Video summary

EVERYONE is WRONG About the Blackmagic PYXIS 6K! [Review]

Main summary

Key takeaways

Product Review

Product overview (Blackmagic PYXIS 6K)

The video reviews the Blackmagic PYXIS 6K, arguing that much online criticism is exaggerated. It presents the camera as offering strong value, while noting that it has important workflow/rigging needs and some feature limitations typical of a cinema “box” camera.

Key features mentioned

  • Strong image flexibility / “plenty of dynamic range” for editing (claimed to compete with many cinema cameras).
  • Menu system praised (designed for menu access during on-set monitoring).
  • Rolling shutter present, cited as ~18 ms, with comparisons to other cameras.
  • Press RAW / BRAW workflow supported, but framed as a potential limitation if you don’t use DaVinci Resolve.
  • Frame rate limits:
    • 6K: up to 30 fps
    • 4K: up to 60 fps
    • 120 fps only in 1080p
  • No internal ND filters (criticized as missing; alternatives exist).
  • “Box camera” shooting style: requires rigging, monitoring, power, and media.

Main pros (as stated in the video)

  • Excellent value for price: the reviewer calls $2,295 a good price and says “what you get… is amazing.”
  • Good low-light results when exposed/shot correctly
    • It’s not positioned as a “low-light beast” like some Sony bodies, but the reviewer shows footage and argues that low-light complaints often come from misunderstanding exposure/light.
  • Dynamic range is more than sufficient
    • Mentions real-world testing vs marketing, and argues that small differences (e.g., 12.7 vs 13.2 stops) aren’t the deciding factor.
  • Rolling shutter is not as catastrophic as tests suggest
    • The reviewer claims comparisons show other production cameras have similar or worse numbers.
  • Gyro stabilization helps with rolling shutter concerns (according to the video).
  • New USB monitor option mentioned
    • Can power via USB, which the reviewer says avoids bulky monitor battery solutions.
  • Build quality / rigging options emphasized
    • Presented as more “pro” than the idea that it’s simply a rebranded cinema camera.

Main cons (as stated in the video)

  • Not usable “out of the box” for most buyers
    • Requires rigging/power/monitoring/media.
    • Extra costs can add up quickly.
  • Expensive monitoring requirements
    • Notes the camera has SDI, and many HDMI monitors won’t plug in easily.
    • Optional EVF mentioned as very expensive (~$1,500).
  • Media cost
    • Example: CFexpress card supplied is fast (1TB), but other cards add cost.
  • Rolling shutter exists (~18 ms) and can be a deal-breaker for some work.
  • Press RAW / BRAW dependency risk
    • If you don’t use DaVinci Resolve, editing can be inconvenient.
  • No internal ND filters
    • The reviewer wishes it had internal NDs, saying drop-in solutions exist but internal would be easier.
  • Slow-motion limits
    • For 120 fps, you must drop to 1080p, not 4K/6K.

Low-light discussion (how the reviewer reframes criticism)

The reviewer strongly disagrees with claims that the PYXIS 6K is “useless” in low light. They argue:

  • Many people misunderstand how to expose sensors and light.
  • It’s not meant to “turn night into day” like some Sony cameras.
  • Properly exposed footage can still look good, even in extreme low-light examples shown.

Comparison points

  • Sony FX3 / A7S III have built-in noise reduction, which the reviewer says affects direct comparisons.
  • Sony can handle higher ISOs:
    • Cites A7S III performing to ISO 12,800
    • Notes PYXIS shows major noise differences around ISO 800

Dynamic range debate (marketing vs reality)

  • The reviewer acknowledges claims like ~13 stops vs Sony 15 stops.
  • They argue:
    • Sony’s 15-stop figure is advertised, while real testing shows lower numbers.
    • Small differences (like half a stop) aren’t crucial because editing and exposure matter more.
  • Bottom line: the PYXIS has plenty of dynamic range for cinematic work.

Rolling shutter debate (and comparisons)

  • Rolling shutter cited as ~18 ms.
  • Comparisons made:
    • Sony FX9 estimated at ~20–21 ms
    • Another Sony body (“burrito” mentioned) cited at ~18 ms
  • Conclusion:
    • The problem is exaggerated by tests and not automatically disqualifying.
  • Gyro stabilization is mentioned as helpful.

Workflow / editing notes

  • Viewer stresses that noise reduction may be automatic in Resolve for shown examples; manual NR can further improve results.
  • BRAW support
    • If you don’t want to work in DaVinci Resolve, BRAW could be a sticking point unless you transcode.

Comparisons made (explicit)

  • Blackmagic PYXIS 6K vs Sony FX3 / A7S III
    • FX3/A7S III: better for “low-light beast” expectations due to built-in noise reduction and higher usable ISO headroom.
    • PYXIS: needs correct exposure; NR/appearance depends more on post workflow.
  • Rolling shutter comparisons
    • PYXIS (~18 ms) vs Sony FX9 (~20–21 ms) and another Sony body (~18 ms).
  • “Same sensor as Blackmagic Cinema Camera 6K” argument
    • Reviewer says sensor similarity doesn’t mean camera identity:
      • Different tool, different build quality, rigging ecosystem, power options, CFexpress slots, etc.
    • Image may be similar, but cameras are positioned differently.

Unique points list (distinct claims mentioned)

  1. Comment sections are polarized: “offended” vs “adore.”
  2. Reviewer was sent the camera by Blackmagic and liked it after returning it.
  3. Price: $2,295 is described as “cheap”/good value.
  4. As a box camera, it requires rigging; it isn’t truly “out of the box.”
  5. Extra costs include:
    • Battery/VMount
    • DTAP cables (~$40 each mentioned)
    • EVF cost mentioned (~$1,500) and preference for monitor
    • Monitor compatibility issues (SDI only; HDMI monitor not directly usable)
    • CFexpress cards (1TB Angelbird mentioned; ~ $300 claimed)
  6. Total cost could reach ~$5,000–$6,000 if buying everything new (reviewer estimate).
  7. Low-light complaints are often exaggerated or incorrect due to exposure misunderstanding.
  8. Demonstrated footage in “extreme low light” looks good to the reviewer.
  9. PYXIS isn’t a low-light beast like A7S III/FX3, but it’s still usable.
  10. Direct Sony comparisons must account for built-in noise reduction on Sony bodies.
  11. Sony A7S III can handle up to ISO 12,800; PYXIS shows a major noise jump around ISO 800.
  12. DaVinci Resolve automatic NR can improve appearance vs manual NR.
  13. People expect “night turned into day,” which the reviewer says is unreasonable.
  14. Dynamic range claims: some say 13 stops vs Sony 15 stops advertised.
  15. Sony’s advertised vs real testing dynamic range differs; small stop differences aren’t crucial.
  16. Dynamic range is said to be sufficient for editing/cinematic results.
  17. Blackmagic markets the camera assuming use with a monitor during filming; the menu system is praised.
  18. No flip-out screen; alternatives suggested (A7S III/FX3/R5), plus a USB-powered monitor option (~$300 mentioned).
  19. Rolling shutter exists; estimated ~18 ms.
  20. Rolling shutter comparisons: FX9 ~20–21 ms, another Sony ~18 ms.
  21. Rolling shutter severity may be overstated by worst-case tests; reviewer says gyro stabilization helps.
  22. BRAW/Press RAW workflow dependency on DaVinci Resolve is a potential downside.
  23. Frame rate limits: 6K 30 fps, 4K 60 fps, 120 fps only 1080p.
  24. Reviewer wishes for internal NDs; drop-in solutions exist.
  25. Internal NDs likely omitted to keep price down.
  26. Sensor age/similarity to Cinema Camera 6K is mentioned, but the reviewer says it matters less than image quality.
  27. “Same sensor = same camera” is rejected; build quality, rigging options, batteries, CFexpress slots differ.
  28. Reviewer stance: not a brand-loyalist; different tools fit different projects (documentary example).
  29. Overall: great camera for many, not perfect and not for everyone.
  30. Reviewer suggests it may push competitors to improve value for small filmmakers.

Speaker breakdown

  • Primary speaker/reviewer (single main voice)
    • Provides the full review, price/value argument, workflow discussion, low-light framing, dynamic range/rolling shutter rebuttals, and comparisons to Sony FX3/A7S III/FX9.
  • Referenced third parties (no additional speakers speaking directly in subtitles)
    • Team 2 Films: quoted framing—“not a no-light camera like A7S3/FX3; it’s a low-light camera.”
    • Comment sections / online tests: referenced as the basis for rolling shutter and dynamic range debates.
    • Blackmagic Design: credited for sending the camera and for the USB monitor product.

Overall verdict / recommendation

Recommended for filmmakers who want cinematic flexibility and strong editing latitude at a low-ish entry price for cinema-style hardware—but understand it’s a rigging/workflow camera with added accessory costs, no internal ND, rolling shutter limits, and Sony-like low-light expectations shouldn’t be assumed.

Original video