SteveV4D

An exaggeration surely. A long list... really. I have a short list. Some addressed by this new camera. What exactly is this long list you see? Do tell? Yes, some users have had issues. QC is a BM problem. But many others have not reported the same issues that others have. My Pocket 4K has been very reliable for me. Poor battery life, screen in sunlight and no tilt being my primary concerns. I had more issues with some of my Panasonic cameras than the Pocket 4K.

You're so picky. Why? So it doesn't have IBIS. I'm reviewing footage from 2014 at the moment, shot on a holiday with a GH4. That footage was shot handheld with a IS lens. Are you saying the GH4 wasn't a handheld camera? Also, with my GH5, I would turn off IBIS for shots with wide angle lenses as I would get wobble in my footage if left on. Did turning IBIS off also switch off the handheld function? For the record, I've used the Pocket 4K handheld with non IS lenses on some occasions. I also use it loads of time with IS lens. In both cases, I am hand holding the camera. I've mixed views on IBIS. Useful, yes. But I found it made me lazy and also too dependant on it. There were also weird issues where it would wobble, which was difficult to fix in post. Don't get me wrong, it's very useful to have and my GH5 sits as a useful bit of kit in my bag for certain run n gun situations. However, the Pocket is my primary camera for a reason.

C70 is a workhorse camera for run n gun, Pocket 6K more a cinema camera. I liked the C70 but you pay a lot for it, and yes it has more DR, but how often will I need those extra stops. I rarely clip with the Pocket 4K aside from those situations where even the C70 would have issues with. The extra range of ND and The AF would be useful, but the trade off. No 6K, smaller screen, ability to record record SSD which I love, BRAW vs H264, a colour science I prefer over Canon and a lot cheaper too. Two entirely different cameras for different needs and style of shooting. The C70 shouldn't be like the Pocket 6K pro and vice versa. We all need variety not copycats. I choose the Pocket 6K Pro. It's the best choice for me. Of course the reverse is true for those who buy the C70.

Fair point. Sorry if I misjudged.. That said, I'm no longer one to complain about spending now. That new Pocket 6K Pro just announced will be preordered by me once I can. I'm hopeful some work will come from this year and I've still got savings to pay for it. I'll take a chance and hope like you did last year that things will play out. I'll probably pick up some Corporate work once lockdown ends I the UK as I did last September.

Oh this is what I want. Pocket 6K Pro takes all that was good with the Pocket cameras and added ND and tilt screen thats better to view in sunlight. Okay, I need to learn more, but if this holds up, this is the camera I need.

You got a loan and S5??? I avoided a loan and only bought a used 24 to 105 ef lens for a cheap price. My single purchase. Even now, I won't buy a new camera until Weddings resume. Its not as if I need it for Professional work, though I had 4 Weddings last Autumn and a few Corporate jobs. I know it's tempting to jump into things like this new Sony, but seriously, hold off. By the time work resumes, there'll be something newer and better. I'm not planning my future until its guaranteed. I expect 2022 will see something of my Business come back and it'll be 2023 when it will approach the normal of 2019. This year, I shall take what I can and hope its enough.

I'd like to say the same, but I filmed and live streamed one Wedding Ceremony last year totally for free. It was my own. 🤣🤣🤣 I setup 3 cameras, Pocket4K, GH5s at the front, on closeup and wide and a GH5 at the back. Plus attached a small camera for live streaming to Facebook for my wife's family in Turkey to see, plus UK friends and family as we were limited to 12 guests. This wasn't easy to set up as the registrar kept wanting to interview me for their bit of legal nonsense. I was fiddling with streaming settings on my phone and she politely asked me to put my phone down. Thankfully I got the streaming running just in the nick of time before my soon to be wife walked in. Before the Ceremony finished, I had to replace the card in the Pocket 4K as I had set it to HQ in the rush. I got looks from everyone including my now wife, but I just said cheekily, "hey, you're marrying a Wedding Videographer, what do you expect". 😁😁

Panasonic GX80, lovely camera to use. So light and portable. I left it behind when the GH5 came round and offered IBIS along along better codecs and vLog, but I missed the small size of the GX80. It's a shame we didn't get a successor with more options. Only downside was the panorama function wasn't as good stitching the photos as my much cheaper phone. No excuse. Cameras that size should compete well with smartphones not be outclassed by them in some features. Since then, I've shot some stuff with my phone. Though I hardly call it fun to use. Just easier. Problem with fun and easy is that it loses that joy in the edit for me with their crappy codecs and reduced image quality and colour science. Like trying to recreate the Mona Lisa with a packet of 12 crayons.

Maybe I'm jaded after last year, but I'm struggling to get any excitement in a camera that is more speculation than fact. Aside from what it looks like, how much do we know? With the way this year is going, my investment in gear will again be low. If BM release a new camera, it may get me to cough up some of my savings.... however, I have plans for lighting, lenses audio gear and updating my graphics card more on my list of needs. Its great that Sony have joined the small cinema camera group. I'm still wondering what the catch is. If they offer a codec like ProRes and have internal NDs, then it will be of interest to me. I'm not too fussed about IBIS. Canon C70 came very close to being of interest, but a high price tag and limited to H264/5 codec puts me off. Only a year ago, everyone was jumping up and down in excitement over the announcement of a new Canon mirrorless hybrid, and we know how that story ended. So I struggle to feel too much excitement now. Though partly thats because its hard to get too keen over a camera when I lack work to both pay for it and use it.

I'm hoping this isn't a disguised 1080p vs 4K resolution argument thread. 😂😂😂 Looking through the video of Steve Yeldin, I agree with his own assessment on it that it doesn't bring anything new, rather it clarifies various thoughts and observations that have been circulated before, though not always given due consideration. I think many would agree that a 2.7k image on a Professional cinema camera, shot with cinema lenses and upscaled to 4K will deliver a better image than a 4K mirrorless using cheap, standard photographic lenses. DR, colour science, bitrate, RS - motion cadence, post processing, choice of lens, aperture, ISO (gain) all play a part in how an image looks. Unfortunately cameras at the sort of price point many users here will be limited to, often see improvements only in resolution, though recent cameras have seen superior RS performance. Manufacturers for budget cameras will target their perceived audience with specs that will headline YouTube videos, rather than those that will actually make a difference to filmmakers. Thus, we still await the internal ND filter, whilst 8K has become possible. Going back to the Film look, it is one noted for its grain, which will impact on image quality in regards to clarity and sharpness. I feel those who don't see how film can match 4K, are missing several details in how the film was shot, how long its been stored, quality of the lens used and also how it has been transferred to a 4K image. Also sharpness tends to get confused with image detail. Video shot in the 70s and 80s looked sharper than the film shots, but throw both onto a bluray from their source and film detail holds up far better than video. Upscaled 4K vs true 4K vs a downsampled 4K image are all going to look different depending on lens choice, codec, bitrate, grading and a host of other factors, making tests very hard to judge. Personally I prefer digital to film and I can't say I'm chasing the film look. Certainly I'd like my stuff to look cinematic, but that doesn't mean chasing a film look to me. Watching a TV show yesterday shot in the 80s on 35mm film, if have to say the colour wasn't to my taste reminding me of Panasonic skin tones. I am also not such a fan of the alexa look to be honest. I often find myself preferring Red to alexa in look. I also think that a soft image can be too much sought after to extremes at the cost of providing detail where needed.

The disadvantages of film are costs, which are increased by the more you shoot. You can't monitor what you're shooting to the same accuracy as digital. Its harder to backup and can be damaged if not transported or stored correctly. Digital has the same problem, but film can degrade over time even if stored well. The advanatages are that film has a pleasing aesthetic and whilst digital has done much to narrow the gap, its hard to replicate the organic feel to film, and why some Directors will still use it despite the cost and extra work involved. Watching 4K movies shot digitally and on film, there are differences. Not so much in detail, but in look. Softer depends on a number of factors. Lens choice, anamorphic, filters used, amount of grain and the grade itself can influence the final image. Looking at TV shot in the 70s and 80s, and in the UK, we had many mix film and video depending on outdoors and indoors. The video looked sharper than the film, but also a lot more ugly in look. Harsh contrast vs soft contrast, cleaner vs grain, and yet video can't be reproduced well on bluray, whilst film looks simply beautiful on bluray if scanned from the source. Of course there's the cinematic vs video look argument as well, but that's a complex and well argued one and frankly can be pinned down to personal bias. For me, pleasing lighting, good DR, low frame rate, 180 degree shutter and decent colour grading are important. Others will argue differently.

I prefer the Blackmagic image to Canon, but you do have to work more for it. I don't mind most of the time. No pain, no gain. I find the Pockets make me consider my shot more , by virtual that its not so easy. I never thought I'd miss IBIS after the GH5, but my shots without it after much better. IBIS made me lazy, and lazy never worked for me. If you're looking for a cinema image and don't mind working for it, the Pocket 6K delivers.

The GH5 was announced in the latter part of 2016. So far, there's been nothing, and not even a hint to even suggest there is one. Last years underwhelming G100 doesn't inspire much hope that Panasonic are going to push MFT seriously for hybrid users. I have my list of things I'd need to buy it, but it feels more wishful thinking, aside from the obvious 8K. Panasonic will want people to upgrade to fullframe and invest in their new lenses. Trying to split their users with a new GH camera would counter this, and why I feel they will not release a GH6. I'd like to be proved wrong, and that the GH6 does arrive ine day and offering more then just GH5 features with an 8K sensor, but its been 4 years now and the longest period since the last model was released. The longer they leave it, the harder it will be to sell a new high spec MFT camera at the same price point.

There will be a difference in needs between those who work for a living with video and those who just do it for pleasure. In addition, the needs of those who do video professionally will differ depending on the work they do. TV and Movie production with a large team will have dedicated focus pullers. For videographers shooting events, AF becomes important. That said, I've been shooting such events with Panasonic and have coped. I'm also in favour of more cinema level features. This doesn't just apply to my professional work, but my own projects too. Top of my list for the GH6 is AF as it would be of huge benefit for gimbal shots and tracking movement. I would also love more edit friendly codecs, improved colour science, and a generally a camera that is more geared to video than photo. An 8K sensor would be useful for the odd photos I did take and for downsampled 4K. Plus I'm not adverse to trying some 8K video when the time comes. Though I'm more interested in HDR than more pixels at the moment. The GH6 has a tough task to convince people who have seen Panasonics shift to fullframe in recent years to convince them to continue their MFT investment. I've got loads of MFT lens, 2 GH4rs, a GH5s, a GH5 and Pocket 4K, so my gear is nearly exclusively MFT, but I'm looking to shift to S35 and fullframe if I can; purely as the industry seems to be going that way. I'm not yet sold on MF as a thing yet. Cost is too high for many users and there's still enough issues with fullframe video to improve on before MF becomes accepted.

Nor me, but it would be fun to play with at least. 8K downsampled to 4K internally in the camera would be nice. I think I'd add bigger lowlight. But then that's a given really. Oh and dual ISO and DCI in all modes which the GH5s can do, but the GH5 can't. The GH5s has a wider sensor than the GH5, which I'd like on the GH6, but have IBIS available too.

I've owned every GH since the GH2, literally preordering and getting it on release. Will this be the same with the GH6, maybe not. The camera World has changed since the GH5 came out. I'm less sold on MFT than I was back then. The GH6 will need to be more than the GH5 but with 8K to make it worth it to me. What will sell it... solid AF.. seriously Panasonic.. thats the thing everyone criticises your cameras for. We have been nagging you since you began making these cameras. I'd also like either ProRes recording or even better some form of internal RAW. If the R5 can do this for fullframe in a tiny body, then no reason the GH6 couldn't. But really, a great and accurate AF mixed with say 8K if I wanted it and 120fps 4K would be enough for me to upgrade.

Most of the time, I don't need to set it all. Unless lighting changes from the last shot, I can leave the ND alone. I spend more time on the manual focusing. Thats the tricky part and can delay my capturing a shot. Still given your shooting style, I'm surprised you stick with the GH5. A Canon camera would offer superior AF, saving you time there, fullframe would give you more DOF, colours are better, especially with skin tones, so need less post grading than Panasonic, and whilst their 4K has limitations, 1080p on Canon gives good results.

The rules of 4K stills are the same as the rules for 4K video. Downsampled 4K from 6K or 8K will yield more detail than stills from a 4K sensor. If its line skipped 4K from 8K, then its not going to look as good. Sensor size won't impact on the resolution. 4K from a MFT camera is still 4K. A fullframe will allow for a cleaner image, as per video. I've extracted stills from the GH5, which is downsampled from 5K, and it looked a lot better than a fullframe 4K from a fullframe Canon camera where the 4K was line skipped. Obviously if you were filming 6K or 8K, the stills would be a lot better as they will be a higher resolution. However, you will need to record 6K and load that into your editing suite to extract the stills. If you downsample to 4K in edit, then extract the still, it'll show little difference to the 4K recorded on the camera.

I couldn't imagine shooting without a variable ND. My work is mainly Weddings and requires fast work, but I'm still manual focusing and twisting my variable ND on the go, and I've gotten pretty fast at it. I can't stand to see footage with a fast shutter, and hate it when my drone footage demonstrates it, when the ND filter I put on isn't strong enough for the light. The effect is that footage can be pin sharp to the point where it can feel weird, especially when shot with 24p. Not to mention, the tell tail signs of birds making jumps across the sky, rather than showing smooth motion. Silly things like that can take me out of video I'm watching. If going for a more documentary type of shooting rather than cinematic, I can understand the attraction for having an easier time when filming. Then again, I could have an easier time shooting with my phone over the BM Pocket cameras I use, but the results would be less satisfying to me partially because of the shutter being high. That said, I've used my phone to grab some quick shots, but I always hate myself come the edit for being so lazy on the day. 😂😂

If Canon, Panasonic and Sony embrace MF, then yes, it will become a thing. However there's little evidence of that yet. Fuji seem to avoid the fullframe area, probably because they feel it is oversaturated and they'll make less impact. I've yet to embrace fullframe, mainly because I've yet to find a strong enough reason to go down the expensive route of upgrading. Especially as I shoot very little photos, and therefore more video focused cameras have the greater appeal, where S35 tends to be favoured there. I can understand the need to go down the MF route, mainly to help distinguish your footage from others. However should it become more mainstream, that will not be such an advanatgage.

Again, I feel stills are no match for great Photography, and having offered my clients this, I know the difference. There is a different mind set for genuine great Photographer that video stills lack. Yes, some of my stills make for great photos, but its 1 shot put of 1000s frames. Others are just what they are, stills from a video. I think they look very good, but having worked with some superb Photographers and seen their work, they are a poor cousin. I am planning to use the Pocket 6K for Wedding work when it resumes, partially due to grabbing great stills. The resolution is there to make some detailed images. But the 1/50 shutter I use for video, the aspect ratio and focus on creating great video, will mean my lovely and detailed stills will still be video stills. Not Photographs. True Photography can't be replaced by Video stills. Nor it should be. Why can't both professionals be allowed to be true to what they are?

Stills are a good supplement to Photography, a replacement.... maybe for those who don't need a full Photograpjy service. How do you accommodate Flash into video stills or shooting vertical. There is an art to Photography that stills from video can't duplicate. That said, I offer video stills as part of my Wedding Services. However I always make it clear that it a service that is not a replacement for Photography.

I have the 4K decklink card and I can also output through it when using Premiere. At the time I got it, Resolve couldn't give you a full screen output to another monitor without purchasing the decklink. They have since added that, but the decklink still gives great 24p playback to my 3rd monitor.

Which is why I prefer to work with inches than CM's, even though I live in a Country of luddites. 😉 I agree, a faster FPS is desirable in Sport, but like you, I found the higher frame rate makes CGI look fake. Watching The Hobbit movies in that HFR didn't do much to convince me it was the future, anymore than 3D did. Sure, some audience did embrace it and I wonder if the children today will grow up and make 3D movies at 120fps. Then again, there is still a taste for film, even though many have grown up with digital. Gimmicks like 3D, 360 degree recording seem to come and then quickly go, as the novelty wears off.

You're missing the other advantages; the fact that BRAW has been developed to work with both cameras and the Resolve software. BRAW opens up another level of controls that allow adjusting the WB and ISO more in tune with the settings on the BM cameras. BRAW also has multiple compression settings and can give you that flexibility, whilst keeping file sizes smaller. ProRes 444 and XQ doesn't give you those options, and lacks the full range that BRAW can give. Plus, my question is, why shoot with ProRes 4444, when I can shoot with BRAW. There are limitations, but this may well change.... You're missing the new URSA 12k that only shoots in BRAW, but offers 8K and 4K at full sensor readout. Remember BRAW isn't proper RAW. As technology develops, this tech will be shifted to lower end cameras and who knows, the next Pocket or BM Micro camera will be 8K that can also do 4K BRAW at full sensor. I should also point out that playing with downloaded 12K BRAW, I got smoother playback than 4K H265 files, so processing power isn't always about resolution. I tried editing some AVCHD files I shot back in 2013 and it was an awful experience, and those were 1080p. But I can playback smoothly 12K BRAW; go figure.... Let's not predict the issues of the future. I'm editing easier now than I did 4 to 6 years ago, despite the increase in resolution. For me, things have gotten better. And no camera in the area I am looking at even offers ProRes 4444/XQ, whilst BRAW is already available. Will a 12bit H265 file work; well, judging by the performance of 10 bit H265 files from the R5, it wouldn't make editing any easier - probably a lot more difficult. For me that would be a step back, and actually be worse than taking on extra resolution, given my experiences testing the 12K BRAW file. I appreciate your view that a lower resolution carries advantages, of course it does. Those advantages will diminish as time goes on, even if 1080p is possible to shoot with on the cameras of tomorrow. How many cameras offer 720p shooting? Utilising the full resolution of a camera in post yields its own advantages too. Some of my colour grading, where I am selecting and motion tracking sections of the image, are a lot easier and reliable with more resolution than less. Down-sampling 4K in post, will be better than letting your camera do it live. Some cropping is possible with minimum loss to overall image quality, especially if watched in 1080p. Some of my clients have asked for some pretty major crops in my recorded image, which would have been impossible to implement in 1080p, but with 4K, can be okay, even if not desirable or perfect. Plus DCI gives me a slightly wider image on my Pockets and GH5s, which I find useful, especially with a MFT sensor. If I can handle the extra file sizes, and playback is great; then I'm not benefitting so much from lowering the resolution of my filming.