[watchingskyfallatm]

Hi fellow Pentax fans,

I was hoping for some advice from those of you who use the K-3 for shooting video. I'm a digital producer and make videos for the web, usually YouTube. I have a K-50 for stills and while it's not great for video, I love the feel, functionality and the availability of classic glass.

I wanted to ask whether you think the K-3 would be a good purchase for video making? I've watched a lot of the footage on YouTube, as well as comparisons with other DSLRs, and it looks great, but it's not always easy to tell given YouTube's compression. At the moment I'm shooting on an oooooold Canon 550D so obviously anything is going to be an improvement, but basically I wanted to know:

- would you recommend the K-3 for someone shooting primarily video?
- should I get the K-3 instead of for example a second-hand 5D mkii?
- does it matter that it's not full frame?
- for those of you who shoot a lot of video, what are the advantages/disadvantages?
- are there AA battery pack converter thingies available for the K-3? Ie the ones that take 3 AAs and slide into the battery compartment? Or would I be looking at one of those base-mounted things?
- any other advice/suggestions?

Thanks!

[Steve.Ledger]

Pentax is generally regarded as 'meh' for video.
You might be better advised to look at another brand.
Only the grip for the K-3 can take AAA batteries, not the body.

[fgaudet]

- would you recommend the K-3 for someone shooting primarily video?

Sorry to say but Pentax isn't up to par with most other brands regarding video, you can get great results with a K3 for sure (even the K-50 isn't all that bad) but it is not your best option for the price IMO.

- should I get the K-3 instead of for example a second-hand 5D mkii?

The 5DmkII is still regarded as great for video. But proper lenses for it will cost you.

- does it matter that it's not full frame?

Not touching this one...

- for those of you who shoot a lot of video, what are the advantages/disadvantages?

Again, someone else could elaborate on this one

- are there AA battery pack converter thingies available for the K-3? Ie the ones that take 3 AAs and slide into the battery compartment? Or would I be looking at one of those base-mounted things?

You need to get a battery grip to be able to use AA... 6 of them by the way (and 4 for the K-50, not 3) But if you're planning on using only for video, you should consider an AC adapter.

- any other advice/suggestions?

At the moment Panasonic gets a lot of hype with their GH4, even the older GH3 will give you very good results. Being an M4/3 it opens you to a whole whack of lenses from a lot of manufacturer. And with a proper adapter you can use pretty much any lens on it.

It looks like you want to "up your game" but you should ask yourself what you really need. A 5DmkII or mkIII can give you close to motion picture quality footage but isn't it a bit overkill for youtube? I for one still watch Youtube video @ 360 to save bandwidth... You should also think of what you are looking for, AF while shooting? Better video format/compression/RAW? 4K? Stepless exposure controls? Compatibility?

The camera plays only a minor part of the end result... Lenses, lighting, technique, composition, post production will have a greater impact. There are amazing videos shot with very low end cameras or with smartphones

[watchingskyfallatm]

Thanks for your responses, much appreciated. I was originally looking to get a second hand 5Dii (have shot with them a lot and obviously they look great) but wanted to see if the K-3 could be workable as I do love the K-50.

At the moment Panasonic gets a lot of hype with their GH4, even the older GH3 will give you very good results. Being an M4/3 it opens you to a whole whack of lenses from a lot of manufacturer. And with a proper adapter you can use pretty much any lens on it.

It looks like you want to "up your game" but you should ask yourself what you really need. A 5DmkII or mkIII can give you close to motion picture quality footage but isn't it a bit overkill for youtube? I for one still watch Youtube video @ 360 to save bandwidth... You should also think of what you are looking for, AF while shooting? Better video format/compression/RAW? 4K? Stepless exposure controls? Compatibility?

The camera plays only a minor part of the end result... Lenses, lighting, technique, composition, post production will have a greater impact. There are amazing videos shot with very low end cameras or with smartphones

Thanks fgaudet - I've heard good things about the Panasonics, I'll look into them more. And yeah, true you can get amazing results with lesser cameras but I definitely want to have a quality camera regardless - plus some of the stuff I shoot are for TV or other web platforms, (it just tends to be mostly YT)

[Steve.Ledger]

You're welcome..

[richandfleur]

What content do you want to produce for youtube?

Seriously a new iPhone etc may be ok if you want everything in focus, are tripod based and have setup decent lighting.

[watchingskyfallatm]

What content do you want to produce for youtube?

Seriously a new iPhone etc may be ok if you want everything in focus, are tripod based and have setup decent lighting.

It's digital content for TV shows so the style varies but usually interviews, behind the scenes packages, etc. The new iPhones can look great for sure, but they're not exactly ideal for my needs, (though funnily enough I did shoot a seg once on a Samsung GSII that went to air). I definitely need the depth of field and customisability you can get from a dslr, though.

[grispie]

agree with all the above. Not sure on your budget but the sony A7s seems great and if you have mf pentax lenses, they 'd work great on it..

[CDW]

I own a K3 and I shoot video but I don't use the K3 for video and would not even consider using it for video. I shoot video with a GH4. I shoot in 4K and down convert in post to 1080P. The results with the GH4 are far better than any 1080P you will ever see out of a Canon, Nikon or Pentax DSLR. The look you may want, related to DOF differences with the different formats, might influence your decision. I shoot documentary and travel. A cinematic style created with fast primes is of less importance to me.

There are some postings available online that explain why 4K down converted to 2K offers superior results vs 2K shot natively. Here is one:

Why 4K Video looks better on 1080 (or less) monitors - AVS Forum

Adapters are available to use various lens mounts, including the K mount, on the GH4.

[stevebrot]

I am so pleased to see the moderate tone of the responses to the OP's question. The video purists on this site are pretty down (putting it mildly) on Pentax for video and the K-3 in particular. The main issues with the K-3 as I remember it are the codec, the type of SR used (electronic as opposed to mechanical) and the lack of clean HDMI out.

I would suggest spending some time on the video section of this site:

https://www.pentaxforums.com/forums/75-video-pentax-hdslrs/


Steve

[watchingskyfallatm]

Thanks for the replies everyone. @grispie I will look more closely at the A7s, thanks for the suggestion.

I own a K3 and I shoot video but I don't use the K3 for video and would not even consider using it for video. I shoot video with a GH4. I shoot in 4K and down convert in post to 1080P. The results with the GH4 are far better than any 1080P you will ever see out of a Canon, Nikon or Pentax DSLR. The look you may want, related to DOF differences with the different formats, might influence your decision. I shoot documentary and travel. A cinematic style created with fast primes is of less importance to me.

There are some postings available online that explain why 4K down converted to 2K offers superior results vs 2K shot natively. Here is one:

Why 4K Video looks better on 1080 (or less) monitors - AVS Forum

Adapters are available to use various lens mounts, including the K mount, on the GH4.

That's awesome, thanks CDW, great to hear your take as a K3 owner. I had heard great things about the GH3s so I'll look into the GH4 for sure.