drm

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.

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.

To be honest, I did not see the P6K coming. I received mine yesterday and haven't even had time to open the box yet. I am curious about using it along side the P4Ks with and without boosters.
But after seeing the P6K, you *know* there is a P8K coming just as soon as BM can get a sensor (full frame?) that has the appropriate specs and makes the ~3500 price point. They already have the EF mount and there should be enough room in the body for the larger sensor. I bet the P8K is out inside 15 months at $3495. What do you guys think? 
Also, I got a huge kick out of the fact that Blackmagic had it in stock the DAY it was released at the major dealers. I got mine from B&H. That will teach us to talk smack about Blackmagic's legendary lack of timeliness (or not.... )

Tom Antos has posted his review of the 6K. He's definitely the Youtuber who's done the most work for a Pocket 6K review thus far. Pretty comprehensive.
 

To be honest, I did not see the P6K coming. I received mine yesterday and haven't even had time to open the box yet. I am curious about using it along side the P4Ks with and without boosters.
But after seeing the P6K, you *know* there is a P8K coming just as soon as BM can get a sensor (full frame?) that has the appropriate specs and makes the ~3500 price point. They already have the EF mount and there should be enough room in the body for the larger sensor. I bet the P8K is out inside 15 months at $3495. What do you guys think? 
Also, I got a huge kick out of the fact that Blackmagic had it in stock the DAY it was released at the major dealers. I got mine from B&H. That will teach us to talk smack about Blackmagic's legendary lack of timeliness (or not.... )

To be honest, I did not see the P6K coming. I received mine yesterday and haven't even had time to open the box yet. I am curious about using it along side the P4Ks with and without boosters.
But after seeing the P6K, you *know* there is a P8K coming just as soon as BM can get a sensor (full frame?) that has the appropriate specs and makes the ~3500 price point. They already have the EF mount and there should be enough room in the body for the larger sensor. I bet the P8K is out inside 15 months at $3495. What do you guys think? 
Also, I got a huge kick out of the fact that Blackmagic had it in stock the DAY it was released at the major dealers. I got mine from B&H. That will teach us to talk smack about Blackmagic's legendary lack of timeliness (or not.... )

To be honest, I did not see the P6K coming. I received mine yesterday and haven't even had time to open the box yet. I am curious about using it along side the P4Ks with and without boosters.
But after seeing the P6K, you *know* there is a P8K coming just as soon as BM can get a sensor (full frame?) that has the appropriate specs and makes the ~3500 price point. They already have the EF mount and there should be enough room in the body for the larger sensor. I bet the P8K is out inside 15 months at $3495. What do you guys think? 
Also, I got a huge kick out of the fact that Blackmagic had it in stock the DAY it was released at the major dealers. I got mine from B&H. That will teach us to talk smack about Blackmagic's legendary lack of timeliness (or not.... )

By doing nothing until after the S1H, the Sigma FP and the ProResRAW update for the Nikon Z6 are released?
Or in the case of the last one, waiting for Elvis to re-appear saying "Fooled ya !" whichever comes first.

Frequently, a larger sensor is better in low light, but much of the gain is a result of the larger sensor usually having larger photosites (e.g. A7SII, GH5s). Better lowlight performance is one of the reasons why many of the smart phones are going to larger and larger sensors, but the megapixel count isn't drastically increasing anymore.
In the case of the P4K vs. the P6K, the sensor on the P6K is a little larger (23.1mm x 12.99mm VS. 18.96mm x 10mm), but they also increased pixel count on the P6K. In this case, the photosites on the P6K end up being smaller (~19%) than on the P4K. Based on just this aspect, I would expect the P4K to perform slightly better than the P6K. I know from the charts released by BM that the P6K has slightly more dynamic range below ISO 1250 (P6K: 13.3 vs. P4K: 13.1), but above ISO 1250, the P4K has slightly better dynamic range (P6K: 12.1 vs. P4K: 12.3).
I imagine that in a blind comparison, you couldn't tell them apart.
I am a little surprised that the P6K drops from 13.3 stops of dynamic range down to 12.1 @ ISO 1250. I suppose that I will have to be a little bit more careful to keep the ISO in the 100-1000 range on the P6K.
@JordanWright Having both the GH5 & the GH5s, the GH5s is at least a couple of stops better than the GH5. With the GH5, I try to max out at 1600 on video. The GH5s looks about the same around 10,000. The GH5 is 20.3 Megapixels (17.3mm x 13mm) vs. the GH5s is 10.28 Megapixels (17.3mm x 13mm) so the GH5s has much larger photosites. I think that the sensor in the GH5s is also a newer model from Sony with some technical improvements.
I am sure that you already know this, but for everyone else's benefit, we call the pixel size the: Pixel Pitch  
Pixel pitch is the distance from the center of one pixel to the center of the next measured in micrometers (µm). It can be calculated with the following formula:
 
Pixel pitch =  sensor width in mm / sensor resolution width in pixels × 1000
The GH5s has a pixel pitch of 4.68 micrometers.
The P4K is ~4.6 micrometers & the P6K is ~3.76 micrometers.
 
The larger the pixel pitch, generally the better the low light performance.

This may not work for everyone, but I have bought more than one Metabones adapter on eBay for around $400-500. Much of the money that you spend on a Metabones can be recovered when you move on from needing it.
I certainly am a fan of not messing with a speed booster, but there is no denying that the P4K + the Metabones (and other) adapters are a great combination. You gain around a stop of light and your field of view gets wider, even wider than Super35. I think that Super35 is the sweet spot for video, not "full frame" sensors. The larger the sensor, the less depth of field, which causes lots of problems with video, particularly run/gun and corporate type work. I want to separate the subject from the background, I don't need to obliterate it
@Kisaha I agree. We also shoot tv shows, commercials, music videos, etc. using M43 sensor cameras (P4K, GH5, GH5s, etc.) without concern about the sensor size. People seem to forget that the camera is a *small* part of the overall gear budget.
Skip, if people are so price conscious where the Metabones is a problem, they should probably not buy the P4K, P6K, any of the Z-Cams, etc. anyway. With all of those cameras you will be spending an amount probably equal to the cost of the camera just to equip it where you can use it on a production (cages, batteries, etc.).
If someone is price conscious and they are asking me for a camera recommendation, I usually suggest that they pick up a GH5, Fuji XT3, or one of the Sony cams, like the 6400. Those will get you shooting video basically right out of the box, with minimal extra expenditures.
I believe that the point that @Kisaha was trying to make (and I agree) is that the cost of the camera is small relative to the rest of the gear necessary to do more professional work (sound & lighting can be expensive too, Skypanels are almost $6K each...). I have a silly amount of money tied up in gear to do what we do, and I am not running around with crazy expensive cameras like some of the bigger budget productions use (movies). I think that we are all looking for gear that gives us great quality images at affordable prices.

Explanation: Bolt this to a P4K cage: 
https://www.metabones.com/products/details/MB_SPEF-m43-BTB
Fullframe EF Cine Mount camera. Better than a normal EF mount. End of story. It just is.
The LucAdapter will be the closest thing for the P6K by making it fullframe, but it still doesn’t give you a locking cinema mount. You’re stuck with the bog-standard EF mount on that camera thanks to BlackMagic.

I would argue that with a proper cage that has support for hard mounting a booster, the cine locking EF (or PL I suppose) booster actually makes the P4K MORE of a cinema camera than the P6K would ever be. I don’t care how well-machined a standard SLR bayonet is, a positive locking cine mount is infinitely superior for any real cinema camera work with follow focus units. 
The Metabones optics are already fantastic, and now they have versions specifically for the thinner sensor stack of the P4K. There are a million things to worry about when doing cinema work other than 6K resolution. Sure, the oversample is a nice perk, but 4K is plenty.
Again, I feel like an SLR mount on a mirrorless camera is low-key stupidity. Let me put on a dummy EF adapter! Maybe even one with ND or a booster... but I digress.
I prefer the form factor of the ZCam stuff for sure, but their pricing I think is awful ambitious for a new company, no matter how good the cameras are. At the very least, the P6K will change the market’s price tiers for the better

@Skip77 "Sucks for P4K owners" 
Why exactly? This is a complementary camera for the P4K, not a replacement. In many ways, the P4K is *better* than the P6K. 
Here are just a few of the ways the P4K is better than the P6K:
The P6K files are more than *double* the size of the P4K files. The P6K is 323 MB/s vs. the P4K at 135 MB/s (at highest recording rates) Many people have trouble with their computers and workflow editing 4K footage. 6K footage is going to crush their dreams The P6K can not record 4K or DCI 4K footage in BRAW, only ProRes. The P4K + Speed booster gives you an extra stop of light and a field of view wider than Super35. The P6K field of view (crop) is less than Super35, despite Blackmagic calling it a "Super35" sensor. The P6K has a diagonal crop of 1.63 vs. 1.39 for Super35 relative to a 36mm x 24mm "full frame" sensor. Based on sensor width, the P6K is 23.10mm vs. 24.89mm for Super35, so the crop based on width is P6K: 1.56 vs. Super35: 1.45. So, based on width, the P6K is close to Super35 size. The P4K + 0.71x Speed booster has a width based crop factor of 1.35, wider than Super35. I will be researching this next week, but I suspect that the P4K + Speed booster will do better in low light than the P6K. Cost: The P4K costs $1295, the P6K costs $2495. The P4K has a better lens selection because most lenses can be adapted to the Micro 4/3 mount used by the P4K, including the EF lenses used on the P6K. I have a P6K that will arrive tomorrow. I have no intention of replacing all of my P4Ks with P6Ks, even though I could easily do so. They will work together and make an excellent team as they should cut perfectly together with each other.

@Skip77 "Sucks for P4K owners" 
Why exactly? This is a complementary camera for the P4K, not a replacement. In many ways, the P4K is *better* than the P6K. 
Here are just a few of the ways the P4K is better than the P6K:
The P6K files are more than *double* the size of the P4K files. The P6K is 323 MB/s vs. the P4K at 135 MB/s (at highest recording rates) Many people have trouble with their computers and workflow editing 4K footage. 6K footage is going to crush their dreams The P6K can not record 4K or DCI 4K footage in BRAW, only ProRes. The P4K + Speed booster gives you an extra stop of light and a field of view wider than Super35. The P6K field of view (crop) is less than Super35, despite Blackmagic calling it a "Super35" sensor. The P6K has a diagonal crop of 1.63 vs. 1.39 for Super35 relative to a 36mm x 24mm "full frame" sensor. Based on sensor width, the P6K is 23.10mm vs. 24.89mm for Super35, so the crop based on width is P6K: 1.56 vs. Super35: 1.45. So, based on width, the P6K is close to Super35 size. The P4K + 0.71x Speed booster has a width based crop factor of 1.35, wider than Super35. I will be researching this next week, but I suspect that the P4K + Speed booster will do better in low light than the P6K. Cost: The P4K costs $1295, the P6K costs $2495. The P4K has a better lens selection because most lenses can be adapted to the Micro 4/3 mount used by the P4K, including the EF lenses used on the P6K. I have a P6K that will arrive tomorrow. I have no intention of replacing all of my P4Ks with P6Ks, even though I could easily do so. They will work together and make an excellent team as they should cut perfectly together with each other.

@Skip77 "Sucks for P4K owners" 
Why exactly? This is a complementary camera for the P4K, not a replacement. In many ways, the P4K is *better* than the P6K. 
Here are just a few of the ways the P4K is better than the P6K:
The P6K files are more than *double* the size of the P4K files. The P6K is 323 MB/s vs. the P4K at 135 MB/s (at highest recording rates) Many people have trouble with their computers and workflow editing 4K footage. 6K footage is going to crush their dreams The P6K can not record 4K or DCI 4K footage in BRAW, only ProRes. The P4K + Speed booster gives you an extra stop of light and a field of view wider than Super35. The P6K field of view (crop) is less than Super35, despite Blackmagic calling it a "Super35" sensor. The P6K has a diagonal crop of 1.63 vs. 1.39 for Super35 relative to a 36mm x 24mm "full frame" sensor. Based on sensor width, the P6K is 23.10mm vs. 24.89mm for Super35, so the crop based on width is P6K: 1.56 vs. Super35: 1.45. So, based on width, the P6K is close to Super35 size. The P4K + 0.71x Speed booster has a width based crop factor of 1.35, wider than Super35. I will be researching this next week, but I suspect that the P4K + Speed booster will do better in low light than the P6K. Cost: The P4K costs $1295, the P6K costs $2495. The P4K has a better lens selection because most lenses can be adapted to the Micro 4/3 mount used by the P4K, including the EF lenses used on the P6K. I have a P6K that will arrive tomorrow. I have no intention of replacing all of my P4Ks with P6Ks, even though I could easily do so. They will work together and make an excellent team as they should cut perfectly together with each other.

@Skip77 "Sucks for P4K owners" 
Why exactly? This is a complementary camera for the P4K, not a replacement. In many ways, the P4K is *better* than the P6K. 
Here are just a few of the ways the P4K is better than the P6K:
The P6K files are more than *double* the size of the P4K files. The P6K is 323 MB/s vs. the P4K at 135 MB/s (at highest recording rates) Many people have trouble with their computers and workflow editing 4K footage. 6K footage is going to crush their dreams The P6K can not record 4K or DCI 4K footage in BRAW, only ProRes. The P4K + Speed booster gives you an extra stop of light and a field of view wider than Super35. The P6K field of view (crop) is less than Super35, despite Blackmagic calling it a "Super35" sensor. The P6K has a diagonal crop of 1.63 vs. 1.39 for Super35 relative to a 36mm x 24mm "full frame" sensor. Based on sensor width, the P6K is 23.10mm vs. 24.89mm for Super35, so the crop based on width is P6K: 1.56 vs. Super35: 1.45. So, based on width, the P6K is close to Super35 size. The P4K + 0.71x Speed booster has a width based crop factor of 1.35, wider than Super35. I will be researching this next week, but I suspect that the P4K + Speed booster will do better in low light than the P6K. Cost: The P4K costs $1295, the P6K costs $2495. The P4K has a better lens selection because most lenses can be adapted to the Micro 4/3 mount used by the P4K, including the EF lenses used on the P6K. I have a P6K that will arrive tomorrow. I have no intention of replacing all of my P4Ks with P6Ks, even though I could easily do so. They will work together and make an excellent team as they should cut perfectly together with each other.

Oops, you are right about the crop. I was thinking the M4/3 crop as 2, not the crop factor of 1.9 from the P4K (based on relative sensor width). Super35 is normally a 1.39 crop, not the APS-C size of 1.5-1.6, so the P4K with a speedbooster is 1.9x0.71 = 1.349 is slightly wider than Super35 and the 0.64x booster is even wider.
As to image quality, I am very curious about this as well. I am going to be comparing the P6K vs. the P4K with my 0.71x speedbooster next week. I suspect that there will be little to no difference. I also think that the P4K + booster will be better in low light. I can't imagine that the P6K is one stop better than the P4K, given that the P6K has smaller photosites. If BM had used a "true" Super35 sized sensor (~1.39 crop), then maybe the P6K would be >=, but they used an APS-C sized sensor (which they are calling Super35...)

The field of view will bit a bit wider with a P4K + Speedbooster. The crop with a P4K + Speedbooster = 1.28 (0.64x) or 1.42 (0.71x) vs. a standard super35 crop of 1.5-1.6.
The P6K sensor is larger and is able to capture 6K raw images and some faster frame rates than the P4K. Most everything else is very similar / same. Also, I have seen comments to the effect that a 6K image downsampled to 4K makes up for the Bayer pattern and will produce a "true" 4K image. So, theoretically the P6K image may be a bit better than the P4K.
Plus, you get bragging rights, since many people bash the P4K because it *only* has a M4/3 sensor. They won't be able to say that about the P6K (/sarc) 

I picked up a P6K (arrives Monday) to go along with my 3 P4Ks (and others). I guess I am a fan of Blackmagic (and Panasonic).  
I hadn't thought this through until after I purchased the P6K, but there are a couple of things with the P6K that I am going to have to consider:
The P6K files are more than *double* the size of the P4K files, when recording BRAW. I wonder how well my existing systems (computers, storage, etc.) can handle this change.  You can't record DCI4K or 4K on the P6K, unless you record ProRes. I will now be forced to transcode the files to resize them or I will lose the benefits of BRAW. The photosites are apparently smaller than on the P4K, so I wonder about the impact on low light performance. It seems like the P6K has a little more latitude in the highlight regions. I guess that I will have fun testing (avoiding work) next week  

The field of view will bit a bit wider with a P4K + Speedbooster. The crop with a P4K + Speedbooster = 1.28 (0.64x) or 1.42 (0.71x) vs. a standard super35 crop of 1.5-1.6.
The P6K sensor is larger and is able to capture 6K raw images and some faster frame rates than the P4K. Most everything else is very similar / same. Also, I have seen comments to the effect that a 6K image downsampled to 4K makes up for the Bayer pattern and will produce a "true" 4K image. So, theoretically the P6K image may be a bit better than the P4K.
Plus, you get bragging rights, since many people bash the P4K because it *only* has a M4/3 sensor. They won't be able to say that about the P6K (/sarc) 

I really think it’s time to drop the “pocket” designation.

I bought 3 P4Ks when they first came out, received sometime around last Oct. One of the three had a screen failure (glitching). They tried to repair it, then replaced it. I haven't had a single problem since. Very happy with them. Just ordered the 6K too.

It's probably worth mentioning that there are three magic ingredients here..  "wide aperture", "MFT", and "sharpness".  Our problem is that if we're testing the adapter for how sharp it is, then we're in trouble with most/all of the fast MFT lenses, because they are absolutely not sharp when wide open!
I have the 17.5mm f0.95 Voigtlander and the last two stops are quite soft, and compared to the difference that the adapter is likely to be making they are probably useless.
What we need is for someone to test it with a lens that actually is razor sharp when wide open, and for that I think we have to adapt something else.  Just look at the lens test that @BTM_Pix posted in the Lenses thread - how much sharper the master prime was than the Rokinon or Dog Schidt lenses when wide open, and then look at the size / cost comparison!
I'd be surprised if any of us with our mere mortal lens collections would be able to tell any difference at all.

Let the speculation begin:

@Kisaha The difference in sensor stack size between the P4K and other M4/3 cameras should be most visible with native lenses at very wide apertures. I did some quick testing a few days back with my Voigtlander 25mm f/0.95 lens. I didn't notice a drop in image quality between my GH5s and my P4K, even using that lens wide open. At some point I am going to try and set up a test scene and look at this issue in more detail. There may be differences with that lens between the two platforms, but my initial look didn't reveal anything that stood out.
Yes. I am sure that is the cause. I also think that Kisaha is correct. That particular lens in that video didn't show a big difference because the exit pupil is about 80. A shorter exit pupil will likely show different results.
You just *know* that in the future you are going to hear horror stories about someone putting the new Metabones adapter on a normal M4/3 camera and messing up or scratching the sensor stack.