These are just some first impressions, I feel the dynamic range on the 6K is slightly better but this could also be the Speedbooster on the 4K that could degrade the quality so still testing that. Having the extra field of view on the 4K is nice, but 6K is crazy sharp so there's a trade off. Being able to adapt different mounts on the 4K is awesome, I like to use PL lenses and you can't do that with the 6K version. I plan to do a more in depth video once I play with it a bit more so stay tuned!
Excellent video Armando and Dave! If I had this camera I probably would shoot in RAW all day long. Does this have the ability to have a dummy battery so you can run it forever? I do that with my G85 when I'm making something - I'll shoot an entire session and then go back and edit it later. The trade off is I don't have to worry about the camera but then in post it takes a little longer and eats up a crap ton of space, although scrubbing footage is super easy on my PC.
I don't know, I don't see the dynamic range much different at all. The chart BM released said that the 6K would have about a half stop more in the highlights, exchanging a half-stop from the shadows (and the new firmware will probably switch the 4K to that as well). But I'm even seeing less than I expected in the highlights. The last clip of the old car seems the easiest to compare dynamic range on, and the sky seems to blow out almost identically in both cameras. There seems to be a touch more in the 6K, which is probably the half stop. I'd be interested for you to do a more technical dynamic range test, because I'd say I'm more surprised by how identical the cameras look (besides the obvious sharpness, which it is worth noting that you are zooming in further on the 4k to match the framing on the 6k, which probably exaggerates the sharpness difference a little bit).
If Apple wins their lawsuit seeking to invalidate RED's raw patent , I wouldn't be surprised if the company enters crisis mode and cuts prices of their gear drastically in order to compete with disruptors like Blackmagic.
I think it depends on what you're shooting. I own both a Dragon X and a BMPCC4K. The Dragon is an absolute workhorse for commercial shoots. Color is always spot on. Insane DR and flexibility in post. The BMPCC4K is great for more stylized work like short films or music videos. The price difference is pretty significant though and should play a major factor in choice for most.
Wow, the 6K seems like a really nice step up! Maybe more contrast or saturation on the 6K? The extra details and sharpness are nice, especially for punching in or reframing. Both seem to be even on noise, yeah?
There's a test with sample footage by JSFILMZ which shows that the 6K has one more stop of shadow recovery after downscaling to 4K. That means you'll get more highlight range while having the same noise floor basically.
After years and years working with speed booster footage, I spot it instantly as well, but keep in mind no civilians notice it or care if you get the rest right in camera and in editing.
Nice job! Everyone also remember that these are filmed outdoors so a lot of the comments about color and dynamic range may come from slight changes in the white balance and intensity of the sunlight between switching the cameras out.
Seriously. The first reviews I read was that it wasn't that big of a difference but the 6k is actually pretty substantial difference for skin tones/textures.
unfair test , the lens used on the 6k camera is a sigma , the sharpest zoom lens ever , and you're using a canon EF lens with the 4k version , do a test with a sigma in both cameras :)
Been tempted to get the 4K for a while whoever I’m trying to justify the purchase Vs the film looks... Most of my work ends up on the internet and it seems that at that point 6K even if down sampled doesn’t make a whole lot of difference. I actually like the fact that on the 4K version you gain full frame look like + 1 stop of light when using the metabones adapter. It is smaller and so are files. The fact that you have more recording options on the 4K version as of today makes me want to get 2 X4K for the price of 1 x 6K that has tons of drawbacks IMO. Plus I own several Lumix glass ahhhhh!!! I want to want the 6K but all conclusions leads to the 4K version 😁
I'd love to see a comparison between the Pocket 4k and the Z Cam E2. I've compared them personally and, while both have a great image, I preferred the E2 from a usability/versatility standpoint. Also the E2 does 4k 10bit 160fps at 2:4:1 without cropping on the sensor. Super killer camera and I'd love to see it show up in more comparisons. At $2000 it's incredible what you get.
Amazing comparison vid as always Armando..!!! Can't wait for that BMPCC6K Vs C200 Video, and without that DPAF we know Canon has nothing on the P6K, But it'll be cool to watch!
The 6K by a nice gap. It matches the quality you get from your EOS R + Atomos 10bit setup and C200. I just upgraded my computer to a 4K setup and I was (re)watching some of your video in 4K... Armando you're killing it, the image quality you are posting on UA-cam is PHENOMENAL ! The video with the Ninja V to record your EOS R blew me away, I'm going to buy one (I'll sure do it through this affiliate link). I sold recently my Sony stuff (A7iii and 6400) knowing that new gears were coming out from both Canon and Sony by the end of this year. I kept my EOS R because I think it is far superior (RESULTS, not spec sheet) than anything else existing, and it will be a fantastic B cam when a new better "R" camera will come. After 18 months of working with Canon, Sony and Fuji (X-t3), I just don't understand how people who REALLY TRIED these brands are not making the same move to Canon that you did after your video with Gene (Potato Jet). I want to mention for the people who read this up to this point, that I started enthusiastic videography and photography only 2 years ago, I just don't give a sh*t about brands, and I knew nothing before I tried these enthusiastic cameras available now : there is no match for me... You, Potato Jet, Matti, Peter, Casey,... are publishing the best quality videos on UA-cam (and numbers are confirming it), they all shoot on ...
Great video as usual Armando... Despite the hype in my opinion: Pop a BMPCC specific Metabones XL 0.64 speedbooster on BMPCC 4K with a FullFrame lens and then you have a crop factor of 1.22 and more F stops. It would also improve the low light capabilities. I think if 6k video is a must have then I would go for BMPCC 6K otherwise in most of the factors BMPCC 4K still outshines the 6K bigger, bulkier, more battery & storage hungry sibling...😄😄
Nice video, 6K definitely looks to be sharper (which it should). 6K aside, having a camera that can shoot Prores internally in 4K with having a EF mount and S35 sensor for $2500 is pretty amazing already. Prores in 6K would be nice but for that price can't really complain. Keen to do some tests as well when I get my 6K and compare to my P4K. Cheers
@@ronineditor9920 Yeah I know, I never said otherwise haha. I was referring to the part of the video when they mentioned that Prores in 6K would be nice :)
well zoomed always will look better.... and you guys didn't even go into what you personally liked or didn't like. Would have been nice to know since you used both.
Well that was pretty unscientific. Remove metabones adapter, use a simple passthrough one and move back a bit to compare sensors, not sensor vs sensor+additional glass element. Also maybe show at least a test or two zoomed all the way with downscaling 6K to 4K and then comparing two 4K images, not stretching poor 4K footage all the time?? Dunno, these kinds of videos which are made simply to make them as fast as you can to be on top of the algorithm are a bit annoying because they are useless in most of the cases (like this one).
I see a couple reasons why they used the adapter . 1 so they could use the same lens. 2 because a lot of guys use the meta-bones adapter and have made the case that the 4k is "better" because you can get a wider FOV and aperture. But as we see here it degrades the image slightly. I get what you are saying that it would be nice to see a more direct "sensor to sensor" comparison. but for people using the metabones adapter, this is the video they needed.
I'd say it made sense to use the metabones adapter since 80+% of people looking at the 4K consider it a key part the 4K ownership. Most forums the conversation has been "6k S35 vs 4k w/Speedbooster which is the better buy." Also the sigma 18-35 doesn't have a native MFT mount available. This test made some sense.
Charles Coleman It did make some sense, I agree, but for the sake of sensor comparison it would be nice to have at least few shots that would compare only sensor performances, without introducing any other variables (like Metabones adapter).
Very honest test. Clearly shows all pros and cons of both systems. Obviously clear that 6K BMPCC doesn't kill 4K BMPCC - it is still solid camera and it has much more flexibility for lenses. With 6K you stuck in Canon - EF or EF-S lenses or 100% compatible trough ring adapter. 6K has more details and shallower DOF. But you can only shoot BMRAW so you obligated to use resolve for anything. On 4K version you can easily go even to PL-mount. Edit with any of your software packages, and if you deliver mostly HD with occasional 4K I think 4K BMPCC is better buy.
Seems like the 4K has a tiny bit more of the "filmic" look to my eye... 6K has more of the "Digital video" look, which is obviously to to greater resolution and was not unexpected.
Agreed! That's exactly what made Black Magic stand out amongst comparable cameras. I was looking for something that deviated from that typical crisp/sharp look that so many cameras have without immediately having to resort to vintage lenses. It's softer look makes it cinematic from the get go.
Thanks for the review! Please tell me what gear rings were used for both of your lenses. I see his Sigma lens rings look bigger then the original and I want mines like that
Thanks for this. This helps me decide between the 6k or the 4k+MB. To my eyes I see a huge difference, even on the footage that is not zoomed in insanely close. The choice is clear. 6K.
They are also using different lenses. The sigma on the 6k is known to be pretty damn sharp, where as canon is a bit hazier. But ofc the added resolution adds to the sharpness. 4k to 6k is a lot of pixels.
This is misleading and seems to be pushing people on the 6k. If 2 cameras have a different field of view, you can't just "zoom to match" to compare sharpness. Whichever camera has the wider fov will have a disadvantage in sharpness because it's farther away. Move it closer or use a different focal length so the framing is the same. Let's compare apples to apples. We as viewers want to see the true comparison, not one image zoomed in more than the other.
Darwin Macon if anything the fact that he had the metabones adapter on the 4K was already giving the 4K a huge bump. Apples to apples would be removing the metabones adapter all together and then at that point there would be no point to the video because the 6k would just slaughter the 4K. But the upside is that you can get both of these cameras and upload a test for everyone is you disagree.
@@flyguy8787 the speedbooster actually degrades the image and does not give the 4k the bump. Again, if we're comparing sharpness, eliminate the variables. I have both of these cameras and could do the test as well, but that's not the point. It just bothers me when reviewers do unfair comparisons and influence people, when in reality, at normal viewing distance, the human eye won't see the difference between 4k and 6k.
Nice. It’s a bit hard to tell, but the 6k seems to have slighting different skin tones too right? Or maybe it’s just the way the camera handles exposure ever so slightly different? Maybe i’m just seeing things lol.
Sold my used body for $1100 without the Resolve license. This is a camera that shot $500k worth of client projects, made me close to $5000 in rental fees and is still in short supply (at retail) globally.
Never thought I would say this, but this is why Metabones release the Pocket 4k specific Speedbooster. The pocket 4k was holding it's own sharpness wise until the speedbooster was attached. On it's own the classic ultra speedbooster on a pocket 4k when the depth of field is deep looks good, but the second it gets to shallow depth of field the classic ultra softens, and in the few tests I've seen of the pocket 4k specific speed booster it does not. This video has convinced me I either need to invest into a pocket 4k specific speedbooster or maybe pick up a pocket 6k.
I don't really see any difference, except that when you zoom in, of course the 6K has more detail. But when they're not zoomed, they look the same. I'm looking at it on a 4K monitor. In one scene, the trees in the background were blurred on the 6K, but sharp on the 4K, which could mean that the larger sensor of the 6K is yielding shallower depth of field, or it could be differences in how you set them up.
Honestly if you wanna compare Image quality you guys should it shoot with the same lenses but with a regular adapter and not a Speedbooster so we can see a more acurate and fare represetation of the quality of the BMPC4k, but either way they both look nice!
Huge difference at 0:50 , but otherwise the differences are barely noticable on mobile. Further when I can tell the difference, the softness I suspect is as much from the extra glass softening the image. Clearly unnecessary for youtube footage watched at 1080 on tiny mobile screens. But, the 6k's extra clarity and flexibility will have its place in many other situations. Brilliant!
Many thanks to you and Dave for doing this test. This was the type of test I was waiting for, for someone to zoom in and see the differences between 4K and 6K - which obviously there are lots. However due to the Speedbooster both adding addition glass in between the lens and the sensor and also having a known issue with the BMPCC4K, it would be amazing if you were able to do the same with (as others have said) with the new BMPCC4K specific speedbooster or even a native m43 lens to remove that variable. Thanks again. 👍🏻
But is the 6K also as sharp when approaching the writespeed limit of the media? Even at 30FPS, there can be many issues with consistent writespeed. If you shoot 24fps, yes, then the 6K contain more data per frame, but when you go to 30, 50 and 60fps, the limit of quality per frame is tied to the writespeed. And both cameras have the same writespeed limitations. A more appropriate comparison would be something like the P4K at Q0 and the P6K at Q3.
Hidden Houssseeeee! Down around my neighborhood! Weird to see UA-camrs I watch at local coffee shops. 😂😂😂 also I want that camera so bad. Huge difference in 6K
The 6K looks amazing! I really like being able to shoot 4K, it doesn't slow down my editing software that much unless I go Q0 with it. I wonder what it would be to edit the 6K footage?
It would have been easier to compare the two if you held the shots longer, so we could look at the noise structure instead of timing the cuts to the music. Especially when they were side by side.
Hey Armando - Thx as always! Here's the BIG question: Would you use the Pocket 6K as a B-Cam for your C200? This is what I'm considering...or just continue with the EOS R as your B-Cam? Yes, CLOG with both Canons, OR shoot raw on the C200 & the 6K, then tweak in Resolve. Thoughts, anybody??
Armando! I love how I see little Spider-Man Easter eggs in your videos haha. Are you a web head like me? I’m starting to think so! 😂 haha love the shirt man.
There's no way you can tell the difference on a phone. The two comparisons have different contrast (because different sensors) so it's easy to mistake higher contrast for more sharpness.
The big difference for me is skin tones. Otherwise it's overkill, and few people will admit that their creative vision simply can't get the best of this camera. It astounds me how many of these videos show footage that is simply uninspired and if some of these filmmakers spent more time studying art direction and things that have nothing to do with the technical capabilities of the camera they could produce high quality stuff on existing cameras. Yes if you were going to buy a C200 this is a great buy, but so many of you guys can't actually shoot stuff that is moving or artistic, so who cares? Yes great camera at that price. That's a given. But now we're into overkill screaming for 6k when most people are not moved by the technical but the artistic. Anyway thanks for the comparison: it's convinced me the camera doesn't matter. ;)
I agree the camera is really great for what you get but the extra detail really makes the most difference for wildlife filming in my opinion any type of creative work with controlled lighting shouldn't have you focusing on the pixels but more so on the story and drawing the audience in to keep watching.
Hey Armando. Could you do a review using the same lenses? I really believe that the sigma renders the contrast differently and is sharper as well. Or am I wrong? Definitely thanks for all the awesome content that you put on here.
Notification squad... How you doing Armando.... Commenting right here, right on after long period of time....... But wait, I have been watching your videos ever since I subscribed your channel ☺️😊
Would be interesting to have a comparison with BMPCC6K & BMPCC4K with 0.64 speedbooster (Full Frame equivalent) to compare image quality Great job guys
Just do a 1:1 readout on both and adjust the focal length to match, if you using the 18-35 on the bmpcc 6k set it to 18mm 18 x 1.6 is 28.8 and on the bmpcc 4k set it to 22 which is 22 x 1.3 = 28.6 pretty simple, that's a fair test zooming is not.
@@mondobytes zooming in and scaling changes the resolution, if your testing image quality that's the major factor ! you can't say a) is sharper than b) "as you have in the comments" with that reasoning ! I mean its a given a mft and a super 35 are going to have different compression at the same focal length. but your video title is very ambiguous to what you are exactly comparing. with your aforementioned logic that would make every ff camera sharper than every mft camera !!
Different sensors don't change the compression it changes the field of view because of cropping. Also, I did show a 1:1 readout on both so you people can see what that looks like. The zooming in was also shown to try and match the 4K with the 6K in terms of resolution. It's obviously 6K is going to look sharper, it's not rocket science however I want to see how much of a difference it is and the results speak for themselves.
Solid video. Already sent my 6K back to Adorama (too many limitations with codecs). Not worth it compared to the 4K with Speedbooster. I'd rather get a 2nd 4K and better glass.
Would’ve loved to see the 6K versus the 4K without the speedbooster. I’m more interested in the differences in DoF and field of view between the two sensors than I am mere image quality. Obviously the 6K will be slightly more detailed, as we saw, and the lighting in these tests aren’t similar enough to highlight hue changes or IR pollution.
And now it’s $2,000! I initially planned on getting the 4k, but with that metabones booster which I hear lots of complaints about, it ends up being $2,000 for the 4k anyways. Would rather have the mount built into the camera already with a better sensor/color output.
Shiyang Huang I just tried the angel bird ssd , and even it stops recording after 5 seconds . So as of right now , there’s no option to continuously record on an external drive at 3:1 50fps
Any higher resolution is always better for digital zoom because you have more pixels so you can afford to lose pixels when you zoom in. So it's not a fair comparison.
Given that I blur my BMPCC 4k up to 2-3 times over its normal sharp point (otherwise it looks like video, instead of cinematic), I don't really care about 6k. Film was soft, 1080p-kind of soft. So if you're after an authentic film look (and not the sharp, documentary-style of UA-cam), the bmpcc 4k is plenty enough to zoom and resize etc. No 6k needed. There's a reason why Alexa still rocks it at 3k res. Plus, I can mount a lot more lenses on the MFT (or any other mirrorless mount) than on EF. In fact, the smarter option would have been to go for the EF-M mount on the 6k, and provide an EF adapter too. This would allow proper PL support among many other lenses support. I don't have plans to upgrade to the 6k. Even when TVs would upgrade to 8k, most of my work would still be 4k, because I like the old, soft feel of classic Hollywood movies.
Totally agree with you, I can’t stand the oversharpened digital look of most modern cameras, I love the softer organic film look that looks more like cinema. May I ask what you use to soften your Pocket 4K footage in post? Any other steps you use in post to aid in your cinematic film looks? Cheers.
6K seems to handle skin colors significantly nicer BUT i personally will choose the 4K as my next camera because of the wider field of view with the Metabones 0.71x Ultra. Plus 6K is overkill for most not to even mention the file sizes... Just my opinion though :)
wait... are you for real man? I didn't expect to see much difference... but in your footage, they look so different! the 6K IQ is a lot sharper (at least at the centre), but the 4k looks like it has a higher HDR??? Is it the Metabone getting in the way? is the focusing off on the 4k? Can you recheck your test?
Don’t worry, I just had a client pay $1,200 for an interview shoot that I shot on GH5s in MP4 20mbit codec and had me upload the small file sizes to Dropbox. Clients aren’t asking for 6K or even 4K!! I’m also working on shows for A&E still shooting 1080!!
The 6k should and is definitely sharper. Especially in the face crop. However that 4k looks slightly out of focus too and was cropped even more than the 6k was which isn't a fair comparison. And the contrast of all the images is a bit different which doesn't make sense because you post processed the images from raw. It would have been easy to match contrast levels...
The 4K isn't out of focus, that's most likely due to the speedbooster. The 4K image wasn't cropped either, not sure what you mean? The speedbooster can change the contrast because you're adding another glass element in front of the sensor.
@@mondobytes not cropped? In the close-up you write cropped match on the side of the footage. And speed booster enhance sharpness no detract. Never once seen an image get worse with a booster.
Joshua Son yes, that's the second test to match 6K. Basically how does 4K look when upscaled to match the 6K one. First test is untouched, it's a 1:1 readout. Scientifically regardless of the tests you see online when adding any type of glass in front of the sensor it will degrade the quality period. Optically it's impossible to not have any degradation because no matter what there's now another piece of element in front. Sure there's ways around it by adding sharpness in post production but it's never going to "look" better than the original sensor without anything or else all camera manufacturers would add a "speedbooster" magnification to their sensors to "enhance" the image and they don't because it doesn't.
@@mondobytes . A speed booster is nothing but a detachable lens element. All it does is reduce the focal length of a lens and result in a smaller image circle. However that compression of the focal length has clear and measurable affects on sharpness and it's always an improvement. A speed booster affects the lens. Has fuck all to do with the sensor. Yeah you cropped from a wider field of view on the 4k to match the same field of view on the 6k. So the 6k was cropped 3.5x and the 4k would have been cropped something like four times (your video doesn't say how much) it's not an apples to apples comparison as you cropped one more than the other. You couldnt have used the same zoom on both and adjusted the fov to match at least?
The super 35mm sensor has a shallower and more cinematic look. Even with the speed booster the 4/3 sensor doesn’t look the same. That alone is why I wouldn’t buy the 4K. 6k is cool and all but not a necessary thing.
Exactly, I think the only strong suit with the 6K version is the DoF. I'm not sure that's worth double the price, but one can argue. I believe BM shouldn't have price the 6K the way it is, it's not really in practice the real value for the price ... But I can understand it's their marketing strategy, rather than the real value, because if the price difference between the two cameras were little, they would lose the 4K market, as everyone would be willing to spend a little more for all the other "flashy" features they're offering with the new one....
@@ariax4405 they do. A speed booster is just extra lens elements for your lens. It takes the lens and shortens the focal length. So when you put the .71x speed booster on a 50mm F1.4 that lens becomes a 35mm f1. Not as if it is a 35mm f1. Literally in every single possible sense of the word it becomes a 35mm f1. Which let's you shoot at a closer distance and with a wider aperture than you could with the 50mm. This closer shooting distance and wider aperture absolutely increase the ability to produce shallow dof. This is very well documented and hundreds of thousands of people use these adapters. Using a speed booster and the exact same lens on the 4k and the 6k the 4k will have a wider fov and narrower dof every single time.
@@ariax4405 another way to think about it is that it changes the cameras crop factor from 1.9 to 1.3 or 1.2 (depends on the booster you use) which is larger and again shallower than the 6ks 1.558-1.63x crop (changes depending on your capture resolution and frame rate)
These are just some first impressions, I feel the dynamic range on the 6K is slightly better but this could also be the Speedbooster on the 4K that could degrade the quality so still testing that. Having the extra field of view on the 4K is nice, but 6K is crazy sharp so there's a trade off. Being able to adapt different mounts on the 4K is awesome, I like to use PL lenses and you can't do that with the 6K version. I plan to do a more in depth video once I play with it a bit more so stay tuned!
Would you upload in 6K from now on?
Armando Ferreira I definitely agree with you........ greetings from UK 🇬🇧
Was this with the BMPCC 4K speedbooster or regular m43 speedbooster? if not could you repeat the test with the BMPCC 4K speedbooster?
Excellent video Armando and Dave! If I had this camera I probably would shoot in RAW all day long. Does this have the ability to have a dummy battery so you can run it forever? I do that with my G85 when I'm making something - I'll shoot an entire session and then go back and edit it later. The trade off is I don't have to worry about the camera but then in post it takes a little longer and eats up a crap ton of space, although scrubbing footage is super easy on my PC.
I don't know, I don't see the dynamic range much different at all. The chart BM released said that the 6K would have about a half stop more in the highlights, exchanging a half-stop from the shadows (and the new firmware will probably switch the 4K to that as well). But I'm even seeing less than I expected in the highlights. The last clip of the old car seems the easiest to compare dynamic range on, and the sky seems to blow out almost identically in both cameras. There seems to be a touch more in the 6K, which is probably the half stop.
I'd be interested for you to do a more technical dynamic range test, because I'd say I'm more surprised by how identical the cameras look (besides the obvious sharpness, which it is worth noting that you are zooming in further on the 4k to match the framing on the 6k, which probably exaggerates the sharpness difference a little bit).
the detail when zoomed in at 3.5x on the 6k is exactly what i need for my wild style of music video editing
Yeah I think the 6k is particularly useful for the typical vlogger editing where they make very small crops of particular scenes for comical effect.
decentradical idk if vlogger would be the correct term
I can't believe the quality we're getting out of these little cameras. RED is dead ya'll.
If Apple wins their lawsuit seeking to invalidate RED's raw patent , I wouldn't be surprised if the company enters crisis mode and cuts prices of their gear drastically in order to compete with disruptors like Blackmagic.
I think it depends on what you're shooting. I own both a Dragon X and a BMPCC4K. The Dragon is an absolute workhorse for commercial shoots. Color is always spot on. Insane DR and flexibility in post. The BMPCC4K is great for more stylized work like short films or music videos. The price difference is pretty significant though and should play a major factor in choice for most.
I think the biggest difference is build quality. That's it though!
Wow, the 6K seems like a really nice step up! Maybe more contrast or saturation on the 6K? The extra details and sharpness are nice, especially for punching in or reframing. Both seem to be even on noise, yeah?
There's a test with sample footage by JSFILMZ which shows that the 6K has one more stop of shadow recovery after downscaling to 4K.
That means you'll get more highlight range while having the same noise floor basically.
The only thing that can make a 4K camera image look a little dull
Is a 6k camera
And a RED helium 8k sensor
You can see the speedbooster’s effect of contrast loss, green skin tones, and haze problems.
Yeah you can really see it in the skin tones but I wonder if thats bc of the different sensor or the speedbooster itself?
Isnt it fixable in post?
After years and years working with speed booster footage, I spot it instantly as well, but keep in mind no civilians notice it or care if you get the rest right in camera and in editing.
Nice job! Everyone also remember that these are filmed outdoors so a lot of the comments about color and dynamic range may come from slight changes in the white balance and intensity of the sunlight between switching the cameras out.
Damn! The difference was bigger than I thought. Interested to know how much of that is because of the speedbooster.
Seriously. The first reviews I read was that it wasn't that big of a difference but the 6k is actually pretty substantial difference for skin tones/textures.
same. looking forward to more tests
unfair test , the lens used on the 6k camera is a sigma , the sharpest zoom lens ever , and you're using a canon EF lens with the 4k version , do a test with a sigma in both cameras :)
The quality of these videos is amazing 🌹
BIG FAX
Been tempted to get the 4K for a while whoever I’m trying to justify the purchase Vs the film looks... Most of my work ends up on the internet and it seems that at that point 6K even if down sampled doesn’t make a whole lot of difference.
I actually like the fact that on the 4K version you gain full frame look like + 1 stop of light when using the metabones adapter. It is smaller and so are files. The fact that you have more recording options on the 4K version as of today makes me want to get 2 X4K for the price of 1 x 6K that has tons of drawbacks IMO. Plus I own several Lumix glass ahhhhh!!! I want to want the 6K but all conclusions leads to the 4K version 😁
I'd love to see a comparison between the Pocket 4k and the Z Cam E2. I've compared them personally and, while both have a great image, I preferred the E2 from a usability/versatility standpoint. Also the E2 does 4k 10bit 160fps at 2:4:1 without cropping on the sensor.
Super killer camera and I'd love to see it show up in more comparisons. At $2000 it's incredible what you get.
I am waiting to see what the S6 reviews are like
I wish more channels just showed comparisons like you guys instead of chitchatting... GJ!
Amazing comparison vid as always Armando..!!! Can't wait for that BMPCC6K Vs C200 Video, and without that DPAF we know Canon has nothing on the P6K, But it'll be cool to watch!
Are you guys are editing in final cut? Or DaVinci thank you
YOU CANT EDIT BM RAW IN FINAL CUT
DaVinci Resolve
TheHitBrainiac really? How?
@@MrAndreaGazzo i said cant my g
6K is never something I need but these samples are really impressive
Not going to lie my C200 probably won't be used much in the next couple of months.
Tyler Stalman best one I’ve seen thus far
The 6K by a nice gap. It matches the quality you get from your EOS R + Atomos 10bit setup and C200. I just upgraded my computer to a 4K setup and I was (re)watching some of your video in 4K... Armando you're killing it, the image quality you are posting on UA-cam is PHENOMENAL ! The video with the Ninja V to record your EOS R blew me away, I'm going to buy one (I'll sure do it through this affiliate link).
I sold recently my Sony stuff (A7iii and 6400) knowing that new gears were coming out from both Canon and Sony by the end of this year. I kept my EOS R because I think it is far superior (RESULTS, not spec sheet) than anything else existing, and it will be a fantastic B cam when a new better "R" camera will come.
After 18 months of working with Canon, Sony and Fuji (X-t3), I just don't understand how people who REALLY TRIED these brands are not making the same move to Canon that you did after your video with Gene (Potato Jet). I want to mention for the people who read this up to this point, that I started enthusiastic videography and photography only 2 years ago, I just don't give a sh*t about brands, and I knew nothing before I tried these enthusiastic cameras available now : there is no match for me... You, Potato Jet, Matti, Peter, Casey,... are publishing the best quality videos on UA-cam (and numbers are confirming it), they all shoot on ...
Great video as usual Armando... Despite the hype in my opinion:
Pop a BMPCC specific Metabones XL 0.64 speedbooster on BMPCC 4K with a FullFrame lens and then you have a crop factor of 1.22 and more F stops. It would also improve the low light capabilities. I think if 6k video is a must have then I would go for BMPCC 6K otherwise in most of the factors BMPCC 4K still outshines the 6K bigger, bulkier, more battery & storage hungry sibling...😄😄
Nice video, 6K definitely looks to be sharper (which it should). 6K aside, having a camera that can shoot Prores internally in 4K with having a EF mount and S35 sensor for $2500 is pretty amazing already. Prores in 6K would be nice but for that price can't really complain. Keen to do some tests as well when I get my 6K and compare to my P4K. Cheers
You just create the ProRes in Resolve, super easy. It's an extra step, obviously, but I'd always rather have internal raw over a baked-in file
@@ronineditor9920 Yeah I know, I never said otherwise haha. I was referring to the part of the video when they mentioned that Prores in 6K would be nice :)
Nice video and work.. For black magic 4k .. Wich one you are prefer for me the lens ?
Which cam did you use for filming the vid?
what lenses are you using in this video?
What lenses were used?
Wow. 6K so sharp! Ugh, Armando. Why are you the way you are?? I don’t want to spend more money on a new camera!! Haha
Mark Linsangan It's soooo good!
well zoomed always will look better.... and you guys didn't even go into what you personally liked or didn't like. Would have been nice to know since you used both.
Well that was pretty unscientific.
Remove metabones adapter, use a simple passthrough one and move back a bit to compare sensors, not sensor vs sensor+additional glass element. Also maybe show at least a test or two zoomed all the way with downscaling 6K to 4K and then comparing two 4K images, not stretching poor 4K footage all the time??
Dunno, these kinds of videos which are made simply to make them as fast as you can to be on top of the algorithm are a bit annoying because they are useless in most of the cases (like this one).
I see a couple reasons why they used the adapter . 1 so they could use the same lens. 2 because a lot of guys use the meta-bones adapter and have made the case that the 4k is "better" because you can get a wider FOV and aperture. But as we see here it degrades the image slightly. I get what you are saying that it would be nice to see a more direct "sensor to sensor" comparison. but for people using the metabones adapter, this is the video they needed.
I'd say it made sense to use the metabones adapter since 80+% of people looking at the 4K consider it a key part the 4K ownership. Most forums the conversation has been "6k S35 vs 4k w/Speedbooster which is the better buy." Also the sigma 18-35 doesn't have a native MFT mount available. This test made some sense.
Charles Coleman It did make some sense, I agree, but for the sake of sensor comparison it would be nice to have at least few shots that would compare only sensor performances, without introducing any other variables (like Metabones adapter).
@@Yeeeeaaaanoooo I'd even say its more like 95%+ :O)
Very honest test. Clearly shows all pros and cons of both systems. Obviously clear that 6K BMPCC doesn't kill 4K BMPCC - it is still solid camera and it has much more flexibility for lenses. With 6K you stuck in Canon - EF or EF-S lenses or 100% compatible trough ring adapter. 6K has more details and shallower DOF. But you can only shoot BMRAW so you obligated to use resolve for anything. On 4K version you can easily go even to PL-mount. Edit with any of your software packages, and if you deliver mostly HD with occasional 4K I think 4K BMPCC is better buy.
Thanks for the video guys. Dave, what recording media did you use? Was that the Samsung T5 1 Tb SSD on your camera?
Yes, he was using a Samsung T5 drive.
Thanks Armando.. I will put that drive on my list of purchases.
Please do a Pocket 4k CDNG raw vs Pocket 6k Braw. Thank you!!!
I’m watching this on a iPhone trying to judge. LMAO FML
Solid video. Right to the point with no fluff. Good stuff, keep it up
Is the 4k prores hq cropped on the BMPCC 6k?
Marvel: Infinity war was the most ambitious crossover in history.
Me: Armando Ferreira and Dave Maze colab with BMPCC6K.
The 6k is without a doubt sharper, but I still like the look of the 4k more.
Seems like the 4K has a tiny bit more of the "filmic" look to my eye... 6K has more of the "Digital video" look, which is obviously to to greater resolution and was not unexpected.
Agreed! That's exactly what made Black Magic stand out amongst comparable cameras. I was looking for something that deviated from that typical crisp/sharp look that so many cameras have without immediately having to resort to vintage lenses. It's softer look makes it cinematic from the get go.
same zoom on 6k vs 4k, obviously 6k would look better... maybe the zoom comparison should have been approached differently, cheers
hi iam amazed with 6k how much battery timing
Thanks for the review! Please tell me what gear rings were used for both of your lenses. I see his Sigma lens rings look bigger then the original and I want mines like that
ua-cam.com/video/ketSOY5LHMQ/v-deo.html
@@mondobytes Thanks!!!
Thanks for this. This helps me decide between the 6k or the 4k+MB. To my eyes I see a huge difference, even on the footage that is not zoomed in insanely close. The choice is clear. 6K.
You guys work well together! What type of top handles are using there? I’m always worried about stress on the shoe...
Kondor Blue
Great video...exactly what we needed! Thanks.
Why 6k has sharp footage ? it's due to metabone on 4k ? Which making clips soft
most likely due to the higher resolution plus down sample
They are also using different lenses. The sigma on the 6k is known to be pretty damn sharp, where as canon is a bit hazier. But ofc the added resolution adds to the sharpness. 4k to 6k is a lot of pixels.
Armando,i like the ring rubber on the zoom and focus of the lens,where can i get on for the sigma 50-100?
ua-cam.com/video/ketSOY5LHMQ/v-deo.html
@@mondobytes Thankkk you
This is misleading and seems to be pushing people on the 6k. If 2 cameras have a different field of view, you can't just "zoom to match" to compare sharpness. Whichever camera has the wider fov will have a disadvantage in sharpness because it's farther away. Move it closer or use a different focal length so the framing is the same. Let's compare apples to apples. We as viewers want to see the true comparison, not one image zoomed in more than the other.
Darwin Macon if anything the fact that he had the metabones adapter on the 4K was already giving the 4K a huge bump. Apples to apples would be removing the metabones adapter all together and then at that point there would be no point to the video because the 6k would just slaughter the 4K. But the upside is that you can get both of these cameras and upload a test for everyone is you disagree.
@@flyguy8787 the speedbooster actually degrades the image and does not give the 4k the bump. Again, if we're comparing sharpness, eliminate the variables. I have both of these cameras and could do the test as well, but that's not the point. It just bothers me when reviewers do unfair comparisons and influence people, when in reality, at normal viewing distance, the human eye won't see the difference between 4k and 6k.
Question! How isi t a fair comparison if the 4k is being zoomed in more than the 6k? Would that undoubtedly make the 4k look blurrier and lesser?
Isaac Shrem did you watch the video? I showed both examples to see the comparison of how 4K would also look like to match the resolution of 6K.
Nice. It’s a bit hard to tell, but the 6k seems to have slighting different skin tones too right? Or maybe it’s just the way the camera handles exposure ever so slightly different? Maybe i’m just seeing things lol.
what focus rings are those?
ua-cam.com/video/ketSOY5LHMQ/v-deo.html
@@mondobytes thanks!
Is the BMPCC4K still worth buying now? and will they discount on black Friday? What do you think??
Sold my used body for $1100 without the Resolve license. This is a camera that shot $500k worth of client projects, made me close to $5000 in rental fees and is still in short supply (at retail) globally.
Never thought I would say this, but this is why Metabones release the Pocket 4k specific Speedbooster. The pocket 4k was holding it's own sharpness wise until the speedbooster was attached. On it's own the classic ultra speedbooster on a pocket 4k when the depth of field is deep looks good, but the second it gets to shallow depth of field the classic ultra softens, and in the few tests I've seen of the pocket 4k specific speed booster it does not. This video has convinced me I either need to invest into a pocket 4k specific speedbooster or maybe pick up a pocket 6k.
I don't really see any difference, except that when you zoom in, of course the 6K has more detail. But when they're not zoomed, they look the same. I'm looking at it on a 4K monitor. In one scene, the trees in the background were blurred on the 6K, but sharp on the 4K, which could mean that the larger sensor of the 6K is yielding shallower depth of field, or it could be differences in how you set them up.
Oh I've been there and taken many pics!! I definitely have to try the "Hidden Cafe" place. Nice video too!
Honestly if you wanna compare Image quality you guys should it shoot with the same lenses but with a regular adapter and not a Speedbooster so we can see a more acurate and fare represetation of the quality of the BMPC4k, but either way they both look nice!
Huge difference at 0:50 , but otherwise the differences are barely noticable on mobile. Further when I can tell the difference, the softness I suspect is as much from the extra glass softening the image. Clearly unnecessary for youtube footage watched at 1080 on tiny mobile screens. But, the 6k's extra clarity and flexibility will have its place in many other situations. Brilliant!
Just curious, do you not do smartphones reviews anymore?
Haven't done it in forever lol
@@mondobytes
Missed the good ol days but I also admired your new passion 👍🏾
What the crop factor for fhd in 6k model?
what camera used to shot this video
SeeWhatYouSee Canon C200
1:59 4k distant trees are sharper than 6k, which means that the 4k radiator mesh will be blurred, the zoom is not there ...
Many thanks to you and Dave for doing this test. This was the type of test I was waiting for, for someone to zoom in and see the differences between 4K and 6K - which obviously there are lots. However due to the Speedbooster both adding addition glass in between the lens and the sensor and also having a known issue with the BMPCC4K, it would be amazing if you were able to do the same with (as others have said) with the new BMPCC4K specific speedbooster or even a native m43 lens to remove that variable.
Thanks again. 👍🏻
But is the 6K also as sharp when approaching the writespeed limit of the media? Even at 30FPS, there can be many issues with consistent writespeed.
If you shoot 24fps, yes, then the 6K contain more data per frame, but when you go to 30, 50 and 60fps, the limit of quality per frame is tied to the writespeed. And both cameras have the same writespeed limitations. A more appropriate comparison would be something like the P4K at Q0 and the P6K at Q3.
Hidden Houssseeeee! Down around my neighborhood! Weird to see UA-camrs I watch at local coffee shops. 😂😂😂 also I want that camera so bad. Huge difference in 6K
The 6K looks amazing! I really like being able to shoot 4K, it doesn't slow down my editing software that much unless I go Q0 with it. I wonder what it would be to edit the 6K footage?
*HI GUYS, -> PLEASE, what is the handle and the SSD support you put on your BMPCC 6K without a cage?? I need the same! ☺️ THANKS*
It's from Kondor Blue link in description
You should watch out with putting it straight on the camera as Dave does. In the manual of the BMPCC4K you can find that this isn't recommended.
It would have been easier to compare the two if you held the shots longer, so we could look at the noise structure instead of timing the cuts to the music. Especially when they were side by side.
One day UA-cam might have a pause button.... Not holding my breath though. :P
This makes me want a RED POCKET CINEMA camera. But I’ll take that BMPCC6K any day
Hey Armando - Thx as always! Here's the BIG question: Would you use the Pocket 6K as a B-Cam for your C200? This is what I'm considering...or just continue with the EOS R as your B-Cam? Yes, CLOG with both Canons, OR shoot raw on the C200 & the 6K, then tweak in Resolve. Thoughts, anybody??
Armando! I love how I see little Spider-Man Easter eggs in your videos haha. Are you a web head like me? I’m starting to think so! 😂 haha love the shirt man.
without a doubt, the 6k is definitely sharper. Although on mobile its hard to tell! UA-cam PLZ UPGRADE MOBILE TO 4k atleast
It only lets you if your phone is 4k
There's no way you can tell the difference on a phone. The two comparisons have different contrast (because different sensors) so it's easy to mistake higher contrast for more sharpness.
The big difference for me is skin tones. Otherwise it's overkill, and few people will admit that their creative vision simply can't get the best of this camera. It astounds me how many of these videos show footage that is simply uninspired and if some of these filmmakers spent more time studying art direction and things that have nothing to do with the technical capabilities of the camera they could produce high quality stuff on existing cameras. Yes if you were going to buy a C200 this is a great buy, but so many of you guys can't actually shoot stuff that is moving or artistic, so who cares? Yes great camera at that price. That's a given. But now we're into overkill screaming for 6k when most people are not moved by the technical but the artistic. Anyway thanks for the comparison: it's convinced me the camera doesn't matter. ;)
I agree the camera is really great for what you get but the extra detail really makes the most difference for wildlife filming in my opinion any type of creative work with controlled lighting shouldn't have you focusing on the pixels but more so on the story and drawing the audience in to keep watching.
This is great if you already have canon gear!
theory8sf you are not lying
Hey Armando. Could you do a review using the same lenses? I really believe that the sigma renders the contrast differently and is sharper as well. Or am I wrong? Definitely thanks for all the awesome content that you put on here.
Jeury Tavares we did use the same lens, you must have missed it @0:16 lower third on left.
Notification squad... How you doing Armando.... Commenting right here, right on after long period of time....... But wait, I have been watching your videos ever since I subscribed your channel ☺️😊
Thanks fam appreciate the support!
Would be interesting to have a comparison with BMPCC6K & BMPCC4K with 0.64 speedbooster (Full Frame equivalent) to compare image quality
Great job guys
Just do a 1:1 readout on both and adjust the focal length to match, if you using the 18-35 on the bmpcc 6k set it to 18mm 18 x 1.6 is 28.8 and on the bmpcc 4k set it to 22 which is 22 x 1.3 = 28.6 pretty simple, that's a fair test zooming is not.
Peter Lunny doesn't work like that, changing the focal length changes the compression of the image.
@@mondobytes zooming in and scaling changes the resolution, if your testing image quality that's the major factor ! you can't say a) is sharper than b) "as you have in the comments" with that reasoning ! I mean its a given a mft and a super 35 are going to have different compression at the same focal length. but your video title is very ambiguous to what you are exactly comparing. with your aforementioned
logic that would make every ff camera sharper than every mft camera !!
Different sensors don't change the compression it changes the field of view because of cropping. Also, I did show a 1:1 readout on both so you people can see what that looks like. The zooming in was also shown to try and match the 4K with the 6K in terms of resolution. It's obviously 6K is going to look sharper, it's not rocket science however I want to see how much of a difference it is and the results speak for themselves.
I’m about to buy but 3.3 crop of the 120 FPS scares me. I is usable in the most cases? I do travel videos.
Good job ! Thank you for this side by side comparison. Very helpful ! (Finally i think a Bmpcc4k with a speedbooster will be fine for me.)
Solid video. Already sent my 6K back to Adorama (too many limitations with codecs). Not worth it compared to the 4K with Speedbooster. I'd rather get a 2nd 4K and better glass.
Would’ve loved to see the 6K versus the 4K without the speedbooster. I’m more interested in the differences in DoF and field of view between the two sensors than I am mere image quality. Obviously the 6K will be slightly more detailed, as we saw, and the lighting in these tests aren’t similar enough to highlight hue changes or IR pollution.
6K. Of course. Super 35MM RAW for $2,500 and high ISO. No brainer. 🤓
And now it’s $2,000! I initially planned on getting the 4k, but with that metabones booster which I hear lots of complaints about, it ends up being $2,000 for the 4k anyways. Would rather have the mount built into the camera already with a better sensor/color output.
@@Julian-tn4lp Most def. 😎
Those cameras are absolutely incredible
How are people going to comments on video quality when none of y’all have a 6k monitor! I bet 96% are watching this on a phone screen.
I'm watching on my old tube TV just to mess with my mind.
Skin tones looks great in 6k
that's 6k with a super 35 sensor unlike the Blackmagic pocket 4k
so much detail in 6k..wew
Yeah it's pretty crazy!
Jimmy Domunih yes indeed man reading all these comments lol just satisfies my hunger to get mine in the mail lmfao I’m a nerd lol
Is that necessary good?
great test!
I cannot continually shoot 6k raw 3:1 at 50fps with T5 ssd. Is there any storage works with it?
Shiyang Huang I just tried the angel bird ssd , and even it stops recording after 5 seconds . So as of right now , there’s no option to continuously record on an external drive at 3:1 50fps
The 6K better when zoomed especially on some shots, better skin tones and details
Any higher resolution is always better for digital zoom because you have more pixels so you can afford to lose pixels when you zoom in. So it's not a fair comparison.
Given that I blur my BMPCC 4k up to 2-3 times over its normal sharp point (otherwise it looks like video, instead of cinematic), I don't really care about 6k. Film was soft, 1080p-kind of soft. So if you're after an authentic film look (and not the sharp, documentary-style of UA-cam), the bmpcc 4k is plenty enough to zoom and resize etc. No 6k needed. There's a reason why Alexa still rocks it at 3k res. Plus, I can mount a lot more lenses on the MFT (or any other mirrorless mount) than on EF. In fact, the smarter option would have been to go for the EF-M mount on the 6k, and provide an EF adapter too. This would allow proper PL support among many other lenses support. I don't have plans to upgrade to the 6k. Even when TVs would upgrade to 8k, most of my work would still be 4k, because I like the old, soft feel of classic Hollywood movies.
Totally agree with you, I can’t stand the oversharpened digital look of most modern cameras, I love the softer organic film look that looks more like cinema.
May I ask what you use to soften your Pocket 4K footage in post? Any other steps you use in post to aid in your cinematic film looks? Cheers.
@@alchemymagick Thanks! I have a tutorial on my channel.
6K seems to handle skin colors significantly nicer BUT i personally will choose the 4K as my next camera because of the wider field of view with the Metabones 0.71x Ultra. Plus 6K is overkill for most not to even mention the file sizes...
Just my opinion though :)
wait... are you for real man? I didn't expect to see much difference... but in your footage, they look so different!
the 6K IQ is a lot sharper (at least at the centre), but the 4k looks like it has a higher HDR???
Is it the Metabone getting in the way? is the focusing off on the 4k? Can you recheck your test?
I'm viewing in in UA-cam 4k from a 27" iMac btw
Meanwhile I'm here rocking 1080p 60FPS.
Michael Nguyen you Gucci bro. If you don’t have a need to upgrade don’t. Just enjoy other ppls videos
Same, even 4k isnt fully there yet if you're a creator, 6k is overkill if u ask me
Don’t worry, I just had a client pay $1,200 for an interview shoot that I shot on GH5s in MP4 20mbit codec and had me upload the small file sizes to Dropbox. Clients aren’t asking for 6K or even 4K!! I’m also working on shows for A&E still shooting 1080!!
The 6k should and is definitely sharper. Especially in the face crop. However that 4k looks slightly out of focus too and was cropped even more than the 6k was which isn't a fair comparison. And the contrast of all the images is a bit different which doesn't make sense because you post processed the images from raw. It would have been easy to match contrast levels...
The 4K isn't out of focus, that's most likely due to the speedbooster. The 4K image wasn't cropped either, not sure what you mean? The speedbooster can change the contrast because you're adding another glass element in front of the sensor.
@@mondobytes not cropped? In the close-up you write cropped match on the side of the footage. And speed booster enhance sharpness no detract. Never once seen an image get worse with a booster.
Joshua Son yes, that's the second test to match 6K. Basically how does 4K look when upscaled to match the 6K one. First test is untouched, it's a 1:1 readout. Scientifically regardless of the tests you see online when adding any type of glass in front of the sensor it will degrade the quality period. Optically it's impossible to not have any degradation because no matter what there's now another piece of element in front. Sure there's ways around it by adding sharpness in post production but it's never going to "look" better than the original sensor without anything or else all camera manufacturers would add a "speedbooster" magnification to their sensors to "enhance" the image and they don't because it doesn't.
@@mondobytes
. A speed booster is nothing but a detachable lens element. All it does is reduce the focal length of a lens and result in a smaller image circle. However that compression of the focal length has clear and measurable affects on sharpness and it's always an improvement. A speed booster affects the lens. Has fuck all to do with the sensor.
Yeah you cropped from a wider field of view on the 4k to match the same field of view on the 6k. So the 6k was cropped 3.5x and the 4k would have been cropped something like four times (your video doesn't say how much) it's not an apples to apples comparison as you cropped one more than the other.
You couldnt have used the same zoom on both and adjusted the fov to match at least?
THANKS so helpful
If you can't get GORGEOUS shots with the 4k then it's not the camera lol
Skully Reacts facts
@thehitbrainiac agrees
6k is obv more detailed when zoomed in but that makes very little difference 1:1. The speed boosters make the P4K a better buy in my book.
I really love the BlackMagic Colorscience.
Sigma 18-35mm is a beast on both 4k/6k
The super 35mm sensor has a shallower and more cinematic look. Even with the speed booster the 4/3 sensor doesn’t look the same. That alone is why I wouldn’t buy the 4K. 6k is cool and all but not a necessary thing.
Exactly, I think the only strong suit with the 6K version is the DoF. I'm not sure that's worth double the price, but one can argue. I believe BM shouldn't have price the 6K the way it is, it's not really in practice the real value for the price ... But I can understand it's their marketing strategy, rather than the real value, because if the price difference between the two cameras were little, they would lose the 4K market, as everyone would be willing to spend a little more for all the other "flashy" features they're offering with the new one....
@@ariax4405 yet with speed boosters the 4k has shallower dof when you need it
Joshua Son I don’t think speedboosters affect DoF, I think it only gives you a stop of light and a wider field of view. But I wish that’s true
@@ariax4405 they do.
A speed booster is just extra lens elements for your lens. It takes the lens and shortens the focal length.
So when you put the .71x speed booster on a 50mm F1.4 that lens becomes a 35mm f1. Not as if it is a 35mm f1. Literally in every single possible sense of the word it becomes a 35mm f1. Which let's you shoot at a closer distance and with a wider aperture than you could with the 50mm. This closer shooting distance and wider aperture absolutely increase the ability to produce shallow dof.
This is very well documented and hundreds of thousands of people use these adapters. Using a speed booster and the exact same lens on the 4k and the 6k the 4k will have a wider fov and narrower dof every single time.
@@ariax4405 another way to think about it is that it changes the cameras crop factor from 1.9 to 1.3 or 1.2 (depends on the booster you use) which is larger and again shallower than the 6ks 1.558-1.63x crop (changes depending on your capture resolution and frame rate)
6k sharper image more resolution to play with in post and the full frame gives that full look
That wider FoV on the 4K with the 0.71x speedbooster though >
Very nice little music
I love San Juan Capistrano!!
p4k out of focus for sure. p4k is not that soft
JSFILMZ Nope, tripled checked focus it's just that when you compare it to 6K footage it looks bad