SteveV4D

Don't worry about the R5 bashers. Haters gonna hate. Watch em come around in couple months..
CS is a tricky subject, there are a few dedicated threads about it here. Most of them don't end well lol..
Canon is known for their warm skin tones and Reds that pop. Clog is also pretty easy to grade. RAW 14-bit is glorious.
Pleasing CS doesn't necessarily mean accurate colours though. Strangely you will often find Sony on top of color accuracy rankings.
In the real world however, Sony are often last in the CS preferences. doesn't help their WB craps out as soon as mixed lighting comes in.
That said I love Venice CS and shoot almost exclusively with the Venice LUT on my FS7. 
I haven't worked with recent BM cams but generally speaking the ProRes & RAW footage from them grades beautifully.
My problem with BM is they can be unreliable cameras. Some Ursa Mini 4.6K had magenta cast issues for example. Very difficult to get rid of.

You weren't technically, but with you, the word argue just seems to fit when discussing your replies.

I think the strawman in this argument is you.  You've been consistently arguing with other members on this point.  Some of my replies to you have got likes.  Yours are not so well received. 😄 In fact one of your replies was to argue why a forum member wasn't using the viewfinder in a DSLR camera when recording video in sunlight.   Whereas we all know such a thing is impossible for DSLR cameras as the mirror is up when using the camera.  So remind me again, which of us is foolish.
Now I'm not arguing cameras like 1DX Mark III can be better than the Pocket cameras for colour grading.  I can't, I don't own the 1DX.   My only issue is with your blanket statement that Canon Colour Science is easier to grade.  Whereas I feel it is wholly dependant on the camera and codec being used. 
My point about how our eyes can see colour differently, is one of the reasons why I feel colour is subjective, even accurate colour.  I'm sorry it went over your head. 😄

I'm not sure arguing your point of view counts the same as sharing your knowledge.  If enlightening others including me is your goal, you need to rethink your strategy
I never argued that accurate colour isn't important.  I personally feel Nikons colours are more accurate to real life than Canon, though also feel that Canon look is more pleasing to the eye than Nikon.  Yes, I did ask what accurate colour is?  But those screen shots no more prove or disprove that.  Some shots to me look good to me, 1 looked a bit off. But maybe that's my own eyes.  Or my phone.  How do we prove accurate colour when we all have different eyes, different devices to view the colour and a preference for colour that can cloud our judgement on what is and isn't accurate?
To be honest I'm not sure whether you're arguing which colour science is easier to grade or which is more accurate straight out.  Or both.  You seem to swing your argument to whatever you feel gives you weight to your opinion on Canon.
If Canons colours are superior to others for being accurate straight out, what's your thoughts on the below tests of camera models for accurate colour reproduction.
https://pdnonline.com/gear/cameras/the-best-cameras-for-color-reproduction-ranked/
I would have thought all Canon cameras would be top, but no, and it also seems not all Canon cameras are equal for accurate colour reproduction.  Of course this test is contested by some on the comments section.  By Canon users naturally 😄  But then it seems accurate colour reproduction is subjective.

I beg to differ.
SIgma Fp full frame RAW output to SSD
Panasonic S1 V-LOG 10bit 422
Nikon Z6 ProRes RAW
And arguably GH5S codec is pretty good looking.

I'm not sure arguing your point of view counts the same as sharing your knowledge.  If enlightening others including me is your goal, you need to rethink your strategy
I never argued that accurate colour isn't important.  I personally feel Nikons colours are more accurate to real life than Canon, though also feel that Canon look is more pleasing to the eye than Nikon.  Yes, I did ask what accurate colour is?  But those screen shots no more prove or disprove that.  Some shots to me look good to me, 1 looked a bit off. But maybe that's my own eyes.  Or my phone.  How do we prove accurate colour when we all have different eyes, different devices to view the colour and a preference for colour that can cloud our judgement on what is and isn't accurate?
To be honest I'm not sure whether you're arguing which colour science is easier to grade or which is more accurate straight out.  Or both.  You seem to swing your argument to whatever you feel gives you weight to your opinion on Canon.
If Canons colours are superior to others for being accurate straight out, what's your thoughts on the below tests of camera models for accurate colour reproduction.
https://pdnonline.com/gear/cameras/the-best-cameras-for-color-reproduction-ranked/
I would have thought all Canon cameras would be top, but no, and it also seems not all Canon cameras are equal for accurate colour reproduction.  Of course this test is contested by some on the comments section.  By Canon users naturally 😄  But then it seems accurate colour reproduction is subjective.

If only, see above.

But which Canon camera? I've worked with 8 bit Canon footage from various versions of the 5D, 6D and 7D over the last decade and the footage was a terrible experience to grade compared to my experience with BRAW from the Pocket.  Sure, when you pay money for their higher end cameras, you get the sort of files that make colour grading easier.  But does my Pocket 4K or 6K sit in the same level as a Canon C500 or 1DX III.  Of course not.  It's not in ARRI territory either.  Its foolish even to compare them in my opinion.
I do look at image quality and colour,  just as any other buyer of camera.  I chose the Pocket 4K.  I will doubtless choose the 6K too.  I won't be choosing the R5.  I am certainly intrigued by its developments and welcome Canon taking their lower end cameras more seriously, but it's not for me.
As you say, no one cares what you shoot your footage with.  They care about what you created.  I pick the camera that is in my budget, has features I need and like and an image quality and colour I can work with.  For those reasons, I chose the Pocket.  Others on this forum chose the URSA.  In my opinion they made great choices.  Whether Canon colour is easier to grade with certain models and with the R5 is frankly besides the point.  If I like Blackmagic colours, then I'm not fighting their colour science, I'm embracing it.  That will always make grading easier.  Why would I want an image I am working with to look like Canon, when I am not always a fan of the Canon image.  Aside from great skin tones, which I do like, their colours often don't do much for me.  And your examples have only proved that point to me.  
I'm sure we can all dig around on the internet to find videos to support our points of view.  But frankly it's an argument that still is as many have said, including you at one point, very much subjective.
 

But which Canon camera? I've worked with 8 bit Canon footage from various versions of the 5D, 6D and 7D over the last decade and the footage was a terrible experience to grade compared to my experience with BRAW from the Pocket.  Sure, when you pay money for their higher end cameras, you get the sort of files that make colour grading easier.  But does my Pocket 4K or 6K sit in the same level as a Canon C500 or 1DX III.  Of course not.  It's not in ARRI territory either.  Its foolish even to compare them in my opinion.
I do look at image quality and colour,  just as any other buyer of camera.  I chose the Pocket 4K.  I will doubtless choose the 6K too.  I won't be choosing the R5.  I am certainly intrigued by its developments and welcome Canon taking their lower end cameras more seriously, but it's not for me.
As you say, no one cares what you shoot your footage with.  They care about what you created.  I pick the camera that is in my budget, has features I need and like and an image quality and colour I can work with.  For those reasons, I chose the Pocket.  Others on this forum chose the URSA.  In my opinion they made great choices.  Whether Canon colour is easier to grade with certain models and with the R5 is frankly besides the point.  If I like Blackmagic colours, then I'm not fighting their colour science, I'm embracing it.  That will always make grading easier.  Why would I want an image I am working with to look like Canon, when I am not always a fan of the Canon image.  Aside from great skin tones, which I do like, their colours often don't do much for me.  And your examples have only proved that point to me.  
I'm sure we can all dig around on the internet to find videos to support our points of view.  But frankly it's an argument that still is as many have said, including you at one point, very much subjective.
 

Of course it's up for debate.  It's being debated here and it's being debated elsewhere.  How we each perceive colour is something that has often been debated.  How bright or accurate colour looks can depend on age, what you're use to seeing.  How do you know that the way I see red, is precisely the way you see red.  There have been images on the internet, where people have debated what colour something is, with different results from person to person.  The blue and black or white and gold dress being a famous example of how we don't always perceive colour in the same way, when shown the same image.  
Colour science and how we each perceive it is a complex issue and yet you think you have the answers.  You have an opinion, nothing more.
I agree Arri is very popular.  So is Canon.  But popularity doesn't mean a universal truth.  To me, Canon isn't accurate straight out.  Yes it gives pleasing skin tones; but often by giving them a warmth not always seen in real life.  My opinion of course.  In the Canon vs Nikon debate, I personally feel Nikon is more true to real life, whilst Canon is more pleasing to look at.  
I get you love Canon.  But its colour profile whilst considered true to life from your own personal perspective and therefore requiring less grading from yourself, is still just your opinion and not fact.

How can you use viewfinder while the mirror is locked up during recording. 

Of course it's up for debate.  It's being debated here and it's being debated elsewhere.  How we each perceive colour is something that has often been debated.  How bright or accurate colour looks can depend on age, what you're use to seeing.  How do you know that the way I see red, is precisely the way you see red.  There have been images on the internet, where people have debated what colour something is, with different results from person to person.  The blue and black or white and gold dress being a famous example of how we don't always perceive colour in the same way, when shown the same image.  
Colour science and how we each perceive it is a complex issue and yet you think you have the answers.  You have an opinion, nothing more.
I agree Arri is very popular.  So is Canon.  But popularity doesn't mean a universal truth.  To me, Canon isn't accurate straight out.  Yes it gives pleasing skin tones; but often by giving them a warmth not always seen in real life.  My opinion of course.  In the Canon vs Nikon debate, I personally feel Nikon is more true to real life, whilst Canon is more pleasing to look at.  
I get you love Canon.  But its colour profile whilst considered true to life from your own personal perspective and therefore requiring less grading from yourself, is still just your opinion and not fact.

Of course it's up for debate.  It's being debated here and it's being debated elsewhere.  How we each perceive colour is something that has often been debated.  How bright or accurate colour looks can depend on age, what you're use to seeing.  How do you know that the way I see red, is precisely the way you see red.  There have been images on the internet, where people have debated what colour something is, with different results from person to person.  The blue and black or white and gold dress being a famous example of how we don't always perceive colour in the same way, when shown the same image.  
Colour science and how we each perceive it is a complex issue and yet you think you have the answers.  You have an opinion, nothing more.
I agree Arri is very popular.  So is Canon.  But popularity doesn't mean a universal truth.  To me, Canon isn't accurate straight out.  Yes it gives pleasing skin tones; but often by giving them a warmth not always seen in real life.  My opinion of course.  In the Canon vs Nikon debate, I personally feel Nikon is more true to real life, whilst Canon is more pleasing to look at.  
I get you love Canon.  But its colour profile whilst considered true to life from your own personal perspective and therefore requiring less grading from yourself, is still just your opinion and not fact.

Of course it's up for debate.  It's being debated here and it's being debated elsewhere.  How we each perceive colour is something that has often been debated.  How bright or accurate colour looks can depend on age, what you're use to seeing.  How do you know that the way I see red, is precisely the way you see red.  There have been images on the internet, where people have debated what colour something is, with different results from person to person.  The blue and black or white and gold dress being a famous example of how we don't always perceive colour in the same way, when shown the same image.  
Colour science and how we each perceive it is a complex issue and yet you think you have the answers.  You have an opinion, nothing more.
I agree Arri is very popular.  So is Canon.  But popularity doesn't mean a universal truth.  To me, Canon isn't accurate straight out.  Yes it gives pleasing skin tones; but often by giving them a warmth not always seen in real life.  My opinion of course.  In the Canon vs Nikon debate, I personally feel Nikon is more true to real life, whilst Canon is more pleasing to look at.  
I get you love Canon.  But its colour profile whilst considered true to life from your own personal perspective and therefore requiring less grading from yourself, is still just your opinion and not fact.

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.
 

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.

I think punch in focus is essential for cameras where you are focusing yourself.  Especially if the screen is small and need to ensure you have focus in the right place.  Can you make do without it, sure, but I shouldn't have to.
SSD recording isn't essential, but I find it very useful. Personal prefernce.  Wire isn't that much a problem for me.
And as for mini XLR, not the only solution for audio obviously, but like mentioning SSD recording, something the Pocket has that many other professional cameras in this price point do not.  
Just balancing the negativity here with a few positives.... 😉
Speaking for the negatives you mention, I don't gloss over them at all.. they are valid points of criticism, which you have mentioned one or two times. 😂😂
I neither defend them or excuse them.  I just wish to balance them with the various points that exist in the Pocket 4Ks favour.  And there is more to it than just the ability to record RAW and ProRes. 
And whilst I wish to see BM consider battery life, IBIS, AF and a better screen for outdoors in future models, I would also like Panasonic to consider things like punch in focus, SSD recording option, and a few other things the Pocket has, along with ProRes recording when updating their cameras next.

I am interested in 8K, but aside from delivering better quality 4K, which frankly 6K can do, I'm not sure there's a huge need for it in my workflow.  Yes, there is the crop possibilities.  But what of the trade off.  As others have said, there will well be more rolling shutter, there will massive file sizes.  Maybe limited recording time.
To be honest, what interests me is the codec, the extra functionality of the camera.  8K makes a fine boast, but until I'm delivering 6K footage, it is not something I urgently need.  I'd be more excited if they announced Canon were developing a camera that shot ProRes and had internal ND filters, SSD recording, different aspect ratios filming.. There a tonne of useful video functions I would like to see in mirrorless cameras, and I hate to see them neglected just  because manufacturers focus on the resolution war.

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.
 

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

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.

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.
 

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.