[thibs]

I don't, sorry.

[falconeye]

I believe that a hardware limitation may prevent this from being implemented in firmware. See https://www.pentaxforums.com/forums/pentax-dslr-discussion/124080-mirror-cycl...recording.html. If it is indeed hardware, we will need to wait for the next K-system camera.

I responded to your thread. What you describe was a false observation (for K-5 at least). You may mistake shutter noise or aperture motor noise for mirror noise.

[falconeye]

Does anyone start to see the redundancy in creating a DSLR with an optical viewfinder? And with the digital revolution, aren't DSLRs evolving to just become video cameras with much higher resolution sensors, but don't have the capability of recording audio properly?

Oog, you are relatively new on this forum and therefore first of all, welcome!

The question you raise though has a very long beard here in this forum

Better read a bit more, esp. about pro and cons of optical VF, in other threads. Most people here don't seem to think that it is as simple as you seem to think.

[jogiba]

No I definitely did not mean that ALL of them can not. But I mean good amount of them can not.







"but there" doesn't cut it. Most of them are nowhere near to what P&S offer in terms of AF. For a person to be very critical of anything wrong he could find with Q, you are too kind to dSLRs. Not applying same standards is called HYPOCRISY.

Q also has ISO6400 but it is hardly as usuable as iso6400 from D3s.

The D3s has better 6400iso than any DSLR .

[Oog]

Thanks Falconeye for welcoming me here!

Anyone who has ever used a video camera, whether consumer or professional ENG/EFP, has used a "mirrorless" setup, focusing a lens on an electronic sensor, using an electronic viewfinder.

In other words, to me, "mirrorless DSLR" = video camera, for imaging purposes. I think marketers have to justify their jobs to promote that in DSLRs which is already achieved in video cameras.

Once all optical, analog elements, (namely viewfinder and film, but not lens of course) in a film camera are removed and replaced with it's electronic counterpart, what do you now have in your hands that we've had for a long time now? (a video camera). And it's ability to record single image files vs "movie" files is a function of what? (I say programming - you either program it in, or you don't).

How many years has it taken to convert still film/optical cameras to still/digital electronic? And during that time, the "mirrorless" electronic video camera has existed side-by-side. I'm sure it can be done, to make a camera that can shoot still images and video well enough to be a "do-it-all" tool. But would one want to do that, especially at the professional level? Don't get me wrong: I think it's nice to have video recording ability in my little still camera when I'm out and about on holiday, from a non-professional perspective. I already use it in that way with my point-and-shoot. But to the serious amateur videographers out there who produce and edit videos, I say, save some money and get a real video camera. If you want interchangeable lenses, save even more money. It will save you some headache in the end, and you will be more professional for it.

And to end my comment, I'll say it again: "Where is my FF Pentax??!?!"

[falconeye]

In other words, to me, "mirrorless DSLR" = video camera, for imaging purposes.

Everybody's his opinion

It's a bit of-topic here but let me drop some thoughts for you you'll find elsewhere in this forum as well:

• An electronic video camera (camcorder) typically has a sensor size of 1/6", with more recent HD camcorders being closer to P&S sizes. This means that focus is much less of a problem and continous autofocus always worked in camcorders. It still doesn't in video SLRs.
• A good HD video camera has ~3MP, a good still camera has about ~15MP or 5 times as many. This even holds true if cameras share a mount and sensor size. E.g., compare the Sony FS100 and 5n.
  The consequence is that still cameras when used for video produce (in comparison) videos with flickering alias artifacts and low light noise. And because of a sensor surface which is 5 times bigger than is used, have less accurate focus (cf. above).
• A video camera is optimzed for continuous and rather slow "action". It can be rather easy to shoot a video where it is already impossible to get sharp still images. A still camera is optimzed to freeze fast action with minimal lag and almost instantenous focus. Two domains where EVF and contrast autofocus cannot compete yet.
• Of course, it is trivial to build a camera which can do both: stills and video. Smart phones can do this now. But it won't excel in either domain.
• The Canon 5DmkII was remarkable because being a still camera, it was better in some aspects as a video camera too. The Sony FS100 has ended that period though.
• The ergonomics is very different; the steady motion handling of a video camera with follow focus and programmed zooming; vs. the "gun" or "shooting" handling of a still camera.

So no, a great mirrorless system camera is a completely different beast from a great video camera. Even if they share a mount. And the recording capabilities for audio have nothing to do with it, as it is only a matter of providing an appropriate microphone plug and audio controls.

[dankoBanana]

So, the question if there now will be a manual video mode firmware upgrade for the K-5 tells us a lot about what Pentax thinks about their customers ...

agreed

the only thing stopping me from buying a k5 is the lack of manual controls in video mode (and fast heating in it, but I could live with that). next generation hopefully will be better. dedicated button for video, better heat dissipation and full manual controls

[ManuH]

the only thing stopping me from buying a k5 is the lack of manual controls in video mode (and fast heating in it, but I could live with that)

That's maybe why Pentax doesn't really want you to use the K-5 as a video camera. The sensor heats too much, if it leads to failure it's a cost to Pentax. That's why there is no 24p, no manual controls, no dedicated button, no AF during recording. I was also a bit annoyed by the lack of AF but I have found that manual focusing with the Hoodloupe is a better solution anyway. It really transforms your back LCD into an EVF. This also helps stabilizing the camera.

[johnmflores]

agreed

the only thing stopping me from buying a k5 is the lack of manual controls in video mode (and fast heating in it, but I could live with that). next generation hopefully will be better. dedicated button for video, better heat dissipation and full manual controls

And that's why I bought a Panasonic GH2. I recorded a 90 minute interview a couple of weeks ago, no overheating issue at all.

[liukaitc]

I really like canon 60d for its video feature, articulated screen, full manual control in video mode...A hybird DSLR...
but afterall I still choose K5....because photo still is my main purpose.
but I see now more and more people use DSLR to make film..many videopgrahper switch from large bulky one to DSLR...so I can see if a DSLR lacking video feature, it would for sure miss a lot of buyer...
hope pentax next model can improve this segment.

[fuent104]

Pentax is missing out on an enormous opportunity with the video crowd. DSLR video is being used by many, many students, and many, many professionals. Even Technicolor has gotten in on the act and developed a picture profile and LUT for use with Canon SLRs. I recently shot with a T2i and my Pentax lenses, and I will share the results when I have them.

[Oog]

So no, a great mirrorless system camera is a completely different beast from a great video camera. Even if they share a mount. And the recording capabilities for audio have nothing to do with it, as it is only a matter of providing an appropriate microphone plug and audio controls.
==========================================================================================
I agree with the optical differences between still photography and video cameras, I was just commenting on how "mirrorless DSLRs" are of the same design as video cameras, essentially.

The audio part: if you have ever used a professional video camera, you will appreciate the use of XLR audio connects and the option of 48k and 44.1k sample rates. And proper audio metering. And 24/30 fps vs 23.98/29.97 fps.

Kudos to those who are using a DSLR as an upgraded semi-pro video cam though - but as I mentioned in another thread, there is a $2000 HD video cam option from Canon available. Just add $600 -700 for a couple of wireless mics, and you have a very professional video kit for available light. But if consumers want and will pay for higher spec video in still cameras, why not.....

Sorry for being off topic. I'm just one who would keep still photography and videography two separate tools. Kinda like getting an iPhone and a separate netbook, to keep calling and texting separate from surfing/word processing, as each tool is better at what it is designed to do.

/starts looking high and low for a FF Pentax

[fuent104]

One corrrection...people are using the Canon dslrs as "professional" cameras, not "semi-pro." Some people go as far as having the camera adapted to fit the PL mount, which is the standard mount for cinema lenses. This is a real market, and Pentax has chosen not to be involved in it. This is a huge shame.

[ManuH]

One corrrection...people are using the Canon dslrs as "professional" cameras, not "semi-pro." Some people go as far as having the camera adapted to fit the PL mount, which is the standard mount for cinema lenses. This is a real market, and Pentax has chosen not to be involved in it. This is a huge shame.

More so that they don't even have any video division to protect.

[sjwaldron]

Pentax Q Stress Test: Days 4 and 5 from Adorama Learning Center

That Q article leads me to believe that it does have AF in video.......