Originally posted by Urkeldaedalus Good points. I think in terms of video quality and output the K-5 was better, but with Prime M the K-30 had AF in video and manual control over exposure. My main point was that I am hoping the video on the K-3 will be another area where you don't have to compromise one area of performance to gain somewhere else. Autofocus is another good example of this, potentially.
It had AF in video in the same way as the first camera phone could take photos. Yes, it was there, but was it usable? It needs to reach a certain level of quality/functionality before it is usable, and I think I tried it in the K-30 and thought... why bother? Now fokus peaking was certainly nice, and manual control over exposure too.
Give me focus peaking, decent video AF (i.e. smooth focusing, litte to no hunting, ... or just don't bother), manual controls, the CHOICE between MJPEG (as it exists in the K-5) and AVCHD/H264, the CHOICE between AGC (maybe with different settings) and manual gain, different frame rates, overlays on the screen for different aspect ratios, ... and I'm happy.
@wizofoz: Scale... yes, the plug looks the same pretty much to 1/8", but unless the K-3 is the size of a 645D... also that would also mean the microphone jack is a 1/4" one, and again, I can't see that happening (and it just doesn't look that big). In that case, why not go for XLR?
@6BQ5: What? Pentax obviously wants to earn money, yes. The cameras should be profitable. Is it going after something like the 70D or GF3? Ahem, no? I really, really doubt Pentax could go from "what's video?" to making a tool for professionals, that beats the much more experienced competition. If anything, Pentax will catch up, and that's all.