Btw., the 5D Mk II sold in relatively huge numbers... BECAUSE IT HAD VIDEO FUNCTIONS!
If the K-3 offered video RAW and/or 4K that could easily be an instant buy for many. What's bad about that? Now I doubt the camera has that ability, but if it had... especially with an improved SR function that works during video recording...
Moving away the Lv button is a bit of an issue for me, makes it harder to reach.
Pentax might use the headphone jack, together with an adapter, to trigger a flash or two. Or find some other use for it. Having a port that can output a signal, together with an adapter could be used for a couple of uses. Heck, there is a 3D printer that uses a headphone jack of a computer to control where material is being fixed. Get creative...
Can anyone scale the photos so that we can see how big the K-3 will be?
Btw., it looks to me as if the hump of the headphone jack makes the camera EASIER to grip.
Oh and, again, where on earth are the HD lenses optimized for video? Is there any SDM motor that gives us noiseless, smooth focusing at different speeds in there? If not, it's not for video. Also, some of the very best lenses are meant for video.
Look at those beautiful Arri, Zeiss etc. primes.
You base your assumption the HD lenses are for video on a Google translation version of a Japanese site (and automatically translating Japanese or Chinese into English hardly works at all), which even seems to say the HD lenses are BETTER? Please explain to me what exactly makes the HD lenses better at video, and worse at stills. The only thing that may mostly benefit video and not stills (but also not hurt stills) is a better AF motor that is silent and more flexible in terms of speeds it is driven at... and smoother. But even those features can benefit tracking AF, wedding photographers, street life photographers, people who need to shoot in quiet environments without disturbing everyone. Other than that... videographers/filmmakers want lenses that are sharp, are very smooth when manually focusing (benefits people who like to manually focus in general), that have good contrast, little lens flare (unless you are JJ Abrams), little chromatic aberations, ... basically everything a still photographer would also want. IF the HD lenses aren't as good for stills as the SMC ones, then that will make them less attractive for video people too.
And to the one wanting to depart to Olympus... isn't Olympus even more video centric than Pentax?
@siamthai: Better video functions perhaps, and a smaller camera. The OM-D IS a very tempting camera.
@Giklab: It'd be a disappointment over an hybrid EVF for example.
@Class A: I start turning the dial while still looking through the viewfinder to turn to video. So yes, being nicely accessible is a plus. Often times you are taking photos, and then you see something that would work better as a video, something that needs to be captured quickly before it is too late. Every second counts, and being easily accessible is great in that case. Now I'd still rather have a dedicated start video recording button... one button is there to take a photo, one to take a video. If I need to switch something first, I don't need a dedicated video button. It's useless then. And I do want the ability to turn off Lv in video mode. For example when I want the sensor to cool down/save battery while waiting for the next thing to shoot.
I agree with the long press OK thing. I prefered my *istDs where I would have to press the Fn button to get to the more exotic stuff, and where I otherwise would control the AF point with the 4 way buttons. Back then I constantly moved the focus point, with the K-5 I never do it. I would have to check in what mode I am, long press, ... I would still prefer the Fn button (I don't need to set white balance that often, and I don't need access to the self timer so easily, or even the other features...), but I suppose the AF mode button would work too. AF mode + cursor = select focus point, AF mode + dial = select AF mode.
@vonBaloney: Yes, AFAIK backups etc. are a standard feature of dual slot cameras.
@Clavius: But it is MARKETING. Nothing else. It doesn't make the lens any better or worse for videos. YOU have been saying the lenses are better for video, and not so good for stills. And that is a stupid assumption, cause clearly they are not exactly good for professional video, and they added nothing that helps them with doing better video. If they did, they would also be better for stills.
@wigelll: Isn't it, like, a bit early to say the K-3 is not ergonomic? And the EM1 seems to be a much more video focused camera than the K-3 could ever be. I would still pick a GF3 over it, but it seems to be pretty good for video too. And Pentax has a history of not understanding what videographers want.