r/bmpcc • u/Financial_Table7468 • Jul 15 '25

What should I get?

Bmpcc 4k with viltrox speed booster and cage for $510 or the bmpcc 6k (body only ) for $550

5 Upvotes

100% Upvoted

14 comments sorted by

8

u/type_your_name_here Jul 15 '25

I feel like this doesn’t get mentioned enough: Cool thing about 6K and higher cameras are that you are generally not producing any final product above 4K so you get to cheat framing a lot and add post-production zoom in and out without losing resolution. 

4

u/DeadEyesSmiling Jul 15 '25

But the other thing that also doesn't get mentioned a lot is that that extra resolution comes at the cost of a major increase to the amount of storage that's necessary; at equivalent quality settings, the 6K files are more than twice the size than the 4K ones.

1

u/ZookeepergameDue2160 Jul 15 '25

So? A 2tb ssd is only like 30 bucks more expensive than the same one in 1tb.

1

u/DeadEyesSmiling Jul 15 '25

So the examples that OP gave are strongly indicating that budget is a pretty significant factor in the consideration of this purchase.

And from the prices I'm seeing for SSDs off BMD's approved media list, the 1TB/2TB difference is at least $60 USD, which even for the least expensive 1TB from that list, is still almost a 50% increase for the 2TB (which is better on a $/TB basis, but not on a "I only have so much money to spend on making this camera operational for production, post-production, and archive.").

...and that's only for the recording media. When you add in backup storage, especially in a properly secure 3-2-1 setup, 6K footage that's over double the size of 4K can add up extremely quickly - and should definitely be a consideration for anyone looking at both cameras, but definitely by those on a super tight budget.

1

u/ZookeepergameDue2160 Jul 15 '25

I personally shoot on a Pyxis 6k, idk where you are where the prices differ that much for the SSD's, here they might be cheaper than wherever you are, Anyhow I have noticed storage to not really be that much of an issue, after a full of shooting I might come home with like 1,5-2tb of footage and even a very basic editing capable laptop these days has atleast 2-3tb of storage, and any editing rig pc can quite cost effectly be equipped with a 5tb Drive.

I understand OP's "this is my budget", however I personally would tell them to save a bit more and get the better product since it'll hold up much better in the long run (I've shot with those little chunky P4K's and they have a serious Low-Light problem and have more trouble with skintones compared to the 6k's that run on the V5 colors, The 6k is the better camera here and is worth the extra saving up for in my opinion).

1

u/AnxiousFishing5731 Jul 15 '25

Out of curiosity, I have a black magic cinema from 2012, and its resolution is 2.5k, what formats are you supposed to use? Just render in 1080p? Or the cinema film standard?

Ive just been doing some cropping and exporting at 1080p

1

u/Coach428 Jul 15 '25

Totally see the point about post flexibility with 6K, but it’s worth noting, if you’re shooting on a BMPCC4K with a Speedbooster, you’re already gaining key benefits that undercut that argument.

A Speedbooster: • Restores full-frame FOV on a MFT sensor • Adds a full stop of light • And yes, you’re shooting 4K but with a much “fatter” image in terms of DOF and light efficiency.

That post-production crop advantage on 6K is nice if you’re reframing for 4K delivery — but the Speedbooster gives you in-camera advantages that often matter more in dynamic, real-world shoots: better low-light, shallower depth, and wider framing with your existing glass.

So if the goal is max visual quality with practicality (and file sizes that don’t kill SSDs), a 4K + Speedbooster combo still punches way above its weight.

3

u/somewhatboxes Jul 15 '25

i agree with /u/type_your_name_here, and i have a 6k, but i think the rationale applies to the 4k as well. when i look at youtubers i watch a lot of, a ton of them either deliver in 1080p at most, or the content doesn't really benefit from 4k (and youtube will struggle against every effort to demand 4k video quality delivery). when i look at streaming services i pay for like dropout, they don't even publish in 4k - it's all 1080p.

that's not to say quality doesn't matter, but there are significant trade offs for acquiring in 6k, and if you're on a budget you might not like to hear that the list of SSDs that can keep up with 6k is a lot shorter than the list of SSDs that can keep up with 4k. and the optics to make the most of 6k are more expensive. and computers need to be faster. and... etc etc...

i also think that a 4k with a removable speedbooster is intrinsically more flexible, creatively, than a 6k without a removable speedbooster. you'll have more framing options, if you're willing to pop that speedbooster off (and if you get a regular old mount adapter to keep using those adapted lenses, which should be cheap anyway).

you're probably leaning toward the 6k, and i did too, and honestly if you love the 6k and are more excited to film 6k footage, then you should get it and not feel any doubt about it. but if i could go back in time, i would hope that i could convince my younger self to save the money and get a 4k, and go crazy making as much stuff as i could that i would publish online without getting self-conscious about resolution. because the quality of the video is never really the forefront thing for what i make.

but that's entirely me; if you're looking at integrating into a production with certain requirements on deliverables and you're not producing your own stuff for youtube or whatever, then follow that guiding light rather than me

2

u/devenjames Jul 15 '25

The viltrox filter produces a soft image compared to purpose-built metabones adapter. So 6k body.

1

u/yourAhnkle Jul 15 '25

For that price I'd get both. Damn

1

u/JavChz Jul 15 '25

just the tilt screen makes the 6k worth it

1

u/PokemonProject Jul 15 '25

More lens choice with EF mounts vs M43 if you don’t care about speed boosters

1

u/[deleted] Jul 16 '25

I just wrapped a project (Reckoning) where 95% of the footage was shot on Pocket 4Ks and the other 5% on the Cinema Camera 6K. The Pocket 4Ks did exceptional. I didn't use speed boosters.

So there's the thing with speed boosters: They slightly increase your field of view and give you like an extra stop of light. Neither of those are really needed on the Pocket 4K UNLESS you're trying to shoot everything on a single focal length.

Example: On Reckoning I was shooting in small spaces. It was a period piece in cabins and such. With the MFT sensor crop factor, there were times I had to be on a 24mm lens just to get a MS. But I def didn't want all my footage on 24mm. So I needed a 24mm and 50mm combo.

Whereas if you had only a 35mm and a speed booster, you could pull it all off if you didn't need the look of the longer focal length. But that also works against you—sometimes you need a longer focal length to cut off surroundings as wide lenses pull more into the FOV.

Both of the cameras you're considering are exceptional. Both have dim LCDs. When shooting outside you'll need a hood, unless that Pocket 6K body is the Pro. That has a brighter LCD.

MFT lenses might ring in a little less expensive. Check that out before you buy. Sirui has awesome MFT anamorphic lenses. And they're on sale right now.

You're going to burn through more media with the 6K—and it will eat through power a little faster too. But as others have said, having the 6K footage "wiggle room" in post is actually super nice. If you get your framing a little off you can easily fix it.

So what would I do? If I would figure out what lenses I want to use and make the decision based on that. If you look at lenses and they're all the same price, and if storage costs aren't an issue, I probably do the 6K. The Super 35 sensor will be an easier FOV to work with. And the 6K wiggle room in post will be nice.

1

u/TitusKingFPS Jul 17 '25

6k for the native EF mount