rawshooter

8 hours ago, Devon said:

Thanks for the reply @rawshooter! It’s sounds like there not many lemons when it comes to the FP. What are your opinions on buying an FP grey market?

Do not do it. We have the shadow flickering bug that affects only some cameras - so in case this needs to be fixed in hardware, you will be out of luck.

Besides, have you fully read the statement by Sigma? Any repair of a grey market camera does not only need to be paid out of your own pocket, but you'll also be charged $250 extra. That means that the money you saved will evaporate as soon as you need the camera to be serviced.

A camera with

• at least an APS-C/s35mm or better a full frame sensor,
• compressed internally recorded RAW (on the level of REDCode or CinemaDNG, not pseudo-RAW like BRAW or RAW without RAW controls like ProRes RAW)
• plus 10bit Log in a high-quality codec 
• a full, manufacturer-supported workflow for color space transformation and ACES of the RAW and Log material
• good sensor stabilization
• good video autofocus
• compact form factor (not bigger than a typical DSLR/mirrorless)
• solid build  (better than Blackmagics Pocket 4K/6K)
• large swivel display with touchscreen and touchscreen focus
• touchscreen menu system like Blackmagic's (instead of 1990s-style camera menus)
• high-quality internal audio recording (24bit or better 32bit float) obsoleting an external recorder for most tasks
• timecode support (via Tentacle Sync and similar systems)
• USB-C webcam support + smartphone monitoring
• USB-C charging and external powering
• Sony NP-F batteries

@Devon, I am not Andrew, but a gray market camera simply boils down to a camera without warranty, so you're getting a discount for the risk of likely having to pay repairs or replacements out of your own pocket if your copy should be defective.

Postscript - Sigma very clearly states that their warranty does not include gray market cameras:
https://www.sigmaphoto.com/article/important-information-regarding-gray-market-sigma-products/

"As of January 1, 2017, any product that is not imported by Sigma Corporation of America or purchased from an unauthorized Sigma USA Dealer will not be serviced under warranty regardless of the service required. The Sigma Corporation of America Service department will service these products for a minimum $250 charge in addition to the required parts and labor charges at the owner's expense."

3 hours ago, kye said:

You can get them, but they're expensive and they do go far into the mount.  I can't remember if they're MFT -> DMount or MFT -> CMount -> DMount but I remember finding something and deciding it was too expensive, but you can get them.

 

I am aware of - and have tried myself - two solutions:

a) a 3D-printed, very flimsy and plasticky d-mount to MFT adapter: https://www.shapeways.com/product/DSCYGUU7D/d-mount-to-micro-four-thirds-adapter . In my practical experience, most d-mount lenses can't be fully screwed into it; it doesn't reach infinity focus and doesn't provide a solid-enough base for the lens. (I.e. the lens isn't precisely aligned to the sensor, and you risk breaking the adapter only by pulling focus.)

b) d-mount to c-mount adapters: https://fotodioxpro.com/products/d-c-pro - this is a simple step-up ring which doesn't compensate the flange focal distance difference between the two mounts (c-mount: 17.5mm, d-mount: 12.29mm). Adapted lenses won't reach anything near infinity either and can only be used as macro lenses.

20 hours ago, kye said:

One thing you may consider is instead of the Pentax Q or the Samsung NX is to use the P4K.

There's currently no adapter for d-mount to Micro Four Thirds. If it's doable at all, it would need to be deeply recessed into the camera's mount since the flange focal distance of d-mount is 12.29 mm vs. 19.25 mm of Micro Four Thirds. For comparison, Pentax Q only has 9.2mm.

1 hour ago, Mokara said:

The reason to use 8K, even if you are delivering in lower resolution formats, is that it allows you to minimize artifacts that come from a digital beyer sensor. Closer to true color, less aliasing, stuff like that (things you obviously don't care about). You can always reduce resolution in post, you cannot recover it.

And don't forget that 8K TV panels will be the norm in the mid to high end big screen TV market within a few years. Companies that make consumer products have to take that into consideration since people who buy these products will be expecting that their new camera can shoot for their new TV.

This argument comes up every time TV resolution increases. When 4K came out, most here were poopooing the idea of shooting in 4K, because "who wants it?". Well, the market spoke, and apparently the poopooers were wrong. Now, almost all mid to high end TV panels are 4K and a camera that can't shoot 4K is considered dead on arrival. The same thing will happen with 8K in a few years. 

For getting rid of the resolution loss caused by Bayer interpolation, you only need 144% more resolution on the sensor than in the final image. This is why Arri designed the original Alexa sensor with 2.8K resolution for 2K final delivery.

This conversely means that the Canon R5 won't deliver true 8K either - but actually "only" 5K optical resolution. For 4K delivery, 6K sensor resolution (i.e. the 24MP of the current, ubiquitous, run-of-the mill Sony full frame mirrorless camera sensor) is perfect.

Btw., still only very few films are mastered in 4K. What you mostly see in 4K cinemas are blow-ups from 2K. Even "Bad Boys for Life", the currently highest-grossing mainstream Hollywood blockbuster, was mastered in 2K and mostly shot with 2K cameras. And, believe it or not, even IMAX Digital projection is "only" 2K.

52 minutes ago, thebrothersthre3 said:

Where else can you get 8K? 

The question is: Who actually needs 8K? Sports broadcasters, nature documentarists - maybe. 

I think @Andrew Reid wrote here some time ago that we already have enough (or even too much) resolution with today's cameras when filmic images are the goal.

Beyond that, you're rather getting problems because you see every pimple on the face of your protagonist, because you can no longer film hand-held (since motion blur will kill your 8K resolution - it already kills 4K), because your 8K will only be visible with deep focus/depth of field (since shallow depth of field will blur out 90% of your 8K).

So in order to make actual use of 8K, you'll easily end up shooting boring, static, oversharp and flat video images like in the bad old camcorder days...

There's a reason why Arri never went beyond 2.8K on the Alexa's s35 sensors and even kept the full frame sensor of the Alexa LF at 4.4K (much less than even the 6K/24 MP prosumer Sony full frame sensors)...

So of whom did Canon think as the target buyer for this camera? "Us", or some journalists who need a hybrid camera to deliver both hi-res stills and 8K video to their employers?

Again, I don't wanna spoil anyone's enthusiasm, but just temper expectations before we get to see and test the real thing.

5 minutes ago, thebrothersthre3 said:

8K FF raw at this price point is awesome even if its a 5 minute record limit and poor at high ISO's. 

Well, the R5 is positioned by Canon as the mirrorless equivalent of the 5D whose last model cost over 4000 $/Euro when it was introduced. So I'd expect a similar price for the R5. I personally wouldn't pay that much money for a camera with such limitations. But of course everyone has their own needs and opinion.

There's one huge question mark: This camera has a 45 MP sensor - which even with the best and newest technology means a smaller pixel pitch, lower full-well capacity and more noise/worse low light/less dynamic range than a comparable 24 MP sensor. 

Canon's sensor tech now has a long history of rather dramatically trailing Sony's. (Just compare the 26 MP full frame sensor performance of the relatively new Canon EOS RP with Sony's 24 MP full frame sensor.)

So Canon needs to have suddenly caught up or even leapfrogged Sony if the R5's sensor should have a comparable dynamic range and low-light capabilities to the A7iii, the Panasonic S1/S1H, the Nikon R6, the Panasonic S1/S1H and the Sigma fp (all of which use the same Sony sensor or variants thereof). 

In the worst case, this will be a camera developed for (a) stills photographers and (b) the (cancelled) Tokyo Olympics with its Japanese 8K broadcast standard, with 8K resolution and high megapixel count having been given priority over real-world performance. Which would also help Canon sell its C100/C200/C300 camera range despite all...

Just sayin'. We can't really tell anything before the camera will be here and tested in the real world.

Now that I have an DCC8 dummy battery clone, working just fine with the Sigma fp, a question to other camera owners:

Is there a way of safely and reversibly removing the battery compartment door of the camera?

41 minutes ago, ntblowz said:

Which means only Canon camera can have internal compressed RAW, all other will have to go external to bypass RED patent. 

It's even more than that - RED's patents cover any form of compressed RAW video, including externally recorded RAW. Atomos pays major $$ to RED for being able to put (compressed) ProRes RAW into its recorders:

https://www.atomos.com/press-releases/atomos-and-red-are-pleased-to-announce-a-royalty-based-licence-agreement

43 minutes ago, Patrick B. said:

I’ve wondered this too.  I believe Red’s patent only covers a certain compression ratio and up according to the docs.  Like 3:1 or 5:1 and up?  So maybe Canon’s compression is fairly light.  That would explain why file sizes are so large.

Or maybe they’ve worked out a licensing agreement like Atomos and Red did

They did - patent exchange/cross-licensing. This is why the RED Komodo will have an RF mount and phase-detection autofocus.

39 minutes ago, Andrew Reid said:

Everybody think Nikon started the DSLR video revolution with the D90 in 2009 but actually it started in 1988 for Nikon

With a stills-video camera that you put floppy disks in the back of...

https://www.digitalkameramuseum.de/en/esvc/item/nikon-qv-1000c-1988

The moniker "stills video" is a bit confusing though, because it meant - back in that time - that it was technically an analog video camera that captured still images. You couldn't record moving images with it.

DeepL with its scarily good machine translation AI (which isn't know yet to most American website operators like FujiRumors since it's a European website) probably renders the original Japanese interview better:

Quote

 

"It has a classic, small body that resembles a film camera, a film simulation that has been praised for its "wonderful photographic colors," and high functionality and high performance that incorporates advanced mirrorless technology. The latest model in Fujifilm's X-T series, the X-T4, which is the driving force behind mirrorless cameras, has finally been announced. We interviewed Mr. Ueno of FUJIFILM Corporation to find out more about its appeal. Please take a look at some of the interesting stories about the X-T4 and the X-H series!

FUJIFILM X-T4 Interview
Following the popular "X-Pro2 Interview", "GFX 50S Interview", and "GFX 50R Interview", we would like to talk about the new product "X-T4" in this issue. I look forward to working with you. When I heard that the X-T4 was going to be announced, I'm sure many users were excited and wondered why the sensor and processor hadn't been redesigned. With this in mind, can you tell us about the appeal of this machine?

Ueno: First of all, we felt that there was no need to renew the sensor and processor in the roughly one and a half years since the X-T3's launch. It's true that the sensor and processor are devices that users are looking forward to and paying attention to, so we want to make a major evolution (renewal) when we make changes so that we can live up to those expectations. However, if you want to do that, you still need a certain amount of development time. More to the point, we don't think our fourth-generation devices are capable enough to need a renewal in just a year and a half. That's why, when we started planning the X-T4, we decided to keep the current fourth-generation sensor and processor.

Many people have asked me if the X-T3's performance was changed because it was no longer able to meet the demands of modern performance. That's not the case. The X-T3 is one of the fastest-selling models in the X-T series, and it still has enough performance to play an active role in the front line of photography. Under these circumstances, many X users asked for an in-body image stabilization mechanism. The X-H1 was equipped with the technology, but the X-T3, which came out later, didn't, so users were wondering why we didn't include it in the X-T3. Of course, there were a number of reasons for this, but in any case, when we started planning the X-T4, we had decided to include an image stabilization mechanism as an evolutionary element that we couldn't miss.

Some people have suggested that the name "X-T3s" would be fine, but we don't think it's a model change without changing the main device. It's true that changing these things would be a major model change, but that's not the whole story of camera evolution, and as I mentioned earlier, the X-Processor4 currently equipped with the camera still has a lot of potential, and we knew that if we spent more time and money on development, there would be a lot of new things we could do. The new X-T4 is capable of creating extremely elaborate video expressions such as ultra-slow motion shooting at 240fps and bleach bypass. The 26-megapixel X-Trans CMOS IV sensor is also highly regarded by professional photographers for its excellent balance between high resolution and high sensitivity, so we decided to continue using the X-Processor 4.

The sensor and processor in the X-T3 are indeed very high performance, so I guess it's fair to say that the X-T3 has been tuned for higher performance. Now, let's talk about "image stabilization," which is the focus of the X-T4 that you just mentioned.

Ueno: In the case of landscape photography, for example, I've heard that there are more places where tripods are prohibited these days, and the need for image stabilization is increasing for a variety of reasons. If you can take pictures without image stabilization, there's nothing wrong with that, but as long as the effects on power consumption, camera size, weight, and image quality are small and within an acceptable range, of course there's nothing wrong with installing it. When we released the X-H1, we anticipated that it would be larger in size and weight to some extent, so we developed it with the concept of making the body and grip larger, but not compromising on image quality. The X-H1 was our first camera with in-body image stabilization, so we took great care in making it, and as a result, we ended up with the body size and weight that we wanted. The X-H1 was designed to be chosen by people who wanted its excellent image stabilization and ease of use, so I think that's a good thing. The X-T series is our flagship model, and I think its feature and greatest appeal is the high functionality of its flagship model in a compact and lightweight body. The X-H series would have been created if it hadn't been for its small size and light weight. In our opinion, the X-H series will continue to be a different concept from the T series, so we had to differentiate ourselves from the rest.

The X-T series has to be exactly like the X-T, so we've developed and installed a completely new image stabilization unit. Fortunately, I was working on a huge in-body image stabilization system called the GFX100, so I had a lot of know-how and knowledge. This is the third device we've developed for the X-T4, and with this experience, we've come to the conclusion that we can downsize the X-T4 without sacrificing performance. One of the reasons why we didn't include image stabilization in the X-T3 was because we hadn't yet developed an image stabilization that would be suitable for the X-T. Although the X-T4 is approximately 2.5mm thicker, I believe that we were able to implement image stabilization that is appropriate for the X-T series without compromising the functions and concept of the camera.

In terms of needs, it can be said that the camera is equipped with image stabilization in consideration of the needs of video shooters. Recently, the movie function of a mirrorless camera has been effectively used by professionals, and it is now possible to take movies that could only be taken with a dedicated cinema camera. The X-T3 also features 4K60p 10bit 4:2:2 external recording and 10bit 4:2:0 in-camera recording, making it possible to shoot video like a full-fledged cinema camera. With the T3, you can either use an OIS-equipped lens or use a gimbal to shoot handheld while reducing camera shake, but some users said it would be better if you could shoot simply without using a gimbal. What could make that happen? Considering that, there is no other way but in-body image stabilization. Considering these needs, I felt that image stabilization is more necessary than still photography.

In addition to a maximum mechanical shutter speed of 15 frames per second, the X-T4's shutter durability has also been significantly improved. However, I don't seem to have an image of a camera with a super-telephoto lens that can take pictures of moving objects. What are your thoughts on that?

Mr. Ueno: As you say, I think it's a preconceived notion or image. Even the X-T3 has considerable AF-following performance for mirrorless cameras, but in the AF-following tests of camera magazines, it was written that the X-T3 was the one with unexpectedly high performance. We don't think it's totally unexpected (laughs).

One thing that still lingers is the fact that when the X-Pro1 was released, there was only contrast AF, and the first XF35mm F1.4R released had a 100g or more focus lens unit driven by a DC motor, so AF was slow. At the time, there was no way I could move the AF faster. I think that's partly because of this, and partly because many people thought that "it doesn't fit with moving objects" or "the AF is slow" = the X series had a big impact. Especially from people who have not used the X series since the early models, I think they still say, "The image quality of the X is good, but the AF is slow.

The phase detection AF in the X-T3, X-T4, and X-Pro3 cameras covers 100% of the area of the image sensor. The Pro3 and T4 also have low brightness performance, which can be up to -6EV. With each new camera model change, image quality and features improve, but in fact, it is the AF performance that has evolved the most since the X series was introduced. That's quite a jump up, too. So, when I asked people to use the new X series, they were surprised and said, "It fits surprisingly well! I've been told, "I'm going to do this. It's not at all surprising to us, but...

Even if the shutter and other mechanical parts are improved, there's no point in not having AF on the X-T4, so we developed the X-T4's AF to be even more accurate, and its response to objects coming straight at you is excellent.

And, as is true of all X-Series cameras, the face and pupil AF features are also constantly being researched and fed back to the products to see how we can improve the accuracy of these features whenever a new model is released. In that sense, the AF performance of the X-T3, X-T30, X-Pro3, and X-T4 has been getting better and better in just one and a half years.

When it was mentioned that the X-T4 would be equipped with image stabilization, I wondered if there would be a successor to the X-H series. Rumor has been spreading on the net that [...] However, when you mentioned earlier, you said that you would continue to work on X-H. I think this is a point that a lot of people are concerned about, so let me ask you a few more questions.

Mr. Ueno: That's right. First of all, the X-H series does not only feature image stabilization, but also a large grip to improve the combination with telephoto lenses and a thicker magnesium body to increase the rigidity and robustness of the body, making it an extremely tough camera. The X series offers a range of cameras with different features to suit different shooting situations and styles, while maintaining the same image quality. That's why we want the X-H series to be a camera with a distinctly different concept than the X-T series. The camera is intended for users with different shooting purposes and scenes, including video functions. There is no point in having the two series coexist if they are simply different in design and operation. We are currently looking into this and other matters, so please give us a little more time.

Please let us know if there are any plans to retrofit some of the functions of the X-T4 to the X-T3, which is equipped with the same sensor and processor.

Mr. Ueno: That's something we're looking into now. Certainly it's physically possible to put new features on existing models as long as the main devices are the same. However, the firmware itself also undergoes minor changes as the model changes. Therefore, copying the new logic of a new model does not mean that the new features can be used immediately on the existing model. In some cases, a new dedicated firmware has to be developed in order to incorporate functions into existing models. Nowadays, the competition for digital camera sales is very fierce, and there is only so much time and personnel that can be allocated to the development of firmware for existing models while continuing to develop new products. Of course, we understand the expectations of our users, so we'd like to think about the features of each model and which features are best incorporated into existing models.

Finally, please give a message to those who are considering purchasing the X-T4.

Mr. Ueno: In a word, the X-T4 is "Perfect X". It's no exaggeration to say that the X series is the most powerful camera ever made, taking full advantage of the APS-C sensor, the compactness of the system, including not only the body but also the lenses, the overwhelmingly low cost performance of even the highest-grade lenses compared to full-frame cameras with the same specifications, and above all, the excellent color reproduction that Fujifilm is proud of. If you're already using X, I'm sure you'll understand why I don't need to go into detail, so I'd like to encourage people who have never heard of or used X before to use the X-T4.

 

Translated with https://www.deepl.com/translator

43 minutes ago, Noli said:

Just a cheap chinese DMW-DCC8 coupler.

Thanks for the info! - Doing further research on AliExpress, I saw that there are different DMW-DCC8 coupler clones sold in combination with NP-F battery adapters. This one here appears to be superior to others because it includes an 8.4 Volts converter (while other models just pass through the NP-F's native 7.4 Volts):

https://nl.aliexpress.com/item/32677818991.html

The basic NP-F adapter in this set is the same that SmallRig sells under its own brand for Blackmagic cameras - a good piece of hardware that, in my own experience, works very well.

3 hours ago, Noli said:

I'm using a Baxxtar NP-F970 and it definitly works. So far I only got the battery and no charger, once that arrives I will test for how long it will run, continuosly recording.

How do you physically connect/adapt the NP-F970 to the Sigma fp?  (Highly interesting to me and likely others, since these batteries are widely in use and literally powerhouses for their price.)

This is interesting, because on your copy it says 7.4 volts while the specification for both the original Panasonic BLC12 and the Sigma BP-51 is 8.4 volts.

If it's possible to power the camera with only 7.4 volts, then you could likely also connect the dummy batteries to Sony NP-F batteries (which have 7.2 volts) - and this would open up wholly new possibilities for using the fp on long shooting gigs.

But I leave it here, because at this point all this is speculative and we need to see whether and how it works in real life.

P.S.: Is this a SmallRig cage in the background? Does it work well for you on your fp?

3 minutes ago, Lars Steenhoff said:

I'm using some cheap batteries and they work just fine,  so I think the Chinese third-party BLC12 dummy battery + AC adapter  will work just fine

Are these batteries branded as BP-51 (Sigma) or as BLC12 (Panasonic) replacements? I'm asking because I'm still not sure whether the two battery types are really 100% compatible.

(Fuji's early DSLRs, for example used nominally the same batteries as Nikon DSLRs from which their bodies were derived, but those batteries were incompatible nevertheless because of some internal chip.)

17 hours ago, Lars Steenhoff said:

 

 

This is an interesting bit in the current times - that the fp can act as a standard webcam via its USB-C interface and be used for live streaming and teleconferencing without any extra hardware.

So here comes the question: To do that, one would normally power the camera from an AC adapter - which is not included in the standard camera package. Sigma offers the SAC-7P as an extra camera accessory which consists of an AC adapter + a dummy battery for the camera. But it costs around $/EUR 80 and is hardly in stock anywhere.

Since the Sigma fp's BP-51 battery is principally the same as Panasonic's DMW-BLC12 (yeah, the same battery as in the good old GH2...), I wonder whether one couldn't just buy a Chinese third-party BLC12 dummy battery + AC adapter which are readily available on a number of web shops (Amazon, AliExpress...) for only about $/EUR 28.

This of course would be handy for other shooting situations, too. And since some of those BLC12 third-party dummy battery adapters work with USB power, this would mean that one should be able to power the fp with USB power banks!

It sounds good in theory, but I wouldn't want to brick my camera if it doesn't work in practice...

Has anyone here tried this out yet?

Interesting breakdown of how the Sigma fp's material behaves in Resolve and Premiere.

1st video: first available-light event documentary that I've seen made with the camera.

2nd video: first corporate video I've seen made with the camera.

32 minutes ago, Andrew Reid said:

Resolve was made for Cinema DNG.

Of course it works.

Blackmagic are implying it is a pain to use the Sigma Fp's raw with Resolve. Of course it isn't.

They just don't really want it to be a thing or to support it in any way. Doesn't take a genius to work out why.

With all due respect, the matter is more complicated:

DNG (whether stills DNG or CinemaDNG) contains internal color matrixes. If a camera manufacturer doesn't provide raw specifications - like Sigma unfortunately does - then Raw developing software (no matter whether it's Lightroom, RawTherapee, Resolve, After Effects...) just interprets the raw DNG data based on the internal color matrixes. That is not optimal but works good enough for photographers who usually work in the sRGB or in the AdobeRGB color space.

However, as film people, we're now used to work in wider color spaces - making proper use of the 10bit/OLED/DCP etc. screens that increasingly replace legacy 8bit/Rec709 HDTV - such as Aces, P3, Rec2020. 

However, this is the point where DNG without additional camera manufacturer support fails, and where NO software, no matter whether Resolve or anything else, can properly figure out how the RAW color values should be interpreted.

So, in this case, it's upon Sigma to step up and help manufacturers across the board (no matter whether Adobe for AfterEffects, Blackmagic for Resolve, Assimilate for Scratch, Apple for FCPX...) and share information about the fp's native color space if they want to promote the fp as a serious cinema camera.

Otherwise, we can't really make use of the full color spectrum captured by the fp, but will be limited by the Rec709 color space even when grading RAW.

@Andrew Reid, since I speak Dutch and you bought the camera in the Netherlands - were you aware of the fact that the dealer sold you a showroom model? (Because it had been listed as out-of-stock in its warehouse?)

Btw., the limitations and guesswork regarding the right color spaces for the CinemaDNG recorded by the Sigma fp apply to any software that can process CinemaDNG...

47 minutes ago, Andrew Reid said:

It is a shame to users battling Resolve here with this camera.

If Resolve is out there as a serious NLE to replace Premiere, and it is... I frankly expect universal compatibility and I expect far more from Blackmagic to work with companies like Sigma in providing that better level of recognition for their RAW files.

Naah, it's the opposite - Sigma doesn't provide a Log profile and corresponding color space yet (we have to wait till firmware 2.0 in summer), and doesn't provide any LUTs, Aces IDTs or other transformation functions for the fp's CinemaDNG so that in the meantime, we're limited to grading the material in Rec709 although the camera has a wider gamut/more color.

It's likely because Sigma doesn't have any previous experience with video and digital cinema while the stills photography world still lives in sRGB (=almost the same as Rec709) or Adobe RGB at best, and thinks that paper prints (with their 5 stops dynamic range) are the Nirvana of image quality...

1. Sigma fp + Lomo OKC 4-28-1 (28mm T2, Super 35mm/APS-C).

2. Working as a teacher at a design school + photographer + video maker.

3. Since this site is based in the UK, I'll list my favorite British music: Daphne Oram, Brian Eno, The Pop Group, favorite sport: boxing, with huge nods to Tyson Fury and Anthony Joshua. Otherwise, privileged that my job is my hobby and vice versa. 

4. Hopes for EOSHD: I most appreciate DIY/self-help/community mutual help coverage and discussions. The current thread on the Sigma fp (and how to work around its quirks) is a brilliant example, as is the thread on shooting RAW video on the EOS-M. My hope for the future of EOSHD is to further explore this direction. IMHO, progress in camera technology is slowing down, and we are almost "there".  (For example, a mirrorless camera with an s35 sensor, clean 6400 ISO, good IBIS, good video autofocus, good color science, good manual controls, internal 10bit log + RAW recording would basically be "it"; which means that a camera like the Fuji X-T4 is 95% "there".) At some point, it might become more exciting to max out existing, cheaply available technology, than wait for the next great camera to come out. The EOS-M with MagicLantern Raw is a brilliant example.

5. There's better food, better climate, better street manners and now even better public services (transport, health...) in other parts of the world than in the Northern European country where I live; and as the Corona crisis shows, maybe generally smarter societies. (I'm particularly thinking of high-tech Asian countries such as Taiwan and South Korea.) But what I do miss elsewhere is my local arts community, aside from living in a stable part of the world with lower political threats/risks than elsewhere.

6. Must have been in 2013 when MagicLantern's RAW video recording on the Canon EOS 50D was reported here.