SteveV4D

1 minute ago, Andrew Reid said:

As found on Fuji X-H1

As found on the Sigma Fp.

Sony Tough SDXC cards with monobloc construction.

It's a modular add-on with Sony and Panasonic cameras.

 

So one other camera only does Punch in focus... 

And one other camera does SSD recording...

I hadn't seen these new tough SD cards.  Worth noting for my Panasonic cameras. 

I recall looking at the Panasonic XLR Module.. but I'm talking about what the Pocket 4K has internally over other cameras.

Aside from the Fuji, it does speak much when a basic function like punch in focus can't be found on any other mirrorless or DSLR.  This is more criminal given that the smaller 3" screens often employed on these cameras makes focusing harder and what with the Panasonics poor AF, quite essential I would say.

But all cameras have their faults and omissions that are surprising.

As soon as other cameras have introduced ProRes and RAW internal, I would expect Blackmagic would have given us another camera model.  You could just as easily ask what if BM introduced one with IBIS, AF or EVF, why would you shoot anything else.

The Pocket 4K and 6K are not perfect, but they have their unique features,as useful and basic as IBIS and EVF...

Punch in focus during recording... shouldn't that be like standard for any camera that records video professionally.

Recording to a SSD drive via USB... no serious camera for video should be without it.  Yes cards are good, but some like SD cards, which Panasonic favour are very fragile.  I've had to bin a few last year for failing and in one case, one got stuck within a GH4r.  CFast is a better option for cards and frankly for a professional camera should be the sort of standard over crappy, flimsy SD cards.  But SSD recording is so very useful to me in my work.  How many cameras offer this in this price range?

Mini XLR... how many other mirrorless / DSLR cameras has this?

The Pocket implements LUTs much better than my GH5; I can't speak for other manufacturers.  With the Pocket 4K, I have the ability to record with LUTs embedded.  There are also more options for your own custom LUTs than my GH5 provides.  

Also, when a camera crashes and all my Panasonic cameras have been guilty of this from time to time, I get error files that I can't retrieve unless I outsource.  On my Pocket 4K, I don't lose the file at all, maybe a few seconds, but hardly significant.  BTW... my Pocket 4K whilst has crashed a little more than my GH5, it isn't the worst camera for this.  That honour goes to my GH4 and one of my GH4rs.  Both have given me loads of error files I can't use.

Plus the look and colour science of BM is superior to Panasonic in my opinion.  

So whilst I welcome ProRes and RAW to someday make an appearance on a Panasonic camera, I would also welcome at least some of the above to be included on them too.  Not to mention great AF as well.   Panasonics biggest failing.

Of course, I have a list of things I want for future BM cameras too, including AF; no one camera is perfect alas.

2 minutes ago, eleison said:

Well, if you mean "get by quite easily", as in create your own set like they did the "psycho shower scene", sure.

Yes if only they had a mirrorless fullframe camera shooting 8K when they made Pyscho.

29 minutes ago, chadandreo said:

I owned a GH5, XT3 and a 1DX II and let me tell you there is a world of difference. I sold my Panasonic kit Not too long after getting the XT3. 
canon - 10+ years, GH4/5 - 5 years and the Fuji for 1.5 years. 
 

sure there are many workarounds and complicated setups the can make MFT work, but at the end of the day in cannot do what a larger sensor can do. I don’t think every shot needs to be wide open and crushed backgrounds, but when it calls for it it’s available. To me, it is like someone saying  “ I don’t need a car with a trunk because I can strap everything on the roof.”

Having worked with MFT for years, I can honestly say there is no need to have complicated setups and workarounds for MFTs.  What on earth were you asking of MFTs to make such a statement?

I have 12mm 1.4 primes for wide angle and pleasing shallow depth of field.  Speed boosters aren't that complicated and whilst yes, it's not fullframe, MFT has it's own advantages too.  Smaller camera bodies and lenses.  More adaptable to a wider range of lenses.  Less rolling shutter. 

Smaller sensors than fullframe certainly have their uses.  A lot of cinema cameras use S35 not fullframe, like the C200 and C300.  They seem to get by quite easily.  Personally I prefer S35 over MFT.  I find it a good compromise between MFT and fullframe, each sensor having their own disadvantages.

However I've never struggled with MFTs and with a variety of lenses, seem to be able to cope very well with a variety of locations and tight spots and still get a good angle and bokeh.

7 hours ago, mercer said:

The point is that Andrew can only write a review based on his experience with the camera and his experience with their customer service. He never said that the BM image or what they offer at the price point is bad, he merely wrote his experiences with it... what more can a blogger do?

I appreciate Andrew's insights into his use of the camera.  His experiences are why I am holding back a little on the Pocket 6K and sticking to the 4K.  I've no issue with the reports he gave on the problems he had with both the camera and BM.  They are useful articles to read and why I come here.

Some of the comments in this thread have gone beyond that though and when I see mention of BM apologists and fanboys, it almost begins to feel that users of the camera are being blamed for liking the camera.

Am I an apologist or fanboy for having a good experience with both BM and the Pocket?

I don't feel BMD is perfect... what company is.  Perhaps they're guilty of having bitten off more than they can chew.  A small company trying to over reach themselves in delivery; but they've at least delivered a product that has made a mark on the video industry.  One only has to look at how many have viewed and replied to the Pocket 4K thread on this forum to see that.  

For all its faults, there are plenty of people using this camera and using it very well. 

Whilst bashing BMD seems to be the main ingredient of this thread, I should counter that I've owned 2 Pocket 4Ks and they have both been free of faults, dust on sensor and any imperfections or marks on the body.  I've also having met some BMD staff found them polite and open to dialogue.  

We have enjoyed numerous updates for the Pocket 4K.  Not paid updates like Panasonic have recently introduced, but free updates that have added BRAW, new functions and recording resolutions, plus fixes that have addressed issues raised by customers.  Which at least proves they do listen to customers.

However they may run their Business and frankly their reviews whilst bad, show no difference to any other company I have worked for or dealt with, they did release a camera that has given internal RAW at a remarkable cheap price, along with a superb editing software for free.  A software that comes with free updates.  Unlike Adobe, which makes you pay a subscription to use their software.

Where is the Sony camera offering 60p internal RAW, or Panasonic or even Fuji. Which DSLR or Mirrorless offers Professional functions like ProRes recording, punch in focus during recording, SSD recording, with a price tag at this point.  

I'm not denying there are other great cameras out there, but whilst some can speak differently,  there are also many owners of the Pocket 4K and 6K, who don't have an issue with either the form factor of the camera or their communication with the company.

1 hour ago, eleison said:

A lot of people I know still finish on HD.  However, more people shot in 4k to be able to reframe, zoom in, pan, etc.  8k would allow people to fiinish in 4k or allow even extreme push in and pans.  

I'm not denying the benefits.  And I welcome 6K and maybe one day 8K for that reason.  But whereas 4K soon got deliverables in the form of 4K Blurays and streaming, I don't see 8K being a deliverable format anytime soon, given that even 4K has yet to make its full mark on consumers; so its benefits exist just for better 4K and cropping. 

Given the choice, currently I would favour working with 6K over 8K; you still get the crop benefits, and better 4K.  However for many, it's a much larger file size for minimum benefits, especially if they're not cropping.  I've been delivering 4K content from 4K only cameras for years, and whilst 6K or 8K would give me improved 4K, it's not a difference that often leaps out at you from a YouTube or Vimeo link.

This update news has made my day.  Since the last update, the start up time has been worse.  And I was wondering how I would cope when my main working season begins again come April, and I am not able to offload the files as quickly and empty the hard drive.  It didn't take long for the number of files to really slow the start up.  Can't wait to test it.

I feel I'm still fighting the battle to convince people of 4K.  When 4K came along, the arguments against HD vs SD had been virtually won.  I'm not seeing the same thing with 4K vs HD now.  Many still feel the difference isn't worth it over HD. 

Personally I love shooting 4K and welcome 6K and 8K when it is practical to work with.  But if 4K is still a hard sell for many clients, where will 8K sit.  How much of us are doing cropping on a regular basis?

Then again, I don't think people will be shooting 8K if its implemented in anyway like the GH5 has 6K.  Which I feel is the most likely outcome.  There'll be the initial novelty of 8K videos edited from the the bite size clips the camera can make, but that novelty wears off when the majority of the audience for such videos can't watch at that resolution.

28 minutes ago, Julien416 said:

Of course they are different and you can the difference. You own both and you're a gearhead (like myself so don't take it the wrong way).

That wasn't my point. No one besides us would ever see the difference if someone were to mix the footage of both cameras in a simple scene. You can argue all you want. Do the test, to a real audience, not pixel peepers arguing endlessly about the motion cadence unicorn, or color science mojo of one brand or another. For all those normal people, the image will look exactly the same. 

Everyone and their mothers use luts nowadays, honestly the starting color science is less and less important, especially now that resolve is almost free. Furthermore, to the rest of the world color science could be reduced to three groups. Arri - the best by a mile, Sony DSLR color science - the worst, and everyone else in between.

In 10 years from now, people will look at the GH5S, Z Cam E2, and Pocket 4K and the footage of all those cameras will look exactly the same to them. Those differences we are arguing about are just a hobby. 

I am well aware no one will likely tell the difference between the GH5s and Pocket 4K.  I can vouch for that from my own clients feedback.  However that is not the point.  My work starts with my approval.  I want to be happy with my work and I am happier shooting with the Pocket, partly because I prefer Blackmagic colour science over the Panasonic.  In the same way some prefer the Canon image.  Each camera has a look and it's not always possible to entirely duplicate it with LUTs and colour grading.  I prefer the Blackmagic image.  I spent years and years finding a look I like with the Panasonic and even now there are moments, I am not happy with the image.  Not so with the Pocket.  Straight out, I found a look I am very happy with.  

There are other reasons I prefer the Pocket.  Punch in focus, menus, BRAW, SSD recording and choice of aspect ratios such as 2.40, you can shoot in.  Footage works so well with Resolve.  I love shooting with it.  

8 hours ago, Julien416 said:

Most people wouldn't be able to tell the difference between those two cameras if there was not an A/B comparison.  

People are arguing about invisible sharpening - that can be desharpened, maybe 1/3 of a stop of DR and easily matchable color science. 

Most people are just rooting for brand loyalty reasons. And to comfort for own decisions to buy to buy this camera or the other one. For the rest of the world, the image coming out from those 2 is exactly the same. 

I've been brand loyal to Panasonic for 8 years and still own and use the GH5 and GH5s on most jobs.  But the Pocket 4K is my A camera.  To be honest, I wasn't expecting that when I got it.  In fact I almost cancelled my order.  But using the camera and working with the footage, has earnt this cameras place as my main go to camera for work.  But I still have love for my GH5 and GH5s.

And I see plenty of comparison videos of my own, shooting with multiple cameras.  Every edit, I am working with both Pocket 4K and GH5s footage.  And yes, I can tell the difference between the 2.  

Certainly in controlled shooting scenarios such as the comparison video Andrew posted, and with time spent in grading, you can get the GH5s pretty close to the Pocket 4K, but why spend more time and effort grading GH5s footsge to look like the Pocket, when you can just use the Pocket 4K.  Especially as in some shooting scenarios, it's not so easy to grade Panasonic footage to match the Blackmagic look.  

4 hours ago, Andrew Reid said:

Some good points here and all valid.

Colour science with RAW is easy to get right straight off the bat, with V-LOG or any LOG for that matter, it's easy to mishandle it. Put wrong LUT on and it's going to look terrible compared to RAW on default settings in Resolve.

I don't agree colour science is lacking in V-LOG or BT.2100 though. Very wide gamut, and the Vari-Cam it's based on won tons of plaudits for colour.

I also much prefer the Rec.709 colour styles on the GH5 and GH5S to Sony's, much nicer skintones and more natural.

Equally there are valid reasons to choose Pocket 4K, there are valid reasons to choose GH5 or GH5S instead. So it depends on needs of the shooter.

• The H.264 or H.265 files can be edited in any NLE, you are not pushed into Resolve like with BRAW
• Really well specced Anamorphic mode
• Articulated screen
• Built in EVF
• IBIS on the GH5
• Battery life
• Reliability
• Media is cheaper if you select the lower bitrate codecs or 8bit
• The stills side / hybrid use
• Better physical controls (I do agree menus are better on Blackmagic, a little over-complicated on the Panasonic but you do get used to it)
• Much more fully featured

I do not like to rig my small cameras up very much so adding EVF to Pocket 4K is not for me, really.

I would say with the Blackmagic you are getting a good image, a good codec, and a big screen with excellent menus (apart from the fact it's barely visible in day light), but everything else about the camera is as cheap and uninspired as you can get, especially how power hungry it is. A sensor in a box really, as far as ergonomics go.

Blackmagic need to up their game with the small cameras.

All Panasonic need to do is develop a good compressed RAW codec with sensible file sizes and 12bit image quality, and license ProRes for internal recording, absorb the costs into the increased price of the GH6 and it'll be a total winner that blows Blackmagic away.

ProRes and RAW are the main reasons people shoot Blackmagic.

Take those a way and why do it?

I agree Panasonic colour science is better than Sony. But it is not as good as Blackmagic.  Honestly I like the image more on Blackmagic, and that counts a lot.  Why do many choose Canon even though their features are 2nd rate compared to Panasonic.  Colour and image.  Same for Blackmagic.

I never use the EVF on the Panasonic cameras. Weird, but I don't.

I am grateful for Blackmagic for taking me from Premiere to Resolve.. so very grateful.  That free copy with my Pocket 4K has done more for me than  any other camera.  I dipped into Premiere recently and was shocked by how slow it was.  I've used it for over a decade before moving to Resolve this year and it's been the best decision in my career.

Don't use Anamorphic.

Media is cheaper, but SD cards are fragile.  One SSD drive and a few CFast cards isn't too expensive and so much better to use.

Battery life is better on the GH5, but I rig my Pocket 4K mostly and I use just 2 Sony fp70batteries for a single day shoot.  A lot better than the half dozen I used for the GH5.

Don't shoot stills for the most part.

And the tilting screen is something I have managed to live without, which surprises me, but yes, it isn't as important as I once gave it credit.

My Pocket 4k is very reliable. And I've had failures with my GH5 and GH5s, with both  stopping recording and locking up on the odd occasion. 

Seriously, I switch to GH5 when I need IBIS and the extra features, but not as often as I once thought I would.  

I spent years trying to find the right grade for my Panasonic and it still isn't as good as the one I get from the Blackmagic from the very start.  I just love the image.  It's beautiful.  Panasonic is great, but lacks something.  Just my opinion.

If Panaonic were to add RAW and improve their colour science a little more, I agree, I would probably make that my primary camera.  But I'm still waiting on that.

I own the GH5, GH5s and Pocket 4K.  Despite the limitations of the Pocket 4K, I shoot with it as my primary camera for various reasons

Colour Science is better... the image looks superior in the majority of shots.  Blackmagic colour science is better.  Sure there are some shots where it is hard to tell the difference, but equally I find many where the BM is the clear winner.

BRAW... for me less about pushing the image and more about speed of editing and the flexibility to change ISO and White balance in post.  Sure, I get it right most of the time, but the are moments, where I do not for various reasons and this is such a bonus.  I hate editing H264 files now after editing BRAW.

Better menus.  

Punch in focus during recording

Larger screen.  Even fixed, it's so much easier to shoot with.

Being able to shoot 75 fps in 2.40 aspect ratio or 60fps in 16.9 without loss of quality. On the GH5s you are stuck with 8 bit 60fps.  

Being able to record to an SSD.  That has helped a lot when editing at venues I am filming at for a rough cut.  Also on CFast cards, which feel solid to hold.  SD cards are so flimsy and I have had to retire a few for falling apart 

Application of LUTs is much better.  You can embed and have more to choose from.  

Mini XLR input.  

I should point out, I've been using Panasonic for 8 years and have been a huge supporter of their cameras.  The GH5 and GH5s still get used on nearly every jobs I am doing.  Usually as B cameras, though the GH5 steps in if filming in wet weather or where IBIS is needed.  They are great cameras, but I love the Pocket 4K more despite the limitations.  

3 hours ago, Avenger 2.0 said:

Indeed. Perfect for a controlled environment where you (can) do retakes. But would never trust them in one-time events like weddings, etc...

I've shot over 50 Weddings with the Pocket 4K.  Never let me down.  It even got knocked to the floor twice, and kept on recording to the USB drive.  When a similar thing happened to my GH5, it shut down and the file was badly corrupted.  Best camera I've owned.  :). And to think I very nearly cancelled my pre-order last December....