Emanuel

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. :- )

Unfortunately, not everyone cares. - EAG :- )

Have you actually shot with it? Sharpening, noise reduction and the other image-processing settings can obviously be set to the minimum ;- )

I think “completely and utterly” may be doing a little too much work there @kye : P 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. That aside, the DJI result is undeniably impressive. The 20mm LOFIC camera in D-Log2 seems to be in a different league when it comes to measured dynamic range and exposure latitude. I’m just not sure that this particular test supports such a definitive verdict on the two complete camera systems. Those spectacular figures apply specifically to the 20mm camera in D-Log2. The 60mm camera does not offer D-Log2 and produces considerably more conventional results. On the Luna side, the CineD test seems mainly to reveal that its current I-Log processing is seriously problematic, particularly because of the aggressive internal noise reduction. They did not test the standard profiles, which they themselves suggest may currently be the better option. So, to me, the fair conclusion is that DJI’s best sensor and profile comprehensively outperform Luna’s present I-Log implementation in these specific laboratory tests. That is still a major win for DJI. Just not necessarily a complete and utter defeat of the Luna in every respect. In these comparative tests [A | B] though ; ) the result is rather less one-sided : ) Now compare the Luna’s 8K with the Pocket’s 4K [1 + 2 already posted up there or directly here] and judge for yourself ; ) Lab tests are extremely useful because they isolate specific variables and give us repeatable measurements, but they are not the same thing as real-world shooting. They cannot fully account for colour, detail rendering, motion, sharpening, texture, highlight roll-off, subject separation or simply which image looks more convincing in an actual scene. As these comparisons and the footage itself demonstrate, a camera that appears decisively superior on a chart does not necessarily produce the preferable image once we step outside the lab bubble and look at the actual footage. LU I | LU II | LU III | 4P I | 4P II | 4P III Part of it has already been posted, among others, for instance right there. Both are irresistible to me. Whichever one comes out ahead in any particular test, I think both cameras are genuinely worthy of the OOAK label. The Pocket 4P is unique in what it achieves with its 20mm LOFIC sensor and D-Log2 in such a small body, while the Luna Ultra is equally singular in its modular design, detachable remote screen, internal 32-bit float stereo audio and overall shooting concept, particularly with its innovative POV Head Tracker. They are not merely two versions of the same product competing on a laboratory chart; each offers something that currently exists nowhere else.

No worries : ) On a slightly different note, this new generation of pocket cameras, such as the Insta360 Luna Ultra and DJI Pocket 4 Pro, may well point in another direction altogether... They offer impeccable stabilisation ; ) Granted, it is not exactly the handheld look you seem to favour, but that is precisely the kind of character Sony’s less effective IBIS can give you, especially when paired with a lens without optical stabilisation ; )) And very strong low-light performance too: LU1 | LU2 | LU3 | LU4 on a film set | LU5 + LU6 shot in exactly that kind of venue by someone who, like you, says he had never been particularly keen on using pocket or action cameras. Well, until this one came along... & 4P1 | 4P2 | 4P3 There is far less need to worry about professional lighting rigs today. To put it very simply, both have changed the whole game IMHO : )) especially at such an affordable price range nowadays : X What a time to be alive and kickin'! :- )

Actually, I was making exactly the opposite point from the one you made it sound as though I was making : D when I mentioned Lumix alongside the Oly case ; ) The other point is simply that one lens isn’t necessarily the same as another ; )) While much also depends on the way the operator handles the camera, a lens with optical stabilisation can make a night-and-day difference... speaking as someone who uses glass with and without it every day on the FX series :- )

The lens can also play a relevant role in order to reach the result you intend or need : ) even though, Oly or Panasonic may overcome it indeed :- )

Luna Ultra firmware update... v1.0.283: I-Log monitoring, zoom and general operation have improved a lot, while the POV Head Tracker (one of my favs, as you already know ; ) now also works with the camera mounted upside down, with better control accuracy and standby power consumption on the detachable display has also been reduced : )

@newfoundmass@MrSMWFX30's stabilization is not necessarily bad at all... it requires a proper operator! : P Maybe @kye is serious up there, maybe not ; ) I am :- )

Not at all! Love my FX30, a bargain to say it simple ;- )

And I am far from alone on this one: https://www.digitalcameraworld.com/cameras/sony-rx10-v-review

PS: That 600mm reach makes it interesting if/when it costs less than a grand... mandatory then? OK, less than a grand and a half! : P Anything over $2K would put it in a different category, for sure. And not only for wild life... Nonetheless. Disclaimer: FX30 + 16-300mm owner here. Has the FX30 + 16-300mm killed the RX10 V? ; ) The FX30 gives you a cinema body: APS-C/Super 35, 10-bit 4:2:2, S-Log3, S-Cinetone, 14+ stops of claimed latitude, 4K 120fps, active cooling, dual card slots, full-size HDMI, better rigging options, better audio with the XLR handle, and interchangeable lenses. The RX10 V is now much stronger than the RX10 IV for video: 4K60, 4K120 cropped — probably around 1.43x vs 1.62x on the FX30 — 10-bit 4:2:2, S-Log3, S-Cinetone, LUT support, 4K30 USB streaming, digital audio through the MI shoe, and AI subject recognition, whatever that means... But it still has one SD card slot, a fixed lens, a tilting rather than fully articulating screen, no IBIS, and remains more of a high-end bridge/photo camera than a cinema tool. Sorry to be the party pooper but yes: the RX10 V has more reach, about +33% compared with the FX30 + 16-300mm combo, plus an EVF and slightly less weight. The RX10 V lens is faster in pure exposure terms, but once you factor in sensor size, f/2.4–4 on a 1-inch sensor works out at roughly f/6.5–10.8 full-frame equivalent. The FX30 + Sigma 16-300mm is roughly f/5.3–10.1 equivalent on APS-C/Super 35, so between 28mm and 100mm equivalent the FX30/Sigma combo can be up to about one stop better in equivalent-aperture terms. The FX30 already gives you a 24-450mm equivalent range with that Sigma lens, plus everything above, plus interchangeable lenses, for a similar price or even less.

100% correct : ) Nuts. - EAG

https://www.youtube.com/@CtrlAIDelete/videos CtrlAIDel is helpful, to say the least... Just look at this, quite vividly represented, shall we say. That V pretty much tells you where to look… : D Or this one, where you’re probably used to having their ad pop up right in front of your eyes: CtrlAIDel is a channel that investigates AI tools, crypto projects, and digital services by analyzing their claims, their creators, and their real credibility. Most online tools look convincing on the surface but fail when you trace who built them, what they previously created, and how consistent their results actually are. This channel focuses on: - breaking down AI and digital systems beyond marketing claims - exposing patterns behind misleading products and services - analyzing founders, companies, and past projects behind the tools - showing where trust breaks before money is lost No hype. No surface reviews. Only source-based analysis.