kye

It depends on what we're really talking about here. They're not far away in the sense they're already around, but it's what they can do that is up for grabs. Humans and computers are VASTLY different and we're completely rubbish at predicting what computers will and won't be good for. We have AI lawyers already operating in real life but I still can't buy a robot to take the rubbish out and a 3-year-old can do that. It's best to think of AI like a living organism. It will have intelligence (IQ, EQ, etc), memory, ability to learn, physical coordination, etc, but at RADICALLY different levels to how humans are. Humans have a bunch of hard-wiring for operating in a 3D physical world, and because humans develop these things first we tend to think that AI will, but it's not so. My take on AI is that it currently: has unpredictable levels of IQ (depending on the type of problem) has almost zero EQ has almost infinite memory has very poor ability to learn (even out-classed by most pets) has basically no physical coordination Being able to see the world in 3D and (properly) blur the background, that's something that requires huge spatial processing ability, sophisticated object recognition, and sub-pixel level of processing, all of which are orders-of-magnitude more than we currently have. Otherwise we'll be stuck with what we currently have, which is basically a trick to compare two cameras, make an extremely low resolution mask, and blur the shit out of whatever happens to be vaguely in the right place. Blurring the background but leaving the fly-away hair of the model in focus is a world away from where we are currently.

It's the entertainment industry. There's room for exquisite art, but let's not forget that fart jokes are also very popular, and there's nothing wrong with that - in fact they keep lots of people employed. Good write up - it sounds interesting

In a way Canon could be in the perfect position to WOW us with a big change.. they have had the ability (from their cine camera lineup) for many years, have tested similar form factors with the EF-M range and the XC10/15, but now the market has said loud and clear that video quality really matters (eg, with Sony taking market share), that it matters with Canon (with the response to the M50) and also Sony will have shown them what putting excellent video in mirrorless form-factors will do to your cine range, so it might be a case of conservative management having satisfied itself that it's not too risky and is worthy of significant investment. I'm not saying they will (although I'm crossing all my fingers and all my toes!) but there is a logic to it, so it's not out of the question.

AFAIK the iPhone has a 3.99mm f1.8 lens, which gives a crop factor of 7, which means the lens is equivalent to something like 28mm f4.5. F4.5 isn't a bokeh monster lens by any stretch of the imagination, so unless they can push it to something like 3.99mm f1.0 or dramatically increase the sensor size, then the answer is no - near infinite DOF will be with us for a long time. That's why they're using multiple cameras and digital processing in the first place. Computational photography is the way of the future, but it'll be a while away so I wouldn't hold your breath. The Lytro L16 was ambitious but ultimately didn't really pull off what they were attempting to do, and I take it to mean that it's a lot harder than they were anticipating. In terms of using multiple cameras for improving low-light that's something that will need to be done computationally because of parallax error. You can't just do dumb calculations on the images (like averaging them) because they won't line up.

Yes - unfortunately for me! Now, if only BM made a purpose-built camera for ninja film-making (can accomplish anything but is invisible!).

+1 for the Xume adapters. One thing to keep in mind is that if you go with fixed NDs then you're probably relying on your cameras ISO to do the fine-tuning, but with modern cameras that have many many stops of clean ISO it shouldn't be as much of a problem as it used to be, so that's a downside that matters much less. I ended up buying a Tiffen 4 stop to compliment my internal 3-stop in my XC10 because the combination gave me 180 degree shutter in full sunlight, plus there's not much visible noise at 4 stops of ISO gain so it wasn't too large a step size. I'd suggest doing tests ahead of time for how much ND you need, and how much noise you'll tolerate, and therefore how large the steps are in your 'set'.

If you grab from the screen you'll be going through your display LUT, and didn't you recently recalibrate your displays? That might explain it if something has radically changed.

I read that as "the best mirrorless camera is in your hand" and then got very excited, but was disappointed when I discovered it wasn't a fantastic camera in disguise, but was just as it appeared - a donut. All else being equal, those controls are spectacular. I've bitched about mentioned it before, but being able to see exactly what your settings are and to specify any combination of them is just fantastic. The fact that I can't set aperture, shutter speed and auto-ISO on my XC10 is basically against the Geneva Convention.

Thanks @Robert Collins and @jonpais. Considering I'm not buying until the end of the year my take-away is to wait and let other people do the work with their clickbait-y "Every A7III lens compared" type reviews and just pause the video every now and then to make sure they're not using an adapter. @jonpais what software are you using to save / convert? I was just going to use Resolve to do the colour and gamma transforms for me and then tweak from there.

Do the 24-105 F4 and 70-200 F2.8 not fit the A7III? Sonys lens mounts confuse the heck out of me.. multiple lens mounts and multiple sensor sizes but the two don't seem to line up

I'd suggest that as this isn't a critical application you consider an all-in-one like the Sony RX100 series. Not because it's well suited (although it may be), but because once you've rejected it you'll know exactly what your needs and wants are (and which is which). Starting with simplicity and work your way up based on real requirements will ensure you don't overcomplicate it

Is the dark side Sony or Sigma?? Thanks @jonpais for mentioning the Sigma lenses, I hadn't spotted them yet in my Sony research. The 24-105 F4 and 70-200 F2.8 are quite a bit cheaper than the Sony offerings!!

Reliable AF-C is what put me off the GH5, and also takes the Pocket 2 off the list for me as well. If you're into hand-held stuff, then it's difficult because you need low RS, good stabilisation, reliable AF-C, and if you also do fast-paced stuff in difficult conditions like I do then you also need good high ISO performance, high DR, and flexible lenses. That combination is like finding gold at the end of the rainbow unfortunately!

To replace the GH5, or for different purposes? I'm leaning towards one as well. That is, assuming Canon (or others) don't pull a rabbit out of a hat later this year.

Getting zero on the test is only one element in a much larger picture. To get 'perfect colour' as @jonpais is talking about, you must be able to: see subtle shades of colour (which the test confirms) understand what you are looking at (eg, which hues are appropriate for skin tones, recognise an orange/teal grade) understand what you want (eg, if you like the 'Canon colours', or if you like a reduced contrast look, or less saturation, etc) know how to operate your equipment in order to get the look you want It's like poetry, you have to be able to hear/read, to speak the language, and to appreciate the art of poetry. Having only the first one is insufficient.

Good link - thanks for sharing. I got zero - perfect score. If you're really up for colour matching madness, there's a free iOS / Android game called Blendoku which is like that colour test, but much much more complicated and torturous!! http://www.blendoku.com

Datacolor Spyder 4, every couple of months. Old but still gets me in the ballpark.

The GF1 had a real following.. I read a few reviews that loved the ergonomics when I was buying my GF3. I think the GF1 had a button combination that worked well for some people, and they're seriously small and solidly built. I'm not sure about the GF1, but my GF3 has a metal body, which was excellent considering I dropped it once and it slightly wrinkled the corner and that was it - a few more mm of damage would have damaged the LCD screen!

That makes total sense.. in a way the typical 24-70 can be thought of as a laymans scenery-to-portrait lens, so the only other shot left would be the telephoto, but thanks to the ~50mm equivalent second camera on many smartphones they're now covering off both scenery and portraits, so telephoto is the only one left. Just wait until three or four lenses are common, the Light L16 has already solved the problem of how to get that variety of focal lengths into a thin body (the longer focal lengths go in sideways with a 90degree mirror):

We seem to frequently complain that the camera manufacturers can't do this or that, but they should be able to because the latest smartphone can. So, is anyone using their smartphone for 'real' film-making? I guess by 'real' I'm talking about trying to get the most out of it by using manual controls, 180-degree shutter, maybe higher bitrates via custom apps, external audio, and then editing and grading etc. If so, I'm curious to know what equipment you're using (hardware and software), what kind of projects you're shooting, and what kind of results you're getting. If you think about a smartphone as a camera with a fixed focal-length and small aperture then there's no reason that it couldn't produce stunning results in the right situations..

Before I switched to video I was a stills shooter, and I did this analysis on my photos, which were mostly taken on holiday. What I found was: The most used focal length was the widest (24-28mm depending on camera), the second was the longest focal length of the lens, where you would have zoomed more but didn't have the reach The vast majority (maybe 80%) were in between 24mm and 80mm, even on cameras that had a super-zoom like 24-240 equivalent lens (kit lenses are well designed in this way) The most common single aperture of photos I took was the largest aperture - any time the sun goes down the camera will be struggling to balance ISO and shutter speed for hand-held photographs, but aperture doesn't have a penalty so they max it without hesitation The majority of photographs had an aperture in the f5.6-10 range, which is where the camera puts it for daylight shots on full-auto mode The reason I did this was to research and buy a "good" camera for my next trip, because I got home and saw all my night shots were full of ISO noise and blur from shake and longer exposures, and got sick of fiddling with the panorama stitching software to glue together the 28mm photographs of the wonderful landscapes. I ended up buying a Panasonic GF3, which was brand new at the time and was the best compromise because it came with the 28-84mm kit lens for during the day and a 28mm f2.5 pancake lens that made it pocketable and capable for night shots of going out to dinner etc. I was planning to buy a longer zoom for it but when I finally got around to it I realised that it was cheaper to buy a Canon 700D with 18-55 and 55-250 zooms than buy a long zoom for m43!! I also looked for super-wide angle lenses, but the panorama mode on my phone took over pano duties. It was a good camera and it took many absolutely lovely images. The other thing that I learned that is relevant here is that my top 50 images (from 10,000+ photos) contained at least one image from every camera I owned, including the mighty Coolpix L19, and my GoPro Hero 3 (yes, that's using the GoPro as a stills camera!). Content > tech..... So make the tech conform to the content. Yeah, I'm waiting for the sensors from a high-end cinema camera to be combined with the processing and power efficiency from smartphones to make a much smaller but capable camera. We might be waiting a while though!!

If there's spare weight capacity (and you can carry it) you could try counter-weights to get it to balance. The guys from Moment (who make add-on lenses for mobile phones) supply counter-weights for using their lenses on phone gimbals which aren't strong enough to 'hold' the imbalanced weight. Completely disagree. Hand-held is so useful. Your argument is also that lens manufacturers will stop making IS lenses because of gimbals - IBIS and OS are slightly different implementations of the same thing. Aside from adjusting the gimbal to your taste (as previously mentioned) they require a lot of practice. You will find that there is a 'response' - you rotate it by a certain amount and it responds by following you by a certain amount. It's like learning to drive a car, and how each car will have different 'feel' on the brake and accelerator pedals, but after a while it becomes second nature and you don't think about it. The advice I read was to practice using it around the house by practicing transition shots going from one item to another, following a person through the house, and then circling around an object trying to keep it in the middle of the frame. It's a bit of work but once you get the feel of it you should be able to get the kind of results you want.

No mic input is crazy in these days of everyone wanting a shotgun mounted in the hot shoe. But wait.. maybe it's not a vlogging camera after all? Hmmm.. What other situations is external audio not required??.......... if only it had spectacular image quality and shot RAW....... IT'S A CINEMA CAMERA!!! BREAK OUT YOUR CLAPPER BOARDS PEOPLE - THE POCKET 2 HAS AN AF-C BEAST OF A COMPETITOR!!!! ??????? [Edit - it's got a HDMI out - don't some external recorders have an audio in?? Maybe it's also a PRORES beast!!!! ?] (on a more serious note!!) I completely agree with this. My journey into photography started with a sub-$100 P&S which was completely crap in low light, and this made it basically useless after sunset. All indoor lighting is a challenge for small sensor cameras until recently, and if I was a non-camera-geek civilian and I was spending $1k+ on a camera and couldn't take photos of my candlelight dinner while on holiday I'd be pretty annoyed.

Of course! And if I add in filters and lenses then we get: filters on the end of the lens lens (with coatings and glass chemistry) filter stack light hits the sensor RAW data is read off the sensor (1) the data is de-bayered into an image the image is processed (colour science, resizing, white balance, etc) internal capture: the image is compressed via a codec and the compressed file is saved to a media device OR external feed: the image might have display information added, is encoded into HDMI/SDI/etc and output via a physical port on the camera OR camera display: the image might have display information added, is resized to the display resolution, and passed to the screen Did I put the filter stack in the right spot?

I agree about laptops having almost no hope here. The 'almost' is rendering lower resolution proxy footage...... but this really isn't saying much - my 2016 13" MBP can't edit the 305Mbit 4K files from my XC10!! The problem comes in if you need to be able to grade in front of a client - then it will take a supercomputer!! or maybe one of these...? https://www.asus.com/us/News/ZwwO4E0EimUoYyEi