SteveV4D

I plan to buy one once work resumes properly rather than in dribs and drabs at the moment. The price is now right and whilst there are other options, these carry their own issues.

I was over generalising when I said online. My main point really was that there have been so many big companies that have fallen in the last decade, and they fell mainly because customers stopped using them. So whilst we are sad to see them go, they went because we stopped being their customer. Obviously like Olympus, they could have done more to keep us as their customers. But sometimes, its impossible to adapt. I can't see how Blockbuster for instance could ever have survived the changes and yet still be true to what they were. Its part of a past that is no longer relevant now. Could Olympus have survived if it expanded its camera line up to fullframe. Maybe, but I'm not convinced. Canon and Nikon dominate the Photography side with Sony making big inroads; Panasonic is trying to get a foot in the door, but it remains to see if this continues and isn't just a one off. How many camera companies does the industry need, to keep each one profitable?

Growing up I use to visit the nearby city of Southampton. It had some lovely shops, huge Virgin Megastore and HMV stores for my Video Cassette and later DVD purchases, Debehams store, where I could buy clothes from different brands, Toys R Us I loved as a kid, a huge Jessops store when I got into Photography, Woolworths for odds and ends, various book stores. Now, those shops have gone or downgraded to smaller stores. HMV went last year, Debehams only recently. These shops were a huge part of my growing up, and I regret their loss. I miss them. But... its my fault. Well, not all my own, but just like many people, I moved my shopping online. I changed how I shopped, where I shopped and what kind of things I bought. These shops fell because of people like me. And Olympus fell because of people like me, because our way of buying and what we bought changed. What we wanted changed. And because like these shops I mentioned, Olympus failed to adapt to this new trend. So yes, its a loss. Its very sad. But its happening everywhere. Those who adapt, survive, those who don't fall. When people complain about the quality of features in a new camera, the answer given is usually, that the camera isn't meant for them, or its not what the camera is meant for. To which my answer is why not. Smartphones don't take this approach. They are happy to be whatever is needed to sell the most units. 60p at 4K, sure why not.. throw it in. But camera manufacturers... Take Panasonic, they have just introduced what some have said is a vlogging camera. The G100. If that camera could take videos, and then upload it to the Internet without a computer, it could be classed as a true vlogging camera. An innovation. As it is, its a crippled 4K camera, with some new minor gimmicks that could appeal to vloggers and a miss mash of former camera features, wrapped up in a new body for a cheap price. Its not going to do anything to stop a downward trend in camera buying. Now, of course, my criticism of this camera can be countered with.. 'the camera isn't meant for me.' But if the camera was more innovative, if it did connect to the internet, did allow me to take photos, perform a basic edit of them, plus do video and upload them all straight to Instagram or Facebook, or email them to my family, would I be interested. Maybe. Camera manufacturers need to do more if they want to continue for the next 10 or 20 years. There's only so many Ks you can add to resolution to keep camera forums hyped up and excited.

I think the price drop was more giving it the price it deserved. Its original price was too expensive in my opinion. I also see it as a response to the ecomical impact of the virus. As a small company, they probably don't have the diversity and margins of profit to see them through a dry spell. Their price drop made sense. If they sell more of their stock, its money coming in at the end of the day. The R5 sounds good, but we have yet to see the results. How good or bad is the RS? How easy to edit will the RAW files be? My PC struggles with H264 and even more with H265. BRAW though is like butter to edit. So smooth and easy to cut through. When I see that from fullframe internal recording, I'm not going to ignore that. There's no point buying the R5 if its a bitch to edit the files on my computer.

I want to move to S35, with one eye on fullframe. I know many cameras are pushing fullframe, but its not there yet in my opinion. There's still compromise and manufacturer are all over the place. Sony still needs work on its colour and to get back in the game and take video seriously again. Panasonic need to either make good on CDAF or embrace PDAF. Nikon are just being Nikon... hard to know where they stand. I'm waiting for the right fullframe camera. I've not seen it yet. The great thing with MFT was that it wasn't just a sensor size, but also the lens mount. Lenses bought for the GH cameras could be used on any MFT camera like Olympus and the Pocket 4K. Fullframe though is a mixed bag of lens mounts. I struggle with this; it makes jumping into fullframe more difficult, especially as I will have to invest in new lenses should I move to fullframe. I really have no idea which fullframe lenses to buy and which would give me options for the future and not tie me to any brand of cameras. I wish there was one defining lens mount for fullframe, then I could buy a lens and feel I could easily use it on any fullframe camera without worrying about adaptors.

Ah yes, I forgot that one. So thats the Blackmagic range and the E2. I'd still like others to explore this route.

I've only ever really known Olympus for their lenses I used. They were often a bit better than the Panasonic MFT. I may have owned one of their point and shoot film cameras when I was young, but that was too long ago for me to remember. Besides I only became a camera nerd with digital. 😄 Its a shame we lose another brand, though its a sell off rather than shut down. Whether that'll make a difference. I agree with Andrews points why it happened and frankly I can see it continuing to happen with other brands in the future. The golden years of digital photo cameras are behind. As for the future, whilst I can see why many want or need a hybrid camera that does video and photo, only Blackmagic seem to have released a dedicated for video only camera in that lower price bracket. I'd love to see other manufacturers try their hand at one. Canon tried something interesting along those lines with the XC10, but it was a fixed lens. Maybe other users here disagree and prefer hybrids, but I'm someone who went to Turkey with my GH5 and shot video with it, whilst taking photos on my smartphone. Yep, I'm guilty of using a smartphone for photography. 😄 But what can I say, its easier and produces instant results that I prefer over photos taken on my GH5. I look to the mirrorless for their size, not their hybrid function and would welcome more manufacturers providing small video only interchangeable lens cameras. Will that help the industry. Maybe not, but thats my take.

There's that old adage, it's not what you say, its how you say it. No one likes being spoken down to. The tone in your posts often conveys you know better than us, which only puts peoples backs up. Now your recent post I gave a 'like' to is more on the level and a little less confrontational. Maybe you like it that way, but others don't. For the record, I'm a user of the GH5, GH5s, GH4 and loads of MFT lenses. I agree the writing is on the wall for MFTs, but I don't think that's a good thing. Not everyone wants or needs to shoot fullframe. I've met many who prefer a smaller sensors for various reasons, weight, size and smaller lenses being most quoted, plus their ability to adapt to almost any lens is a bonus. I also feel the GH5 colour isn't as consistent as say my Pocket 4K for example, especially in regard to skin tones. The GH5s is a bit better. That said, it takes experience with the camera and knowing the right lenses to use with it to bring the best out of it. I've always queried some users who work with it a few times and wonder why they're not getting good results. It needs pandering to, the GH5. That said, I'm trying to move away from MFT and the Panasonic brand myself. A GH6 could tempt me back if ever made, but it would need to add features I need and not just add say 8K to it and leave it at that. So yes, I do agree with some of your comments for the record; but they're let down by your attitude. Really, my best advice, stop treating forums as your personal battleground. The best people who post here add a touch of humility to their points.

I wonder if BM will make the next URSA fullframe. It would help it to distinguish it from other cameras like the C200, FS7 and EVA. And of course, be a step up from the Pocket 6K.

I sometimes feel that I'm having a weird dream with 2020. Aside from most of my work being postponed or cancelled due to a flu virus, we have Canon giving us an 8K camera and Panasonic giving us a crippled 4K camera. Frankly I'm waiting now to see if I wake up and experience a 2020 that makes more sense.

Rigged up, my Pocket 4K doesn't look all that small. Once I've added the battery pack, top handle, cage, lens hood, hard drive attachment and a long shotgun mic connected to the camera, it has quite a big presence. I could add an external screen to. That said, I'd see the advantage an URSA would have for more high end work. But its pretty heavy I recall from trying one out last year. My back prefers the Pocket.

So I assume this means the Pocket 6K has bette rdynamic range than the 4K. Im pretty impressed with the DR of the Pocket 4K. It holds up very well with the BRAW codec. I'm looking to get the 6K, once regular work returns.

Not sure if you can describe 6K as slightly more resolution over 4K. In fact, it's one of the reasons I was on the fence with this camera. Larger file sizes, minimum benefits as I wouldn't be delivering in 6K. I liked the idea of ditching the adaptor and running just the EF lenses I have. However the initial price was too much. I've since been swayed by reports of a slightly better image with the 6K over the 4K, and of course the price cut. It's now costed I think to its value when comparing it to the price of the 4K. Once work resumes, it's top of my list to buy. Until then, I can't speak much of the camera.

To be fair, the main advantages of the BRAW codec isn't in the pixel peeping. Film anything well and its gonna look good with modern cameras these days. For me, the advantage of BRAW is A) Altering ISO and white balance in post production. Not for every shot, but for some, its quick, simple and for some shots, can place less stress on filming. For some shots last year, it was a life saver. B) Its so much smoother to edit than H264 and H265 in Resolve. Thumbnails load quicker. Less quirks or crashes. Plays back well. Factor in, I prefer the colour science, at least to that seen in my GH5 and this is why I favour the Pocket over the more functional GH5.

I'm not selling my other cameras as I need them all. I am often filming with 4 or 5 cameras at once. And I wouldn't mind a 6th for some shoots. When I get the P6K, it will be my main camera, and my P4K my B camera though. I could always have afforded the P6K, its price not that different to a GH5s. But I had to think long and hard over the merits of filming in 6K. File sizes, workflow. Plus there seemed to be more quality control issues with the P6K, perhaps being more rushed released. Time has passed, and what with the R5 coming out with 8K, the P6K price reduction, it feels a good time to invest in a 6K camera. I need a 2nd Pocket for Corporate shoots where I've been using the GH5s as a B camera, but I'm not happy mixing the 2. It was always a choice between another P4K or a P6K, and BM have helped me make my mind up.

I'm not sure judging forum posts is the best gauge of popularity. The Pocket 4K was announced April 2018 and I didn't get mine till December. Most of those posts were speculating over this very cheap RAW enabled camera for the many months leading g to its release. Then more posts over the faults and issues with it soon after people got theirs. Being the first of it's kind will always generate more interest, speculation and debate. In contrast, the Pocket 6K was quickly announced and released. Its cost no doubt put some people off including me, and since many already owned or were still waiting for their 4K version, it was never going to have the same buzz. Plus in some cases, the Pocket 4K thread was used to discuss the 6K too. Frankly there are advantages to each camera. Now that the cost is down, I am looking to buy one to supplement my Pocket 4K. For me it's not practical to rent and I prefer to own my gear. As a sole shooter working on Weddings and Corporate work, I need to work with multiple cameras that are small and can be rigged if needed. I can see both Pocket cameras working very well for me with their own strengths and weaknesses. For me, being able to grab stills at 6K resolution would be very useful. Plus I'm using the Sigma Art EF lens for my Pocket 4K, so no issue with the lens mount I have loads of 4/3 lenses, but I tend to keep them for my GH5 and GH5s cameras. There is no better choice here. There are of course more Pocket 4Ks out there being used than 6Ks. But that is no reason to dismiss the camera over the Pocket 4K. I think the price reduction will tempt many to look at it again, as I have done.

You must have added that in whilst I was replying. I didn't see that part of your reply initially. You're right about IMAX, but I think film is more forgiving that digital when it comes to detail and resolution. Maybe the fine grain in film helps, I'm not sure, but the detail feels less obvious and in your face. As for your examples, I've used 6K on my GH5 for close ups of watches. So good point. The ring shot is a nice example, but it doesn't mean you have to shoot 8K for it. My GH5 can switch easily between using the entire 6K sensor for a 4K image or a 4K crop of the sensor to punch in closer. Less latitude in the edit I know, but smaller file size in return. That said, they're all good examples of 8K use, and why I do look at getting the Pocket 6K. In my mind, I'm not sure my system is ready for 8K. I've been on the fence over 6K, and only now thinking it would be worth it. 8K is still too far in the future to invest now. Not that I can anyway. Besides, we have to see the trade off. If its rolling shutter and a time limit, useful application of 8K would be further reduced. It's already limited by the fact the R5 doesn't do what the Pockets do, output to an SSD via USB. This is what makes filming 6K RAW viable for me. It's a shame the R5 has ignored this feature. My 1TB Samsung drive was a lot cheaper than 512gb Cfexpress card. Filming 8K RAW will be very expensive.

Fair enough. But I think I'll save my investment for the future when a) I'm sure I have one and am not dead by virus, b) have money to pay for that investment and c) I shall wait and see what other manufacturers can offer for that 8K future before jumping in. I don't have a 5K display. If I did, I think 6K is a good trade off between file size and extra resolution. For now at least. I'm not sure how seeing 8K on a 5K display can be classed as a benefit. Sure there are, and will continue to be 8K TVs coming down the line, but when it comes to resolution in smaller cameras, you need to capture more pixels to see the real benefit. 4K gives great HD, 6K gives great 4K. Technically 8K will give great 6K. You'll need at least 10K for a great 8K image. I do see 8K being great for sport and areas with fine detail, but will actors and actresses who are already feeling worried about the detail that 4K does to their wrinkles, spots and pimples really want an 8K camera pointing at them. 😂😂

I film Weddings with my Pocket 4K set to BRAW. Other cameras are sadly H264. At Q5 setting, it's not much larger than ProRes, but so worth it. Not just for being able to adjust ISO for those shots where lighting caught me out, but also because it edits so smoothly. It was so frustrating editing H264 in Premiere. Thumbnails would take ages to load. Playback choppy even before effects were added. In Resolve, I can add effects and still playback the image. Not so well with the H264 files alas; but its saved me so much time and hassle doing the switch last year to BRAW and Resolve. I actually enjoy editing these days, as opposed to wanting to smash my computer and send foul messages to adobe.

I think you can take future proof a bit too far. 😁 By the time I live in that future of 8K, there will be loads of choices for 8K cameras, all of which will be an improvement on the first one to adopt it. Of course if you buy the 8K now and then save all those 8K files for that future, good luck. Aside from the huge amount of drives you'll need; by the time you get to that 8K future, you'll be shooting on 16K and those 8K files will be so old tech. 😅

I'm holding off new purchases till this crisis is over and my workload is back up and running. This will be Autumn at the earliest, next year if not. The price reduction for the P6K is tempting and no doubt done to encourage sales in lean times, but without work, it's a stupid investment, when I have bills to pay and minimum income. When will the R5 be released? Maybe Autumn for the same reasons.

Moving back to the R5, everyone is going on about 8K RAW, but file sizes will be massive I imagine. BRAW is very good at getting file sizes down, but I'm not sure Canons implementation of RAW is as compressed. But what of 4K RAW in the R5? Is it included? The P6K doesn't offer 4K RAW, only ProRes. Theres some argument that the camera has to shoot at maximum resolution for RAW. Whether true or not. So is RAW in the R5 reserved only for 8K; in which case how useful will it be for the majority of users. How many of you planning to buy the R5 will be shooting 8K RAW? Especially if there is a time limit. At a time where I'm struggling to get my clients to receive and value 4K over HD, where does 8K actually fit into peoples workflow? Apart from vanity projects, 'hey I'm shooting in 8K' videos, to be buried on YouTube, along with all the 6K videos out there.

Earlier you said one camera was worse than the other. And yet by the time it gets to you as a colourist, it's not RAW. There was a long discussion on that. Example #1 (already mentioned) We crew I hired shoot with 2 BMP6K's and the footage was delivered in ProRes not RAW, the footage had massive IR pollution. I shot with a third camera that was not the P6K. This was one example I gave. Why didn't you tell them to shoot RAW. You hired them.

No I think he owns them.. it's hard to figure out I know. Presumably one of those has the bad IR pollution. Or am I mistaken in this. Blackmagics quality control is poor. Hit and miss whether your camera has issues. I had to return my first P4K for a replacement.

So why wouldn't the S1H be a better fit for you than the P6K. Surely they wouldn't reduce the process by 40% with IBIS, fullframe and a timecode too.