[RobA_Oz]

We can’t talk about this without actually knowing what it would take to improve video capability on Pentax DSLRs. If it’s a hardware limitation arising from their choice of electronic componentry, then that’s more of a barrier to improvement than if it’s a matter of software development.

Personally, I don’t care much about video, but if it’s currently and significantly affecting sales adversely, then we all are being held back, indirectly. In any event, I wouldn’t see any benefit from its removal from future bodies.

[ramseybuckeye]

I agree that video is not a priority for Pentax, but it's built in so why disable it. I don't think that's a market they want to get into because it's so saturated now.

.
Given Pentax's limited R&D resources...

Why does everyone assume this?, maybe I missed it somewhere that they said it, but I have a feeling they can tap into deep resources if needed. Ricoh Imaging is a small part of a giant company, but they are obviously valued by people at the top.

[BigMackCam]

Why does everyone assume this?, maybe I missed it somewhere that they said it, but I have a feeling they can tap into deep resources if needed. Ricoh Imaging is a small part of a giant company, but they are obviously valued by people at the top.

I guess the assumption correlates with the slow drip feed of a small number of products to market, which would only sustain a small development team.

For some reason, I have a vague (and certainly not dependable) memory of reading about Ricoh Imaging's actual R&D team size somewhere in these forums, a few years back. I may be imagining that - but if not, I'm sure someone will chime in to confirm...

[Kozlok]

I think they should devote all of their resources into developing a secret flippy screen that doesn't look like a flippy screen but then it turns out to be one.

[lytrytyr]

Upfront declaration: I have no particular interest in video.
The only time I've used it was to record a lunch I had in Korea,
where the food was so fresh that it was moving around on the plate.

But here's a thing about video:
A lot of videographers love old manual focus lenses.

And what is Pentax' special appeal,
if not the native access to old manual focus lenses
through the K mount or K mount with an M42 insert.

This does start to look like a market opportunity worth exploring.

[ramseybuckeye]

Upfront declaration: I have no particular interest in video.
The only time I've used it was to record a lunch I had in Korea,
where the food was so fresh that it was moving around on the plate.

But here's a thing about video:
A lot of videographers love old manual focus lenses.

And what is Pentax' special appeal,
if not the native access to old manual focus lenses
through the K mount or K mount with an M42 insert.

This does start to look like a market opportunity worth exploring.

But those old lenses don't make them any money, but I get where you are coming from. The could make a sizeable some of money K/M42 adapter with the amount they are selling those for new.

[luftfluss]

I buy stills cameras to do stills, I buy video cameras to do video. In my opinion those that try to do both, Fail.

I pretty much agree with this. However, cellphone cameras like iPhone get a lot of sales in part because of their 12-megapixel cameras plus video capability -- which the average person uses a LOT. But in a DSLR, the video really only is important (to me) if I'm going to do an instructional video to post online -- and what's in the recent Pentax cameras are plenty sufficient for that. If I need more, I'll turn to a video-only camera (and my iPhone is plenty fine for most casual videos, not to mention small and easy to handle, despite its obvious limitations).

Despite their recent snafu with the R5 and R6, Canon has had rip-roaring success with DSLRs that do both photo and video superbly.

Panasonic also does video & photo very well, and Fuji's XT-4 is widely lauded for both its stills and video capabilities.

[Serkevan]

Despite their recent snafu with the R5 and R6, Canon has had rip-roaring success with DSLRs that do both photo and video superbly.

Panasonic also does video & photo very well, and Fuji's XT-4 is widely lauded for both its stills and video capabilities.

I thought that Canon already had the market gripped before the 5Dii (amazing camera for its time and still very capable), but video certainly helped consolidate them.

The second point begs the question of who lauds Panny and Fuji: reviewers for sure; if I were a betting man I'd say wedding photographers love having competent hybrid cameras since video is in high demand (and so are drones apparently!). I'd think for most "regular" users video is more of a "nice to have" thing, but I can see it being a purchase driver for anyone who wants to use it once in a while - the feature doesn't much increase the price of the camera until you get to a very high level.

On a slightly unrelated note, there's also the lenses (in case you want to use AF for video); screwdrive is an absolute nope for video because of the noise and "jerky" motion, so in-lens motor it is. AFAIK Canon made STM lenses (and new USM R stuff? I'm not sure) as a video-focused motor because it's very smooth. Pentax has the right motors in recent lenses so it isn't a huge issue anymore but there's less variety than in other brands, particularly in terms of primes. I'd say it doesn't make a lot of sense to focus on video before a new set of DA/D-FA primes with in-lens motors is around.

[BlackTea]

.
Pentax does a great job at making stills cameras (my favorite stills camera remains the Pentax K-1), Given Pentax's limited R&D resources, do you think they should exclusively focus on what they do best - "stills only" bodies, and give up their feeble efforts to incorporate video into their stills cameras?

Take out video from the future new Pentax bodies, charge even less for them, sell more bodies, increase market share...

Why would I (customer) would like to buy a new set of lenses for different brand "video" camera?

It will be cheaper to switch the brand.


Personally - I would say - give me EF body to KAF4 lens adapter with MF (I can do manual focus) and I would be perfectly fine with my K-1 for stills and blackmagic for video. The only issue right now is that KAF4 lenses that we love will not be able to close aperture, so are a little bit useless on EF body.
That BTW is stopping me personally on buying new Pentax lenses.


IMHO ideas like removing video from Pentax camera are actually hurting Pentax, because new customers would not buy camera that cannot do decent video.


Additionally video feature is not something that can make Pentax body cheaper (my opinion).

They have to implement Live view - that is basically video.

Licence cost for ability to use standard like H.264/265 is quite cheap - couple of USD per unit.
Hardware to do encoding is quite cheap, so all of that to save 10-25 USD on hardware and possibly another 10-25 USD on software side?

[Tas]

This might not help the discussion that much, but like the OP I'm not really using video, so it's a capability that I don't really get the benefit of having in my K-1.

For some types of video I have a GoPro Hero 8 that does 4K though it rarely sees the light of day, and nor does my el cheapo 4K GOPRO clone camera which cost me about $100. Maybe one day I'll get the video bug, but for now stills is my passion and the only deciding factor for a purchase.

What I do appreciate though is where talented people make you look past the limitations and focus on the quality of the story. This video has been posted already no doubt, as I'm likely to know about it only because of the forums.

You Tube

You Tube

What I like about this is it was shot on a K-7 ten years ago and it reminds me of watching my laser discs back in the day. Sharp in parts, not so sharp in other parts. But it's a cracking short story and any opportunity to post it again has to be taken, just in case some around here have not seen it yet. The lighting might help mask some limitations but it's a great story captured on a Pentax.

Tas

[Rondec]

I agree that video is not a priority for Pentax, but it's built in so why disable it. I don't think that's a market they want to get into because it's so saturated now.



Why does everyone assume this?, maybe I missed it somewhere that they said it, but I have a feeling they can tap into deep resources if needed. Ricoh Imaging is a small part of a giant company, but they are obviously valued by people at the top.

Exactly.

What people seem to forget is that the sensors in these cameras can all do video (some better than others). How good that video is depends on the sensor (some only do HD, some 4K, some higher than that) and the Codecs used. By all accounts people actually like the video from the K5 cameras because the mechanical SR was enabled and the Codec used had a higher bit rate (I don't really understand these things a whole lot).

I don't think Pentax should invest tons of money in video -- certainly people who are highly interested in video will tend to gravitate towards MILCs as EVFs work better with video -- but at the same time, it shouldn't be either left off or done poorly. The K-new by all accounts is going to have a decent frame rate, which means that it should also be capable of good video. I hope Pentax's new image processing engine has good video capabilities built into it or the license something from someone who has that already.

[lytrytyr]

But those old lenses don't make them any money.

Selling cameras does, which was the point of my argument.

[TaoMaas]

I know this is more of a mechanical problem, but I'm just tossing out ideas here. If Pentax were to shoot for a "stills only" market, would it help to make a camera that could do open-aperture metering with K and M lenses? Or has that ship already sailed? Ideally, I'd like to see Pentax team up with some company that does video well to create a video oriented camera with a native Pentax mount. Maybe put the guts of a Black Magic Pocket Cinema camera into a new K-01 style camera or something.

[Flubber]

As much as I agree with all of you guys that video is useless (from my personal point of view), and that in a perfect world I want a stills-only camera, I do think video features are absolutely essential from a market standpoint if you want to sell cameras on any larger scale. Unfortunately, that seems to be the case. I'm old school, so in my vocabulary the word "camera" still means a still camera, and a videocamera means a camera that only does video. But the world has changed, and my old ideas aren't prevalent anymore. If you look at camera reviews on YouTube - at least the most popular ones - 90% of the reviews are about video capabilities and flippyscreens, and 10% of the reviews are about still capabilities. As much as I hate 90% of these YouTube reviews, I do think these "influencers" have a large influence on sales - and that's why they can make a living doing those videos. I am frequently frustrated by the predominant emphasis on video capabilities in reviews, as that has zero interest for me, and find that the focus on still capabilities becomes smaller and smaller as time goes by.

They spend 20 minutes talking about the deficiencies in video capabilities, and then half a minute saying: "it's good for stills".

[automorphism]

I don't think the new APS-C model will have a different approach to video. They shouldn't take it out, either. Taking it out would probably cost more, because they have to remove it from the firmware and that requires coders to do more work there. Even if there were no cost to removing it, it would probably bring the camera cost down by ten dollars, and probably cost Pentax a few hundred users.

Also, Roadboat mentioned "In my opinion those that try to do both, Fail." That is certainly not true from a market perspective. Cameras that can do both (excellent stills and casual video), are actually wildly successful from a sales and market perspective. The other day I tested out the video on my D500 and while it is still far away from a Z6 or a Panasonic G5, it is still way more useful than a Pentax camera video and I could produce something pretty cool with that.

With the COVID pandemic too, many people started their own YouTube channel because they feel lonely and want to share themselves, so the demand for video is just going up.