Blackmagic Pocket Cinema Camera 6K

[mercer]

2 hours ago, A_Urquhart said:

Huge chunky adaptors?

With some manual lenses, the damn m4/3 adapter is larger than the lens.

2 hours ago, A_Urquhart said:

Now BMD have added that 'hugeness' to the camera by elongating the body to accomodate the mount and it's not removable.

I guess... BM cameras are kind of Frankencameras anyway, so whatever works to keep a smaller footprint, via body or lens, is an acceptable approach IMO.

2 hours ago, A_Urquhart said:

To each their own I suppose but I don't quite get it. 

What’s not to get? The EF and PL mount are the most widely used mounts in S35 filmmaking. Since a PL mount on a $2500 camera would be utterly useless to a large majority of the intended market, the EF mount is the next logical choice.

If you cannot find a native EF lens, or one that will adapt to the EF mount, you really aren’t looking hard enough.

You gotta remember that Blackmagic can only manufacture these cameras, at these price points, by using off the shelf parts. So, there may not be a 6K suitable M4/3 sensor and there isn’t a widely available mount, that is free to use, to keep the costs down. It could have been worse and they could have used the F mount.

Creating their own mount isn’t cost effective since they would have to design it, create molds and adapters for a ton of different lens mounts. With EF, they already have the supply chain from their previous cameras and a pipeline of 3rd party adapters.

The EF mount was the only sensible option for this camera.

[drm]

1 hour ago, currensheldon said:

- The Panasonic 10-25mm f1.7 may be the best stick-it-on and never take it off lens for either of these two cameras. 

Another option: The Olympus 12-100 f/4 is a *great* all around lens, albeit, not as bright as I would like. It isn't small, but it almost never comes off my camera.

[A_Urquhart]

27 minutes ago, mercer said:

With some manual lenses, the damn m4/3 adapter is larger than the lens.

Come on, that's not really true......a speed booster is about the size of a pancake lens.  Most manual lenses are bigger than a speed booster by a fair amount...and anyway, the EF mount on the P6K adds that bulk anyway so there is no real advantage to it anyway. At least with a mirrorless type mount, you can remove the adaptor if you want to and use smaller, native lenses. 

27 minutes ago, mercer said:

I guess... BM cameras are kind of Frankencameras anyway, so whatever works to keep a smaller footprint, via body or lens, is an acceptable approach IMO.

Again, I don't quite get it. Your not really getting any smaller a footprint with the P6K vs the P4K and speed booster. 

27 minutes ago, mercer said:

Creating their own mount isn’t cost effective since they would have to design it, create molds and adapters for a ton of different lens mounts. With EF, they already have the supply chain from their previous cameras and a pipeline of 3rd party adapters.

The EF mount was the only sensible option for this camera.

I'd dispute that. If BMD made a mount similar to Kinefinity's mount, sure it would costa little to develop initially but they could use that same mount across ALL their product lines. People could then buy the adaptors or physical mounts they needed from BMD. BMD already make different types of mounts and adaptors, so they are already in the business of doing so. It would be a small initial development cost but could be used for many years to come, so I'd see it as a good investment. A good lens mount system could last 20years!

Red's mounts, while expensive mainly due to REDTAX and the materials they used, were relatively simple...undo four screws, remove mount, replace with mount of your choice. I'm sure BMD could come up with something similar, and in a way, they already do with the Ursa mini pro which has replaceable mounts.

 

27 minutes ago, mercer said:

If you cannot find a native EF lens, or one that will adapt to the EF mount, you really aren’t looking hard enough.

I used EF-s lenses back in the day when I had my 7D. All the Canon ones were pretty terrible to pull focus off and were not built all that well. Sure, you can use EF lenses but then you are dealing with harder lensing choices at the wide end considering this camera has more of a crop than most APC-C sensors. On the Red Epic with EF mount I used Sigma 18-35 and 50-100 which gave nice results but not many other great EF-s lenses out there IMO.

I often use EF cine lenses (Celere, Leica R etc) that cover FF and while they are EF mount, they will be better served by the Pocket 4K and a speed booster (giving it a 1.2x crop factor)  than the P6K with it's native EF mount and its 1.6x crop. 

Sure, it's not the end of the world, and plenty of people use FF glass on crop sensor bodies but when there is a cheaper camera out there that makes better use of all that glass, I know which I'm going with.

 

[drm]

25 minutes ago, A_Urquhart said:

"Blackmagic Pocket 6K - No ProRes in 6k"

@Andrew it is really surprising me how many people do not read the specs of a camera before buying! I listed the record resolutions and Codecs many pages back and stated that there was no 6K ProRes modes and No 4K Braw mode. I am now hearing from multiple buyers that have bought the camera that they are just noticing these rather limiting issues once they get the camera in their hands

I mean...... seriously, on what basis are people buying cameras these days if the most important elements are overlooked?

Strange.

EDIT: Sorry my bad, I should know better. 'Social Influencers' buy shit quickly to be the first to put videos up. Of course, it makes perfect sense....most people who actually use these cameras for what they are designed for probably do do their homework. ?‍♀️

LOL...I agree, *but* I can't talk because I did the same thing. I impulse purchased the P6K when it was announced. Over the weekend, I did more research and can't decide if I really need a 6K version of my P4Ks. Luckily, I have been busy and haven't even opened the P6K box yet. I am sure that I will keep the P6K , but it does have a few "features" that make it an interesting decision.

[A_Urquhart]

25 minutes ago, mercer said:

Since a PL mount on a $2500 camera would be utterly useless to a large majority of the intended market, the EF mount is the next logical choice.

I would say that since the world is moving towards mirrorless and shallow flange distances, Canons RF mount may have been a more logical choice? 

[mercer]

11 minutes ago, A_Urquhart said:

Come on, that's not really true......a speed booster is about the size of a pancake lens.  Most manual lenses are bigger than a speed booster by a fair amount...and anyway, the EF mount on the P6K adds that bulk anyway so there is no real advantage to it anyway. At least with a mirrorless type mount, you can remove the adaptor if you want to and use smaller, native lenses. 

Okay, I see your point, I’m just offering a different perspective.

I can only speak for myself but until recently, I never owned a native lens, I’ve always used vintage lenses and after switching to mirrorless, I outfitted all of my lenses with their own mirrorless adapter. After switching systems, numerous times, looking for the right fit, I spent hundreds of dollars on adapters until I finally settled back to an EF DSLR. Since I spent so much money on those adapters, I can’t allow myself to throw them away, so I have 2 or 3 shoeboxes filled with adapters.

As far as native lenses go, I’m unsure there’s an argument in favor of native m4/3 lenses over native EF lenses... Hell most people buy a M4/3 camera and use a massive Sigma 18-35mm on it.

Aside the Voigtlanders, some of the best lenses I’ve ever used have been Canon L lenses. I even went so far to have an FD 50mm 1.2 L modified to the EF mount. I also have a Minolta 35mm 1.8 that was modified to the EF mount, so I understand the desire to shoot with all of the amazing glass available and yes a mirrorless mount is better in that regard. But even still, after fiddling with all of those adapters, for all those years, I’d still rather have a native EF lens or a thin EF adapter.

Now I agree there aren’t many ef-s lenses, especially primes, but their FF lenses are great and cheap. The 28mm 1.8 blows my mind every time I use it. If it wasn’t for the supposedly poor battery life of the P6K, the 17-55mm zoom would be a great lens for a handheld set up. 

33 minutes ago, A_Urquhart said:

I'd dispute that. If BMD made a mount similar to Kinefinity's mount, sure it would costa little to develop initially but they could use that same mount across ALL their product lines. People could then buy the adaptors or physical mounts they needed from BMD. BMD already make different types of mounts and adaptors, so they are already in the business of doing so. It would be a small initial development cost but could be used for many years to come, so I'd see it as a good investment. A good lens mount system could last 20years!

Does Kinefinity even make cameras anymore? Just kidding. Again I see your point and it’s valid, except as is, I don’t understand how BM makes any money with these cameras. I don’t know what their profit margin is, but it can’t be much, if anything at all and since they aren’t a lens manufacturer, why have a proprietary mount... it’s a waste of money when they have free access to at least 3 different mounts.

And with all of that being said, if I was in the market for a BM camera right now, I’d probably choose the P4K as well. But since I am invested in EF glass, I may rent a P6K in the future.

OT - How did you like your Epic and what are your thoughts on the Komodo? I must admit the Komodo is kinda intriguing me even though there are cheaper, probably better options out there. 

[A_Urquhart]

16 minutes ago, mercer said:

OT - How did you like your Epic and what are your thoughts on the Komodo? I must admit the Komodo is kinda intriguing me even though there are cheaper, probably better options out there. 

I don't know too much about Komodo. I do know that 'cheapest and better (specs?)' are not what those who make a living from these cameras always look for. If Red can get it to $5000 with the few specs that are currently available , then they will sell plenty of them. Reliability and workflow are what I personally look for and so do most of my peers. Sure, obviously image quality and other factors come into play but the Komodo will be popular not because it might be cheap or have the best specs, but because it is a relatively trusted brand from acquisition right through to post production.  While the Komodo body might be $5000, it will be interesting to see if you can use third party accessories with it like media and monitors etc which in previous Red cameras have always been the relatively hidden costs associated with owning one, or if Red release their own, more affordable proprietary touch screens etc????

[mercer]

1 hour ago, A_Urquhart said:

I would say that since the world is moving towards mirrorless and shallow flange distances, Canons RF mount may have been a more logical choice? 

Apparently, Blackmagic has one too many patent infringements to add another one from Canon and the licensing fee would be too impractical for a camera at this price point... I would think?

[mercer]

23 minutes ago, A_Urquhart said:

While the Komodo body might be $5000, it will be interesting to see if you can use third party accessories with it like media and monitors etc which in previous Red cameras have always been the relatively hidden costs associated with owning one, or if Red release their own, more affordable proprietary touch screens etc????

Yeah, it is definitely interesting. The fact that they’re using the RF mount makes you wonder if they are licensing DPAF along with the mount from Canon. And if so, why would Canon want a competitor, in that price bracket, to have their two greatest tech accomplishments in the past 10 years?

I’ll probably be laughed off the forum for saying this but I wouldn’t be surprised at all if Canon is the first company to offer internal Raw in one of their mirrorless cameras... so maybe it was some type of swap... RF mount and DPAF for compressed Raw.

[Skip77]

1 hour ago, A_Urquhart said:

I don't know too much about Komodo. I do know that 'cheapest and better (specs?)' are not what those who make a living from these cameras always look for. If Red can get it to $5000 with the few specs that are currently available , then they will sell plenty of them. Reliability and workflow are what I personally look for and so do most of my peers. Sure, obviously image quality and other factors come into play but the Komodo will be popular not because it might be cheap or have the best specs, but because it is a relatively trusted brand from acquisition right through to post production.  While the Komodo body might be $5000, it will be interesting to see if you can use third party accessories with it like media and monitors etc which in previous Red cameras have always been the relatively hidden costs associated with owning one, or if Red release their own, more affordable proprietary touch screens etc????

The Komodo is not going to be $5,000 unless unless you own a Hydrogen and that's another $1,000.  RED''s media SSD's are what $2-3K.  I don't think the Komodo comes in at under $10K in a workable form. 

2 hours ago, A_Urquhart said:

I used EF-s lenses back in the day when I had my 7D. All the Canon ones were pretty terrible to pull focus off and were not built all that well. Sure, you can use EF lenses but then you are dealing with harder lensing choices at the wide end considering this camera has more of a crop than most APC-C sensors. On the Red Epic with EF mount I used Sigma 18-35 and 50-100 which gave nice results but not many other great EF-s lenses out there IMO.

I often use EF cine lenses (Celere, Leica R etc) that cover FF and while they are EF mount, they will be better served by the Pocket 4K and a speed booster (giving it a 1.2x crop factor)  than the P6K with it's native EF mount and its 1.6x crop. 

Sure, it's not the end of the world, and plenty of people use FF glass on crop sensor bodies but when there is a cheaper camera out there that makes better use of all that glass, I know which I'm going with.

 

People want one mount system to invest in. EF fill that need. You seem very hostile toward the P6K. Why? Is it the P4K and because you own one?  The whole Braw and Pro Res and what you get at 6k and 4K is a silly argument.  On the one hand I'm many have said said "who needs RAW" and since that's the case for most people getting 4K Pro Res and 6K Braw should not be an issue at all.  

 

[A_Urquhart]

1 hour ago, Skip77 said:

The Komodo is not going to be $5,000 unless unless you own a Hydrogen and that's another $1,000.  RED''s media SSD's are what $2-3K.  I don't think the Komodo comes in at under $10K in a workable form. 

You may be right, but it looks like komodo is using CFAST so $2-3K media shouldn't be an issue.

 

1 hour ago, Skip77 said:

You seem very hostile toward the P6K. Why? Is it the P4K and because you own one?  The whole Braw and Pro Res and what you get at 6k and 4K is a silly argument.  On the one hand I'm many have said said "who needs RAW" and since that's the case for most people getting 4K Pro Res and 6K Braw should not be an issue at all.  

I'm just giving my opinions here like many others are. It's a forum.....I think its good to provide balanced information to counter some miss information that might be out there. You may call it hostility, I call it giving people something else to think about rather than just believing hype.

As I've said to you before, my Pocket4K has paid for itself a few times over and continues to earn me money. I have no reason to defend my purchase because i know it has been a good one, my accounts prove it. If I didn't have the Pocket4K now and had to choose, would I choose the 6K? Nope...what exactly would I be paying double the money for?

6K BRAW? Don't need it, it's file sizes or the extra overheads it requires to edit.

4K ProRes? Already got it! Yes, the 6K to 4K downscale in camera might provide a slightly better 4K image but from what I'm hearing, the difference is negligible. 

Now if the 6K sensor was in a body with a better mount, a good battery solution like NP-F, BP-U or similar, and had a tillable screen, I might see the need in an upgrade like that and be willing to spend the double (if not more) that they are asking for the 6K and I guess that is where my disappointment is here. BMD should focus on genuine improvements rather than play the Resolution game that only really serves to impress those who don't really know better.

I guess for the price of the 6K, i would expect BMD to fix issues like poor battery life, which are excusable in the price of the Pocket4K but really inexcusable in the Pocket6kifshootingBRAW.

 

 

[Skip77]

1 hour ago, A_Urquhart said:

You may be right, but it looks like komodo is using CFAST so $2-3K media shouldn't be an issue.

 

I'm just giving my opinions here like many others are. It's a forum.....I think its good to provide balanced information to counter some miss information that might be out there. You may call it hostility, I call it giving people something else to think about rather than just believing hype.

As I've said to you before, my Pocket4K has paid for itself a few times over and continues to earn me money. I have no reason to defend my purchase because i know it has been a good one, my accounts prove it. If I didn't have the Pocket4K now and had to choose, would I choose the 6K? Nope...what exactly would I be paying double the money for?

6K BRAW? Don't need it, it's file sizes or the extra overheads it requires to edit.

4K ProRes? Already got it! Yes, the 6K to 4K downscale in camera might provide a slightly better 4K image but from what I'm hearing, the difference is negligible. 

Now if the 6K sensor was in a body with a better mount, a good battery solution like NP-F, BP-U or similar, and had a tillable screen, I might see the need in an upgrade like that and be willing to spend the double (if not more) that they are asking for the 6K and I guess that is where my disappointment is here. BMD should focus on genuine improvements rather than play the Resolution game that only really serves to impress those who don't really know better.

I guess for the price of the 6K, i would expect BMD to fix issues like poor battery life, which are excusable in the price of the Pocket4K but really inexcusable in the Pocket6kifshootingBRAW.

 

 

Nothing wrong with the EF mount.  How many cine cameras use the EF mount?  

The footage from the P6K already has better cadence and a more filmic look then the P4K.  There has to be more data being captured at a better scan rate then the P4K. 

And what you and everyone else has been saying is who needs, who can work with and 6K is not better then the P4K with a speed-booster.  This footage shows the P6K is more cinematic then the P4K. 

[Mattias Burling]

32 minutes ago, Skip77 said:

This footage shows the P6K is more cinematic then the P4K. 

Thats the first video Ive ever seen from the P6K and I must say... it looked extremely videoish. Surely there are some really cinematic footage out there that would better illustrate the point you where trying to make.

 

[zerocool22]

Just now, Mattias Burling said:

Thats the first video Ive ever seen from the P6K and I must say... it looked extremely videoish. Surely there are some really cinematic footage out there that would better illustrate the point you where trying to make.

 

Yeah agree I think it is the 50fps playback on youtube which make it looks videoy though.  

[Skip77]

53 minutes ago, Mattias Burling said:

Thats the first video Ive ever seen from the P6K and I must say... it looked extremely videoish. Surely there are some really cinematic footage out there that would better illustrate the point you where trying to make.

 

There is lots of footage from the P6K.  How is this the first footage you've seen?

Nothing looks videoish to me.   Not the cadence movement or the detail or the color ( anyone can grade anything from one end to the other).

What looks videoish?  My machine plays that footage back flawlessly and no stutter or videoish qualities.  

54 minutes ago, zerocool22 said:

Yeah agree I think it is the 50fps playback on youtube which make it looks videoy though.  

The 50fps is like silk.  Be more specific?  

[A_Urquhart]

2 hours ago, Skip77 said:

Nothing wrong with the EF mount.  How many cine cameras use the EF mount?  

Not sure but how many cinema cameras out there are purely EF?

Bet i can name at least double that aren't purely EF, than you can name that are purely EF ?

[Anaconda_]

36 minutes ago, Skip77 said:

The 50fps is like silk.  Be more specific?  

50fps looks like silk, film does not. That's why they're saying it looks more videoy.

[Mattias Burling]

53 minutes ago, Skip77 said:

There is lots of footage from the P6K.  How is this the first footage you've seen?

By being the only one Ive watched.. thought that went without saying.

53 minutes ago, Skip77 said:

Nothing looks videoish to me.   Not the cadence movement or the detail or the color ( anyone can grade anything from one end to the other).

Great, then you should buy it.

53 minutes ago, Skip77 said:

What looks videoish?

The motion, the clarity, the colors and the tones/curves.

53 minutes ago, Skip77 said:

My machine plays that footage back flawlessly and no stutter..

So does mine.

53 minutes ago, Skip77 said:

..or videoish qualities.  

Looks video to me.

53 minutes ago, Skip77 said:

The 50fps is like silk.

Exactly, very smartphoneish. Not a fan.

Please note:

I have NEVER said that the P6K shoots footage that looks videoish and can't produce cinematic footage. All Im saying is that after reading your post about "proof" that the P6K is "more cinematic than the P4K" I was very disappointed after pressing play on that video.
But like I said there are most likely much better examples of cinematic footage out there.

[Oliver Daniel]

4 hours ago, Skip77 said:

Nothing wrong with the EF mount.  How many cine cameras use the EF mount?  

The footage from the P6K already has better cadence and a more filmic look then the P4K.  There has to be more data being captured at a better scan rate then the P4K. 

And what you and everyone else has been saying is who needs, who can work with and 6K is not better then the P4K with a speed-booster.  This footage shows the P6K is more cinematic then the P4K. 

I agree with @Mattias Burling, this doesn’t really “sell” the quality of the camera. In fact, the entire footage page they published doesn’t either. Could easily be filmed with a GH5 and I wouldn’t notice. 

This is mostly down to the filmmakers though and not the camera, however it’s clear that the gulf between camera quality is much less and pretty much every new release doesn’t have that “special sauce” to differentiate them enough. 

I like Blackmagic but they should go to a modular ZCAM box design. The poor battery, fixed screen and odd shape make it a no-go for me. This would be an absolute no brainer if you could just pull it out the box and shoot without having to bolt on a few bricks to make it work reliably.

Lots of options these days - but also in these days I’m thinking far less about my cameras choices than ever. 

[Adam Kuźniar]

50 minutes ago, Oliver Daniel said:

I agree with @Mattias Burling, this doesn’t really “sell” the quality of the camera. In fact, the entire footage page they published doesn’t either. Could easily be filmed with a GH5 and I wouldn’t notice. 

This is mostly down to the filmmakers though and not the camera, however it’s clear that the gulf between camera quality is much less and pretty much every new release doesn’t have that “special sauce” to differentiate them enough. 

I like Blackmagic but they should go to a modular ZCAM box design. The poor battery, fixed screen and odd shape make it a no-go for me. This would be an absolute no brainer if you could just pull it out the box and shoot without having to bolt on a few bricks to make it work reliably.

Lots of options these days - but also in these days I’m thinking far less about my cameras choices than ever. 

I've seen stuff shot with the GH5 that made me wonder if they bought a counterfeit copy with Canon 550D sensor or something. I've also seen stuff shot with the GH5 that made ME wonder what's wrong with my camera that it doesn't shoot as pretty as their does. 

Point is - while this sample really does look videoish, the samples provided by BM on their website look a lot better.