Emanuel

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.

Found this guy — no idea if he is one of us EOSHD’ers : P but if not, it would be nice to see him here ; ) https://www.youtube.com/@TheGrowingPro/videos Seems fairly enthusiastic : ) Fascinating collection of stuff to dig into, and a bit of variety among all the new releases. He’s a fan of the GH series too, with some lovely thoughts on a few cams, opinions, ideas and concepts many of us share here (brand-agnostic as well, which is always a plus in my book), and he’s also into medium format! Maybe not the kind of fancy channel people are used to seeing pop up there ; ) but that can actually be a good thing these days : D Pretty much gets my vote ;- ) @Parker I've just watched the full 6:13 video you shared with us. Thanks for that, I really enjoyed it. Pity you haven’t kept going with more stuff since then. What happened in the meantime? To borrow from your own thread title: why not? :- )

Well, a bit hard to resist to 17-stops of dynamic range of the new D-Log 2, isn't it? ;- ) source More on that here, in the edit.

Now, about using it in summer... are we talking about a mild summer, or an actual summer that isn’t even properly hot, where the camera doesn’t need to suddenly remember it has thermal limits? Here’s a useful 45-minute guide: And last but not least, one of the best comparison tests I've found so far, if not the most interesting with a unique range of pros and cons is here, as well as probably the smartest use of a fine example for low light is there (serves as tutorial too). To those who still think this unique accessory called the POV Head Tracker is merely pointless/meaningless, take a look at what Insta360’s CEO Insta360’s CEO said on the matter, when he said he hopes “that one day everyone will forget cameras even exist” : o EDIT — Worth adding too: the new Pocket 4P/Pro filters are already starting to appear, alongside the brand-new D-Log 2 enabled by an equally new next-generation LOFIC image sensor. And what about noise texture or quality of the grain in D-Log and D-Log 2 when testing the ISO range? A 2nd test, colour included, plus a comparative analysis between the two and against S-Log3 no less*, from another reviewer here. BTW... Also not to forget the bitrate difference likewise highlighted by this old-school written comparison/review: Pocket 4P/Pro goes up to 180 Mbps versus Luna Ultra’s 120 Mbps, exactly 50% higher. The question is: what will be the real-world impact of that extra compression headroom in demanding scenes and heavier Log grading? * A 5-stop difference in D-Log 2 and a full stop in D-Log... a 4-stop gap between the two! Well, who would have guessed? ; ) + another test: compared with the full-frame a7 V [LINK] : X

A couple of my cousins did this a couple of decades ago : ) with Kodak disposable 35mm film cameras. No photographer, no wedding videographer at all ;- )

Love the way you put it! : ) As everyone of your posts BTW < 3 Thanks, always a pleasure reading you : ) Great-juicy-post BTW part II ;- )

These two [1*] [2] Korean hands-on videos are probably among the most useful references I have seen so far on the Luna Ultra / Pocket 4P discussion. EDIT — plus this one from another reviewer elsewhere: [3] Not because they end the debate, on the contrary : ) but since they also help show the real operational trade-offs better than most spec-sheet comparisons, while still offering some fairly clear findings on the usual comparison points, such as outcome, colour or dynamic range, whenever those aspects are covered. source *In this 1st video, right from the start, you can see exactly that approach: using this kind of camera as a serious B-cam tool (Osmo Pocket 3) in commercial work, very close to the way I have also been using small capture devices in a similar role, as mentioned before.

Yes, exactly. That was the part I was agreeing with and developing, not trying to claim as a new point. If two people are saying the same thing, there is usually a reason for it. Always better than one person going one way and the other going the other way, just to create confusion, isn’t it? ; ) What interests me is that once convenience starts affecting the rhythm of the set, it is no longer just convenience in a minor sense. It becomes part of how the scene can actually be made. Time, pressure, continuity, the actors’ energy, the crew’s patience... all of that can feed back into the creative result. And I take your point on the 2x/3x terminology when it comes to lens design, range, price and compromise. In that context, of course it tells you something useful. My issue is more with the way it is used as shooting language, especially with phones and small cameras, where “2x” or “3x” often replaces any real sense of focal length, distance or perspective. Your parlor trick is actually a perfect example of what I mean. If you can look at the lens and camera position and already have a good idea of what is probably in the frame, then focal length is not trivia. It is practical spatial knowledge. And yes, Kubrick was right there. The frame may look similar, but once the camera distance changes, the shot has changed.

That Kubrick story is a fine example because it puts the whole thing in very practical terms. It is not about fetishising focal lengths, or saying one lens is more “cinematic” than another. It is about the fact that the moment you decide whether to move the camera or change the lens, you are already making a directing choice, not just a technical one. Much as with the recent example I gave from Leonel Vieira’s A NOITE, which was based around specific focal lengths, the 75mm and 100mm lenses I mentioned. That is not just a preference for a certain look. It is about camera distance, pressure, and the way actors are observed inside the frame. Different names, different contexts, but the same practical truth: once the choice is made consciously, focal length stops being just a number on the lens and becomes part of the mise-en-scène.

Interesting to see this thread again in 2026. Back then the idea sounded a bit futuristic, but now it feels like we are finally getting there from a few different directions. The iPhone LiDAR side is still interesting, especially with things like LidarAC, but what really caught my attention more recently is that we now have dedicated systems actually trying to turn manual lenses into something much closer to AF behavior. DJI Focus Pro is probably the most serious example so far. PDMOVIE is trying something similar too, though it seems a bit more compromised in how it decides what to lock onto. So in a way the original idea in this thread was right, just early. It was never only about using the iPhone as a clever measuring tape. The bigger idea was using LiDAR / distance mapping / external motors to bring some level of autofocus logic to manual lenses and cine setups, and that definitely seems real now. We are still not quite at “perfect native AF for any manual lens”, but compared to where this discussion started, it is no longer science fiction either. Has anyone here actually used one of these newer systems on a real shoot rather than just testing it at home?

I think @kye’s point still stands, and maybe it becomes even clearer once you move away from the usual zooms vs primes argument. It always comes down to how much convenience a zoom actually buys you, especially when time becomes critical. On a controlled set, changing lenses can break rhythm, slow down the crew, cost minutes, and sometimes cost the shot. In uncontrolled environments, it can be even more decisive, because you may simply not have the time, the space, or the chance to change lenses before the moment is gone. So yes, a zoom can solve a very practical problem: time, reaction and continuity. That should not be underestimated. If the situation is changing in front of you, the practical convenience of a zoom can become creatively important too. But I don’t think this cancels the OP’s deeper point. There is also another kind of convenience in truly understanding a given focal length. It teaches you where to stand, how close to be, how to move, how much space to leave, and how the scene changes once your own position changes. A zoom may save the moment, but understanding focal lengths changes how you read the moment in the first place. And this is also why I have never had any patience for the 2x, 3x, 5x terminology. I always prefer the actual focal length value, because that tells me something real about the relationship between camera, subject and space. “2x” may be convenient marketing language, but “35mm”, “50mm” or “85mm” immediately tells you much more about how the image is likely to feel and how you may need to position yourself. Leonel Vieira is a good recent example of this. This June, while shooting the making-of on A NOITE, I was able to observe that very particular relationship he has with focal lengths, especially his liking for 75mm and 100mm lenses, focal lengths he has often favoured and used there. That is not just a technical preference. It affects distance, performance, compression, the way actors are observed, and the emotional space between camera and subject. With those lenses, the focal length becomes part of the staging itself, not just a number attached to the lens.

Exactly. What you call availablism is central here. But with Wong Kar-wai it never feels merely opportunistic. The available does not remain simply available. It becomes emotional architecture. Pre-handover Hong Kong gave him the lights, the colours, the cramped spaces, the corridors, the streets, the reflections and the limitations. But the art is in turning those given elements into mood, memory and desire. That is the difference between just using a location and allowing the location to become part of the film’s inner life. In that sense, the uncontrolled city is not only a background. It becomes a collaborator. Wong Kar-wai does not simply take what is there. He finds what is hidden inside what is there.