Panasonic's Pocket-Sized 4K MFT Camera

Looks awesome. I think i'll always prefer a DSLR over something like this, but exciting for the future none the less

4K at this moment in time is overhyped.

I'm not sure what a large micro 4/3 sensor is? all micro 4/3 inch sensors are the same sizes roughly

I would consider micro 4/3" sensors on the small side when compared to most other sensors, unless you mean it has a larger sensor than most other compact point and shoot cameras.

not sure how the 4k will compare to the gh4 with more dynamic range.

Also looks like it may have a battery problem like that bmpcc. Panasonic's spec sheet say it only last for 350 photos, doesn't sound like it will last long shooting a lot of video.

still a pretty cool camera for the compact point and shoot market.

Dr.Laurent4K at this moment in time is overhyped.

I totally agree! companies are just throwing 4k on to every product but don't add or explain more important features like wider dynamic range, higher color bit depth and less compressed recording codecs. Things that improve image quality more than just adding resolution.

Rdwagner2I'm not sure what a large micro 4/3 sensor is? all micro 4/3 inch sensors are the same sizes roughly

I think they are just saying that a micro 4/3 sensor in this size camera is larger than the norm.

Rdwagner2I'm not sure what a large micro 4/3 sensor is? all micro 4/3 inch sensors are the same sizes roughly

I would consider micro 4/3" sensors on the small side when compared to most other sensors, unless you mean it has a larger sensor than most other compact point and shoot cameras.

not sure how the 4k will compare to the gh4 with more dynamic range.

Also looks like it may have a battery problem like that bmpcc. Panasonic's spec sheet say it only last for 350 photos, doesn't sound like it will last long shooting a lot of video.

still a pretty cool camera for the compact point and shoot market.

if it's really 16.8 mp, that's a tad bit "bigger" than the gh series/omd series sensors haha, not a lot big difference by any means though

Definitely wouldn't use it as a primary camera, but it would be a pretty sweet travel/pocket camera.

Stud_MuffinDefinitely wouldn't use it as a primary camera, but it would be a pretty sweet travel/pocket camera.

Too bad much better travel/pocket cameras already exist.

i know this isn't the right thread to post this in, but i'm so curious about sensor size. my current P&S has a 2/3" CMOS sensor that produces 12 MP effective size images (4000x3000). this has a 4/3" CMOS sensor (literally double, right?) but produces 12.8 MP effective size images (4112X3088). I'm just so stuck on the physical size of the sensor, why in the fuck isn't the image output proportional?

loganimlachi know this isn't the right thread to post this in, but i'm so curious about sensor size. my current P&S has a 2/3" CMOS sensor that produces 12 MP effective size images (4000x3000). this has a 4/3" CMOS sensor (literally double, right?) but produces 12.8 MP effective size images (4112X3088). I'm just so stuck on the physical size of the sensor, why in the fuck isn't the image output proportional?

Because magic!

Or science that requires a wall of text to be explained, i'll try it briefly

The size of the pixels > the amount of pixels.

Each pixel, is a semiconductor material that absorbs photons and generates electrons, the larger the pixel, the more photons that can be collected in a given amount of time. And therefore smaller pixels have lower dynamic range and the accuracy of the signal measured is directly proportional to the size of the signal. In the physics of photon counting, the noise in the signal is equal to the square root of the number of photons.Too few pixels are bad for image quality and too many pixels are bad for image quality. So there must be an optimum but there's also a minimum set by the consumer who wants at least 12MP.

Therefore the first thing a camera company will do when increasing sensor size is the size of the pixels, it's where you can get the most performance.

It's the reason why the D4S has a mere 16MP compared to the D810's 36MP, It's a press camera, you can't control the light at events so it better be able to shoot at ridiculous ISO's, 16MP is plenty for almost all editorial work, you trade-off a sharper image at low-iso's for a far lower noise at high iso's

And the light eating machine know as the A7S has a mere 12.2MP instead of the A7R's 36MP same deal, it's pixels are massive, so again you trade off that low-iso resolution for far lower noise at high ISO's.

this post is a bit of a mess.

Dr.LaurentBecause magic!

Or science that requires a wall of text to be explained, i'll try it briefly

The size of the pixels > the amount of pixels.

Each pixel, is a semiconductor material that absorbs photons and generates electrons, the larger the pixel, the more photons that can be collected in a given amount of time. And therefore smaller pixels have lower dynamic range and the accuracy of the signal measured is directly proportional to the size of the signal. In the physics of photon counting, the noise in the signal is equal to the square root of the number of photons.Too few pixels are bad for image quality and too many pixels are bad for image quality. So there must be an optimum but there's also a minimum set by the consumer who wants at least 12MP.

Therefore the first thing a camera company will do when increasing sensor size is the size of the pixels, it's where you can get the most performance.

It's the reason why the D4S has a mere 16MP compared to the D810's 36MP, It's a press camera, you can't control the light at events so it better be able to shoot at ridiculous ISO's, 16MP is plenty for almost all editorial work, you trade-off a sharper image at low-iso's for a far lower noise at high iso's

And the light eating machine know as the A7S has a mere 12.2MP instead of the A7R's 36MP same deal, it's pixels are massive, so again you trade off that low-iso resolution for far lower noise at high ISO's.

this post is a bit of a mess.

nope, that makes perfect sense. thanks a bunch lawrence!