Technology is a funny old business. It's almost like a drug in that as we get given more, we are never satisfied and just want ever increasing amounts. It also means that we often come to expect the impossible, even from budget systems.
Designing a product, any product, for mass production is an incredibly difficult task at the best of times, and the realities of producing tangible products for sale often fly in the face of the fanciful futuristic prototypes or concept models we sometimes see companies produce at trade shows.
I can all very easily start off with a piece of paper and say that I want a camera that has a full-frame sensor that can take full raster slow motion at up to 1000fps while recording 12-bit raw, all within a body that is small, light, yet easily balances on the shoulder for off-tripod work. The lens that would be supplied with my camera would be a 12-400mm f/2.8 piece of glass with full manual control rings and would be made from some sort of new optical quality transparent carbon for ultra-lightness.
Now, anyone with even half a grip on reality will clearly see everything that is wrong with such an idea. It simply is not possible. Well, it might be, as long as the camera was made from space-age materials and had an RRP for more money than a really nice Monte Carlo villa with two swimming pools. We can't have everything we want, which brings me onto something else.
Context is everything. Who is the device or camera aimed at? What is the manufacturer's intended use for it? The video world is full of people who use cameras for purposes they were never intended for, yet then go on to complain that said camera is not properly suited to the purpose it is being put to! The original 5D MkII is an example of this, as is perhaps the first Blackmagic Design Pocket Cinema Camera.
I could put GoPro into this category too. One of my articles about the rather fantastic looking Sony RX0 II prompted a few comments about the picture quality of the GoPro. In almost every respect I disagreed entirely with what was said about all GoPro footage being unimpressive, and the picture quality lacking. If you find all GoPro footage unimpressive, you've simply been watching the wrong videos.
In good light and with the right settings, and most importantly the right subject matter, the GoPro produces a fantastic picture, and I have not seen any evidence at all that rival cameras produce a superior picture. A very similar one with slightly different traits yes. But totally superior? Really?
Context is important here. Very important. It's all very well criticising a camera from the point of view of a professional camera person or video producer, but the context of that criticism is all wrong. What we have here are often professional video producers criticising the picture quality of a consumer point-and-shoot camera. Have a good think about that for a moment.
Yet, even accounting for the fact that it is a consumer camera designed for creating video memories of activities, holidays, and adventures, while fitting into the palm of your hand, the picture quality is in fact ridiculously good. Is the RX0 II better? Of course it is, but the price of it reflects that. The RX0 II is very much a premium camera, possibly aimed more at prosumers who want a general lifestyle camera. Note that helmet and chest mounts do not figure on the list of readily available accessories. It's a different camera aimed at a different market. So the context of its intended use is also different.
The only criteria in which any individual camera needs to be judged is whether or not it works well for the intended market and use it was originally designed for. That means that Sony FS5's don't need to be compared to RED MONSTROs, and Pocket Cinema Cameras don't really need to be compared to ALEXAs. By all means do so for fun; it is after all interesting to see how far things have come over the years. But the bottom line is how that camera functions for its designed purpose. Anything else on top is icing on the cake.