BTM_Pix

EDIT>>>
I had a longer reply but really I think "Fuck off" will suffice.
I'm joining the long list of people that have you on ignore you complete and utter tit.
 

EDIT>>>
I had a longer reply but really I think "Fuck off" will suffice.
I'm joining the long list of people that have you on ignore you complete and utter tit.
 

EDIT>>>
I had a longer reply but really I think "Fuck off" will suffice.
I'm joining the long list of people that have you on ignore you complete and utter tit.
 

EDIT>>>
I had a longer reply but really I think "Fuck off" will suffice.
I'm joining the long list of people that have you on ignore you complete and utter tit.
 

Based on comparing the actual sensor size of the Pocket 6K with the JVC LS300 then from my experience the typical VSM setting on most MFT lenses would just cover it. 
Though even a small windowed crop mode of 5-10% with that extra resolution would be a worthwhile trade off to be able to use those lenses.
You think and have seen ?
Which one is it ? 
Your argument or one that you have seen?
Either way, can you talk me through how there can be a better argument for the EF mount camera when both cameras could take EF lenses and the MFT camera can additionally use native MFT, Leica M and PL mount lenses ?
Based on the arguments you have thought of/seen would your Nikon Z6 have been better to be F mount or is it better to have the shallower Z mount that opens up a whole mass of different lens options and also be able to use F mount as well then?
MFT P4K users ?
As opposed to what?
Users of the non-existent EF P4k?
You are conflating two entirely different things.
These are different cameras and hence why the reaction from people who actually own the Pocket 4K has been largely muted because either they aren't that bothered about the extra resolution or prefer the extra flexibility of the MFT mount or don't want to spend the extra money to trade up the camera and the increased IT costs of dealing with 6K or some combination of all of those. 
And some owners have gone "great, I'll buy the 6K one and use that as well".
As much as you'd clearly likely there to be a massive outpouring of rage from Pocket 4K owners about this new camera, it just isn't there because this is not a Mark II version of the Pocket 4K thats come in at the same price with more resolution, it is clearly a different camera.
For anyone with a bizarre fetish for revelling in and stoking other people's outrage, I can see that that would be a disappointment but it doesn't alter the facts.
Now, if the Pocket 6K had come out with an MFT mount at or around the same price then you might well have needed a few extra boxes of Kleenex and some screen wipes but thats because that would have been a Mark II version of the Pocket 4K.
But then of course, that would also be related to it using the same, more flexible,  mount. 
You can't get any detail on the P6K if you can't get your lens on it.
Are we just going to gloss over the fact that you can't mount the vast majority of PL lenses on it or does that not now matter for a cinema camera ?
There are flaws in a lot of the side by side tests but if we let that slide then considering its twice the price then it should really shouldn't it?
Which is why its whats known as a different camera.
 

Based on comparing the actual sensor size of the Pocket 6K with the JVC LS300 then from my experience the typical VSM setting on most MFT lenses would just cover it. 
Though even a small windowed crop mode of 5-10% with that extra resolution would be a worthwhile trade off to be able to use those lenses.
You think and have seen ?
Which one is it ? 
Your argument or one that you have seen?
Either way, can you talk me through how there can be a better argument for the EF mount camera when both cameras could take EF lenses and the MFT camera can additionally use native MFT, Leica M and PL mount lenses ?
Based on the arguments you have thought of/seen would your Nikon Z6 have been better to be F mount or is it better to have the shallower Z mount that opens up a whole mass of different lens options and also be able to use F mount as well then?
MFT P4K users ?
As opposed to what?
Users of the non-existent EF P4k?
You are conflating two entirely different things.
These are different cameras and hence why the reaction from people who actually own the Pocket 4K has been largely muted because either they aren't that bothered about the extra resolution or prefer the extra flexibility of the MFT mount or don't want to spend the extra money to trade up the camera and the increased IT costs of dealing with 6K or some combination of all of those. 
And some owners have gone "great, I'll buy the 6K one and use that as well".
As much as you'd clearly likely there to be a massive outpouring of rage from Pocket 4K owners about this new camera, it just isn't there because this is not a Mark II version of the Pocket 4K thats come in at the same price with more resolution, it is clearly a different camera.
For anyone with a bizarre fetish for revelling in and stoking other people's outrage, I can see that that would be a disappointment but it doesn't alter the facts.
Now, if the Pocket 6K had come out with an MFT mount at or around the same price then you might well have needed a few extra boxes of Kleenex and some screen wipes but thats because that would have been a Mark II version of the Pocket 4K.
But then of course, that would also be related to it using the same, more flexible,  mount. 
You can't get any detail on the P6K if you can't get your lens on it.
Are we just going to gloss over the fact that you can't mount the vast majority of PL lenses on it or does that not now matter for a cinema camera ?
There are flaws in a lot of the side by side tests but if we let that slide then considering its twice the price then it should really shouldn't it?
Which is why its whats known as a different camera.
 

Thats the spirit !

I bet you made that ToF device because your complete rubbish a manual focus. Loser!

Based on comparing the actual sensor size of the Pocket 6K with the JVC LS300 then from my experience the typical VSM setting on most MFT lenses would just cover it. 
Though even a small windowed crop mode of 5-10% with that extra resolution would be a worthwhile trade off to be able to use those lenses.
You think and have seen ?
Which one is it ? 
Your argument or one that you have seen?
Either way, can you talk me through how there can be a better argument for the EF mount camera when both cameras could take EF lenses and the MFT camera can additionally use native MFT, Leica M and PL mount lenses ?
Based on the arguments you have thought of/seen would your Nikon Z6 have been better to be F mount or is it better to have the shallower Z mount that opens up a whole mass of different lens options and also be able to use F mount as well then?
MFT P4K users ?
As opposed to what?
Users of the non-existent EF P4k?
You are conflating two entirely different things.
These are different cameras and hence why the reaction from people who actually own the Pocket 4K has been largely muted because either they aren't that bothered about the extra resolution or prefer the extra flexibility of the MFT mount or don't want to spend the extra money to trade up the camera and the increased IT costs of dealing with 6K or some combination of all of those. 
And some owners have gone "great, I'll buy the 6K one and use that as well".
As much as you'd clearly likely there to be a massive outpouring of rage from Pocket 4K owners about this new camera, it just isn't there because this is not a Mark II version of the Pocket 4K thats come in at the same price with more resolution, it is clearly a different camera.
For anyone with a bizarre fetish for revelling in and stoking other people's outrage, I can see that that would be a disappointment but it doesn't alter the facts.
Now, if the Pocket 6K had come out with an MFT mount at or around the same price then you might well have needed a few extra boxes of Kleenex and some screen wipes but thats because that would have been a Mark II version of the Pocket 4K.
But then of course, that would also be related to it using the same, more flexible,  mount. 
You can't get any detail on the P6K if you can't get your lens on it.
Are we just going to gloss over the fact that you can't mount the vast majority of PL lenses on it or does that not now matter for a cinema camera ?
There are flaws in a lot of the side by side tests but if we let that slide then considering its twice the price then it should really shouldn't it?
Which is why its whats known as a different camera.
 

Whoah...hang on there you two.
You are doing forums wrong if you agree to agree.
Splitting hairs, clinging on to a semantic rock and repelling all boarders...that is what it is all about.
Now, lets get this back on course and start trading petty insults.
 

Based on comparing the actual sensor size of the Pocket 6K with the JVC LS300 then from my experience the typical VSM setting on most MFT lenses would just cover it. 
Though even a small windowed crop mode of 5-10% with that extra resolution would be a worthwhile trade off to be able to use those lenses.
You think and have seen ?
Which one is it ? 
Your argument or one that you have seen?
Either way, can you talk me through how there can be a better argument for the EF mount camera when both cameras could take EF lenses and the MFT camera can additionally use native MFT, Leica M and PL mount lenses ?
Based on the arguments you have thought of/seen would your Nikon Z6 have been better to be F mount or is it better to have the shallower Z mount that opens up a whole mass of different lens options and also be able to use F mount as well then?
MFT P4K users ?
As opposed to what?
Users of the non-existent EF P4k?
You are conflating two entirely different things.
These are different cameras and hence why the reaction from people who actually own the Pocket 4K has been largely muted because either they aren't that bothered about the extra resolution or prefer the extra flexibility of the MFT mount or don't want to spend the extra money to trade up the camera and the increased IT costs of dealing with 6K or some combination of all of those. 
And some owners have gone "great, I'll buy the 6K one and use that as well".
As much as you'd clearly likely there to be a massive outpouring of rage from Pocket 4K owners about this new camera, it just isn't there because this is not a Mark II version of the Pocket 4K thats come in at the same price with more resolution, it is clearly a different camera.
For anyone with a bizarre fetish for revelling in and stoking other people's outrage, I can see that that would be a disappointment but it doesn't alter the facts.
Now, if the Pocket 6K had come out with an MFT mount at or around the same price then you might well have needed a few extra boxes of Kleenex and some screen wipes but thats because that would have been a Mark II version of the Pocket 4K.
But then of course, that would also be related to it using the same, more flexible,  mount. 
You can't get any detail on the P6K if you can't get your lens on it.
Are we just going to gloss over the fact that you can't mount the vast majority of PL lenses on it or does that not now matter for a cinema camera ?
There are flaws in a lot of the side by side tests but if we let that slide then considering its twice the price then it should really shouldn't it?
Which is why its whats known as a different camera.
 

What will have stunned them is that BM were able to deliver the camera the day after the announcement while RED are only in the position to show off teaser pictures of theirs.
I don't know how long RED intend to let this routine of putting out teasers go on for but if it continues much longer we'll have to start calling it the Komodo Drag On.

I think its being misinterpreted by a lot of people that the Pocket 6K is the Pocket 4K Mark II and it just isn't.
The resolution is one thing but the mount dictates that it a different camera.
There is no lens you can put on the Pocket 6K that you can't put on the Pocket 4K but there are plenty the other way round.
If I look at 3 example lenses of a similar focal length that I own and use on the Pocket 4K but will not fit on the Pocket 6K:
Panasonic 25mm f1.7 MFT mount 7Artisans 28mm f1.4 M mount REDPro Prime 25mm t1.8 PL mount So would I prefer the bump in resolution or to be able to use those lenses? 
I'd like both but I'll take the lenses thanks.
That doesn't mean its right for everyone, of course, but for me as a Pocket 4K owner its my preference.
What seems to be forgotten in all this is that when the BMCC was launched with the EF mount, people were absolutely thrilled right up until the point that BM produced the MFT mount version shortly after which devalued the EF version immediately as everyone wanted the more versatile mount.
So I find it curious that the EF was the "wrong" mount and the MFT was the right mount then and yet now it seems to be the other way round when even leaving aside the additional adaption capabilities there are also far better MFT mount lenses available now than there was then too.
Who knows whether history will repeat itself again here and the Pocket 6K will be released with an MFT mount?
 

I think its being misinterpreted by a lot of people that the Pocket 6K is the Pocket 4K Mark II and it just isn't.
The resolution is one thing but the mount dictates that it a different camera.
There is no lens you can put on the Pocket 6K that you can't put on the Pocket 4K but there are plenty the other way round.
If I look at 3 example lenses of a similar focal length that I own and use on the Pocket 4K but will not fit on the Pocket 6K:
Panasonic 25mm f1.7 MFT mount 7Artisans 28mm f1.4 M mount REDPro Prime 25mm t1.8 PL mount So would I prefer the bump in resolution or to be able to use those lenses? 
I'd like both but I'll take the lenses thanks.
That doesn't mean its right for everyone, of course, but for me as a Pocket 4K owner its my preference.
What seems to be forgotten in all this is that when the BMCC was launched with the EF mount, people were absolutely thrilled right up until the point that BM produced the MFT mount version shortly after which devalued the EF version immediately as everyone wanted the more versatile mount.
So I find it curious that the EF was the "wrong" mount and the MFT was the right mount then and yet now it seems to be the other way round when even leaving aside the additional adaption capabilities there are also far better MFT mount lenses available now than there was then too.
Who knows whether history will repeat itself again here and the Pocket 6K will be released with an MFT mount?
 

As I’m sure everybody knows by now, at the end of the shooting days, for my film, I get my lead actor to hang out a little while so I can test out a lens. I’m trying to have a lens or two for every one of my favorite focal lengths. The other day, after we filmed a scene, I wanted to give the Samyang 50mm 1.4 another chance and I’m glad I did. As BTM said a dozen times, Samyang lenses really pull more than their weight...

I think its being misinterpreted by a lot of people that the Pocket 6K is the Pocket 4K Mark II and it just isn't.
The resolution is one thing but the mount dictates that it a different camera.
There is no lens you can put on the Pocket 6K that you can't put on the Pocket 4K but there are plenty the other way round.
If I look at 3 example lenses of a similar focal length that I own and use on the Pocket 4K but will not fit on the Pocket 6K:
Panasonic 25mm f1.7 MFT mount 7Artisans 28mm f1.4 M mount REDPro Prime 25mm t1.8 PL mount So would I prefer the bump in resolution or to be able to use those lenses? 
I'd like both but I'll take the lenses thanks.
That doesn't mean its right for everyone, of course, but for me as a Pocket 4K owner its my preference.
What seems to be forgotten in all this is that when the BMCC was launched with the EF mount, people were absolutely thrilled right up until the point that BM produced the MFT mount version shortly after which devalued the EF version immediately as everyone wanted the more versatile mount.
So I find it curious that the EF was the "wrong" mount and the MFT was the right mount then and yet now it seems to be the other way round when even leaving aside the additional adaption capabilities there are also far better MFT mount lenses available now than there was then too.
Who knows whether history will repeat itself again here and the Pocket 6K will be released with an MFT mount?
 

In fairness to Jim Jannard he had longstanding personal and business relationships with both Armstrong and Greg LeMond.
It always difficult to get caught in the middle of mutual friends that have fallen out and are in conflict with each other and even worse when you are forced to make a choice between them.
Do you choose the three time clean TdF winner who's life is being ruined or the seven time dirty TdF winner who is trying to ruin it (and the lives of several more people) to save his own skin?
I doubt we need to a poll to find out what most of us would do.

Looks like it'll cost a few squid.

Regarding whether Jannard knew about Armstrong’s doping (and sponsored him anyway) the question was asked on Reduser as it pertained to the integrity of the Red founder.  The thread was deleted very quickly.

Hey @Andrew Reid 
I'm not sure you and I can still be friends if you are going round the internet bullying *checks notes* a camera company owned by a billionaire who took legal action to shut you up that they knew you couldn't possibly afford to have defended.

Clearly, as Peter says, the internet bullying must be stopped.
Peter's solution to your spiteful bullying is to *checks notes* go on the internet and demand a camera company owned by a billionaire shuts you down by taking legal action they know you couldn't possibly afford to defend.

Anyway, I'm off to 3D print a new irony meter as my current one has just exploded.
 
 

Looks like it'll cost a few squid.

Thanks, I guess I better get that plugin before Red forbids FCPX users to access it.
Dont worry, I already went a round with that guy and I really don’t have the time, or inclination, to debate basic camera operations and the history of 24p in cinema with someone who will cherry pick one word in a sentence to try and prove his argument.
Thanks, but don’t go too crazy, I base a lot of my opinions on mojo.
Btw, I recently used the Samyang 50mm 1.4 on a shoot and I think I may have a hard time parting with that lens. Lol. 

I'll sort it out over the weekend once I've calibrated my unicorn to vibe ratio measurement kit.

I'll sort it out over the weekend once I've calibrated my unicorn to vibe ratio measurement kit.

Hey, I can do you an A/B with an EPIC and a Pocket4K if you like and we can have a massive row about silkyshuddercodeshuttermojo ?