Thread: Why I'm glad I ordered Blackmagic Pocket 6K

Page 5 of 5 FirstFirst ... 345
Results 41 to 50 of 50
  1. #41  
    Senior Member ty_lowcountry's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2014
    Location
    SC
    Posts
    380
    Quote Originally Posted by Dale View Post
    How? What happened?

    I believe everyone’s bad QC experience. It seems whoever is packing them at factory in Singapore is taking the piss and not giving a fuck.
    They need a harder foreman with a better eye. The screen protector were always terrible fits, but I’d put that down to costs of having them cut to size. They could take much more care actually fitting them though.

    The factory teams have probably never dealt with this kind of volume before.

    It’s just disappointing that blackmagic create these great cameras and then they’re damaged at the final stage!

    It kind of seems like they just didn’t bother changing the tooling for the new body from the 4K lol
    Reply With Quote  
     

  2. #42  
    Good ol' black magic
    Reply With Quote  
     

  3. #43  
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2014
    Posts
    182
    Quote Originally Posted by Robert Rogoz View Post
    The "review" did not go beyond cosmetic shape of the camera. Indeed it is strange, that a lot of early buyers received cameras in less then pristine shape. However it's hard to call this a review, since not a sigle part is referring to IQ or features.
    Hmm Ok. We get it. A weird case of rightism.
    And the earth is flat.
    Blackmagic quality issues are like cockroaches.
    You see one or two, and you know there's lot more where those came from.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  4. #44  
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    May 2012
    Location
    Germany
    Posts
    1,173
    I don't think all the bad QC experiences are part of some big conspiracy. BMD really needs to figure out what was/is going on there.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  5. #45  
    Quote Originally Posted by Adam E View Post
    After spending the day shooting with the 6K and 4K, I thought I'd share some initial thoughts.

    The 6K is an improvement in every way - detail, motion, noise, highlight roll off, tonality and color are all improved over the 4K. It feels like the G2 of the Pocket cams, tweaked and improved in a lot of little ways that makes for a better image overall.

    Some findings that I didn't expect:

    - 4K noise in low light at 3200 is muddier, with less detail and more chroma noise than the 6K. It's not a huge difference so definitely don't feel like your missing out if you're staying with the 4K, but I am seeing the difference. At the same ISO and f-stop, I prefer the 6K image in low light over the 4K with a speed booster (ex. 6K at f5.6 & 3200iso vs 4K at f5.6 (f4.0 boosted) at 3200iso). The image will be brighter with the speed booster on the pocket, but the noise doesn't look as nice.

    - 2.8K at 120fps is AMAZING. Much better than the 4K's 120fps at HD.

    - I'm glad to be done with speed boosters.

    - If I needed a 3rd cam, I'd get another 6K and not a 4K.


    What's your opinion on this;
    https://www.newsshooter.com/2019/08/...-the-bmpcc-6k/

    If the optical quality is good, I'd be sorely tempted to go for it once I purchase a 6k next year. Unlike the Speedbooster / Viltrox, there shouldn't be any wobbe or play as the optical elements are all fitted inside the camera.. An almost full frame 6k camera for $3 is unbelievable.

    The 2.8k mode will be less cropped too, to boot. Speaking of 2.8k 120FPS, it seems it offers the full wide dynamic range of the 6k modes - and (aside from the crop) there are no disadvantages to it. I'm experimenting with some sample files - and it opens up quite a bit of possibilities!
    Last edited by SottoTerra; 08-25-2019 at 04:10 AM.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  6. #46  
    Senior Member Samuel H's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2012
    Location
    Madrid, Spain
    Posts
    619
    I'd like to see a resolution test with this thing, because it's definitely interesting. Actually, two, one wide open and one stopped down.

    * 25mm f/0.95 on p4k shooting cDNG 4:1 vs 50mm f/1.8 on p6k with magicbooster shooting BRAW 12:1 (similar FoV, DoF and bitrate)
    * Same but with the lenses stopped down to, say, f/3.2 and f/6.5 (so it's closed enough on the m43 lens but not too closed on the FF lens, and still has similar FoV, DoF and bitrate)

    Edit: and I'd like to see corner sharpness as well as center sharpness, because this is an optical thing and results may be different. Also quality of bokeh may be affected by this piece of glass.
    Last edited by Samuel H; 08-26-2019 at 03:22 AM.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  7. #47  
    Quote Originally Posted by SottoTerra View Post
    What's your opinion on this;
    https://www.newsshooter.com/2019/08/...-the-bmpcc-6k/

    If the optical quality is good, I'd be sorely tempted to go for it once I purchase a 6k next year. Unlike the Speedbooster / Viltrox, there shouldn't be any wobbe or play as the optical elements are all fitted inside the camera.. An almost full frame 6k camera for $3 is unbelievable.

    The 2.8k mode will be less cropped too, to boot. Speaking of 2.8k 120FPS, it seems it offers the full wide dynamic range of the 6k modes - and (aside from the crop) there are no disadvantages to it. I'm experimenting with some sample files - and it opens up quite a bit of possibilities!
    I've heard that that LucAdapters has admitted that he can't make the booster as high quality as Metabones, it would be too expensive. So he's probably using the same manufacturer as Viltrox and others. A lot of people are happy with those speed boosters, so I'm sure it'll be a great adapter for a lot of people.

    I'm just not interested though, and that's not just based on the possible negative effects of the extra glass between the sensor and lens.

    I just shot a season of a show using FS7s with speed boosters, and ultimately I consistently had to stop down more to get the look the show needed. I didn't need the look of someone talking in front of a background that is so mushy that it might as well be a flat blury backdrop. I shoot on location, light and dress the backgrounds, and the environment is meant to help tell the story.

    A bigger sensor can be useful for a lot of story telling and I'm sure I'll do more of it, but Super 35 is the sweet spot for most of my work.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  8. #48  
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2016
    Posts
    404
    Quote Originally Posted by Adam E View Post
    I just shot a season of a show using FS7s with speed boosters, and ultimately I consistently had to stop down more to get the look the show needed. I didn't need the look of someone talking in front of a background that is so mushy that it might as well be a flat blury backdrop. I shoot on location, light and dress the backgrounds, and the environment is meant to help tell the story.
    So true. Drives me crazy when DP's shoot wide open constantly. Can we see the set dec please? Art didn't spend hours dressing the scene to have their work turned into a blob.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  9. #49  
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Aug 2014
    Posts
    380
    Quote Originally Posted by Adam E View Post
    I've heard that that LucAdapters has admitted that he can't make the booster as high quality as Metabones, it would be too expensive. So he's probably using the same manufacturer as Viltrox and others.
    Do you have a quote and a link? I've looked for independent third party reviews of the Magicbooster and there are very few. One review I did watch from someone who actually used the Magicbooster in their URSA Mini reported the complete opposite. At 9:13 the gentleman completely refutes your statement that the Magicbooster is anything like cheap Speedbooster knock offs. He seems to prefer it to the Speedbooster. I don't know if that is just because of convenience or also better optical quality.

    Reply With Quote  
     

  10. #50  
    Quote Originally Posted by VidShooter View Post
    Do you have a quote and a link? I've looked for independent third party reviews of the Magicbooster and there are very few. One review I did watch from someone who actually used the Magicbooster in their URSA Mini reported the complete opposite. At 9:13 the gentleman completely refutes your statement that the Magicbooster is anything like cheap Speedbooster knock offs. He seems to prefer it to the Speedbooster. I don't know if that is just because of convenience or also better optical quality.

    i have absolutely nothing to back up what i heard. i would definitely encourage people to test it and come up with their own conclusions
    Reply With Quote  
     

Similar Threads

  1. Replies: 10
    Last Post: 12-07-2017, 05:34 PM
  2. Replies: 35
    Last Post: 04-16-2013, 10:19 AM
  3. For people who ordered from BH.
    By Jeff in forum General Discussion
    Replies: 120
    Last Post: 12-21-2012, 05:46 PM
  4. Replies: 10
    Last Post: 09-26-2012, 04:51 PM
  5. Replies: 0
    Last Post: 04-25-2012, 01:11 PM
Bookmarks
Bookmarks
Posting Permissions
  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •