kye

I also found this video below, which combines a cheap adapter from Aliexpress with 17mm rear-filter and the Viltrox 28mm F4.5 lens.  He just sticks the mounting plate from the smartphone clamp for the anamorphic directly onto the Viltrox lens with tape, so hardly and ideal situation, but it is more proof of concept, and it covers FF too!

Test image:

Video:
 

Yes, the Beastgrip might well be a better candidate - not only due to having a filter thread I can convert to but also potentially with a larger rear aperture for better coverage!
I found this comparison between the Moment M-series (left) and Beastgrip (right) which shows the rear openings:

Some rough measurements of the Beastgrip suggest that the rectangular opening is almost exactly 17mm across, which would make the image circle significantly larger than my Neewer, which uses a 17mm threaded mount.  
The rectangular opening looks to be on a separate plate - I wonder if that could be removed somehow to really open up the rear element?
Wow - full frame coverage!   I really didn't expect that, and it's very encouraging to hear!
I also realised the 1.55x makes everything pretty wide, and have been contemplating what FOVs I'd want to get and what focal length taking lenses I'd need to use to get them.
You reminded me of my ultra-cheap Risepray 35mm F1.6 C-mount lens, which has a 37mm filter thread.  Assuming it doesn't vignette (and therefore doesn't need any cropping) that would give me a 45mm F2.1 equivalent lens, which would be pretty good for shooting street and run-n-gun like I do.

I have experimented with the Beastgrip 1.33x and 1.55x adapters using full frame cameras and wide/normal to short telephoto lenses (35/40/50/75). I have tried with my slow Leica M lenses, which are usually pretty forgiving on coverage. These Anamorphics will cover full frame and are easy enough to attach to the M mount lenses with a 39 to 37 step down ring. the 1.33x is definitely a better fit for the 35 & 40mm lenses, as the 1.55x has a pretty wide FOV. Results are similar to the above samples, with soft edges and major distortion. But definitely plenty of character. Next time I take a stab at it, I'll post some samples. 

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.

Second Charmera arrived, and I got the other naturally coloured one, so that's a win!

I got the second one so that I don't feel like I need to be careful with the first one, so it's the sort of redundancy that will let me push for getting shots even if it's raining or I'm in a crowd or whatever.
I found a second microSD card for it, but it had issues, and it turns out that if you format the card in the camera it stops being functional - either for the camera or for reading it on a computer!
This ended up being a win though, because I discovered that if I format the SD card to the oldest format FAT32 IIRC then it works better than the previous format (ExFAT) which had random stutters in the footage.  So after some confusion and a bit of trial and error that's a big win!  It still duplicates every third frame though, so it didn't change that behaviour.

Do a ‘spec’ job for a non-profit that has board members with deep pockets and active businesses.
Do something simple and over deliver.  Make a great first impression.
It’s just networking and word of mouth. 

Hi everyone,
I’m wondering if anyone here has tried to build a small digital RAW camera specifically around Normal 8mm / Regular 8mm cine lenses, especially D-mount zooms like the SOM Berthiot Pan-Cinor 8–40mm.
The idea is not to make another action camera or phone rig, but something closer to a tiny indie digital 8mm camera:
small sensor matched to the Normal 8mm image circle D-mount flange distance RAW10 / RAW12 capture global shutter if possible simple HDMI preview recording to SSD film-like color pipeline: linear matrix, log curve, gentle highlight roll-off maybe later: piezo micro-shift or a controlled “organic” sensor/optical movement to reduce the fixed digital feel I have been looking at sensors/modules such as Sony IMX900 and AR0234. The IMX900 seems more realistic as a ready Raspberry Pi 5 camera kit, but the AR0234 is very attractive because it is cheap, global shutter, 1920×1200, RAW10, and available in color and monochrome versions. The problem is the usual one: MIPI carrier board, Raspberry Pi compatibility, V4L2/libcamera driver, power rails, initialization registers, etc.
The goal would be around 1080p or 2K rather than fake “4K”, because these old Normal 8mm lenses have their own character and don’t need a huge modern sensor. I’m more interested in a compact RAW camera with a real vintage 8mm optical look than in maximum resolution.
Has anyone here tried something similar?
I would be especially interested in:
D-mount digital camera experiments Normal 8mm lens coverage on modern sensors Raspberry Pi / Jetson / RK3588 MIPI RAW capture AR0234 or IMX900 RAW workflows custom small camera bodies monochrome sensor + RGB filter experiments piezo sensor shift / film gate weave simulation I’m currently trying to understand whether it makes more sense to use a ready IMX900 Raspberry Pi kit, or to go deeper with a cheaper AR0234 OEM module and somehow solve the carrier board / driver problem.
Any experience, links, warnings, or crazy ideas welcome.

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.

Thanks, I'm looking for a more human approach though.

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.

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!

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.

From what I've read, this is basically correct.  It can apparently add about 3 stops of extra highlight retention.
On most modern cameras, changing ISO doesn't change the sensor gain unless you move into the territory that is handled by the next "native" ISO.  The only exception I know to this is Z Cam (which is why they suffer some WB shift when changing ISO).  Otherwise, for raw codecs, you are adjusting the allocation of stops/highlights in the recording - and for non-raw codecs, you are changing how the camera post-processes the raw that it read at the base ISO.
So in theory, the LOFIC should help with any ISO that is set by the user.
It should also be understood that it only helps with highlights and does nothing whatsoever for shadows - meaning that ETTR is probably even more of a thing with any LOFIC system than it was with most Bayer sensor setups.

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.

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 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 one thing I have not tried is the e stab, but straight out of the box with zero set up other than a quick balance, on the RS4 mini with the optional tracking module, it worked superbly.
Not even close to anything like overheating, but then so far, I have only really been shooting stills with it.
Start up time must be fine as I have not noticed anything other than it takes a second or so for the zoom to find it’s last setting, either; 28, 50 or 75mm as I have it set.
Battery life excellent. I just came back from a week long trip to Scotland and shot well over 1000 frames and battery still showing 2 bars.

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:




 

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.

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?

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.

I had ruled out the GX9 for some reason, thinking it didn't have IBIS, and then I randomly heard that it did have IBIS and so I got confused about why I had written it off, so hearing about the crop made me wonder if that was potentially the reason.
200Mbps is a great bitrate, especially for HD!  I don't recall hearing about this.
Yes - there's even a thread about it that just started!
 
I haven't looked at it myself yet, but if it's a one-stop solution for film emulation then it seems promising.  I've heard it's pretty slow still, but it's still early days and perhaps optimisations will change that at some point.
For me, and this GX85 Super-16mm film camera project, it was more about the GX85 and me finding a place for it.  I have equipment I like, shooting situations / scenarios I prefer to shoot, and images I like, and the goal is to find combinations that work well.
This project has resulted in me successfully discovering and developing the combination of:
GX85 plus 14mm F2.5 pancake lens at 1x / 2x / 4x digital zoom Shooting street scenes in uncontrolled / available light, hand-held, from waist height Passable S16mm film camera emulation for gritty images with a strong vibe I'm actually really heartened by the GX85 and will be testing how far I can push it in other ways.  Emulating a S16 camera is a lot easier than a S35mm camera, for example, so I'll see how I go with that.  I'm effectively done with the S16 film camera emulation but not done at all with pushing to get the most from the GX85.

L10 update…
Shot 5x wedding ceremonies plus their day prior & post events exclusively on the L10.
Stills only so far…
The experience and results have been great.
Not S1Rii great or even S9 great (but in isolation more than good enough as a back up camera stepping up to do a job) the latter  of which is supposed to be my back up camera but was in the shop being supposedly fixed…but as it turned out the fix was going to cost more than buying another mint used one, I bought another.
Also one week long family adventure as my sole camera. Also perfect for that.
However, now that I am back with 1.5x S9 camera bodies, I have decided to repurpose the L10 as; personal plus back up plus dedicated gimbal unit.
Bought my 4th gimbal but this time determined to actually use and keep it…my previous issues being a combo of; reliability, weight, too much kit, user ineptitude…but as it’s an RS4 Mini with the tracking unit and L10, it should be a pretty sophisticated and lightweight unit.
Only 3x more jobs that have video this year but at least it will be a good test ahead of 2027 where every job is hybrid.
Should be GH7 level results, albeit with a fixed lens and the lack of IBIS the L10 has removed and improved…
 

Yeah, “Unconsciously Stumbling Upon The Appropriate Lens Choice Since 1978” is definitely something I’d like to have as an epitaph.

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.