[johnmflores]

Don't tell me what is and what isn't a gimmick.

Just because someone is expressing an opinion that doesn't agree with yours doesn't mean they are telling you what to think.

[geomez]

So, there's is absolutely nothing wrong with a Pentax shooter calling video a gimmick. If you don't have that mindset you shouldn't be shooting Pentax.

Sorry Norm, Pentax isn't a religion. You don't need a mindset to shoot Pentax, all you need is the desire to have a good tool for taking pictures.

[normhead]

Just because someone is expressing an opinion that doesn't agree with yours doesn't mean they are telling you what to think.

I agree.

SO maybe this is what I should have done.
My definition of gimmick
noun
1.
an ingenious or novel device, scheme, or stratagem, especially one designed to attract attention or increase appeal.

I fail to see how the video performance of a still camera isn't a gimmick. Maybe you can explain your opinion.

I'm happy that that K-1 is doing well. Looks to be a fantastic stills camera and I might own one someday. But the OP editorialized and called video a "gimmick". Had he kept to the sales figures we might not be having this conversation about video and instead celebrating the success of a good camera.

I fail to see how the correct use of the word "gimmick" in any way gives people permission to hijack the thread.

[Uluru]

Sorry Norm, Pentax isn't a religion. You don't need a mindset to shoot Pentax, all you need is the desire to have a good tool for taking pictures.

You may be hurting other people's religious sentiments.
Many of us do yearly pilgrimages to Yokohama

[geomez]

I didn't say Pentax was a religion. In fact what I referred to is a design philosophy, there is a difference.

I stand corrected. I should have said "philosophy" instead of "religion". So this is my revised statement...

"Sorry Norm, Pentax isn't a philosophy. You don't need a mindset to shoot Pentax, all you need is the desire to have a good tool for taking pictures."

Pentax is a company that makes things. We buy their things and like their things enough to discuss their things here. Some of us are satisfied with those things and some of us want more out of those things. Just because some of us are vocal about wanting more than you does not make us fools, does not mean we deserve condescension, nor does it mean we're not worthy of shooting Pentax.

My personal experience is that mainstream brands -- those that target "winning" -- suck for me. MacDonalds, Microsoft, CocaCola, Budweiser, Kraft Cheese, etc. have all "won" the most marketshare but they've lost me as a customer.

I'm right there with you, but if Pentax offered the same product but with all the things fixed that reviewers ding it for like better AF and video, would they loose you? I for one would still be a Pentaxian, just a more enthusiastic and more capable one. And you're right, Ricoh may not be trying to "win", but I don't think they bought Pentax for the sake of posterity. I think they want to make money like all big multinationals in a capitalist world and "winning", i.e. greater market share with us included would mean more money.

But the OP editorialized and called video a "gimmick". Had he kept to the sales figures we might not be having this conversation about video and instead celebrating the success of a good camera.

You're completely right John. I apologize to all of you for jumping on this derailed train and pushing it further from the track.

Oddly enough, I find Pentax the least nerdy brand. Yes, Pentax does have some special technology unique to itself (mostly consisting of novel ways of using IBIS), but when it comes to overall tech, they tend to trail everyone else, particularly in AF and video. Pentax's strength seems to be in harnessing tech in more traditional, pragmatic and user friendly ways. The user gives up state of the art video and AF in return for better ergonomics and handling, along with a greater emphasis on subjective perceptual image quality, rather than over-relying on numerical evaluations that don't always enjoy full correlation to subjective experience. Unfortunately, the these advantages are subtle and can only be appreciated through long-term use. They are not the type of advantages that market well.

I see where you're coming from. I guess I'm using a different definition of nerd. I mean nerdy kinda like the opposite of sexy. Sexy is 20 fps. Sexy is a 1.2 aperture AF lens. Nerdy is being psyched about somewhat esoteric features that are very useful but hard to explain. Pretty much everything Pentax does special with with their IBIS is nerdy. The design of the articulating screen on the K-1 looks weird in pictures and video online, and is a mouthful to try to explain it's virtues, but once you get your hands on it you realized that they designed the hell out of it and it's amazing. It's nerdy.

[lytrytyr]

My advice to those who think video isn't an add on gimmick on a still camera is shoot with some real video equipment. Get a sense of what you are talking about.

Sorry, Norm, I don't buy that argument.

A friend of mine shoots TV news for a living,
with a rig that builds muscles while he's carrying it all day.

But he's happy to use his Canon APS-C DSLR for his own videos.

[jonlg]

It's also worth pointing out that the key purpose of a camera to me is capturing images and memories and I make no distinction whether they are static or moving images i.e. photographs or videos.

As for whether DSLR's are serious photographic tools I'm linking here to a list of major movies all of which were shot either in part or totally using Canon or Nikon DSLR's - I think some of you are going to be astonished:

IMDb: Movies Filmed with Canon and Nikon DSLR Cameras - a list by montanafilmmaker

Frankly I don't think I need to say anymore. From an artistic standpoint I feel both video and film can make a powerful statement and I wouldn't put one above the other but I'd certainly prefer a camera to be capable of doing both so I can minimise the bulk of equipment I need to carry and I bet I'm not alone...

Jonlg

[johnmflores]

Norm, you think video is a gimmick. I don't. We disagree. That happens.

[jgnfld]

The subject of the thread is "isn't it interesting that half of all K-1 buyers come from outside the existing Pentax community". I find it interesting, for sure. Obviously the K-1 is tapping into something. That something might even be worth discussing.

What's "uncalled for" is hijacking a perfectly reasonable thread.

[Ian Stuart Forsyth]

Frankly I don't think I need to say anymore. From an artistic standpoint I feel both video and film can make a powerful statement and I wouldn't put one above the other but I'd certainly prefer a camera to be capable of doing both so I can minimise the bulk of equipment I need to carry and I bet I'm not alone...

+1

And cost

[biz-engineer]

+1 And cost

Discussions about Pentax video assume that Pentax video can't make a movie. That's wrong. Pentax does HD video, using the same sensor as competition, video stream doesn't depends on camera, it is streaming mode designed by the sensor manufacturer (Sony...), and the only difference between Pentax and other is the format of the datastream / compression. That is, anyone making a movie with a D810 can also do the same movie with a Pentax K1.

I can believe there is so much arguing about Pentax video from people who never shot a single video with a DSLR. I can't believe people asking Pentax to do the same video as competition based on what other said, and never having made any video recording, except handheld shaking the camera to see the effect of rolling shutter. I can't believe people asking for more when they don't use what they already have.

Here is a link (this is not the way movies are made...sorry):

You Tube

You Tube

[clackers]

+1

And cost

If you care, you have more than one golf club in your bag.

[Rondec]

How much better is the video from a D810 than video from the K-1? I honestly haven't seen many professional videos shot with the D810, but I don't see Nikon users calling it worthless as a result. At the same time, video is usable on the K-1, it just isn't Pentax's number one priority.

[surfar]

K1 video works....I turned it on for 5 seconds!.....

[ffking]

if Pentax offered the same product but with all the things fixed that reviewers ding it for like better AF and video,

regrettably, that's the point we always have to come back to when looking at Pentax as a business - without a lot of smoke and mirrors to distract them, reviewers will zero in on the things that received wisdom says are brand weaknesses and criticize them more heavily than they would in another brand. If you can dazzle them with some groundbreaking tech, they will be more likely to forgive other shortcomings.

That said - we are oversensitive about Pentax - we've all spoken to users of other brands who moan about their cameras, and most reviews do pinpoint shortcomings in other brands. To me, the the strongest evidence of this psychological effect is to ask whether Ricoh were a bunch op hapless incompetents when they were a competitor of Pentax. I think we'd find that they did rather more right in those days.

Having said which - I do wish. like many others, that Pentax would deal convincingly with perceived weaknesses - they do so much so well that one wants it to be recognised. Whether they can do that at a price I can afford, I don't know, but there seem to be plenty (in relative terms) of non-Pentaxians out there who have got deep pockets and are will run to where the latest buzz is coming from, and might just discover a great camera in the process.