[eddie1960]

This is not a criticism of you but from my observation the view you've expressed is typical among the older demographic of photographers. They are usually pretty set in their ways and are slower to new innovation and change. There is always going to be a convergence of features of still imaging and video and having video on the K-5 is a marketing must have when matched to competing products from other manufacturers. Video does open up more creative possibilities and have a wider demographic and user appeal. We all use our cameras differently and the wide feature set and customizability the K-5 offers makes it is all things to all people. So if you just wanna shoot stills, that's fine but if you want to shoot video clips, that's fine too.

gotta admit video holds little appeal for me (I'm 50 but it never has slr or not and I started selling it when they were still 2 piece units and sold the very first beta-cam in the store i was in. video is cool but i take pictures because they capture a sliver of time never to be repeated. others may feel differently (i have no kids for example so the normal need to document daily life wasn't there)

[pTom]

@keneyee, i think Pana GH2 learned that lessons from others' failures . Watching reviews of GH2 so far, I see people has positives with GH2, most complaints focus on high noise when objects moving at high speed (high ISO). That's why my hope raises for Pentax K-5.

You point the way I always deny to go - Facebook . Maybe, this time should I go ? Thanks.

@creampuff, what an opened mind you are ! It has happened that techonlogies help us erase boundaries among fields and "open up more creative possibilities " as you said. Why not enrich its value ?

"the k-x has great noise performance for photos" as acrollet said . I think it's not enough to cover most light situations, its ability only upto 720p - not standard for Full HD. K-5 is up to current standard, has EV control ( a part of "trade-in" ISO ? ), movie still looks good in low light but missing AF !

I guess many people ( 80%) still prefer photo only , because ... headache with computer ! Video work is not simply shoot and print. Do anyone remember many video stores selling video camera with free course of making movies before ?

[pTom]

because they capture a sliver of time never to be repeated

video will repeat bunch of slivers of time photo may almost miss then miss photos can be re-captured

[30v iPentax]

Oikea videokamera on keksitty aikoja sitten. Minulla oli ensimmäinen videokamera jo 40 vuotta sitten. Ja aina kun on tullut kehittyneempi malli olen hankkinut sellaisen. Pentax on ollut hyvä kamera ja nykyään hyvä digi kamera ja K-5 mailmanparas eikä videokameraksi suunniteltu ollenkaan.

[Rondec]

video will repeat bunch of slivers of time photo may almost miss then miss photos can be re-captured

Maybe its because my attention span is too short, but I can look at a series of photos, but can never bother to watch a video on line.

[kenyee]

i think Pana GH2 learned that lessons from others' failures

You're going to have to explain why you think it's so much better and how you use it? Do you even have one?

From dpreview (http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/panasonicDMCGH2/page9.asp):
"The GH2's AF tracking mode is also pretty effective, reliably following subjects as they move around the screen. Although it is undoubtedly slightly quicker than the G2 and GF2, the GH2's autofocus system has similar difficulties when it comes to following subject movement towards or away from the camera. Basically, the AF system isn't always able to keep up with the camera's understanding of where the subject has gone, meaning that there's sometimes a little shutter lag while it catches up. If you continue to track the subject the camera will tend to get the focus right, but this does mean you sometimes miss the perfect moment when working with fast-moving subjects. (You can of course turn Focus Priority off, but this risks the image being out-of-focus). Hunting - where the AF system is unable to stay with its target and makes large experimental adjustments to re-acquire it - can also be an issue with the GH2, but only occasionally.

To a large extent, this is simply a limitation of CDAF technology. A CDAF system has no way of knowing whether a subject is sharp or not without shifting focus back and forth to check the difference in contrast. When it comes to continuous CDAF, matters become even more complicated, since if the subject moves out of the plane of focus the system has no way of telling whether it has moved to a position behind the focal plane or in front of it, again, without shifting the focusing element/s back and forth to check. Not only is this more time-consuming than the equivalent operation in a phase-detection system, it also makes 'predictive' AF more processor-intensive. Obviously this creates problems when it comes to accurately tracking subjects moving towards or away from the camera.
...
Where continuous AF comes in really handy is when shooting video. Although it displays the characteristic (and to some extent inevitable) CDAF 'wobble' when it initially locks onto a subject, focus is very smooth, and generally very accurate. Just as with still shooting, continuous AF can lag a little behind subjects which are either moving very quickly or are closing rapidly with the camera, but this is far less noticeable in movie footage. "

Doesn't sound as superlative as you make it sound...

It also has a smaller sensor, so you'll get more DOF which is not what videographers want...they want narrow DOF like they get w/ the 5D or RED so they can tell a story by focusing user's attention.

Consumers want "everything in focus" to just capture an event and won't use tripods, stabilizers, mics, etc. to make something that is truly film quality. If this is what you are, I'd suggest what you really want will be covered well w/ inexpensive HD videocams or P&S cams and cell phones. They're also the same ones who will run a DSLR in Auto mode if they get one and complain that not everything is in focus

Just want to make sure you understand these two groups of people..."best" is totally different for them and many times opposite...

[TaoMaas]

Most pros who use DSLRs or high grade videocams use something called a focus puller to go from one defined point to another.

Actually...they don't. SOME pros use a focus puller, but the vast majority of folks who make their living in video don't use one.

[Spotmatic]

I don't think you are the only one. It's normal (50% ). Sorry for misunderstanding that you don't like video.
More buffers is great request which could be come from the only you

I like to WATCH video.

[kenyee]

Actually...they don't. SOME pros use a focus puller, but the vast majority of folks who make their living in video don't use one.

Good point on "pros"...that's something that needs to be defined. It's as bad as saying "photographers" like primes w/o defining what field or genre.
For journalistic style, I'd definitely agree they mostly use AF. For people doing film (story style), they're more likely to use focus pullers.
Does that sound right in your experience?

[Eruditass]

I'm not sure about this - the k-x has great noise performance for photos, but I find it to be fairly noisy for video in low light. (and by low light, I mean indoors at night, not pitch black by any means...)

Depends on the way they form the video images from sensor pixels. I believe the K-x does something naive like just skipping pixels.

[pTom]

I like to WATCH video

therefore, you should vote for "AF for video, please"

The update firmware will pay back for your kindness and satisfy you later. You'll have new nice videos to WATCH soon which are produced from Pentaxians

[pTom]

For journalistic style, I'd definitely agree they mostly use AF. For people doing film (story style), they're more likely to use focus pullers. Does that sound right in your experience?

You admitted that AF is needed whoever they are

[pTom]

If I have GH2 , I don't have any rights of feedbacks to Pentax or wasting time here.
If I am "pro" in video field, i don't need K-5 , I have many better options to choose. "Pro" level usually has high ROI (return on investment) if they are truly good at
If I am an experienced videographer, I may not need AF , but I still prefer AF beside MF .
If I am an any level of shooting photos , I don't buy a Pentax K-5 without (photo) AF ? I almost sure that you shouldn't have bought K-x, K-5,... without (photo) AF ?

Have anyone often used 1600 ASA/ISO films in old cameras before ? Even with 800 ASA , I rarely used them. Now people can shoot nice pics without flashes and without noticing that many of them are at 3200/6400 ISO ! WOW ! WOW ! WOW ! It was a dream of "pro" people before !

K-x , K-7, K-r, K-5 , ... now feature with "VIDEO MODE" even though many Pentax fans didn't ask for before , were you ?

Reviewing history , finding this movement is as " photo-MF, then photo-MF + photo-AF, then photo-MF + photo-AF + video-MF, then photo-MF + photo-AF + video-MF + video-haft AF ".

Therefore, Photo-MF+AF plus Video-MF with Full AF will come up later , doesn't care someone not need it.

Thanks Kenyee to points out that Pana GH2 has not true AF which I meant "half AF" . Then, it maybe another chance for Pentax to fix them up . The leader in photo field will beat the leader in video field to conquer the new world ? You guess ?

[pTom]

I believe the K-x does something naive like just skipping pixels.

yeah .. K-x video quality is not good enough for me.

[Christine Tham]

This is not a criticism of you but from my observation the view you've expressed is typical among the older demographic of photographers. They are usually pretty set in their ways and are slower to new innovation and change. There is always going to be a convergence of features of still imaging and video and having video on the K-5 is a marketing must have when matched to competing products from other manufacturers. Video does open up more creative possibilities and have a wider demographic and user appeal. We all use our cameras differently and the wide feature set and customizability the K-5 offers makes it is all things to all people. So if you just wanna shoot stills, that's fine but if you want to shoot video clips, that's fine too.

Don't get me wrong - I like video. I bought the first HD prosumer camcorder (with manual controls), and it cost me more than double the price of the K-5.

But I must admit I have not shot video on the K-5 yet. Doesn't mean I'll never shoot video on it, just that the form factor and the feature set doesn't really impress me.

Not sure the SLR form factor is good for extended video shooting. Also, sound is pretty important for video shooting - not being able to attach good quality mics and lack of manual sound level adjustment are killers for me. This is also true for the Canon pro cameras as well.

I'm sure all these issues will go away in future generations and eventually SLRs may be able to shoot video at least as well as even budget camcorders, but that day isn't here yet, so I'll probably treat the K-5 as a photo camera only.