drm

So, this is a much harder to answer question than you might think. The files straight out of camera are great on the GH5/GH5s. So, if you have a project that requires a quick turn around and doesn't have a budget for much post processing, I think that the GH5/GH5s is a better option than the P4K/P6K. In my opinion, the GH5/GH5s is also better for run/gun situations (better battery life, better ergonomics, better AF, etc.).
The BRAW files on the P4K & P6K are excellent, but they require post processing. I don't care for the files if you just use them straight out of camera, like by baking in a LUT. I have tried the Blackmagic LUT, the Leeming LUT,  the Buttery Films LUT, and others, but I don't like the way the files look unless I pull them into Davinci and process them. Normally, this wouldn't be a problem, but I broadcast events live several times per week. I need to be able to apply a LUT to the live feed and have a great look to broadcast. So far, I haven't perfected that process. I am still not happy with the image straight from the camera. I am working on LUTs for this on a regular basis. We just finished a commercial shot entirely on the P4Ks and it turned out great, but we had time to process the footage.
So for fast turnaround projects, pick the GH5/GH5s. If you have time to work with the footage, pick the P4K/P6K. If I can get a nice display LUT, then I will use the P4K/P6K much more often and could probably replace the Panasonic cameras all together. For me and the work that I do, the S1H is darn near the perfect camera (although the AF still bothers me...)

Raw is for amateurs that can't get the shot right in 8 bit.... ?

I use it daily. It is fantastic. It is on my P4K and GH5(s) much of the time.

I use it daily. It is fantastic. It is on my P4K and GH5(s) much of the time.

I've been using the RavPowers that I got on Amazon and they've been lasting about 40 minutes.

Is it just me or are a huge number of these videos being shot in high frame rates? I am actually started to get bored just seeing these HFR videos. Where are the nice 24p files?

I didn't have time today to do detailed tests, but I did grab a few clips while the kids were playing in the pool this afternoon. I haven't looked at the footage yet, but I did discover one thing:
As you probably know, the P4K + Metabones + Sigma 18-35 is a bit slow to focus (it sucks ~ 3 seconds each time you focus). I wondered if the slow focusing had something to do with the Metabones. Having the P6K gives a perfect opportunity to test the lens directly. Interestingly, the focusing on the P6K.....equally sucks. It takes about 3 seconds to focus with the 18-35 on the P6K. I didn't notice a difference in focusing speed on either the P4K + Metabones or the P6K. Not sure about other lenses, as I only tested the 18-35 today.

For anyone who might be curious what a Canon shooter would think of such a camera (and why BM might have gone EF mount) then check out Matti.
and his review....
TLDR - he loves it and is completely blown away with the footage.  He's bothered by the battery life and screen and usual stuff, but completely excuses it considering the cost.  He also mentioned that it's the first BM camera he'd recommend to other people.

I agree. It doesn't "REALLY matter". We are to the point where we have plenty of resolution, although better colors and better dynamic range would be nice to have. It is very amusing to me that we are going for crazy high resolutions, then blurring the background via aperture choices, and doing things like adding pro-mist filters to soften the image.
I have a friend that is a well known DP who has put pantyhose and other things over the lenses to soften the look. Super high resolution is a nightmare for some things. There are some things that simply look better if they are soft without all the details (e.g. aging actors & actresses, etc.) Airbrushing a photo is one thing, but airbrushing a video is a whole different planet of costs.

I use the Powerextra brand from Amazon. They are close to the same capacity, but are around $35 for 2. I have over 20 of them and have only had one die in the past year or so. I use them in lights, monitors, and on the P4Ks (and now the P6K).

I agree. It doesn't "REALLY matter". We are to the point where we have plenty of resolution, although better colors and better dynamic range would be nice to have. It is very amusing to me that we are going for crazy high resolutions, then blurring the background via aperture choices, and doing things like adding pro-mist filters to soften the image.
I have a friend that is a well known DP who has put pantyhose and other things over the lenses to soften the look. Super high resolution is a nightmare for some things. There are some things that simply look better if they are soft without all the details (e.g. aging actors & actresses, etc.) Airbrushing a photo is one thing, but airbrushing a video is a whole different planet of costs.

Amazon is a bit expensive, so we try to minimize what is there and how long it stays. If you use the long term storage on S3, 50TB works out to somewhere around $200 per month, depending upon usage. The deep storage is cheaper, the other options can be way more expensive (5x-6x+). Be careful what you put in regular storage, as the price can add up quickly.
If you can get by with 6TB, Microsoft OneDrive was offering 6TB for $10 /mo, which is a pretty good deal. We use raid 6 network attached storage units with 8TB external drives as backups. We try to buy 2 or 3 drives per project and build it in to the cost of the project. I like using 6 disk network attached storage in a Raid 6 array. This gives 4 drives of usable storage, so using 12TB NAS drives gives you about 48TB of storage. This 48TB of storage costs around $3000. These drives *do* fail, so budget for replacing a drive per year in a big array.

Kisaha, I do this all the time. It really isn't that big of a deal. Virtually all of my events are at least 3 cam events. I set the time codes on each camera and syncing later is a breeze. You will invest in more storage and soon not think much about it. I have in excess of 100TB of storage, plus online storage (S3, etc.)
As for which cam for a live event like that, I believe that I would personally bring the P4K - mostly without a speed booster. There are some really good zooms for M4/3, like the Panasonic 35-100 f/2.8 or the Olympus 40-150 f/2.8. That would give you good low light performance in a portable package. Although, in an event like that, I would really lean toward something like an A7iii for the really good low light performance and much superior focusing ability.
But, yes. The editing will take longer with the 6K footage and the storage requirements are at least double. On my machines, I have noticed little difference in playback in Resolve between the P4K and the P6K footage. All of our machines are at least 4Ghz, quad-core processors, with SSDs, so they aren't beasts, but are decent spec'd machines.

Very interesting stuff here
https://www.slashcam.de/artikel/Test/Blackmagic-Pocket-Cinema-6K---Mehr-Pixel--weniger-Cinema---Stromversorgung---Gedanken--Marktstellung-und-Fazit.html#Gedan
This is the conclusion google translated.
"However, the biggest competition is the older Pocket 4K.Because this remains in our eyes the much better offer.At almost half the price, this offers hardly any disadvantages except for the lower resolution. The slightly smaller sensor width (19 vs. 23mm) is not so seriously felt in practice and the achievable dynamics are similar. The Pocket 4K can also be used with many Focal Reducers like the Viltrox-EF-M2 with full S35-aesthetics. And even with a far better "crop factor" of about 1.35. The EF-Mount does not allow such hacks, or only for much more money . Last but not least, even 4K resolutions for real "cinema" applications are usually much sharper than desired."
I read also that they test-proved that both the Sony Venice and the BMPCC 6k can produce a perfect de-mosaiced 4k-DCI (rgb) output. Pretty spectacular for a 2495$ camera!

Yep, but Sony doesn't license the E-mount to any other companies. As several others have commented, an original mount like the Kinefinity would have been pretty cool.

The colors look extremely close between the P4K and the P6K. If you look really carefully I see small differences. I was swapping between the Blackmagic V4 LUTs for the P4K and the P6K in Resolve earlier today on some P6K footage. You can see a very subtle difference in the colors between the two LUTs. When I flip between two shots of the same scene (P4K vs. P6K), I don't notice it, but swapping the LUTs on one clip made it visible. I think BM did a great job matching the colors, considering the cameras contain different sensors.
This probably won't tell you anything, but this is a side-by-side shot from Resolve of a P4K-120fps clip and P6K-120fps clip.

After using both the P4K & P6K cameras for a bit, I do not believe that the P6K is an upgrade to the P4K. It is a sibling or cousin to the P4K. There are advantages to both. If I had to pick only one, I don't know which I would pick. If I could only take one on a trip, I would currently probably take the P4K, because I have a much larger selection of M4/3 lenses. I am positive that either one will give you great footage, if you do your part.
I bet we will end up with three cameras in the P4K line: M4/3, Super35, & Full frame
$1,295, $2,495, $3,495
 

I didn't have time today to do detailed tests, but I did grab a few clips while the kids were playing in the pool this afternoon. I haven't looked at the footage yet, but I did discover one thing:
As you probably know, the P4K + Metabones + Sigma 18-35 is a bit slow to focus (it sucks ~ 3 seconds each time you focus). I wondered if the slow focusing had something to do with the Metabones. Having the P6K gives a perfect opportunity to test the lens directly. Interestingly, the focusing on the P6K.....equally sucks. It takes about 3 seconds to focus with the 18-35 on the P6K. I didn't notice a difference in focusing speed on either the P4K + Metabones or the P6K. Not sure about other lenses, as I only tested the 18-35 today.

LOL...Uh no. It will not blend   Thanks for that. That is one of the most amusing things I have read in a while!
OMG. I hadn't seen that before. That is amazingly funny. Thank you.

I do not want to participate but a specific someone is playing us like a fiddle for 15 pages now. Drags people into the nonsense abyss and single handedly destroyed the P6K thread for everyone that is trying to learn anything at all about this camera. Also, is the individual attacking most people on the smaller amount of time I have ever seen here.
Stop feeding him and please try to not completely loose control of the thread, any thread.

Tom Antos does this test in his review. I seem to remember the P4k looking very slightly better, but there’s not much in it.

..and suddenly the P6K thread is dead silent!
Do you remember what was going on when the P4K was announced?
The P6K is an excellent and very reasonably priced option for 6K and EF aficionados, but the price and features of P4K spoiled us all for ever!

I haven't paid super close attention to this yet, but I would imagine that the P4K and the P6K would have very similar or identical "motion cadence" as they are using the same image pipeline (other than the sensor). Perhaps the slightly larger sensor will have a small impact. I am setting up a time now with a couple of my guys to go play with the P4K vs. P6K. I will ask their thoughts on the matter.
Here is something on motion blur for Skip77 start at 3:23 if it doesn't start on its own 
 

OK Skip.
https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.theverge.com/platform/amp/2018/12/5/18127329/how-to-turn-off-motion-smoothing-tv-lg-samsung-vizio-sony-roku