[Alizarine]

Let's see when Micael Bay or James Cameron would consider using a dslr instead of those big bulky Reds or whatever in making their next big-budget blockbusters.

[userage]

Let's see when Micael Bay or James Cameron would consider using a dslr instead of those big bulky Reds or whatever in making their next big-budget blockbusters.

Is Avengers not big-budget enough for you?

[fuent104]

Let's see when Micael Bay or James Cameron would consider using a dslr instead of those big bulky Reds or whatever in making their next big-budget blockbusters.

It's really apples to oranges. Even if the image quality were the same, DSLR ergonomics are horrible for cinematic camera movements. By the time you add proper counterweights, you have something with a footprint roughly the size of a movie camera. Even when you are using a tripod, if you have a matte box, side flags, follow focus, and filters, the camera is so front-heavy that it is best to add counterweights.

DSLRs are amazing when you need to fit a camera into a tight space, or when you are doing a risky shot, as in the Avengers.

[userage]

It's really apples to oranges. Even if the image quality were the same, DSLR ergonomics are horrible for cinematic camera movements. By the time you add proper counterweights, you have something with a footprint roughly the size of a movie camera. Even when you are using a tripod, if you have a matte box, side flags, follow focus, and filters, the camera is so front-heavy that it is best to add counterweights.

DSLRs are amazing when you need to fit a camera into a tight space, or when you are doing a risky shot, as in the Avengers.

Of course, but for indie film makers cost is a big issue and DSLRs are CHEAP compared to an Alexa. The video quality is also very good, obviously its not Alexa good but its definitely good enough to be shown on the big screen. Which is where our point comes in for Pentax to make a very good video mode.

Nikon and Sony have both taken it seriously after the 5D IIs amazing success. Now its time for Pentax's move, Sony and Canon both have camcorder sales to worry but Pentax doesn't so they should really go all out.

If they did make implement a very good codec with minimal rolling shutter the only reason for people to not give the Pentax serious thought would be that the K mount is not as adaptable as others and we don't have a FF sensor* (but aps-c is closer to Super 35mm than FF so it shouldn't be a big thing).

---

Last edited by userage; 01-04-2013 at 08:53 PM.

[JinDesu]

Er, k-mount is Full Frame.

[userage]

Er, k-mount is Full Frame.

Sorry I meant our sensors aren't FF (yet?). I should have proof read.

[Alizarine]

Is Avengers not big-budget enough for you?

It is interesting that they've been used for POV shots in that movie, but then again, they were used for their compactness - same trend going on for video cams today. They're getting smaller too. Soon enough even small video cameras will have better video quality.

What I can't get across is the feeling that it seems people are wanting the secondary function to be a primary function. If improving video would affect, at any point, the camera's operation or performance as a tools for stills, I'm all against it. If it won't affect the camera at all (including ergonomics and weight), then why not. Sorry but I find it weird when people complain about DSLR video not being good enough for cinema (or some other requirement) but seemingly very few care if video cameras don't make brilliant stills....
Personally, I like video, but I didn't buy a DSLR for that.

[pentaxus]

If Pentax wants to have a useful video feature that nobody else has they should make a camera that has a waveform monitor for video.Serious video people would get really excited. It would also be way superior to a histogram for still pictures. It is hard to explain what it does without writing a dissertation, but there are a few you tube videos. It is just nice to be able to see where in the picture you have clipping.

[userage]

It is interesting that they've been used for POV shots in that movie, but then again, they were used for their compactness - same trend going on for video cams today. They're getting smaller too. Soon enough even small video cameras will have better video quality.

What I can't get across is the feeling that it seems people are wanting the secondary function to be a primary function. If improving video would affect, at any point, the camera's operation or performance as a tools for stills, I'm all against it. If it won't affect the camera at all (including ergonomics and weight), then why not. Sorry but I find it weird when people complain about DSLR video not being good enough for cinema (or some other requirement) but seemingly very few care if video cameras don't make brilliant stills....
Personally, I like video, but I didn't buy a DSLR for that.

Video won't do any harm tho? It can no way affect the stills.

As for getting a camcorder, there are very few that have APS-C sensors let alone FF ones, and they are usually around £2000, you can pick up a 550D for less than a quarter of that. If I get a small sensored camcorder and I want a shallow DOF I'd have to spend around £1000 for the adapter. This is why DSLRs are so popular in that respect.

Also you know Camcorders aren't very ergonomic for taking stills. Most are made for Run n' gun style shooting. If your making a movie it is most likely to be situated on a tripod, in which case ergonomics don't matter much which is why DSLRs are fit for stills and video shooting; which is why we don't argue over Camcorders taking stills as they are really only fit for one purpose whereas the DSLR can be fit for both.

[vonBaloney]

Video won't do any harm tho? It can no way affect the stills.

It can affect stills by them spending their time and resources on improving the video function, rather than say AF or flash system. Any effort spent on one thing is effort not spent on something else...

[userage]

It can affect stills by them spending their time and resources on improving the video function, rather than say AF or flash system. Any effort spent on one thing is effort not spent on something else...

Well Pentax clearly hasn't been putting much effort into video.

So wheres our amazing flash system and blazing fast AF?

[vonBaloney]

Well Pentax clearly hasn't been putting much effort into video.

So wheres our amazing flash system and blazing fast AF?

Hopefully they are prioritizing those, and putting secondary effort into video, as it should be.

[userage]

Hopefully they are prioritizing those, and putting secondary effort into video, as it should be.

Of course, stills are always first. But it would be nice to see Pentax as a new cult video camera and also gain a few loads more users. I mean according to DXO, the K5 isn't far behind the 5D II in low light performance(and ahead of the 7D), I'm sure if it had an excellent video mode it would have gained a lot of momentum with videographers.

[snake]

It can affect stills by them spending their time and resources on improving the video function, rather than say AF or flash system. Any effort spent on one thing is effort not spent on something else...

Pentax has put little effort in that area.

Even in the K-30 and K-01, with the latter the better video cam, it hasn't compromised still performance.

[simbon4o]

I'm going to improve my video quality! I'm going to buy Sony NEX