Nikon Z6 + Ninja V vs Blackmagic Pocket 4k

[Kisaha]

5 hours ago, KnightsFan said:

Of course you can use it any way you want, I just think there are better options available. And, to get back on topic, the whole reason I brought it up was that I would rather have a Z6 on a casual sightseeing trip than a Pocket 4K. Both for photos and videos. I use my camera for paid gigs, but also for non-pro stuff. So that's a genuine consideration I need to make before buying.

I have yet to see a place where ProRes proxy is better than H264 with the same bitrate. As I said, YouTube comparisons between completely different cameras don't really show anything about the acquisition codec. But yeah, if it works for you then use it.

That's fair. "Terrible" in an absolute sense might be harsh, but in my experience, it's not as good as H.264.

On a casual sightseeing scene, e.g a Samsung NX500 with 28mpxls for photo and 4K/H265 is enough for everyone. Or an X-T20 for that matter, or a M50.

Why to spend 3000€ for a Nikon Z kit to sightseeing??!! 

What I mean is, you go to the other way around, while a middle solution would be enough for 99% of the people.

What my conclusion is, Proxy is good enough for the minimum lowest quality. Sometimes for some things I do not care that much and I am trying to save space, I shoot 720p.

What I am saying is that the fight to the bottom is not a significant one, almost anyone can shoot decent low quality footage, the higher ones are the most expensive and unpractical, and there, P4K wins hands down every other proposition for money to video quality ratio.

[thebrothersthre3]

Prores lt files are fairly small too. 

[KnightsFan]

9 hours ago, Kisaha said:

On a casual sightseeing scene, e.g a Samsung NX500 with 28mpxls for photo and 4K/H265 is enough for everyone. Or an X-T20 for that matter, or a M50.

Why to spend 3000€ for a Nikon Z kit to sightseeing??!! 

Exactly true, and the reason why I bought a used NX1! However, this topic is comparing the P4K and Z6, so I brought up a point that hadn't been discussed, yet would factor into my decision between these two specific cameras. The point is not that you should get a Z6 for sightseeing. My point is that if you get a camera, the Z6 has some uses that the P4K falls short in. Similarly, if your work requires 4k60 then the P4K is clearly the better choice. There are any number of arguments and factors, I brought up one that is important to me.

9 hours ago, Kisaha said:

What my conclusion is, Proxy is good enough for the minimum lowest quality. Sometimes for some things I do not care that much and I am trying to save space, I shoot 720p.

Right, and that's perfectly reasonable. However, as shown in this example, you can use H.264 and save 90% of the space, while still retaining more information.

26 minutes ago, thebrothersthre3 said:

Prores lt files are fairly small too. 

Not compared to H.264! In this example, ProRes LT comes out to 57 MB, with a PSNR of 33.56. H.264 has a PSNR of 33.35 at just 3 MB, roughly 5% of the size. I mention this because PSNR has been brought up already, despite not being a great metric for visual quality. So subjectively, I see that even LT has mildly less visual detail at a 1:1 crop. ProRes is great for being widely standardized and accepted, and it plays back smoothly, but space efficiency really isn't its forte.

[thebrothersthre3]

6 minutes ago, KnightsFan said:

Exactly true, and the reason why I bought a used NX1! However, this topic is comparing the P4K and Z6, so I brought up a point that hadn't been discussed, yet would factor into my decision between these two specific cameras. The point is not that you should get a Z6 for sightseeing. My point is that if you get a camera, the Z6 has some uses that the P4K falls short in. Similarly, if your work requires 4k60 then the P4K is clearly the better choice. There are any number of arguments and factors, I brought up one that is important to me.

Right, and that's perfectly reasonable. However, as shown in this example, you can use H.264 and save 90% of the space, while still retaining more information.

Not compared to H.264! In this example, ProRes LT comes out to 57 MB, with a PSNR of 33.56. H.264 has a PSNR of 33.35 at just 3 MB, roughly 5% of the size. I mention this because PSNR has been brought up already, despite not being a great metric for visual quality. So subjectively, I see that even LT has mildly less visual detail at a 1:1 crop. ProRes is great for being widely standardized and accepted, and it plays back smoothly, but space efficiency really isn't its forte.

True though its small enough for me at least and the quality is also probably good enough, at least in comparison to proxy. But yeah could be a factor if you want to save storage. 

[Kisaha]

2 hours ago, KnightsFan said:

Exactly true, and the reason why I bought a used NX1! However, this topic is comparing the P4K and Z6, so I brought up a point that hadn't been discussed, yet would factor into my decision between these two specific cameras. The point is not that you should get a Z6 for sightseeing. My point is that if you get a camera, the Z6 has some uses that the P4K falls short in. Similarly, if your work requires 4k60 then the P4K is clearly the better choice. There are any number of arguments and factors, I brought up one that is important to me.

Right, and that's perfectly reasonable. However, as shown in this example, you can use H.264 and save 90% of the space, while still retaining more information.

Not compared to H.264! In this example, ProRes LT comes out to 57 MB, with a PSNR of 33.56. H.264 has a PSNR of 33.35 at just 3 MB, roughly 5% of the size. I mention this because PSNR has been brought up already, despite not being a great metric for visual quality. So subjectively, I see that even LT has mildly less visual detail at a 1:1 crop. ProRes is great for being widely standardized and accepted, and it plays back smoothly, but space efficiency really isn't its forte.

I am not sure why we have to do this comparison.

The Pocket, is the smallest, lightest and cheaper Cinema camera, that can film your kids play in elementary, or a short film that can be shown to a cinema screen.

The amazing thing with this camera is that brought - almost - cine quality to the masses, while you can stick a cheap stabilized m43, be it tele, or all arounder PZ, and do your everyday thing. It is completely unfair to treat this camera like the next hybrid.

If you want a good all around camera, you have already one, the NX1, stick the 16-50S on it and go out and gain some money, and for what? for 600-800$? Keep it for a year (and a half!) and then sell it for the same money, probably.

If you are searching for a new hybrid system to support, then Z seems like the most complete proposition right now, but seriously, what are the native lenses choices? I am waiting on all those systems until are mature enough, that means at least 5-8 lenses that I really need, and the Pana-Leica-Sigma will be competitive, it is a very interesting alliance, I wouldn't buy anything without seeing what they offer first.

If one searches for a cheap cine camera, that can be used for everything, from filming your daughter's birthday, to your sons basketball game, to weddings, music shows, short film, even a feature, B cam/crash cam to the big boys, then P4K is the one and only, it is a steal really, but it is not a full frame hybrid, certainly not!