[raz]

I can assure you that my K-5 videos are sharp as a razor when I watch them on my retina MacBook. No upsampling there. Single frames are quite usable as stills.

I'm sorry but that is not true. Take a look at some videos for the GH2 on youtube, hacked or non hacked. The hacked version (hacked=firmware with increased bitrate) will blow you away, the footage is 3 times better than anything a K5 can
deliver. The difference is huge. I analyzed video from the k-5, the resolution is terrible, at full HD looks blurred . Even newer Nokia phones have better sharpness and video resolution (especially 808). The same stands for
a lot of Canon and Nikon DSLR, their video is very bad even for some high end models. But people are fooled because "wow look at the nice depth of field" and stuff like that. If you film some trees at f8 nobody will be that impressed

[gazonk]

I'm sorry but that is not true.

Since you're not sitting here viewing my videos on my MacBook retina with me, how can you know? Just sent it to my 40" 1080 TV, I can assure you that it's very different from 480 upsampled - I don't know why you post exaggerations like that.

I know the hacked GH2 is regarded as superior, though.

[cali92rs]

Unless you are shooting from a tripod, what is the point of turning SR off? I see SR as an advantage, not disadvantage. What am I missing?

I think people are getting wrapped around the axle, thinking that the in-camera SR mechanism will make the camera huge and may be a sticking point as far as FF development. Of course, Sony has this feature in their a99, so I think it is one of those things that started off as message board fodder that mushroomed.
I would be absolutely shocked if Pentax's upcoming FF camera (scheduled to hit shelves in 2025 ) came without in-camera SR. The only real disadvantage I see is that it adds complexity, therefore another point of failure.
But you can't even brush your teeth without an electro-mechanical device, so I wouldn't worry.

[Mistral75]

(...)

Just wondering does anyone actually know a date for when Pentax will make announcements for whatever new cameras they're releasing?

(...)

There are non-disclosure agreements that are said to expire sometimes this month (April 2013).

[Smeggypants]

Unless you are shooting from a tripod, what is the point of turning SR off? I see SR as an advantage, not disadvantage. What am I missing?

it can take time to kick, and result in blurrwed shots for those quick point and shoot times with dynamic subjects, fleeting moments.

So if you're shooting with settings that don't need SR it can be sometimes better to switch it off.

[jon404]

So -- if
1. I'm using a high shutter speed, like 1/400, and taking snapshots of passing bicyclists, or
2. using a low shutter speed, like 1/25, to take panning shots of passing bicyclists

...in either case, it would be better to turn SR off? If true, that would mean, for me anyway, that I'd turn it on only for slow <1/60 pictures that I want to stay sharp... and also for handheld 200 or 300mm telephoto pictures at any shutter speed? Am I on the right track here?

[Rondec]

I don't see many, if any blurred photos from SR not being armed. My understanding is that if it is not ready, it just locks the sensor down and it doesn't do anything either way. The biggest problem is if you have really irregular, sudden jerky movements, the SR won't compensate well, whether or not it is armed. I never disarm SR, although if I am shooting from a tripod, I normally use mirror lock up or multiple exposure mode, both of which disable it automatically.

[raz]

Since you're not sitting here viewing my videos on my MacBook retina with me, how can you know? Just sent it to my 40" 1080 TV, I can assure you that it's very different from 480 upsampled - I don't know why you post exaggerations like that.

I know the hacked GH2 is regarded as superior, though.

I don't know why are you mentioning the macbook retina, that is just a term is nothing "special". I have a hi-end 24" 1920x1200 HP computer display and a 1080p 50" plasma for example. Is that good enough ? Only difference is your macbook is small and you don't see the details so good on it that's why a lot of things look sharp. But I assure videos from K-5,k30, 5D mark 2, etc aren't sharp at all.

See here for K-30
"Video Sharpness

The Pentax K-30 struggled in our sharpness test, as it was unable to replicate more than 500 LW/PH of detail from our standard sharpness chart. Both horizontally and vertically, the sharpness of the final video image was limited by aliasing and averaging, resulting in heavy moire and gray beyond that point. "

Pentax K-30 Digital Camera Review - DigitalCameraInfo.com

And comparative, a consumer ordinary video camera that costs 500$, with a tiny sensor (Panasonic V770) and a crappy lens beats the K30 out of the water.
"While a scene is in motion, the sensor is capable of resolving 750 lp/ph horizontally and 800 vertically. "

So as to be on topic, Pentax desperately need to do the fallowing to not lag behind in video category :

1)good auto focus during video mode
2) A LOT better bitrate
3)capturing the image with all the sensor and rescale it to 1080p or at least capture the video at true 1080p amd not what is doing now !

[Ash]

The retina display has twice as much resolution per unit area, making it sharper in appearance, but as mentioned does not mean images of the same resolution look better when at 100%. They do look better on a retina display when shrunk (and kept at the same resolution).

As for video mode, raz, the quality of *images* the dSLRs create are sharp at the resolution recorded. Digitalcamerainfo isn't the most reputable of sources for such information. There's got to be something wrong when a significantly smaller sensor with very ordinary glass in front of it reportedly captures better image quality in video than an APS-C or FF dSLR with top quality glass.

[RonHendriks1966]

I don't know why are you mentioning the macbook retina, that is just a term is nothing "special". I have a hi-end 24" 1920x1200 HP computer display and a 1080p 50" plasma for example. Is that good enough ? Only difference is your macbook is small and you don't see the details so good on it that's why a lot of things look sharp. But I assure videos from K-5,k30, 5D mark 2, etc aren't sharp at all.

See here for K-30
"Video Sharpness

The Pentax K-30 struggled in our sharpness test, as it was unable to replicate more than 500 LW/PH of detail from our standard sharpness chart. Both horizontally and vertically, the sharpness of the final video image was limited by aliasing and averaging, resulting in heavy moire and gray beyond that point. "

Pentax K-30 Digital Camera Review - DigitalCameraInfo.com

And comparative, a consumer ordinary video camera that costs 500$, with a tiny sensor (Panasonic V770) and a crappy lens beats the K30 out of the water.
"While a scene is in motion, the sensor is capable of resolving 750 lp/ph horizontally and 800 vertically. "

So as to be on topic, Pentax desperately need to do the fallowing to not lag behind in video category :

1)good auto focus during video mode
2) A LOT better bitrate
3)capturing the image with all the sensor and rescale it to 1080p or at least capture the video at true 1080p amd not what is doing now !

from that same site:
Pentax K-01 Digital Camera Review - DigitalCameraInfo.com

It's likely the reason low light doesn't impact sharpness too severely is because the camera is just so sensitive. In order to gather 50 IRE of image data, the sensor needed only 3 lux of ambient illumination. That's quite an amazing result, placing the K-01 on par with not only the best SLRs, but the best camcorders as well.

Maybe there is a difference in the AA-filter infront off the sensor. I find my K-01 very sharp.

[raz]

The retina display has twice as much resolution per unit area, making it sharper in appearance, but as mentioned does not mean images of the same resolution look better when at 100%. They do look better on a retina display when shrunk (and kept at the same resolution).

As for video mode, raz, the quality of *images* the dSLRs create are sharp at the resolution recorded. Digitalcamerainfo isn't the most reputable of sources for such information. There's got to be something wrong when a significantly smaller sensor with very ordinary glass in front of it reportedly captures better image quality in video than an APS-C or FF dSLR with top quality glass.

Ash the problem is in the video mode the read out from the sensor isn't the same as the one in the picture mode. Most likely they don't capture every pixel of a 1920x1080 but maybe take fewer pixels and interpolate pixels to get the missing ones. That's why I'm mad because the sensors are very good, the processor inside teh camera is good, the lenses are very good but still they have the same or worse video sharpness than a 50$ cell phone lens/sensor combination. Isn't that ridiculous ?

I also have a mirrorles Panasonic, the Gf2 and a good prime. The video quality sucks as well in it. Is worse than my Canon HDV camcorder (1440x1080i) that I have from 6 years ago ! Only the big brother GH2 has good video. But my Gf2 shoots better or similar than the K5/k-01 that I've seen. It has 600 lw/ph at 1080...and it still suck.

RonHendriks1966, on that link the actual video sharpness is 525/500 which is pretty bad. I'm not trying to bash your camera but these companies are mocking us with the video mode. I tell you, even a new phone has almost the same video resolution if not better with the crappy sensor and crappy plastic lens...so the bottleneck is the read out from the sensors...

"Sharpness takes a hit during video, even though this is a Full HD 1080p device. The camera was able to resolve 525 lw/ph horizontally and 500 vertically. Pretty average. More on how CamcorderInfo tests video sharpness.
With only 60 lux of ambient illumination, video sharpness is a tiny bit worse. This time, the sensor achieved 500 lw/ph horizontally and only 475 vertically."

[oeriies]

Faster, More Responsive 51-Point AF System
D4's AF sensor utilizes 51 strategically placed AF points that are designed to capture subjects as you choose: by working together like a net to capture moving subjects or for pinpoint accuracy. Use a single AF point to home in on the exact place on your chosen subject. Each of the 51 AF points delivers fast and accurate AF detection to an impressive low light level of -2 EV (ISO 100, 20ºC) with every AF NIKKOR lens - expect to shoot more smoothly at night stadium assignments, poorly lit indoor arenas, cathedrals, theaters and any other low-lit venues
AF Detection Up to f/8 D4 aligns its 15 cross-type sensors in the center to detect contrast for both vertical and horizontal lines with lenses f/5.6 or faster. The five central points and three points to the left and right of them in the middle line are compatible with f/8

As written on the B&H page under the Nikon D4 listing; and I'll more than agree with it.

That with ANY AF Nikkor lens the Nikon D4 focuses faster than any digital Pentax product made down to -2ev. Let me expand that one a bit further... That with any existing marketed AF lens mounted to the Nikon D4 - as long as it has a starting aperature that remains above f5.6; that it will also focus faster on a Nikon D4 than on any Pentax. That would include lenses which basically have the same spec for both Pentax and Nikon lens mounts - such as some of the Sigma lenses. Let me also add in - have to exclude the macro options on that one though.

The D4 was built around it's autofocus abilities.

I've recently purchased a Nikon d7100 to mate with a Nikon 500mm vr I picked up locally that was a bargain. I'm not abandoning Pentax -- I'll continue to use my K-5 for short telephoto, normal, and wide shooting where the in-body shake reduction, primes, and ergonomics beat Nikon offerings hands-down. But the Nikon d7100 inherits the D4's autofocus system and I've got to tell you it is like the difference between a 21st century Lexus and a 19th century horse and buggy. I took my D7100 down to the harbor and shot a flock of sea gulls for an hour. They were coming and going at all angles to me. The D7100 nailed and held focus in 95% of a couple of hundred shots. It only had problems when I tried to acquire focus against a background of trees. I wouldn't even try Pentax AF-C in these conditions -- it is a joke. I would have used center-point focus, recomposed and focused repeatedly, and been lucky to come home with a few keepers. I'm sure that Pentax intends to address this. They really need to. Until that are at least at parity with Canikon on autofocus they can't compete for action and wildlife photographers.

[Ash]

That's why I'm mad because the sensors are very good, the processor inside teh camera is good, the lenses are very good but still they have the same or worse video sharpness than a 50$ cell phone lens/sensor combination. Isn't that ridiculous ?

This is not my experience.
The DR of all my K-5 and K-r videos are excellent, and the auto-exposure of the video hardware in-camera is quite adequate form home video capturing. The sharpness I get from these vidoes is spot on at 100% as long as I have focus correctly set. That has been my biggest challenge, because both my camera angle/perspective as well as the subject matter is so dynamic - it's hard to maintain sharp focus. But when it's in focus, the images are very sharp. I don't have any scientific data to back this up, but they are sharp to view on HD TV.

Videos from my iPhone, which has 720p 30fps, are very good also. I can tell the sharpness is not perfect, but is still acceptable. What is noticeably different is the worse DR, making high contrast scenes quite ordinary when viewed afterwards.

Another advantage of dSLR video mode is excellent subject isolation, which is lens dependent, but clearly much more capable with any lens compared with that of a smartphone video. The advantages start to diminish the more advanced the hardware, such as in the latest P&S cams, but I can say the argument of the dSLR videos not being sharp enough doesn't come to the fore as an issue to me.

[raz]

Ash, take a look at this,full HD and make it full screen. Look at the water, look at the plants, hairs on people heads, Then look at your best
video you have from the K5. Is like day and night, the k5 video looks like SD and the GH2 looks like HD.

You Tube

You Tube

You Tube

You Tube

This should Pentax do !!! They can do it but they don't . The other manufacturers don't put this high bitrate and sensor output into most of the cameras (GH2 was a slip) because they are selling professional video camera worth tens of thousand of dollars. Panasonic, Sony and Canon have professional camcorders. But Pentax has no such thing ! They just don't want to do this... If they would do such a thing they would get a HUGE cult status in the video community just like GH2 did.

[Ash]

I don't see professional video as a priority on a dSLR, and I'm not sure Pentax do either. From these examples here, the first thing I notice is the jerky sub-25fps rendition that is very annoying. A video ought to be smooth, and at least 25fps is needed IMO for it to look pleasing to the eyes. The K-5 only allows for 25fps at full HD, but the K30 I understand has a 30fps capability. I can see the IQ of these dSLRs meeting that of the above videos without a problem. #2 is nicely done (apart from the jerkiness) and a fine lens like a DA 40 or 70 could easily match this video rendition in IQ.

If I were into video beyond just home video captures for posterity, I would be after a 60fps full HD video camera with at least APS-C sized sensors, interchangeable lenses with the option of auto focus and power-zooming, and top-class video engine/processor set up.

I'm not sure Pentax are going to come up with such a product. And I'm OK with that.