[eddie1960]

Producing videos is a far more demanding task than taking a picture. If we want to compare, let's say a fiction movie crew and a fashion shoot crew. It's not just about equipment. Shooting video demands someone to take care of image, another of sound, one another of the lightings, to get a good plan, need to take care of the framing, but also about the fluidity of the movements of the camera. Often, having the camera on a fixed tripod is dull (weither on documentary or fictions) so you may need to hand hold it or put it on a dolly.

Clearly the "big" sensors and interchangeable lenses are a breakthrough for videographers, but it remain that shooting video demands a lot more of know how and involvment to reach a professional result than photography does.

Now regarding statements that photography is for old fart, I would remind that film sales is increasing again because the younger generation likes to play with it. Radio and music were the medium of expression of the younger generation in an era (1960's / 1970's) where television and movies were much more conservatives.

pretty much i agree with every point. and I'm thankful for the increased interest in film as I still shoot it and it would be nice to have it stick around (though I think as film moves away from it the mass economies of scale Kodak and Fuji get thanks to being able to run production on 35mm and 70 mm film for movies will decline and it will impact their production of film for photographers as well as they are not in the Niche markets that the European b/w guys occupy

I have a number of friends in various parts of the film industry (I do live in Toronto after all which apparently has been steeling all the work from Hollywood for years if you listen to the Hollywood unions) and am well aware how complex a production can be. At the Doc level it will involve 2-3 people for the shooting minimum (and that is really shoestring) at the feature level, well just watch the credits at the end of a film there will be hundreds involved

[northcoastgreg]

And for most of us, smaller means smaller lenses, not NEX. Full frame would just be a huge lens with a little box at the end. If you are going to lug those lenses around, you might as well balance them with a substantial camera.

I suspect Pentax agrees with this. The whole point of mirrorless is to reduce size. Pentax likes making small lenses and small cameras. Going the m4/3rd route would enable Pentax to make an economically viable product without producing a complete system, while giving them a shot at creating the smallest interchangable lens camera. And if their camera offerings didn't sell well, they'd at least have the chance to make some money on their lens offerings. And they'd be entering a system which, while not currently complete, will be at some time in the future (which is not true, and probably never will be true, of Pentax's APS-C and MF systems).

I'm personally not a fan of m4/3rds. But Pentax will do what is best for Pentax, not what is best for me.

[jogiba]

Producing videos is a far more demanding task than taking a picture. If we want to compare, let's say a fiction movie crew and a fashion shoot crew. It's not just about equipment. Shooting video demands someone to take care of image, another of sound, one another of the lightings, to get a good plan, need to take care of the framing, but also about the fluidity of the movements of the camera. Often, having the camera on a fixed tripod is dull (weither on documentary or fictions) so you may need to hand hold it or put it on a dolly.

Clearly the "big" sensors and interchangeable lenses are a breakthrough for videographers, but it remain that shooting video demands a lot more of know how and involvment to reach a professional result than photography does.

Now regarding statements that photography is for old fart, I would remind that film sales is increasing again because the younger generation likes to play with it. Radio and music were the medium of expression of the younger generation in an era (1960's / 1970's) where television and movies were much more conservatives.

Wow, again were did I say photography is for old fart ? I said still only is for old farts. BTW the guy who shot this video with a GH2 did not use a film crew or a tripod:

Vimeo

Also I have a bunch of 35mm and 120 Kodachrome in my freezer, let me know if you see any of the younger generation wanting to play with it.

[Art Vandelay II]

BTW the guy who shot this video with a GH2 did not use a film crew or a tripod

Good for him, but he should have used a film crew. Bokeh doesn't = a good video. I was bored of that video within 10 seconds; just like I am of pretty much every home movie. A video needs to tell a story. That was just a bunch of random clips edited together.

I honestly would have just preferred a few behind the scenes production stills. I don't need to see the people moving and listen to cheesy music to get the idea. Video has it's place (I love movies and TV shows), but if people start showing me videos of their kids instead of posting a few photos on Facebook or via email then they are wasting their time because I'm not going to watch. And I'm not alone on that. If you are interested in sending video to people instead of stills then you might want to read this:
Why Can't We Sit Still For Web Video?

Most people have very short attention spans when it comes to video. As for myself I enjoy video reviews, educational videos, and video's of someone doing an activity I like, such as riding motorcycles at insane speeds, but if someone sends me a video of their vacation instead of a few choice stills then they are completely wasting their time.

I'm happy that videographers now have affordable tools they can use for their craft, I really am. I just hope that sooner or later camera makers remember that photographers were their core business for many many years and some of us don't care one iota about video and don't want video-centric features getting in the way on our cameras. Direct record buttons come to mind. I do not want one anywhere on my camera. To me it's just something to get in the way.

Also I have a bunch of 35mm and 120 Kodachrome in my freezer, let me know if you see any of the younger generation wanting to play with it.

I have a 21 year old friend starting out in photography that would absolutely love to have it.

---

Last edited by Art Vandelay II; 01-27-2011 at 12:52 PM.

[eddie1960]

Also I have a bunch of 35mm and 120 Kodachrome in my freezer, let me know if you see any of the younger generation wanting to play with it.

Wish i'd known that before they stopped processing it, I'd have bough a few rolls from you. It's pretty much an oddball b/w film now

[Fontan]

Good for him, but he should have used a film crew. Bokeh doesn't = a good video. I was bored of that video within 10 seconds; just like I am of pretty much every home movie. A video needs to tell a story. That was just a bunch of random clips edited together.

I honestly would have just preferred a few behind the scenes production stills. I don't need to see the people moving and listen to cheesy music to get the idea. Video has it's place (I love movies and TV shows), but if people start showing me videos of their kids instead of posting a few photos on Facebook or via email then they are wasting their time because I'm not going to watch. And I'm not alone on that. If you are interested in sending video to people instead of stills then you might want to read this:
Why Can't We Sit Still For Web Video?

Most people have very short attention spans when it comes to video. As for myself I enjoy video reviews, educational videos, and video's of someone doing an activity I like, such as riding motorcycles at insane speeds, but if someone sends me a video of their vacation instead of a few choice stills then they are completely wasting their time.

I'm happy that videographers now have affordable tools they can use for their craft, I really am. I just hope that sooner or later camera makers remember that photographers were their core business for many many years and some of us don't care one iota about video and don't want video-centric features getting in the way on out cameras. Direct record buttons come to mind. I do not want one anywhere on my camera. To me it's just something to get in the way.


I have a 21 year old friend starting out in photography that would absolutely love to have it.

I do think that reputation point system is almost as lame as this video clip, but I still say +1 to this post.

And, I say this all the while recognizing that video shooting is a legitimate form art when and if done right.


I will also take those films too please.

[eddie1960]

I will also take those films too please.

You do realise you can't get Kodachrome processed any longer. At least not as a colour film. there is one lab I know of that will process it as a b/w film and there are some web instructions for home made b/w
the dye transfer process that made Kodachrome colour so great (and so very very stable) is an absolute bitch to do, and expensive to boot. that is why there has been only one lab for the last few years and the cost of maintaining that lab exclipsed the demand which is why dwaynes shut down the process (they would have anyway kodak stopped making the film about a year before dwaynes announced they would stop

I'd dearly love to shoot it again, but not as a b/w film there are many more that are much better for that purpose

[Fontan]

You do realise you can't get Kodachrome processed any longer. At least not as a colour film. there is one lab I know of that will process it as a b/w film and there are some web instructions for home made b/w
the dye transfer process that made Kodachrome colour so great (and so very very stable) is an absolute bitch to do, and expensive to boot. that is why there has been only one lab for the last few years and the cost of maintaining that lab exclipsed the demand which is why dwaynes shut down the process (they would have anyway kodak stopped making the film about a year before dwaynes announced they would stop

I'd dearly love to shoot it again, but not as a b/w film there are many more that are much better for that purpose

Holy crap. I didn't know that.

Kodachrome business swells in Parsons | Featured Story | Wichita Eagle

I guess i don't want them any more.

[eddie1960]

that's what I figured. I sat on it and missed the boat. really should have taken a few rolls to Europe in october for one last fling. Didn't and it's to late now
Ektachrome is supposedly pretty close on the colours, but there is no way it will be as archival, no E6 film is. No C41 for that matter either. Printed properly I think b/w is as archival and the negs will be as well (they don't suffer from disappearing colours for old ektachrome usually the yellows go first then the reds don't know about the new formulation)
And no Digital is not an Archival medium.

[Clarkey]

Well. Interesting thread.
Don't know about the original info, but there are some interesting observations.

A question though. If µ4/3 is on the table, why isn't Pentax taking a leaf out of some other well known manufacturers, and producing limited lenses for that format/mount?
I think if they made lenses along the lines of the DA limiteds (metal), then they would sell a bundle. For example, the µ4/3 system appears to be missing a mid telephoto 42mm F1.8.

Along the same vein, I'm still also curious to know who makes those lovely Samsung 30mm F2 and 20mm F2.8 pancakes. Does anyone know if Samsung makes them, or is it really the legacy maker for all of the GX lenses......

[ghelary]

Well. Interesting thread.
Don't know about the original info, but there are some interesting observations.

A question though. If µ4/3 is on the table, why isn't Pentax taking a leaf out of some other well known manufacturers, and producing limited lenses for that format/mount?
I think if they made lenses along the lines of the DA limiteds (metal), then they would sell a bundle. For example, the µ4/3 system appears to be missing a mid telephoto 42mm F1.8.

Along the same vein, I'm still also curious to know who makes those lovely Samsung 30mm F2 and 20mm F2.8 pancakes. Does anyone know if Samsung makes them, or is it really the legacy maker for all of the GX lenses......

Pentax makes lenses for their own camera, even if the mount can be open (like M42 and the original K) the only exception I've ever heard about is when Pentax release a limited serie of 43mm/1.9 lenses on the M43 Leica mount (based on the FA43 of course)

Pentax is not Zeiss or Sigma, its business is camera systems. While I would understand that Pentax releases some lenses is very special mounts (Leica M, View cameras) releasing them in competing systems would be a suicide for their existing system. As much as somebody may want an FA31 ltd on a Nikon D3X, this won't happen as long as Hoya believes in the future of the K-mount.

[Mistral75]

Well. Interesting thread.
(...)

Along the same vein, I'm still also curious to know who makes those lovely Samsung 30mm F2 and 20mm F2.8 pancakes. Does anyone know if Samsung makes them, or is it really the legacy maker for all of the GX lenses......

Neither ot them. It's a Korean company named Optron-Tec Inc. formerly known as Havit Information Co Ltd:

:+: ()? :+:

[jogiba]

A video needs to tell a story. That was just a bunch of random clips edited together.

Vimeo

Vimeo

[froeschle]

Imho video recording is only an additional feature of a still digital camera that can (in some cases: must) be included. I also disagree on

The whole point of mirrorless is to reduce size.

First, it seems to be a possibility to reduce costs (less mechanical parts, no pentaprism, no mirror, ...), which e.g. allows
a) for a less expensive (entree) level camera,
b) for a better / larger sensor within a similar camera concept, ...
What about a K-5 ffm (full frame mirrorless) as an addition to the APS-C K-5 DSLR at the same prize point? Wouldn't that be really interesting?
(https://www.pentaxforums.com/forums/1346468-post62.html)
Imho, the K-5 is also small enough (already too small?) for a semi-professional camera, which also makes use of fast and big tele lenses.

[Aku Ankka]

The future of photography is "mirrorless". The mirror is just a moving mechanicall part limiting the size and speed of the camera while making it less reliable and more expensive to make.

Because of this, Pentax should leave K-5 as their last DSLR and concentrate fully into the future. They should launch (at least) two cameras at the same time, both with electronic viewfinder and environmental protection. All the lenses should also be weather resistant. And one of the new cameras should be a full frame camera - it is much much easier to make FF and APS-C based on the same body without the mirror and prism.

At the time of release of K-adapter should also be introduced.

Sometimes it is good to be compatible with the past, but sometimes the past is just extra weight. No one has yet released a professional mirrorless camera - Pentax should be the first. A half hearted measure with one hand in the mirrorfull and the other in the mirroless markets would not be good for Pentax in either market. As a small player they should commit themselves into something and be the best at it and grow from that.