Serious Question: With Panasonic PDAF, does Fujifilm now have the worst AF of all the big boy brands? Did they anger Mitsubishi by abandoning their post as the middle ground between quality and size to pursue 4th place in the full frame market?

8MP if it's a 16:9 sensor. 12MP if it's a 4:3 sensor as four thirds sensors nominally are - from which 16:9 is cropped

Light l/16

And it gets even worse, my old ass Ixus 85 with tiny weeny sensor still has very superior sharpness, colours and zoom sharpness than S23 base and maybe S Ultra. And yet S phones supposedly have bigger sensors, new tech, latest CMOS bayer filters. Only to be beaten badly by some cheap and crappy point and shoot from over decade ago with dinosaur era CCD sensor, which is also 1/2.3" inch size. And the closest successor to this sad and old Ixus is actually SX 740 which is perhaps not any better except for zoom capabilities. You would need to shell out 4-5 times more money for Sony RX APS-C compact camera to maybe get a substantially better image quality, but despite that, that camera is also much bigger, not really compact (doesn't fit pockets all that well) and much heavier. Obviously there are DSLRs that are nice, but if you want good compact cam, the market really sucks and you have no real options other than spending a ton of money on some suboptimal option that also happens to fail at compactness. And then there's some "cheaper" option like ZV-1, but it's genuinely worse than Ixus 85. Colours suck, white balance is often terrible, it costs a lot more and dynamic range is also bad. It has more megapixels, articulating screen, but why would I care about all that when it fails in all key areas that I care about a lot more? At least in DSLR/mirrorless field things generally improve even if slowly and at high cost, but in other segments situation got genuinely worse and more expensive.

if you have a camera with a phone's processor then maybe.

What about the a7c? Rougly the size of the a6000 series but it's full frame and has IBIS.

@@john_jacob_jingleheimerschmidt The stabilization is bad and Catalyst Browse makes the image too soft. Great camera for stills. Also, it's only 8bit

I am not here yet, as 8 bit 100 mbit log is not great for video, i think anything full frame with 10 bit log is touching diminishing return point and minimum that must be "good enough and no more care of upgrade". Anything more is barely increase output quality.

@@AABB-px8lc Full frame lenses are big and and that makes stabilization harder. So we need different types of cameras to different situations. 8-bit 100Mbit/s log for 4k, or 8-bit 50Mbit/s log for FullHD can actually work fine. I got trick here that I shoot using log (HLG or S-Log2, depends on shot) gamma but keep colors on Rec709, and transform those to linear ACES to editing/grading, and then everything back to Rec709. It is those colors that fails on 8-bit log if these are streched to large gamut. However, this process is still very sensitive to exposure. There is no playroom, exposure need to be perfect.

The R8 is a camera between the RP and R

@@iavon6899 -- Kasey's videos from the X3000 were very good -- I mean it does not have many of the advanced features that he has gotten used to in many of his newer cameras, but as a hand-vlog camera it really was (is) very good and relatively easy to use. But since he is waxing nostalgic about it a lot, and compared to some of his recent purchases, even a working (and overpriced) X3000 would be worth him getting go refresh his experience and see how it goes....

Yes, thanks vegetablepolice.bandcamp.com/track/law-of-attraction-dark-child

Which one is that

The original G9 is anything but small and light...

@@excalibro8365 true, but this does not mean, the next one have to be like that. I mean, we dream from the perfect Camera, right! ;-)

But for sure will be a photo centric camera….

@@andresgonzalezcerdalatam2714 would be better for vloggers to have G100ii then.

🥳

I know right? Yikes, disgustang

Well said. A real camera allows you to slow down and be in the moment and actually “look” at what you are photographing.

@@justpray365 100% it does and what phones tend to do is give you instant gratification as the images are essentially, mostly JPEG‘s anyway, some people do set their phones to raw, but I don’t know many people who do that most people shoot in JPEG, and they want the photo to instantly look great straight after taking it. They are often heavily saturated, colourful and great. Instant gratification bit like chocolate. Sometimes it’s hard to go to the supermarket and get some nice really healthy food and cook it. People just want to grab burgers. I draw that analogy because I do believe it’s kind of true. Many phone is just want that instant gratification or instant hit ….

Very well said. Thanks for bringing that up.

@@prdubi The whole planet needs to get off that bloody phones and start looking around and seeing what’s amazing. What stand me is people say I’ve got no time for this I’m too busy. I work in addiction and I see people with social media addiction and phone addiction. It’s really real present so many people and the best thing you can do is put your phone away and go for a walk with your camera.

So the key discipline here is Airplane Mode

Any suggestions?

It doesn't have the specs that would entice me to even try it.

@@cameraconspiracies OK. I hope someone sends you one for free so you can do it just for the heck of it. I've bought it. It's pretty good phone.

That's funny, good one 👍.