 video. But even some still cameras turn on the NR on RAW from a certain ISO and above. This is S1II for example. The highest no-NR-applied ISO is ISO 5000

Temporal NR wouldn't be shown by that graph, true.  I agree that the word "RAW" has less and less meaning every day of late as well!  

The relationship between ISO and DR is an interesting one too.  I used to think that the DR during the day was higher than at night, especially if there was direct sun, but I've almost reversed my position on that since I've been shooting more at night in recent years.  It might be that during the day people expect that the light and shadow sides can't both be seen at once whereas at night lighting from artificial lighting is more even, or it might be that the sun doesn't tend to be in the frame when at night the lights are almost always in the shot unless you're using quite a long lens and the background is controlled.  If you think about S16 film footage the daytime footage doesn't normally look as harsh as the shots taken at night in cities where every light in the frame is absolutely blown to hell.

I haven't read up about LOFIC sensors, but my impression was that they have an additional capacitor that catches the 'overflow' from the main read-out, which should increase the DR across all modes of the sensor.  This assumption that it applies all the time and without any trade-offs may well not be true of course, but it sure seems to work nicely at base-ISO where they tested it!

On 8/4/2026 at 11:52 AM, Emanuel said:

No, @kye I do not think they are lying. Where exactly did I write such a thing?! : )

 

The reference to Andrew’s forum rules was precisely what I called it: a slightly amusing, good-natured bit of irony meant entirely in a friendly spirit! Nothing more than that : )

 

BTW, one small correction: the result is 16 stops at SNR=2 and 17.2 at SNR=1, not the other way around.

The Luna’s supposed 13-stop result is not really a valid 13-stop measurement either. CineD explicitly says that the aggressive NR prevented IMATEST from distinguishing the different patches correctly, thereby invalidating the result. They will not even include those figures in their database.

 

So yes, their test demonstrates very clearly that the current I-Log implementation is seriously problematic. No disagreement there.

 

But charts and real-world footage are two very different things.

A chart isolates one particular variable under one very particular set of conditions. It does not shoot a street, a face, movement, changing available light, colour, texture, skin, foliage, fine detail or an actual scene. This is precisely why the comparative footage posted above matters.

Objective measurements are useful, of course. But only for as long as they help us evaluate an image rather than begin evaluating it on our behalf.

There are limits to everything, including measurable advantages and human perception.

Someone worth $1.6 billion is sixteen times richer than someone worth $100 million. A huge objective difference, no doubt. Yet if both go out to buy a pizza, chances are they will end up buying exactly the same pizza ; ) The extra wealth only begins to matter when what they want to do actually requires it.

What about someone worth $160 million vs $10 million...? The same : P

And so on ; ) Likewise, an 8K image contains roughly sixteen times as many pixels as a 2K image. Another enormous and objectively measurable difference. Yet once both are projected onto a cinema screen and viewed from a normal seating distance, many people may struggle to tell them apart at all. The additional resolution only becomes meaningful when the screen size, viewing distance and image content actually allow us to see it.

And @kye this is especially worth remembering in your case! LOL ; ) Considering how often you have quite rightly defended 1080p as being more than sufficient in the real world : ) Which is precisely why you know that a measurable advantage does not automatically become a meaningful real-world one. Probably better than most camera lovers : )

 

More is more. It is not automatically more relevant forever.

Four additional stops can obviously be extremely valuable when a particular scene actually requires them. I have never denied that (take a look up there! ; ) But a four-stop advantage on a latitude chart does not mean that the resulting image will look four stops better, or even necessarily better at all, in every real-world shot.

 

And this particular latitude comparison was not even entirely like-for-like. The Luna was tested in 8K25 I-Log at around 120 Mbps, while the Pocket’s headline result came from 4K25 D-Log2. CineD did see the same aggressive NR in the Luna’s 4K wide modes, correct, but they did not repeat the complete latitude test in 4K. Nor did they test the standard profiles, which they themselves suggest may currently be the better choice.

It is also worth remembering that D-Log2 is only available on the Pocket’s 20mm wide camera. The 60mm module falls back to regular D-Log, where CineD measured 11.6 stops at SNR=2 and 8 stops of exposure latitude.

By comparison, the Luna’s tele camera in its valid 8K25 I-Log mode measured 9.7 stops at SNR=2 and 5 stops of exposure latitude. So the gap there is about two stops in measured dynamic range and three stops in latitude.

Still a clear win for DJI, certainly, but rather less apocalyptic than the headline comparison between the two wide cameras ; ) The digitally extended 120mm view naturally derives from that same 60mm camera too, so the Pocket’s spectacular D-Log2 figures cannot be extrapolated across its complete 20mm to 120mm shooting range.

So the honest conclusion is still that DJI’s 20mm D-Log2 implementation completely and utterly defeats Luna’s current I-Log implementation in this particular lab test.

 

That is not the same as saying that one complete camera system completely and utterly defeats the other.

Sometimes all the technical blah blah blah is extremely useful. Other times it is worth close to zero and can even contaminate the evaluation, especially once people have already been told which image is supposed to win before they look at the actual footage.

At that point, the chart is no longer informing the eye. It is replacing it ; )

 

Take another look at the real-world comparisons above. The difference is certainly not “complete and utter” there. 

In fact, the Luna’s 8K image often appears to resolve visibly more fine detail than the Pocket’s 4K, particularly in the comparisons of tele shots or whenever the image is cropped and magnified.

That may not be attributable to pixel count alone, since lens performance, sharpening, noise reduction and the complete processing pipeline all play their part. Even so, whatever the precise combination behind it, the visible result is there, and in some of those shots the result may even go the other way, depending on what each of us values in an image. In these comparisons, the Luna’s additional resolution is not merely a spec on paper.

 

So I think we are not very far apart on the measurements themselves.

We simply disagree about the amount of territory those measurements allow “completely and utterly” to occupy ; )

 

E. :- )

You make excellent points, but it really comes down to your perspective.

The detail from the 8K will be completely irrelevant, except in cinemas, where exactly zero people will ever watch this footage.  The extra DR will absolutely be visible, even on smartphones, even with a film emulation applied, and especially because these cameras are designed for wide FOV shooting outdoors where there is a high probability of having huge DR (and even the sun) in the frame.

We can look at images in controlled lighting, this is true.  However under such conditions the vast majority of cameras from the last decade will look just fine.  In fact, if the older cameras have the same bit-depth in their codecs but less DR then they might look BETTER than the modern cameras as the bits will be less stretched!  
So if we're going to compare modern cameras in very controlled conditions then the comparisons should include the vast hundreds of models released in the last decade or so, but if you do mention them then people go berserk because these older cameras fall short in other areas, and you can make a good argument that the controlled tests are nice but not entirely sufficient for evaluation.  In which case, the stunning differences in DR between these cameras is now back in the consideration and the DJI is miles ahead of the Luna.

To summarise that a bit, if you're taking everything into consideration then the DR really matters and if you're not then why aren't you comparing dozens of older cameras, and if you desperately want a tiny gimbal but only shoot in controlled conditions then isn't that a niche application so narrow that it really can't be justified to evaluate the cameras overall?

In terms of me reminding people that lower DR 1080p cameras are fine for many practical tasks, this is true, but modern camera releases have basically nothing to do with practical tasks at all.  There is no justification for 8K codecs.  Period.   The justification for 8K sensors that let you crop 2x for a 4K image is borderline but fine.   Then there's 17K - seriously...   Most camera discussions departed reality long ago and the discussions about this or that camera have the same rigour as discussing which super-hero can win against which other super-hero.

4 hours ago, PannySVHS said:

Afaik the RX100 MK3 has downsampled HD and a 50Mbit codec.

From my own experience HD on the LX15 feels too brittle for my taste, compared to a G6 or G7. Same goes for the GX85. @Andrew - EOSHD

4K on the LX15 is looking nice when graded. So my recommendation as well. @kye Beautiful 8bit 709 image, which makes me think we should do another 8bit challenge. It's been 7 years since the last one.:)

@fuzzynormal How is focussing on the 25mm Pentax 110 lens? Looks like it would be very fiddely. Built like plastic and not so fantastic?

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.

On 8/2/2026 at 1:41 PM, MrSMW said:

Should be GH7 level results, albeit with a fixed lens and the lack of IBIS the L10 has removed and improved…

I was very impressed with the results I saw from various people testing it.  The GH7 sensor is good, the lens in the L10 is also good, and V-LOG and the codecs available are more than enough, so it should be a great combo.

In terms of the lack of IBIS, that's definitely a thing, but if you're able to steady it with almost anything (tripod, gimbal, monopod, even just a large handle of some kind) then it should be pretty stable.

On 8/2/2026 at 5:11 PM, Emanuel said:

I think “completely and utterly” may be doing a little too much work there @kye : P

One has 16 stops of DR (or 17.2 with SNR=2) with little if any NR, and the other has so much NR that the DR is measured as 13 stops for both SNR=1 and SNR=2, which is a completely ridiculous result.

One has 10+ stops of latitude and the other has something like 4-5 stops of latitude.

Considering that the primary purpose of these cameras is to shoot wide scenes in uncontrolled situations, DR is always a major challenge.  NR is normally the issue with cameras like this too, and one has results that are remarkably good for cameras of any price, and the other is remarkable for how heavy the NR is.

When the one that scores better in all of the above is the cheaper one, that's also saying something.

I don't think that "completely and utterly" is overselling it at all.

On 8/2/2026 at 5:11 PM, Emanuel said:

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.

Hey, if someone else wants to publish lab tests on these things then I'll link to them instead.

Unless you think they're lying about the lab test results, then the discussion is normally better when it involves actual objective measurements than if it doesn't involve any at all.  

I'm not saying that measurements are the only thing that matters, but if you're comparing two cameras that have a difference in performance of 4 stops then that's an incredible amount and when shooting outside in available light on wide angle lenses then that is something that really matters in real-world situations.

On 8/2/2026 at 5:44 PM, ND64 said:

Big portion of that 16 stops is unrecoverable due to heavy baked in raw processing and NR. LOFIC low light performance is intrinsically poor, so they have to use two or even three readouts with conventional approach and combine them all (which is not very linear) then add some sharpness tricks to reconstruct the degraded quality. At this sensor size and consumer level, nobody cares and the only thing matters is that it makes truly HDR image. To implement this tech in bigger sensor for pro bodies, that process should be way more refined.

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?

55 minutes ago, BTM_Pix said:

It depends on the range really.

A 24-70mm is definitely 3-4 primes for me but something like the Canon 35-350mm is a different animal.

Leica used to do these two lenses 

They are referred to as MATE (Medium Angle Tri-Elmar) and WATE (Wide Angle Tri-Elmar) and are “zoom” lenses with fixed focal length stops.

The MATE is stepped at 28-35-50mm and the WATE at 16-18-21mm which on their intended use (Rangefinders) were used with a specific ad on viewfinder that was so clunky it is known as the Frankenfinder.

They are not fast but are compact and have focal length stops that make sense so are very much a bag of primes (and very much more useful adapted on to an EVF body).

Some Panasonic fixed lens cameras (LX10 and LX100 spring to mind) emulate this by allowing you to use the zoom ring to increment to fixed focal lengths and it is a good feature especially on those with return to position on power on functionality.

I *think* some of the Sony RX100 do this as well.

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.

12 minutes ago, sanveer said:

I suggested in the other group that Panasonic should put LOFIC sensors in their ILCsand someone went on about mythical organic sensor, which quite frankly may remain just that.

Panasonic should just put LOFIC sensors in all their new cameras, and ditch Sony if it doesn't improve sensor tech enough. 

I would love to see an Even Smaller GX camera with a 20-50MP 1inch LOFIC sensor. The LX10 is frankly too large for most pockets. 

Apparently Sony is working on a smaller LOFIC sensor now, so swapping to LOFIC may well mean sticking with Sony, especially if you already have a deal of some kind worked out.

10 hours ago, BTM_Pix said:

It lets them hit attractive spec points like 3x optical zoom and 12x zoom when using the digital shenanigans.

Although the 3x optical zoom is actually 3x switch as the intermediate points are digital and if you are in D-Log2 then it’s a hard switch as there is no digital zoom.

I think 45mm equivalent would’ve been better from a practical point of view but 2.25x optical zoom and 9x total zoom doesn’t look as good in the marketing.

Even though 20-190mm equivalent is still not too shabby !

I recently watched a video where a street photographer tested his first 40mm lens, after only ever shooting with 35mm and 50mm lenses previously, and he couldn't really make heads-or-tails out of it in the week he had it.  You could tell from the video that he found it different than a 35mm or 50mm, and that didn't surprise me, but what did catch my attention was that he didn't really even know how to explore and learn a new focal length.

After reflecting on that video for some time I realised that:

• Lots of people must "learn" the focal lengths by sort-of memorising them based on external influences rather than just using them and learning first hand through experimentation
• With MFT and S16 cameras I'm used to using all sorts of "odd" focal lengths because I'm adapting all kinds of lenses from other systems with/without speedboosters and add-on anamorphic and spherical adapters
• I'm also used to getting a new focal length and using it blind and over the course of many outings of shooting with it gradually learning what impacts it has on what I shoot, how I shoot, how I walk around, how I begin to look at the world, how the world adapts to me once I adapt, how I feel when the world reacts to that, etc..
• Using a zoom isn't like having a complete set of primes at all, it's almost like a different genre or different type of shooting entirely, but I'm quite familiar with that as well

Now, when I think about using a particular focal length that I'm familiar with, all kinds of stuff comes to mind, and when I think about using one I am not familiar with, I don't know how to think about it at all..  the focal lengths are all so incredibly different.

Having a camera with a 20mm and a 60mm seems like:
- the people who don't know what they're doing won't notice (as they're confused about everything already)
- the people that are used to shooting with primes will have an awkward and steep learning curve that they might not navigate that well
- the people that know how to learn new focal lengths will probably adapt, but given the 35mm and 50mm FOVs are at the worst end of the main lens, they'll likely have a difficult experience choosing between a 2.5x crop of the main camera to get 50mm, or losing the DR and colour profile on the 60mm lens

It might be that these are actually ideal for the type of shooting that people will use this camera for, and it's the normal FOVs that are ill-suited, but if you've "learned" the 24/28/35/50/85/100mm FOVs then it'll be a serious transition to navigate. 

7 hours ago, BTM_Pix said:

The niggle with the P4P comes with the tele lens.

The first being that 60mm equivalent might actually be a bit too tight for some purposes.

It has an alluring shallow depth of field that vloggers will be drawn to using for filming themselves but it’s just that too tight to be held at a distance that will give a decent framing.

The second of course is that it can’t use the new D-Log2 as it’s got a different sensor which means another step in post in swapping in correction LUTs on shots that use it.

This is compounded by the utterly ridiculous limitation that you have to stop recording and manually change profiles. So if you are on the 20mm enjoying your bonkers 17 stops of dynamic range you can’t zoom through to get a tighter shot without stopping recording and selecting the lower profile.

The answer is to always stick in the lower profile )or even a standard non-LOG one) but DJI really need to have a firmware update to allow a way of automatically transitioning if you are using DLog-2.

It will still require the recording being stopped (automatically though if they implement it) and the extra step in post of making sure you have the correct LUT for each type of shot but it avoids the titting about with the small touch screen to change profiles, something which will be become very old very quickly.

For me, I’d keep it in the standard Dlog profile for general use and treat the D-Log2 as more of a special case when I need more stops than a church organ.

The lens though is not something that can be solved with a firmware update and for some people (not me as I am as averse to my own face as other onlookers are) it will be an issue when they start using it in earnest. 

Yeah, as someone who shoots out and about (but doesn't vlog) 20mm and 60mm equivalents seem a little odd to me, although the 20mm makes sense for vlogging as it's just wide enough, and I guess having anything shorter than 60 would be a little too close to the 20 perhaps?

Then again, I've worked out that I can do this odd thing called "cropping" which involves getting less than 4K in the final image, which is why no-one has ever thought of it before.  It all still seems very cumbersome though.

The log profile swapping etc smells like they'll release firmware updates to make it much easier.  I often get the impression that the manufacturers get their product design feedback from people who film very deliberately and slowly, and only when it hits the market and people all point out the workflow gotchas that firmware updates eventually fix strange things like this.

CineD tests are published, and the DJI kicks the Insta360s butt completely and utterly.

https://www.cined.com/dji-osmo-pocket-4p-lab-test-rolling-shutter-dynamic-range-and-exposure-latitude/

https://www.cined.com/insta360-luna-ultra-lab-test-rolling-shutter-dynamic-range-and-exposure-latitude/

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:

11 hours ago, newfoundmass said:

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. 

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!

On 7/23/2026 at 11:03 PM, EduPortas said:

Thanks, interesting site. 

Seems like YT is the best option right now, but it's a huge time waste since most new videos are AI slop. Parsing for a "human take" on the camera is like searching for a needle in a haystack. 

I stand by my opinion that the first one to build a site with this specific theme will become gangbusters. 

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!

On 7/27/2026 at 4:19 PM, newfoundmass said:

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. 

I've filmed a lot while walking, often on uneven ground, and I agree with your assessment.

Even using Dual-IS (lens OIS and IBIS) on Panasonic cameras like GH5 / GX85 / GH7 you'd have to be much more ninja-like than I manage to be most of the time.  I haven't tried the EIS setting on top of the Dual-IS, but by looking at the footage afterwards, I can tell that I'm not hitting the limits of the stabilisation by only a small amount - it tends to be stable and then jump pretty abruptly.  I've filmed with setups that only had OIS or no stabilisation at all and so I appreciate the magic Panasonic is working, but there are limits to everything.

I can't imagine what it would be like trying to follow people who are likely to be pretty unpredictable and jumping around etc trying to surprise their opponent.

Have you ever used any of the newer breed of action cameras that have the ultra-hyper-giga-maxxed-stabilisation modes?  I haven't, but they look basically like magic, stabilising people running and biking etc which is well beyond the OIS / IBIS / EIS territory on normal cameras.  It would be fascinating if someone made a normal camera with a mode like that where it takes a large crop into the lens but delivers that kind of stabilisation.  I can imagine using a wider prime, like a 16mm or 24mm with that mode to grab shots that are 2x cropped but smooth like butter.

I've been AI-ing, googling, and searching ebay, and it looks like there aren't any bargains to be had, although I can get a Sony WX30 for AUD200 / USD140 in great condition from Japan, and that's one of the smallest ones around (it's next to the GoPro on the left)..

Video quality doesn't look too bad either, especially if the reference is 16mm or 35mm film..

The "logic" of the larger camera is pretty deafening though.  

Looking at the below... why use the WX30 when the slightly-larger RX100 or LX10 give you 4K and a drastically nicer image, and then why use those when the slightly-larger L10 has the GH7 sensor and V-Log and codecs instead of rec709, and now you're shooting with a brick!

I realised I had a Lumix ZS20 sitting in a drawer and have now ordered a new battery charger and some new batteries for it, so that's a lot cheaper than a new camera and it's smaller than the LX10, especially when turned off.

The struggle is real though.

On 7/26/2026 at 10:12 PM, fuzzynormal said:

My user icon here on EOSHD is a GM1 with a tiny Pentax A110 24mm prime lens on it.  Aside from using a flat-f8-body-cam-pancake-lens, this was as about as small as I ever got things.  Which was pretty small!

The GM1 is a seriously tiny camera..  how big is the Pentax lens on it?  Do you have any pics of the setup?

I have the F8 bodycap lens and it's tiny as well.  My GF3 is pretty small, especially when combined with the F8 pancake, but unfortunately if you analyse the image it becomes pretty clear that it's closer to SD than 720p, so nowhere near the 1080p it claims.

On 7/27/2026 at 2:35 AM, Snowfun said:

Sony RX0 is reasonably small. Not a zoom however and you might regard it as an “action cam” (albeit without stabilisation it isn’t!).

I had forgotten about that one..  if there was a Chamera Pro then that would have to be it, considering the lens FOV is somewhat normal compared to the UWA of action cameras, although it's still pretty wide compared to the Charmera (24mm vs 44mm).

An RX0 mk3 with one of the new 48MP smartphone sensors and all the cropping modes that come with it would be a fascinating camera, although at that point you'd just put an UWA 14mm lens on it and now you've basically made the latest GoPro line!

I'm wondering what the smallest P&S camera is that shoots real 720p or 1080p (not line-skipped or pixel-binned and then upscaled).  If it has a zoom that would be even better.

My recent adventures with emulating 16mm film on my GX85 and the fun of shooting on the almost microscopic Kodak Charmera have made me start thinking about what the smallest 720p or 1080p camera (that isn't an action camera) might be, which I suspect will be a P&S.  During the P&S arms race I'm sure someone pushed the boundaries...

The Super-16 emulations I did with the GX85 made me realise that the DR of a rec709 camera is more than enough and that S16 is far lower than 1080p, and perhaps lower than 720p even.  The Charmeras is probably one of the smallest cameras around but isn't a P&S and its real resolution is only 720x540 so not real 720/1080p. 

The LX10/LX15 comes to mind of course and seems like a great camera but it's still quite pricey and I'd like to go significantly smaller again if I can.

Unfortunately camerasize.com isn't exhaustive with the hundreds (thousands?) of P&S cameras that got released, so some brands are missing (and you can't search by size).

My initial research shows turned up the below, but maybe there are some hidden gems?

It looks like the industry decided that 90-110mm wide and 55-60mm tall was perfectly fine and just pushed to go thinner?

Which, if any, of these are worth looking at?

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!

More Charmera shenanigans.

In comparing it to known camera/lens combinations, it turns out that it's about a 44mm equivalent lens, not 35mm as they state.

It's also not infinity focus, but more like about 30-50cm too, about the right distance for shooting people.  This makes anything further away than that a touch soft, although with the image quality I'll excuse every reviewer of it I've seen missing this rather significant detail.

Back to more fun things, my new Neewer 1.55x adapter has a 17mm rear element and a 67mm front element, and my Sirui 1.25x adapter has a 58mm rear element.  I'm sure you can see where this is going.....

The combination makes this about a 2x de-squeeze.

Normal:

Double anamorphic setup:

Cinemaaaaaaa!!!!

I'd actually shoot with this, only it's awful to use and once you've got these things on there you'd be far better off getting a similar image via different means, like putting a cheap ultra-wide onto a tiny ILC and cropping in post or whatever.

As it's actually meant to be a smartphone anamorphic adapter, I tried it on my iPhone 17 Pro as well, but it's tricky.

1x camera SOOC:

Obviously coverage is a thing!

2x SOOC is better though:

and de-squeezed and cropped:

Fun!  Definitely a vintage anamorphic character.

A pain to shoot with though, as not only is the lens far larger and heavier than the camera, but the iPhone really didn't like it.  I just shot stills with the default app, but it kept wanting to change to the macro camera (which is the ultra-wide lens) and was generally just terribly behaved.  If you were using a dedicated app and had a tripod mount on the adapter then maybe, but once again there are probably better ways to get similar results.

But enough of that.  

In a worlds-first exclusive that nobody asked for, I proudly present....

The anamorphic Charmera!

It shoots open gate 1.55x anamorphic, has USB-C charging, and fits in your pocket!
What's not to love*?
(*note: don't answer this)

Obviously the rig isn't dialled in quite yet....

Surprisingly it's quite easy to position as you can just look down the barrel of the adapter and you can see where the lens is easily, so that's cool.  I think it loses its pocketability though!