[johnmflores]

The whole idea of a separate movie button seems to be based on the premise that people will want to use a dSLR like a camcorder. That's silly IMHO. While dSLRs are an interesting alternative for budding cinematographers, most - especially those without effective AF and IS - aren't as good as camcorders at catching video snapshots and family events.

FWIW, I'm interested in the video capabilities of dSLRs partially because clients are interested in video. I've actually made more money on video work this year than stills. If the K-5 had more evolved video capabilities - full manual control, more FPS and HD options, etc... - I'd have one right now. But instead I've ordered the Panasonic GH2. It's a pity, I really want the K-5 but will have to wait a bit longer.

[sterretje]

I'm not interested in movie mode. That's why I voted K30D.

But being realistic,

• the additional costs are low
• the world seems to want it

So I think it's wise to have it in.

[ewig]

Pentax would be fools to do this. They're here to make money, and video mode is a money-making feature, regardless of how functional it is. Or maybe it's better worded as "not having it is a major money-losing 'feature'".

why fool.. ??
at the first time SR body introduce ..there also K110 and K100 D..why they do that ?
doesnt have the video not mean it cheaper and cannot making money,
regrades how functional is it ...but not for this site review ..they considered it well dude..

You think people would rate it higher if it didn't have video mode? Really? People are bashing the K-5 because it's missing something (AF in video mode), and you think the solution is to take even more away? Somehow I don't imagine a review site or potential customer would look very favorably at "All competitors have video mode, but the 'K-5N' has nothing!". People may or may not use a feature, but they definitely take notice when it doesn't have something, especially in comparison with every single other camera, including its own siblings.

You think people would rate it higher if it didn't have video mode? Really?

yeah ..why not ??
like the way i said before ... it only matter what you put into the frame , not into the scene...

Somehow I don't imagine a review site or potential customer would look very favorably at "All competitors have video mode, but the 'K-5N' has nothing!". People may or may not use a feature, but they definitely take notice when it doesn't have something, especially in comparison with every single other camera, including its own siblings.

then you should compare with the one who has no video on it ... video on DSLR is already mainstream for DSLR right know ..like someone post before you... and im agree
don't worry im also like to take a video ..

but DSLR is camera dude not video recorder , if you can beat all your competitor with your picture quality , why should bother make other facility important ?
doesn't have video its not meaning , doesn't have special .... 1200 euro body price beat up 2500 euro body price is already enough for me as special here

pentax teach me what is the real meaning of "value" here ..

[peterh337]

I think it's a useful feature.

A lot of people take very short movies and for this the K5 is fine, and saves you carrying a camcorder. Also the image quality is way better than any camcorder because one is using decent optics.

One day, cameras and camcorders will converge (they have done for 10+ years but the quality of the still images has always been substandard) and then we won't be discussing this

It does need an external mike though. I can't get the sound to record properly. Does anybody know where the microphone is located?

[ewig]

i think you can find somewhere here ...

[Ash]

Video's here to stay as far as I can see.
Pentax aren't going to produce a video-less camera given the competition. It wouldn't be prudent, even if there are a lot of photography purists with no interest in videography. Indeed it should matter little to them that all post K-7 cameras will have movie mode. If not required, it is never used - there is no effect this extra feature will have on the existing stills performance or quality.

I can only see this feature continually improving in future models, certainly to incorporate live AF. Then it will be even more a useful tool than now.

[ogl]

according to the site " who should not be named"
the lack of button option in movie mode and AF in movie Mode make a Pentax K-5 little bit down compare among their competition.
they seeded the class with another semi professional Brand (don't have to mentioned it... this is ain't not Brand war )
i

If you don't want to use video mode, just don't switch it on. And it's all.

[ewig]

If you don't want to use video mode, just don't switch it on. And it's all.

what i mean is ... this lack of switch AF button and other video thing had become an "equipment" to down the score in this site review... im not contra about this video ...
i just want to say to this site , if they are want to have a good compare, why should attack the video side ? its kind of weird ...

[peterh337]

EWIG - are you saying that the mike is inside that 3.5mm jack socket for the external mike?

That would be quite clever

[ewig]

sorry the word internal just slipped ..


here is the internal mic

[Jasvox]

read the first post dude ...
don't worry im also like to take video ..

Mine was a rhetorical comment about DSLR/video to the thread and not at you per se.

Jason

[sebberry]

I wouldn't mind having video mode. In fact I think I'd take more videos than I do now with my camcorder.

But I still want a K-30D. (All the K-5 features in a K10D body.)

[Tommot1965]

since replying to this thread..it inspired me to do some testing of the movie mode ...and trying out a AP that would create enough DOF so not having to focus etc....my first thoughts are that a DSLR is totally the wrong shape to be a comfortable Video cam for extended periods...hand held that is...way too much weight towards the front...way too much weight full stop really....

the small ap F22 alowed me to get away with not having to focus manually other than pre setting the lens to a optimal hyperfocal distance for the zoom being used { 16-45}


so .....Im still gonna buy a small light video cam ...might use the movie mode from time to time..but thats it


on the OP original question of should DSLR have the video option...Id answer yes, as I doubt Id have bought the K7 if it didn't have it..even though after having the body for three months Ive never used it,,,now having used doubt I will again..thats us fical consumers though aint it..LMAO

[Ash]

I wouldn't mind having video mode. In fact I think I'd take more videos than I do now with my camcorder.

But I still want a K-30D. (All the K-5 features in a K10D body.)

+1
I've replaced my old digicam for the K-x, which is now doing a stellar job for my home videos (MF's not too hard after all).

But that's my #2 cam. I'd be happy having the ergonomics of the K10D/K20D and a feature-packed WR camera without movie mode in a K30D, which should theoretically make it cheaper than a K-5, but I doubt this would happen.

I'm keeping my K20D for the way it fits to my hands, and its deficiencies aren't limiting me all that much...

[Tommot1965]

i must admit id prefer the movie mode..if the viewfinder could be used rather than the rear LCD.......I find holding the cam up to see the rear LCD a pain ... particularly in my upper arms....