[Cynog Ap Brychan]

Nobody but a few geeks really want 3d or 4K.

I must be a geek, then - I have 3D and I want 4K (next year). And there's me thinking I'm too old to be a geek.

[i83N]

Industry is desperate especially television. Nobody but a few geeks really want 3d or 4K. 4k will sell once prices drop though and then it might be useful to have a 4k camera for family video.

Plans for 1080p were made 80's plans for 4k at the end 90's, so keep calm and cary on.

[RobA_Oz]

Simply because Pentax hasn't got good engineers, who would program the software for proper video capability.

I really doubt that's true. Employee engineers develop things their employers tell them to.

People are making bold assertions here, about how many photographers do or don't want leading-edge video capabilities, but I don't see any hard evidence being presented. Personally, I fall into the "don't much care" group, now, perhaps also the "it'd be nice to have" group, but that's a sample of one. The lack of full professional video capability in current Pentax cameras tells me that their research suggests I'm in the majority.

If you need to blame someone, and you think better video is necessary and overdue, then I think it's probably more accurate to direct your ire at Pentax marketers, not their engineers.

[VisualDarkness]

I think the TV makers are a bit desperate to make 4k the next big thing as the 3D didn't catch on as they planned. It seems like the 1080p boom has calmed down and people keep their televisions longer now, at least here in Sweden as not many are sold second hand.

[IchabodCrane]

The more I think about (fortunately, not too much), the more inclined I'm to think the extra "thing" on the front of the leaked images is an attachment point for a grip. Notice that this is the first Q that's shaped with a flat body.

[ZombieArmy]

Industry is desperate especially television. Nobody but a few geeks really want 3d or 4K. 4k will sell once prices drop though and then it might be useful to have a 4k camera for family video.

Even without a 4k display 4k video is exceptionally useful for downscaling for better and sharper video at 1080p, and cropping.

On top of the fact that it is future proofing the inevitable shift into 4k.

[johnmflores]

Even without a 4k display 4k video is exceptionally useful for downscaling for better and sharper video at 1080p, and cropping.

Very true. That's why I would adopt 4k now if I could justify it.

On top of the fact that it is future proofing the inevitable shift into 4k.

The best way to future proof your video (and photos) is to make it good.

[ZombieArmy]

The best way to future proof your video (and photos) is to make it good.

Photos sure, especially since their resolution has almost always equaled or (greatly) exceeded the displays they were used on, and could be easily cropped or downsized further so they don't need to be upscaled, unlike older video (you don't typically fullscreen a photo anyways).

Even with upscalers and well taken shots 1080p video just won't look nearly as good as 4k on the same displays, we can already see this quite clearly with the old 480p/I videos, and even with some 720.

Not saying it's totally necessary right now, but I surely wouldn't mind to see Ricoh push somewhat in that direction eventually. Even 2k or QHD would be nice to see, or hell just some decent video controls.

[johnmflores]

Photos sure, especially since their resolution has almost always equaled or (greatly) exceeded the displays they were used on, and could be easily cropped or downsized further so they don't need to be upscaled, unlike older video (you don't typically fullscreen a photo anyways).

Even with upscalers and well taken shots 1080p video just won't look nearly as good as 4k on the same displays, we can already see this quite clearly with the old 480p/I videos, and even with some 720.

Not saying it's totally necessary right now, but I surely wouldn't mind to see Ricoh push somewhat in that direction eventually. Even 2k or QHD would be nice to see, or hell just some decent video controls.

My point is that Seinfeld (or insert your favorite comedy here) will still be funny whether it's 480, 720, 1080, or 4K. Something becomes a classic and thus worth watching because of its content, not its production values. Just look at cat videos-nobody cares what resolution it's in.

That said, 4k is neat. My next camera will likely be the Panasonic GH4, partially for the 4k video. But the Q will need to make big steps forward in processing power and energy usage to handle 4k. It's not impossible though-GoPro can.

[Uluru]

I am still more excited about movies made in 1930s with "primitive" black & white film than today's rubbish produced in 4K, 8K or whatever.

"4K is the way to go" so the whiskers of our cats in 'The Cats' videos will be crisper.

[i83N]

I am still more excited about movies made in 1930s with "primitive" black & white film

Sure 1930s b&w film has resolution more than 4k or 8k ((((:

[cxdoo]

How did we come to 4K video from Q2?


I specifically don't want 4K video or other bells and whistles that decrease battery life. What would draw me to Q system, in descending order:


* size
* ergonomy
* IQ
* battery life
* lens availability
* price
* video capability
* other stuff


More verbosely put, I want to have a camera that is small, I can use it quickly the way I want, takes (relatively) good pictures, can last (reasonably) long on a charge, can be tinkered with, and is not too expensive. Video capability is appreciated but not a deal-breaker.

[VisualDarkness]

WR or even more watersealing, maybe an evf (though I often hate the small ones) is what I want for the Q.

[ZombieArmy]

I am still more excited about movies made in 1930s with "primitive" black & white film than today's rubbish produced in 4K, 8K or whatever.

"4K is the way to go" so the whiskers of our cats in 'The Cats' videos will be crisper.

Not that you can actually compare the film medium to digital.

[cxdoo]

WR is a good point and fits into what I want from it; to take it anywhere, anytime.