Matins 2

The Sony IMX800 is rumoured to be a 1-inch sensor designed for phones. It is expected to make its debute soon.
What does the future hold for dedicated consumer cameras if this rumour is true?
https://gsmarena.com/rumor_the_huawei_p50_phones_will_be_the_first_to_use_sonys_1_imx800_sensor-news-47938.php
https://twitter.com/RODENT950/status/1364507707907178496

The Sony IMX800 is rumoured to be a 1-inch sensor designed for phones. It is expected to make its debute soon.
What does the future hold for dedicated consumer cameras if this rumour is true?
https://gsmarena.com/rumor_the_huawei_p50_phones_will_be_the_first_to_use_sonys_1_imx800_sensor-news-47938.php
https://twitter.com/RODENT950/status/1364507707907178496

My hope here (expectation, actually) is that Panasonic will go with their own organic sensors for their next wave of releases (post-Japan-Olympics) with a line of 8K/wide-DR/high-ISO/global-shutter cameras (yes, MFT, too). Quite frankly, the market could use some better sensor differentiation, IMHO, and I'd love to see Panasonic and Nikon and Sigma succeed in bringing their own sensor technology to market each for their own unique imaging characteristics. Sony can continue to sell their sensors to the upstarts (like Z-Cam) and stay in the green. Time to move this market forward...again, IMHO.

It's pretty comical the extent to which you're misinterpreting what I am saying. I said the D6 styling was far better, much bigger hump but it has smooth flowing clean lines and looks like a real professional workhorse. The EVF hump on the Z9 looks like the 1 Series.
 
This is a $6000+ camera and must be judged as such.
If it is just going to cut & paste the A1 specs sheet that is not enough, I'm afraid.
Most cameras have Sony manufactured parts in them - the Sigma Fp, Panasonic S1, S1H, SL2-S, A7 III all those have practically the same sensor (which I don't have a problem with). What I would have issues with is if they were all almost identical with no unique selling points or form factors. They are ALL very different.
Also some cameras like the X-T4 have exclusivity of sensor. There's no Sony APS-C body with the X-T4 sensor.

There ain't much of any kind of shot I capture that you can't find something very similar to it elsewhere.  I think that's true for most people, even the pros.  In fact, I was watching some of Roger Deakin's work from Sicario earlier this week and realized there's an almost identical shot from the David Lean's 1946 "Great Expectations" that's a direct copy. (soldiers defending into darkness, shot by Guy Green)  Pretty cool homage/rip-off.
But, even still, every combo of shots and audio is definitely a new context.  So what we do with those shots is what matters.  Often I get paid to create mundane context, but it's context the client wants.  I'm okay with that.  I'm not super creative.  No genius stuff here.  Ultimately I'm rock and roll, not progressive jazz.

I guess it depends on how exactly we define things.  An original idea may be "I Kye, will pick up my camera, and point it at that thing, and record video frames at these exact moments, with the light hitting the subject in exactly this way" and yes, everything we ever do is completely unique.
If I say "potato centrifuge Halifax cumbersome trellis" then that's probably the first time anyone has ever said that.** 
However, if you abstract up a little, getting a mid-shot of the subject with a 35mm FOV, well, that's been done more than a few times before...
I did purposefully comment rather cheekily and not actually answer the question.  Redundancy in creation is contextual.  You could post the same image and depending on context it may or may not be redundant.  The Kuleshov effect is in the mix too.
If you're creating content for a particular client where they know or care about who is in the footage, in some ways it doesn't matter how generic the style is (or it might even be desirable) because it matters who is in the footage.  A corporate video full of middle-aged white men talking about their company in corporate speak is completely meaningless unless those middle-aged white men are the middle-aged white men from your clients company, in which case, the video is worth paying for.
Ditto for wedding videos, or the videos I make of my friends and family.
Its a tough gig making content for people who don't know anyone who is featured in the final video.  In that case you would have to work super-hard to make the content interesting.  I'm glad I don't have that burden!
(** I look forward to your replies with the google results)
Not at all.  In terms of new ideas, my videos are far away from that territory.  
However, as discussed above, my videos are of my friends and family, or are camera tests of some kind, so either the audience knows the people in the video, or the audience might care about the camera test I'm doing.  In either case, there's little redundancy.
If I did want to push into new ideas or capturing things in a new way, I would have two options.  I would either need to capture things in a radically different style, which would likely not be at all appetising.  
I could shoot my videos using only a fisheye lens pointing at the sky and a tele macro that only frames a single eye of the subject and have a video that cuts back and forward between these two angles at random intervals.  New? yes.  Desirable? NO.
The alternative is to embrace the style, which in my case is on the continuum between Cinéma vérité and the cinematic highlight style of travel or wedding videos.  I tend to create a mixture of the two, not showing the parts where the kids whine about everything and their mum gets angry at them, but also not making our activities look like we live a fantasy life where everything is interesting and everyone is always happy (like most travel films tend to).
To get my videos anywhere near the level and finesse of the greats in this territory would require many lifetimes dedicated solely to the study of every aspect of creation, as well as doing deep work on myself to enable my own creativity to come forth much less unhindered than it does currently.
Meanwhile, I don't worry about it.  I have fun, do my best, and enjoy the process.

People have been made to be terrified of each other. 
What I'm saying, is there hasn't been a balance in the messaging. Telling people to still go outside where they please, and enjoy the sunshine and life. 

If it's putting money in my bank account, it's not redundant.

Because I shoot for nonprofit agencies mostly (that's NGOs for you non-American types 😉), the videos I shoot are pretty issue specific and not at all redundant. Just yesterday I was up in a wetlands restoration project that had been burned out in a major forest fire. The Forest Service and our local land trust are replanting it. The clips I got from it will go into a three-part series of social media shorts about how the land trust and its partners are helping the community and the ecosystem rebound from this devastating event. And I maybe be able to use it in a longer term documentary about the fire and its aftermath in context of climate change and the increase of severe wildfires in our region.
That's definitely not redundant content and I'm really excited/motivated to tell these important stories. Maybe the answer to feeling like you're creating redundant content is to find unique stories that feel like they have value to you and shoot them!

If you're doing this creatively or as a hobby it's very daunting to be faced with the best of the world's output.
I faced this problem recently when I was starting to post some creative photography on Instagram. One negative thought that I had was, indeed, "what's the point of making and posting work when thousands of others are doing the same thing, only better than me?"
The answer for me, in this context, was that there is still a local audience. And while the pics I was posting were nothing spectacular in a global arena, they were pretty good compared to what others were doing in my local area. I built up a respectable following after a while, 99% of which were genuine local followers.
Similarly, I used to do a bit of documentary film making, but haven't for a while. But when I was it was fairly easy to get a screening at a local or national film festival, and quite a bit less likely for me to be screened internationally. The local festivals were lots of fun. I met great people and had a great time. The slightly more prestigious international festivals (when I was able to travel to them) were like a special treat in comparison, all the better for being a little bit more rare.
So I would say: find your audience. You don't need to be broadcasting to millions or even thousands on YouTube. If you make a video about your granny's cat she'll absolutely love it, and you'll feel good too!

It is getting more difficult.
A few factors at play:
- More homogenous globalised world, with cultures coming closer together under the umbrella of capitalism and internet
- Global pool of talent and art, yes that's what you have to stand out against now. Before, you only had to be unique within your sphere of influence or country
So the internet has changed what it means to be unique or new.

No. It's like saying free people in a country built on genocide and slavery, who daily benefit from that history, shouldn't call themselves enslaved when they're asked to temporarily change their lifestyles in order to save the lives of their neighbours.
 
No. Slavery is a situation where a person or a group of people are forced to labour for no recompense. Some people have concluded that they're in that situation right now because they're too spoilt and entitled to countenance a temporary disruption to their lives in order to save the lives of their neighbours.

Its like saying poor people in developed countries shouldn't call themselves poor, because some kids somewhere in India are dying because there is no enough food.
Slavery is about a situation where a person or a group of people, commonly known as master, decides how you should live. Some people have legitimately concluded that they're in that situation right now. The mathematical measurements of misery is not the subject. 

One aspect that is driving so many of us nuts these days in cinema (both for theater and streaming serials) is the excess of political correctness. It seems film studios have a Rule Book which requires every new series or movie to have a quota of actors which represent white people, black people, hispanic people, oriental-looking people, a woman, someone in the LGBT+ community, someone with some physical handicap, etc.
This is simply ridiculous, the real world does not function like this and it drives me (and it seems, most of my friends and family) mad.
And the worst is that if someone complains that James Bond should be played by a British White Male (as it was conceived by its author) instead of an American Black Female, we're called racists. This is getting ridiculously out of hand...

Great points Andrew.  I think it'll be very interesting to see what the newly-enriched professional class produces on their own for less-lucrative ends after making more mainstream non-controversial works.

In the USA Disney/Marvel financed Black Panther, which was respectful of Africans (so rare in Hollywood) but otherwise just a competently-made superhero movie no more daring than any of the other Avengers.  However, because it made a billion dollars studios started financing other Black-empowerment vehicles, such as the HBO Watchmen series (the best show of all time), Black KKKlansman and the just-released Judas and the Black Messiah (a movie whose view of the police would never have been presented before).  Without Black Panther's success none of those other daring works could have happened.

So I hope other cultures and people can be empowered to risk their new success making original fare, even if only for their own creative vanity.

Also even if you're not a fan of history or tragedy you should watch Judas and the Black Messiah just for the beauty of it's rehoused Arri DNA lenses.  The film looks dreamy and aged despite having just been made.

1,000/day relocating to Florida tells me that many are not embarrassed by Florida. 
I am saddened for the mental and emotional destructiveness the paranoia has caused. To me that's worse than the cause. Personally I would rather die free than survive as a slave. That's just me. I know many would disagree. 
Cheers. 

What a f**king roller coaster.

I was sitting in a broadcast truck editing packages for an international surf event in early March when the first Gov "recommendations" came through. At about 10am, producer comes in and says "we just got word, we're wrapping this today to be safe", which meant they ran through the final 2 days of the competition in one and had about 14 hours live on air that day.

Driving home the next day (8hr drive), every time I pulled over and checked my phone, another Gov update and another job cancelled. $80,000 of bookings gone by the time I got home. 2nd child on the way, wife just gone on maternity leave, and a contract signed for a house to start building, and suddenly all my income for the next 8 months was gone.

This was immediately following 3 months of bushfires where basically no video production other than news had happened because the entire state was blanketed in smoke, and you couldn't even go outside without having a coughing fit. And that surf contest had been my first job in months.

I picked up a few other jobs closer to home, mostly editing stuff for Zoom conferences, but barely enough for bills, until things finally started to pick up again in September. Throughout that period the biggest issue was that I live close to a state border. Many of my clients are interstate, even though they're only a 45 min drive away. Any rental gear I need comes from across the state border. If I have to fly to my own states capital, I usually drive over the border and fly from there. But that state border was closed. My state was open to them, after the initial 6 week lockdown, but I could not travel there to access gear, flights, clients, locations, etc. So even if clients did want to shoot, I couldn't.

Then from Sept to Dec I was probably the busiest I've ever been (not counting single jobs where I'm booked for several months), with lots of stuff for local business, or international brands that simply didn't want to risk any travel to the area (which was also becoming famous as a celebrity destination where Hollywood stars were moving to escape the pandemic). I'd spent a lot of time during the bushfires perfecting my SEO and local marketing, so it was good to finally see all that pay off once filming was possible.

Then in the week before Christmas, another outbreak (an outbreak here is considered ONE single case, who is not a returned travel in quarantine; usually a worker at a quarantine hotel) meant that my last day of work for 2020 was basically spent fielding cancellations for Jan/Feb, so again I was back to nothing after barely struggling to get on top of bills and thinking that I might have enough spare to take the wife out to dinner for the first time in a year.

That was a tough couple of months and my wife made the decision to go back to work earlier than she'd intended, but she's also a sole trader so that's not earning us any money yet while she gets everything set back up.

And then finally last week, bookings started to roll in again to the point where I'm now at capacity (beyond it, actually, but I'm not in a position to say no) from next week through the end of May. I'm just crossing my fingers that state borders stay open moving forward because some of that work in interstate.

Talk about a train wreck of a year.

Andrew is so right about this camera. When I saw the release I was like...OK so this is a worst A7SIII for $400 more with a XLR top handle but all the important cinema features are missing:
No internal ND No XLR on body No audio controls on body Same shitty LCD screen without an EVF to save it No SDI They didn't even include a way to secure the HDMI PORT! LOL! Cinema camera my ass!

So this is the CINEMA camera we've all waited for ! Shutter angle, 4K DCI, timecode,  anamorphic modes, synchro scan, who cares about those shitty features when we have 18 tally lights around the body and that incredible grey color reminiscent of the Sony cinema line ! Oh and it says Cinema Line on the body itself, this is a testimony that this camera can actually be used to shoot real cinematic movies !
Waiting for the Netflix approval now !


Oh dear marketing people are well paid I hope. This camera is total BS.
 

Canon & Adobe under the same ownership would create a problem - a market-controlling monopoly which wouldn't have been good for the users; it would have been pretty disasterous if Adobe software only worked with Canon camera files, which is no doubt what would have happened under their ownership.
I think the approach of using the mobile phone as the connection hub to the world is sensible, and camera manufacturers have been working to integrated connectivity to their ILCs. It's a bit quirky to use but it does work. Screens have been growing, and three of my four ILCs have touch-screen functionality. There are lots of so-called computational tools in the camera including focus stacking, single-shot tone-mapping, mutli-shot HDR, dozens of different visual effects, and basic editing tools right within the camera. A lot of people claim that these things are missing from cameras but they're not. Many photographers laugh at these features because they want more control and the ability to edit the images and do the "computational" part with user input on a ... well, computer, rather than be limited by the camera manufacturer's built-in software for post-processing. The Zeiss ZX1 implements a lot of editing and sharing functionality in the camera and it has been vigorously trashed on photographers' gear forums online. I can't remember any product that got so much online hatred. These people enthusaistically don't want these features on their cameras. Personally I enjoy occasionally editing an image in-camera and sending it to friends via my mobile phone. It takes a couple of minutes to do it and people catch up with what I'm doing. I then later edit the image properly on a computer based on the RAW image(s). I also use automated focus stacking quite a lot. I'm not a big fan of combining multiple exposures in "HDR"-style effects as I find the automated algorithms don't do all that great result in terms of how I like the images to look and I prefer a more manual approach called exposure blending in most cases (with treelines I sometimes do use HDR or D-Lighting). I find the mobile phone cameras suitable for digitizing bills and hand-made drawings and for such tasks, but generally for photography I find the results disgusting.
Cameras don't use the same kind of OS as mobile phones as the mobile phones take a long time to start up and people want a camera to be ready to shoot within a split-second after turning it on, instead of taking 30 seconds to boot. Additionally, many experienced (still) photographers want to time action themselves rather than shooting all moments and then selecting afterwards. It's just a creation of habit from the film world, perhaps. A mobile phone OS isn't really suitable for real-time tasks where precise timing is important. Camera manufacturers sometimes make attemtps at Android-based cameras (Nikon and Zeiss have done that) and the resulting product gets universal trashing by the online photography community. A real-time OS is what the camera manufacturers use, and it's for good reasons.
The issue behind the camera sales time course is that the world now has hundreds of millions of digital ILCs and perhaps only one million is really needed. For these cameras to stop being functional it would take a long time. Which is why there is likely to be only a trickle of sales from now on. Younger generations have fallen behind on income and thus they don't have the purchasing power their parents had, and thus they don't buy expensive luxury items such as dedicated cameras, unless they work professionally in a field that requires it. Dedicated cameras are not needed in everyday life and the mobile phone camera provides the necessary everyday functionality. Artists and journalists are now largely endangered species and also don't have the jobs or purchasing power that existed in the past. People expect content to be free now so where is the compensation for the people who produce it? I don't have the numbers but my understanding of streaming services is that the compensation to the original artist is worse than it was when physical media distribution was required to disseminate the art, be it music, or photography fo that matter. News sites created by professionals still exist but they generate less money because much of the advertising money goes to google and facebook instead of the producer of the content like it used to be in traditional media (be it TV or newspaper). So everywhere the producer of the original content is stomped upon and it becomes more difficult to make a living in this way, and large international companies reap the profits, taking advantage of the content that they did not make. This, in my opinion, is one of the key problems of our time, and it is also contributing to the challenges facing camera manufacturers.

The benefits of digital are, of course, undeniable - in fact this forum wouldn't exist were it not for the advent of large-sensor video and many of its enthusiast members, myself included, would never have been able to even get into a position where these discussions are possible without it.
We have 2 competing sets of desires when it comes to large sensor video. On the one hand we want more resolution, greater bit depth and higher frame rates (all of which improve the ROI for professional users); while on the other, we want sensors that will satisfy our aesthetic desires which for most of us align much more with the organic nature of celluloid than they do with pristine Rec709 video. Perhaps those two desire sets will never be compatible, but unfortunately there will never be sufficient sales to enthusiast users to justify pro-sumer/consumer level equipment that abandons the megapixel/frame rate race in favour of a lower resolution with film-like DR etc.
I was having this discussion (sort of) with a couple of occasional photo shooters just on Friday. they were saying that there was now no discernible difference between film and digital. I disagreed. I can certainly easily differentiate the stills I shoot on film, to those I've shot on digital - even though I generally process the latter to look as much like the former as I can. The organic, random, chemical nature of silver halide photography gives a highlight roll-off - and just as important, a roll-off to underexposure - plus a transition from in to out-of focus that simply can't be achieved in a grid matrix of photosensitive receptors. That look is at once closer to and further away from what we see with our own eyes and that is where its magic lies.

Definitely depends on the film. Many of the currently available 35mm color films aren't great at all with skin tones. Portra, which has pretty much always been a go-to for people photos, is the best. But I've found pretty much any others are totally off - in a wide variety of different ways depending on the stock.
Anyway, just wanted to add that because (IMO) Portra (all flavors are great - 160, 400, or 800) is the only one that gives me pleasing skin tones.
Some quick examples, straight scans with no editing (1st is 35mm Portra 800, 2nd is medium format Portra 160 on a Fuji GA645Zi, 3rd is medium format Portra 160 on a Bronica GS-1)

Perhaps it is time for the established camera companies to finally come up with something that resembles a 21th century camera body. One that resembles a smartphone, but with the bells and whistles of a proper camera. Sleek, pocketable, low-profile, a wide range of wireless functions like wireless charging, with new and smaller lenses.

New blog post here!
https://www.eoshd.com/news/eoshd-podcast-episode-2-an-interview-with-michael-moores-producer-jeff-gibbs-and-their-new-film-michael-moores-planet-of-the-humans/
And new podcast can be streamed here:
https://anchor.fm/eoshd/episodes/The-EOSHD-Podcast---Episode-2---Jeff-Gibbs--Director---Michael-Moores-Planet-Of-The-Humans-epsucf

Perhaps it is time for the established camera companies to finally come up with something that resembles a 21th century camera body. One that resembles a smartphone, but with the bells and whistles of a proper camera. Sleek, pocketable, low-profile, a wide range of wireless functions like wireless charging, with new and smaller lenses.