That video says the lenses are fixed focus, so you probably wouldn’t have much luck getting close for that much parallax.
With a digital camera, semi-randomly cropping around your subject could work. If you shoot in burst mode, maybe only keep every third frame or something.
Moving the camera around a bunch could work, but you’ll need a fast shutter to not just blur the individual shots more than you get the desired effect.
For me the part about stand development was really interesting, I had never heard of that before.
Me either, but the inability to do it for color film really turned me off to the idea. For a camera with such a small fixed aperture, I’d just shoot the whole roll in the sunlight.
Nikon is currently going on a spree of discontinuing a LOT of products cameras and lenses. Canon also starting to do it a little bit as well.
Even though mirrorless cameras have been the thing for quite a few years now, the final seal seems to have recently been broken. The remainder of the industry is moving over at full speed.
I have an idea for a camera and it’s already been done, but poorly.
Where you have a smartphone, but with a camera attachment.
So instead of having several devices, you just have 1 adaptable device.
With the hardware requirements for large sensors and lenses, why try integrate these two devices? you might ask.
Well, in theory you wouldn’t have to worry about separate batteries, given that the power of the phone can accommodate high resolution, high speed, raw photography.
You may still have to carry around additional equipment, but in theory not as much.
Instead of a bulk dSLR, lenses, batteries etc., you could just have your phone, and lenses that go with it.
I’m sure a well designed smartphone, with exchangeable lenses, could out compete mirrorless cameras.
This has been tried many many times, and has never been successful. Putting too much lens and sensor onto the phone ruins the phone aspect of the device. Imagine every time you want to play a game or check tweets you have to take your camera out of your bag. It’s not a great experience. And considering how good the cameras are on something like the max iPhone, why bother?
What I do think is a good idea, and has only been tried a little bit, is to do the same thing from the other direction. Adding too much camera to the phone hurts the phone, but adding phone to the camera does not hurt the camera at all.
What I’m suggesting has been attempted, but very few times. And those that did, did not go nearly far enough to make a compelling product.
Exhibit A:
What we need to see is a full on interchangeable lens system camera with a popular mount that just runs an actual OS like Android, and also has wifi and/or 5G radios. Don’t sell it as replacing your phone with a camera. Sell it as a camera with a phone OS that does not replace your actual phone.
No more hassling to transfer photos to the phone from the real camera. Run custom software on the camera so you can get all the advantages of stuff like Apple’s machine learning image processing but with a big sensor, big lenses, and raw files. Let users and 3rd parties write apps for it, and now you have more features than any other camera, and you didn’t even have to develop them yourself.
There absolutely need to be more cameras that can just live stream on their own with no additional devices. Shit like this is so impractical and expensive.
The newer Panasonic journalism/studio camcorders do RTMP natively. Basically everything a generation or more newer than mine. I may literally have bought the last pre-RTMP professional camcorder they make.
They have wifi (most of them wired Ethernet also) built in to stream it directly. They also have outputs for external streaming devices.
If you want to stream over cellular networks, you plug them into a pro cell bonding device or stream via wifi/Ethernet to such a device locally. Or just stream to your phone’s local wifi Internet sharing.
You barely used it, and even got it repaired. Sell it and then buy the new one. The difference in cash lost will probably be less than the cost of one of those RTMP devices such as the Live U Solo linked above.
But also, what is the frame rate and resolution that it encodes at for live streaming? If it’s less than 1080p 30, it’s not worth it.
I didn’t get it repaired. They couldn’t repair it and refunded me the full price. I then bought the same now-older camcorder for a lot less money. Until I have a use case for live streaming from outside of the apartment, I don’t need to upgrade anything just yet.
The newer Panasonics stream at up to 1080p60 with a bitrate between 0.5MBps and 24MBps.
The GH6 is what you expect. A top of the line upgrade. It costs $2500. It can shoot 5.7K video (so not quite 6K or 8K that some people hoped for) at 60 fps with 10 bit color. If you stick to 4K video it can do 120fps with 10 bit color.
Dang. I have no use for that, but dang. $2500 is a LOW price to pay for that. Some filmmakers out there without the big budgets will be very happy.
So why the heck release the GH5II? What is that for? There’s already a GH5 and a GH5s. Why need another one? Well, there are a lot of minor upgrades. Instead of having to pay extra to get VlogL, that’s just included. It can record internally to the memory card AND output to HDMI simultaneously, which regular GH5 can not do. It can do 4k 60p 10 bit without cropping, the GH5 can’t do that. The image stabilization is slightly improved. Autofocus slightly improved. Better screen. It accepts the old batteries, but also supports a newer bigger one that the S5 has. And you can now charge the battery over the USB-C port.
Is that enough to get someone like me to replace my GH5 to a GH5 II? No. Even if I buy a GH5II and then sell my GH5, the difference in cash lost does not make those features worth it. If I were buying new, absolutely GH5II is the way to go.
But wait, they added one more feature. Oh no. Stay away from my wallet. That’s right. The GH5II has live streaming 1080p 60fps. Using the smartphone app it can stream directly to YouTube, Facebook, Twitch, etc. Directly streaming live from the camera over wifi to the Internet. No capture card, no computer, no nothing. Just a phone app to configure the stream settings. You can also configure the stream settings by putting them on an SD card and putting the card in the camera.
But you can also tether it via USB to get live streaming. I don’t know if this means you can use it as a webcam, but I presume it does. RTMP/RTMPS is specifically listed.
To add that feature requires buying something like the LiveU solo for $1000+. It also requires carrying around and configuring that extra piece of equipment. The live stream feature alone might be worth the cost difference of buying the new camera and selling the old one.
Strong rumor that Nikon is about to announce the Zfc.
Really the only competition I see for this right now is the Fuji XT-4 which costs almost twice as much and is much less retro. Nikon may have finally found a product to differentiate itself from the competition. Someone looking for a digital camera that has interchangeable lenses, is significantly better than a phone, doesn’t cost a fortune, is focused on photos and not video, and isn’t big and heavy, this looks like it could be a strong contender. It also just looks like fun.
