Originally posted by kadajawi wow. I had low expectations for this camera in terms of video, and even so I was massively disappointed. The specs are barely acceptable for a 2013 camera... Can't see any reason why I should go for this even over a second hand camera from any other brand.
Unfortunately Pentax falls away as an option for me. I do have to shoot video for work (besides stills), and this thing does not look good. It is very obvious Pentax doesn't care about video... So what if it is a decent stills camera. And hey, it even caught up to old Nikons in terms of that overlay LCD inside. Wooohooo! Any APS-C or FF camera is a decent stills camera. The only reason to get this is if you want to use old Pentax lenses to their fullest, or insist on using a Pentax. It's cheap? Yeah... but a second hand Canon or Nikon is cheaper. Yeah, the Pentax has SR. But for stills I don't care much about SR, it's much more useful for video. You can clearly see the difference there.
I wonder if the pro market is going to be interested in to this camera, to me it squarely falls into the hobbyist field. It's acceptable for a 645Z to have terrible video, at that price point the clients will be hiring videographers anyway if they are interested into video. But a FF...
Unless Pentax announces a camera with significantly improved video capabilities, or even mentions they are working on that, I'll be getting something else when it's time to upgrade. Maybe Olympus...?
We tried to tell you a long time ago to skip Pentax and find a more video-centric system. But nooooo you kept hanging on for dear life, adamant that Pentax would turn around their approach on video.
This K-1 is incredible for photographers. For videographers, you want Canon, Olympus, Fuji, RED..