[ewig]

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 )

which one is you guys ? are you agree to have another K-5 without movie mode ?

let just say K30D ...

how many are you ,that use movie in your DSLR ?
all in one equipment is better but make 5 minutes movie with spent over 5000 shutter count is little bit too much for me.

a video camera with HD quality better then ruin content of DSLR

thanks for the participation and your opini

[dgaies]

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 )

A dedicated movie button would be nice for those who use the movie mode, but it's not a deal breaker for 99% of people interested in a K-5.

which one is you guys ? are you agree to have another K-5 without movie mode ?

let just say K30D ...

That would be a waste of time and resources for Pentax. If you don't want to take movies, just don't use the feature, but having an identically specs camera without movie mode would be a waste IMO.

how many are you ,that use movie in your DSLR ?
all in one equipment is better but make 5 minutes movie with spent over 5000 shutter count is little bit too much for me.

Taking a 5 minute video opens the shutter once, not 5000 times. Don't confuse frames/seconds with shutter opening and closing.

a video camera with HD quality better then ruin content of DSLR

Not sure what you mean. If you mean dedicated video cameras have better quality HD video, then yes, you're right. If you mean putting video in a DSLR someone how makes the DSLR less capable for stills, then I disagree and would love to see evidence of such a claim.

[Tommot1965]

this is quite a relevant topic for me as ive a big trip coming up soon and want to have video as well as still's to record it all......

The K5/K7 video while good quality lacks AF, and while you can increase DOF by selecting a small AP, in low light that would make capturing some good footage very difficult ,
As I don't have a huge amount invested in the pentax systems, i thought Id see what the new D7000 was like in this area, and if better Id jump ship now, trouble is the AF on the Nikon is crap, so its like not having AF at all...the sony offering dumps on it...but i dont want a sony stills camera either .

so after all this Ive decided to buy a dedicated video camera that shoots HD. at least that way I can give it to another family member to get footage, while I concentrate on the stills .

so until a DSLR has very good AF for movie. i probably wont use it for anything other than a emergency, so no loss in not having a movie button on a K5/K7

[tux]

If you use a wide angle like a 15mm at say F11 you dont ever need to focus because pretty much everything is in focus anyway. Otherwise manual focus in movie mode isnt that bad.

[fs999]

At first I was against video with DSLR. But I tried it with my K-7 and was satisfied with the quality. I bought a mic (Røde) for better sound quality.

AF is a false problem. A lot of professionals don't have/use AF. With a precise focusing system it faster to focus...

I don't want to buy a video camera, so I will continue to use the video function of my K-5.

[JonPB]

If the choice were between something the size of a K-10D with video features, and something the size of a K-7 without them, I'd take the K-7.

If the choice were between identical bodies, except with, say, 2 user modes on the dial of the camera without video--I'd probably still take the one with video.

If the non-video model were cheaper, I'd go for it. I'd guess that $20 is about what I'd pay for the video feature on my K-5.

Anyone who purchases a DSLR expecting to get a video rig will be disappointed. By the time you've purchased microphones, stability/holding accessories, and everything else you may as well have purchased a dedicated video camera. Yes, I understand that the DOF of an SLR is impressively different from that of most video camera, but that (along with the focusing problems which come with it) isn't what most consumers are looking for. Still, it is (a) a neat feature, (b) cheap to implement once you've gone to the trouble of implementing live view, and (c) good marketing.

My guess is that enough cameras are sold because of the video function to drive down the relative cost for those of us who won't use it much. If that's the case, I'm happy to have it.

[Rondec]

I don't see the issue. Video is a side effect of having faster sensor read outs and frames per second. You might just as well frame the question: "Would you rather have a camera that can shoot 3 fps or one that shoots 7 fps?"

There are a lot of features and filters on cameras that I never use, but it never occurred to me that my life would somehow be better if they were suddenly all removed.

[ewig]

That would be a waste of time and resources for Pentax. If you don't want to take movies, just don't use the feature, but having an identically specs camera without movie mode would be a waste IMO.

why wasting a time ? that's why i make a pool , cause i think im not the only one who DOESN'T use movie mode in DSLR even tough it already equipped with 30 FPS for HD quality mode.
some people just enjoy to be "just" photographer not videographer .... it is only matter what you put in a frame not what you put into the scene ..

Taking a 5 minute video opens the shutter once, not 5000 times. Don't confuse frames/seconds with shutter opening and closing.

im sorry for that, im just confused with elapsed time video which is drawn the shutter count ... you are right ..

so until a DSLR has very good AF for movie. i probably wont use it for anything other than a emergency, so no loss in not having a movie button on a K5/K7

im agree with you ...

If the choice were between something the size of a K-10D with video features, and something the size of a K-7 without them, I'd take the K-7.

If the choice were between identical bodies, except with, say, 2 user modes on the dial of the camera without video--I'd probably still take the one with video.

If the non-video model were cheaper, I'd go for it. I'd guess that $20 is about what I'd pay for the video feature on my K-5.

Anyone who purchases a DSLR expecting to get a video rig will be disappointed. By the time you've purchased microphones, stability/holding accessories, and everything else you may as well have purchased a dedicated video camera. Yes, I understand that the DOF of an SLR is impressively different from that of most video camera, but that (along with the focusing problems which come with it) isn't what most consumers are looking for. Still, it is (a) a neat feature, (b) cheap to implement once you've gone to the trouble of implementing live view, and (c) good marketing.

My guess is that enough cameras are sold because of the video function to drive down the relative cost for those of us who won't use it much. If that's the case, I'm happy to have it.

then you should choose the K30D ... if there is one ...

I don't see the issue. Video is a side effect of having faster sensor read outs and frames per second. You might just as well frame the question: "Would you rather have a camera that can shoot 3 fps or one that shoots 7 fps?"

the issue is why this site only judging the weakness of the Movie mode on K-5 compare the other semi pro DSLR just to drop the score of review ..

supposed if its not facilitated with movie mode , how is the review said ...

[dgaies]

why wasting a time ? that's why i make a pool , cause i think im not the only one who DOESN'T use movie mode in DSLR even tough it already equipped with 30 FPS for HD quality mode.
some people just enjoy to be "just" photographer not videographer .... it is only matter what you put in a frame not what you put into the scene ..

I meant it would be a waste of time for Pentax to release a camera that was identical to the K-5 just without video because I don't think dropping the video function would reduce the price of the camera. If the price of the bodies (a K-5 with and without video) are there same, then I can't understand what the purpose of a second model would be since users could just choose not to take video with the K-5.

For what it's worth, I've owned the K-7, K-x and the K-5 (all of which have video) and I haven't really used the video function on any of them. I would have purchased the K-5 whether or not it had video. That said, it doesn't bother me that it has video and perhaps one day I'll find myself in a situation where I might want to use it.

[Arpe]

What's the difference between having a movie button or changing the dial? I know some prefer the button, why? They seem a good way of doing it.

[Jasvox]

We are on the cusp of 2011...DSLRs with the video option are pretty much mainstream and for Pentax to release an upper end DSLR with no video feature may sell what, half a dozen cameras worldwide? If you dont want to make videos with your camera, dont make videos.

Jason

[ewig]

I meant it would be a waste of time for Pentax to release a camera that was identical to the K-5 just without video because I don't think dropping the video function would reduce the price of the camera. If the price of the bodies (a K-5 with and without video) are there same, then I can't understand what the purpose of a second model would be since users could just choose not to take video with the K-5..

yeah ... i think without video version will not also reduce the price that much ...
all im say is , the perspective from this site review, if only this lack of feature make the score down , what about if they count without video mode ? still had a complaint about the sensor or anything else ?

the purpose is for special Photographer who like to take ONLY photo .., it just like there's no internal flash/ blitz in Canon 5D Mark II, so the people who want to use flash , have to buy External flash/ blitz ...

and i think Canon not "forget" to attach the flash, it would be created so on curtain purpose, because people who use Canon 5D Mark II usually a Professional Photographer which has already high quality external blitz....

[ewig]

For what it's worth, I've owned the K-7, K-x and the K-5 (all of which have video) and I haven't really used the video function on any of them. I would have purchased the K-5 whether or not it had video. That said, it doesn't bother me that it has video and perhaps one day I'll find myself in a situation where I might want to use it.

its also like the first time i buy my K100 D , because it happen to be first DSLR that i buy with SR in body, im always count the shutter count , im really worry that the shutter count will be dead and finish ...
but after 2 years and spent most 22 thousand SC , i decided to sell it ...and the SC never dead or hunt because something else ...
it just my precaution ... and it will never happen ..

[ewig]

We are on the cusp of 2011...DSLRs with the video option are pretty much mainstream and for Pentax to release an upper end DSLR with no video feature may sell what, half a dozen cameras worldwide? If you dont want to make videos with your camera, dont make videos.

Jason

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

[Cannikin]

Anyone remember Windows XP Edition N? It was exactly the same as XP, except without Windows Media Player. As of this date, it has officially sold... 0. Worth less than the plastic the CDs were printed on.

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'".

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.