[Qwntm]

That's because he's spent all the money, he's got all the gear. But he made a video, if you want to find it, saying it was a mistake.

And his is the most financially successful photography vlogger channel on the planet!

For those who love gadgets rather than practicality, there is not only the pressure to deliver 3D but 8k now.

Yes, but my point was I didn't spend the money, I just bought the Fuji cameras and lenses for mirrorless stills photography and they all came with 4k 30 FPS or better. I already had the gaming computer. My cost for a 4K workflow was zero. And the 2nd point is I want to buy the new Pentax, but not if it doesn't do what I am already doing whether it's needed or not at this point in time.

I'll worry about 8K when all those Youtubers are doing 8k videos!

---------- Post added 10-05-20 at 04:54 PM ----------

Of course they are!

And I bet an analysis of their traffic, like the Northrups bothered to do, would reveal that.

Us, your public, are watching 480 or 720 or just maybe 1080 - all heavily compressed.

I'm sure they are, but not because they have to. They all seem like they have the spondulaks to spring for T1 connections if they wanted to! Youtube is something they all do rather than doing absolutely nothing for living, because they don't need or have to.


Me, I just replaced my 10 year old office chair because the weld that holds the seat to the frame couldn't take me + an 80 pound Labrador at the same time... I love her, but she needs to realize she's not really in the "lap" dog weight class!!! The leather on that chair wore out 5 years ago, but I still hated spending the money.

---

Last edited by Qwntm; 10-05-2020 at 04:56 PM.

[stevebrot]

My cost for a 4K workflow was zero. And the 2nd point is I want to buy the new Pentax, but not if it doesn't do what I am already doing whether it's needed or not at this point in time.

I won't assail your logic (there is a hole), but do hope that your next Pentax purchase will allow you to flex into whatever role you might want to use it in. That is what it is all about, right? Buying what you need and having it deliver?


Steve

(...have been yearning for years for a low-frills dSLR with even AF as an add-on module...good luck, right? )

[clackers]

I'm sure they are, but not because they have to.

Exactly. The stats will show they, and you, don't need 4k.

But you want it, and that's what money's for, right?

More power to you with your next chair and them with their 8k editing suite, multiple dual cameras slightly spaced apart for 3D.

[NZ_Ross]

Exactly. The stats will show they, and you, don't need 4k.

Hi Clackers, I get the point you are making, however my question is - are you producing videos yourself commercially or for Youtube?

If yes, and you are making them at 1080 then all power to you. If no, then I would respectfully suggest that if you had to consider all the pro's and con's you would most likely end up recording at 4K as Ed and myself have separately done.

A year ago when I purchased the Panasonic G9 and supporting lenses I would have much rather purchased a Pentax ILC body to give me stabilised, continuous autofocusing, swivel touch screen, 4K video in a small, light, single hand holdable (on a mini tripod) body. Of course Pentax has not produced such a body to date, and so my money was spent elsewhere - Panasonic, as I needed to keep producing videos, and the camera I previously had access to became unavailable.

Everyone comes to their own decisions regarding their use case and the gear they deploy to achieve the results they need. In my case I decided to deploy a Panasonic G9 and record in 4K, in Ed's he is using his Fuji in a similar manner.

I travel all over the world for work (well not at the moment) and I take one camera with me when I travel due to airline carry on restrictions. The G9 gives me very good video and good enough stills when I travel for work, so it works for me. But that is my use case.

As Ed has pointed out 4K is a bonus with no workflow overhead except for storage space, which is super cheap. So, I have chosen to take that bonus, with the associated future proofing. If 4K becomes a discarded and unused technology then I have lost nothing, if it gains ever great adoption then I have future proofed my current work. By taking the 4K route I have managed my risks, which is something I try to do in my business.

[Qwntm]

Hi Clackers, I get the point you are making, however my question is - are you producing videos yourself commercially or for Youtube?

If yes, and you are making them at 1080 then all power to you. If no, then I would respectfully suggest that if you had to consider all the pro's and con's you would most likely end up recording at 4K as Ed and myself have separately done.

A year ago when I purchased the Panasonic G9 and supporting lenses I would have much rather purchased a Pentax ILC body to give me stabilised, continuous autofocusing, swivel touch screen, 4K video in a small, light, single hand holdable (on a mini tripod) body. Of course Pentax has not produced such a body to date, and so my money was spent elsewhere - Panasonic, as I needed to keep producing videos, and the camera I previously had access to became unavailable.

Everyone comes to their own decisions regarding their use case and the gear they deploy to achieve the results they need. In my case I decided to deploy a Panasonic G9 and record in 4K, in Ed's he is using his Fuji in a similar manner.

I travel all over the world for work (well not at the moment) and I take one camera with me when I travel due to airline carry on restrictions. The G9 gives me very good video and good enough stills when I travel for work, so it works for me. But that is my use case.

As Ed has pointed out 4K is a bonus with no workflow overhead except for storage space, which is super cheap. So, I have chosen to take that bonus, with the associated future proofing. If 4K becomes a discarded and unused technology then I have lost nothing, if it gains ever great adoption then I have future proofed my current work. By taking the 4K route I have managed my risks, which is something I try to do in my business.

Very well said and exactly where I am at as well.


I was almost going for M43 with the OMD EM1 Mark III, which is/was a great camera and one I prefer to the Fuji's, but of course Olympus decided to kick the bucket...and here we are.

[clackers]

Hi Clackers, I get the point you are making, however my question is - are you producing videos yourself commercially or for Youtube?

If yes, and you are making them at 1080 then all power to you. If no, then I would respectfully suggest that if you had to consider all the pro's and con's you would most likely end up recording at 4K as Ed and myself have separately done.

And that's what Tony Northrup has said was his way of thinking, and that he was wrong. I just do stuff for fun, like almost everybody in this forum and the world, it's a hobby for me.

Most video in the world *is* going to be viewed at 1080 or less, maybe 480, and typically these days on a phone streaming from a service like Youtube or Amazon Prime. If you're selling wedding DVDs, again, that's 1080. If it's commercials for broadcast TV, it's 1080 again, Ross. The Lynda/LinkedIn professional development tutorials I receive are the same - I'm usually watching them on my phone or tablet.

So, for the cost of the cameras, and it's not just storage, it's processing - all the effects for each clip included that's needed. It took me *overnight* on my humble laptop to render a 90 minute recording of speakers at a lectern (cutting in my K-1 and Panny GH5 footage along with two GoPros, one behind the speakers, one behind the audience, editing to the audio).

Now, if you're making a short film, you're *that* serious about the cinematography that you will do it in 4K, that's very different from my example of vlogging. I've seen shocking 4k footage of guys in their mother's basement claiming to be experts on one thing or another, focus set on the shelf behind them, or trusting face detection and as they move around or lift a hand, it goes out of focus, without them redoing the shot.

So I definitely think amateurs suffer from the 4k/8k/whatever delusion - that that's what's important, not content, style, lighting or audio.

As I said, the real professionals have a super serious job to do, for money, but what they're using as standards that they can build their resumes on to go even further in the industry aren't little mirrorless travel cameras but serious Ari, Red, Canon, Sony units with external recorders and cine lenses - autofocus and auto aperture are, again, for amateurs.

As I said to Edward, it's your money, your usage, you do what you like, Ross, but we can't conflate what you would like or need with everyone else, mate. You and I would completely differ on the stills. I could never depend on a camera still using CDAF like that Panasonic. I'd never go out shooting stills with my mate's GH5, same reason. And the sensor size is way too small for me.

But if you find your new gadgets fun, strictly aside from what your viewers need, isn't that reason enough?

It's like me shooting 36Mp full frame, which I really enjoy, and like looking at the resulting pictures on a monitor. Truth be known, they're seen by other people as reduced JPGs, on FB, Instagram, Flickr and here. I could do much of it - perhaps most - perfectly well with APS-C, and that includes the paid jobs I've done - shooting music, events and a fashion catalogue, once.

But that's what I'm saying - I'm kidding myself to say I need FF. I just want it.

[NZ_Ross]

And that's what Tony Northrup has said was his way of thinking, and that he was wrong. I just do stuff for fun, like almost everybody in this forum and the world, it's a hobby for me.

Most video in the world *is* going to be viewed at 1080 or less, maybe 480, and typically these days on a phone streaming from a service like Youtube or Amazon Prime. If you're selling wedding DVDs, again, that's 1080. If it's commercials for broadcast TV, it's 1080 again, Ross. The Lynda/LinkedIn professional development tutorials I receive are the same - I'm usually watching them on my phone or tablet.

Thanks for taking the time to reply Clackers, and for your contribution to the discussion.

Cheers, Ross

[stevebrot]

A year ago when I purchased the Panasonic G9 and supporting lenses I would have much rather purchased a Pentax ILC body to give me stabilised, continuous autofocusing, swivel touch screen, 4K video in a small, light, single hand holdable (on a mini tripod) body. Of course Pentax has not produced such a body to date, and so my money was spent elsewhere - Panasonic, as I needed to keep producing videos, and the camera I previously had access to became unavailable.

Your G9 is a MFT ILC video camera that just happens to support stills and is very cool. It would have been my choice for that role at one point, but the world moves on and MFT is sort going away...maybe. The DC-S5 looks to be pretty sweet for 24x36FF; it provides a lot of bang for the buck at $2000 USD despite the outlay for L-mount lenses. Now the question might be whether adding 4K to a K-1 along with maybe continuous follow focus and a few other goodies (clean HDMI out?) would provide the same utility for FF video offered by the DC-S5? After all, Panasonic has been honing their art in this realm for several years now. I wager that even a 4K K-1 would remain a poor substitute for the DC-S5 and a bit larger/heavier form factor to boot. Perhaps the K-newnew with improved video might provide a competitive video-centric option using APS-C? That would be hard to say. Even harder to say is whether such might be market viable.

I suspect the smart money for a video-centric business plan would still be with a Lumix or maybe an A7sIII.


Steve

[NZ_Ross]

The DC-S5 looks to be pretty sweet for 24x36FF; it provides a lot of bang for the buck at $2000 USD despite the outlay for L-mount lenses. Now the question might be whether adding 4K to a K-1 along with maybe continuous follow focus and a few other goodies (clean HDMI out?) would provide the same utility for FF video offered by the DC-S5? After all, Panasonic has been honing their art in this realm for several years now. I wager that even a 4K K-1 would remain a poor substitute for the DC-S5 and a bit larger/heavier too

Steve, I have been tempted to upgrade from the G9 to the DC-S5, which would cost me about USD $1000 with lens once I sold the G9 and lenses. I am waiting to see what the Pentax K-new will bring before making that decision. The G9 is more than adequate for my vlog and teaching video needs at this time, so I am happy to wait for a bit a see what comes.

I agree that Panasonic bring a lot to the table with video-centric hybrid cameras, and Sony also as you note

The interesting observation for myself, and my use case, is that the video is for my work, and has to be of a suitable standard professionally. I use support teams to assist with the recording and editing, so the cost of that support is far higher on a yearly basis than any gear. I am an international specialist in my line of work (hence the international travel for work) and the quality of the video production has to be supportive of the quality of my other work.

My still photography using Pentax gear is my hobby, which my wife encouraged me into a few years back to help me take breaks from working all the time . So it has a different use case. I enjoy puddling around with old and unique manual focus lenses, and taking my camera out for walks, just to get out of the office and to get some exercise.

I am not trying to make a living from still photography or videos as some here are. My still photography is definitely for my own enjoyment and relaxation. The videos I make support my work, and 'brand' as such, but I do not rely on them for any sort of income.

As I noted in an earlier post on this thread, everyones use case is different, and their gear decisions will be influenced and decided by their use case.

[texandrews]

You know, a lot of the arguments here against 4K, or that you don't need it, while they have practical truths....seem to remind me of arguments for/against excellent lenses or very capable bodies.

For my part, the interest in having good (meaning true, not overheating, good UI) 4K video in a camera has to do with future proofing. All the pro stills photography I do right now is based on future proof images---because we have already gone through the pain of having to start reshooting our whole collection.

So, I'd like a 4K file that is something I don't feel needs to be redone in 5-10 years. And, btw, some things can't get redone, so for historical purposes, you want the best possible file that's practical.

Most don't have these needs, I realize. But maybe don't denigrate the need for those of us who have our rational reasons

[BarryE]

I asked the following at the start of this thread to try and understand the engineering costs involved by adding 4K and I received no answers. Maybe, it isn't answerable, or maybe it was missed, so trying again:

If a DSLR camera maker adds 4K video to a unit designed, primarily for stills, what changes? Clearly the firmware, sensor and processor need to be suitable, that's obvious, but what else? The mechanics of the mirror, shutter? Heat dissipation? The focussing mechanisms? These, presumably, can be done at a price, but do the changes risk degrading the life expectancy and robustness of the camera? I'm thinking a reliable, solid, but slow design, gets changed to be faster, but becomes more temperamental - maybe? Better to start the design with 4K in mind, perhaps, as might be being down with the new APSC body?

[texandrews]

The mechanics of the mirror, shutter?

Well, some of that is already done because the cameras have video, just not 4K. I'd think there would be a new shutter mechanism maybe

Heat dissipation?

Yes, i would think so.

The focussing mechanisms?

I would think some upgrades, as tracking becomes more important (for most---pros might be doing follow focus off their rigs).

These, presumably, can be done at a price, but do the changes risk degrading the life expectancy and robustness of the camera? I'm thinking a reliable, solid, but slow design, gets changed to be faster, but becomes more temperamental - maybe? Better to start the design with 4K in mind, perhaps, as might be being down with the new APSC body?

I'm not an engineer, but I wouldn't think the life expectancy would be reduced. And Pentax is pretty good at making solid cameras (I know some had a solenoid problem....)

[normhead]

I once had a discussion on the forum, with a person who said they needed a D800, so their images would look abetter on 4k. My K-5 images are indistinguishable from K-1 images on 4k. You really need to learn to cut through the nonsense. My 4k video looks good on my 4 k video, so does 1080P video. The recommended viewing distance to avoid eye strain on my 55" 4k TV is over 6 feet. At that distance, 1920, looks about the same as 4k.

People say these things, and I'm sure it helps them feel less apprehensive to think they way they do. But reality is often different. 4k is a really efficient format, and displays 1920 x1080 really well. Maybe 8k won't. But the gear you'd need to oversample 8k would be prohibitively expensive.

So when I hear that things (like 4k video are needed to be future proof) you have to realize, the future may not be what you imagine it to be. It's certainly worked out that way for me and 4k. To date 4k is a spec. more relevant to sales pitches than performance. Like "these amps go to 11." So if you're doing sales pitches for your work, I get it. I'm not sure those of us not concerned with impressing others will benefit in any way from it.

4k video may turn out to be nothing more than a marketing prop.

[texandrews]

So when I hear that things (like 4k video are needed to be future proof) you have to realize, the future may not be what you imagine it to be.

Very true. We have no idea what the long range future will be. Short range is a lot easier. So, for me, future proof gets me through the next 5 years. I'm doubting anything will come along that will be dramatically better and also reasonable and within reach of almost all users before then. As historical files, they'll also be decent for a long time.

[Qwntm]

Very true. We have no idea what the long range future will be. Short range is a lot easier. So, for me, future proof gets me through the next 5 years. I'm doubting anything will come along that will be dramatically better and also reasonable and within reach of almost all users before then. As historical files, they'll also be decent for a long time.

I would only add here, that if you were lets say a wedding photographer and shooting APS-c and all of a sudden all your clients were asking if you shot full frame, because all the competition in your town were pushing and shooting full frame and you started losing business, would you redouble your efforts to educate your clients about how your work is just as good or better because it's more about the skill of the photographer and not the technology in their equipment or would you just go get a full frame and level the playing field? Especially if FF cameras were the same price as APS-c cameras?

Might not be a great analogy, but if all my competition is using 4k and posting to youtube in 4k right now, today, why would I not do what the competition does especially if it costs me no extra money or time or anything else? So for me it's not about future proofing, it's what I need right now to keep up with the competition. If getting 4K video meant spending even $2500 on a camera, my videos would be in 1080p and I'd hope for the best!


I also don't see 4k video and stills capability as mutually exclusive. The Fuji XT3 and 4 are considered best in class, 26mp stills and 4k 30 oversampled and 4K60 with a slight crop. And the XT3 is only $999 USD on sale these days. The K(new) has stiff competition in 2020/21 and it's the details that will sell it or not. I don't need it to be as good as the XT series, but I do need it to be at least usable for what I'm doing if I am going to buy one. And I will buy one if it meets very minimal standards which I'm hoping it will. (Of course there's always that little hope that Pentax finally hits one out of the park...)