[MarkJerling]

If your goal is to shoot video and extract stills from that then I understand John. But My goal is to shoot stills.

[Kunzite]

When a phone shoots better 4k video than any Pentax camera, that's a joke.

Oh, wait - you're a m4/3 user now; that explains everything, especially your desire to unfairly and unnecessarily make Pentax looks bad.

What works best for you and what works best for us can be very different things (or brands). You would not buy a camera without 4K video; for me, video is just a necessary feature to sell the camera.
And do you know your m4/3 cameras have a feature that makes them undesirable, even unworkable to me? Still, I won't bash them; I have no issue accepting that they work for you - and demand the same courtesy in return.

[surfar]

I'll never buy another camera without 4k video.

I said that too, then i tested a K-1(do you "still" want one?)

Mind you the next camera body i buy(this year) will have 4K or 6K, just havent decided if its M43 or Apsc.

[Rondec]

I'm pulling 8 megapickle stills from 4k video and they are high enough quality for published 2 page spreads:


In the Tire Tracks of a Pioneer by John Flores, on Flickr

6k video yields 18 megapickle stills. So even if you don't shoot video 4k and higher video is great for capturing action.


4K Photo mode of GX85 is great for baseball by John Flores, on Flickr

I'll never buy another camera without 4k video.

4K video is a relatively recent phenomenon and hasn't come to that many larger sensored cameras. As far as I can tell, the current APS-C cameras that offer 4K video are D500, A6300, and NX 500 (no longer available). Full frame cameras offering 4K video are several of the 1D series cameras, 5d MK IV, D5, and several Sony cameras (A9, A7r II, A7s, and A7s II). 4K video is gradually coming, but it certainly hasn't come to the majority of APS-C and full frame cameras at this point.

As far as the whole extracting stills from a video stream, it sounds terrible to me. Sure, it can work in a situation where you don't have other options, but the idea of wading through a stream a 30 frames a second to try to find something worth using is not ideal. Coupled with the fact that images that you get back are jpeg quality or slightly less than your average jpeg (depending on the codec). This means less dynamic range, more noise. In addition, video typically looks best with frame rates that are different from those preferred by still photographers.

Of course you may be right from a sports standpoint. There will probably come a day when ESPN and SI lay off all of their photographers and just have computers comb through their 6K video streams to find the best images, but certainly for average folks it won't be ideal and still photos will be shot as stills.

Edit: The issue with using video streams to capture still photos really isn't the number of megapixels you get out of it. It is the number of photos you are dealing with and the quality of the image produced. The goal of most still photographers is to be as efficient as possible. When my wife shoots a wedding, her goal is not to come away with a higher number of images that she has to cull, but to have a smaller number of high quality images that require fewer deletions. If you want to give your client seven to eight hundred images from their wedding, it is foolish to shoot 5000 images. That is going to make your life harder.

Anyway, I go on and on just to say that I think this can work in certain situations, but the whole point of 4K video should be for generating video purposes. The occasional time that you might steal a frame from a video stream is neither here nor there.

---

Last edited by Rondec; 08-30-2017 at 05:36 AM.

[johnmflores]

If your goal is to shoot video and extract stills from that then I understand John. But My goal is to shoot stills.

My goal is to tell travel stories. And I usually travel alone, so action shots of me riding a motorcycle have been notoriously challenging. I've tried everything and was initially attracted to Pentax and Ricoh in 2008/2009 thanks to their built-in intervalometers to help me get these shots. And I still frequently use my Q as a crash cam to get shots that make people wonder, "How did he do that?"


Ontario_RoadRUNNER_Jun14.pdf by John Flores, on Flickr

Pulling stills from 4k (and 6k) video is another way for me to get the shots that I want. And the publisher pays me, not Pentax, so I will use the gear that will get me what I need.

Oh, wait - you're a m4/3 user now; that explains everything, especially your desire to unfairly and unnecessarily make Pentax looks bad.

What works best for you and what works best for us can be very different things (or brands). You would not buy a camera without 4K video; for me, video is just a necessary feature to sell the camera.
And do you know your m4/3 cameras have a feature that makes them undesirable, even unworkable to me? Still, I won't bash them; I have no issue accepting that they work for you - and demand the same courtesy in return.

That's real nice of you to label me a heretic LOL. The majority of these published photos were taken with Pentax cameras and I'm the only motojournalist that I know that's shot with Pentax. But if I see an opportunity to improve the photos that I take then I will consider it, regardless of brand.

I still have a large collection of Pentax gear and shoot it regularly. I took the Q7 with the 08 Wide Angle Zoom, 03 Fisheye, Q-K adapter, and DA 55-300 with me on my trip to capture the total eclipse and several photos taken with that kit will likely get published.



Total Eclipse from Mackay, ID by John Flores, on Flickr

I know that this is a stills-centric forum and I'm still 95% stills-centric. So I included examples of how 4K video can be used to produce stills. Anyone that wants good stills of youth sports, birds in flight, and other action might be interested in 4K video.

I said that too, then i tested a K-1(do you "still" want one?)

Mind you the next camera body i buy(this year) will have 4K or 6K, just havent decided if its M43 or Apsc.

My FA31 and FA43 are anxiously awaiting a full-frame camera...maybe a K-2 with 4k?

4K video is a relatively recent phenomenon and hasn't come to that many larger sensored cameras. As far as I can tell, the current APS-C cameras that offer 4K video are D500, A6300, and NX 500 (no longer available). Full frame cameras offering 4K video are several of the 1D series cameras, 5d MK IV, D5, and several Sony cameras (A9, A7r II, A7s, and A7s II). 4K video is gradually coming, but it certainly hasn't come to the majority of APS-C and full frame cameras at this point.

As far as the whole extracting stills from a video stream, it sounds terrible to me. Sure, it can work in a situation where you don't have other options, but the idea of wading through a stream a 30 frames a second to try to find something worth using is not ideal. Coupled with the fact that images that you get back are jpeg quality or slightly less than your average jpeg (depending on the codec). This means less dynamic range, more noise. In addition, video typically looks best with frame rates that are different from those preferred by still photographers.

Of course you may be right from a sports standpoint. There will probably come a day when ESPN and SI lay off all of their photographers and just have computers comb through their 6K video streams to find the best images, but certainly for average folks it won't be ideal and still photos will be shot as stills.

Edit: The issue with using video streams to capture still photos really isn't the number of megapixels you get out of it. It is the number of photos you are dealing with and the quality of the image produced. The goal of most still photographers is to be as efficient as possible. When my wife shoots a wedding, her goal is not to come away with a higher number of images that she has to cull, but to have a smaller number of high quality images that require fewer deletions. If you want to give your client seven to eight hundred images from their wedding, it is foolish to shoot 5000 images. That is going to make your life harder.

Anyway, I go on and on just to say that I think this can work in certain situations, but the whole point of 4K video should be for generating video purposes. The occasional time that you might steal a frame from a video stream is neither here nor there.

The whole point of 4K video for me is getting stills that I can use in my stories.

In practice, extracting stills from a 4K video stream is actually easier than wading through dozens upon dozens of still images in order to pick the right one. You have a single file to deal with and you can either do it in camera (step through the file and then export the frame that you want) or on the computer (open in Photoshop, step through the frames until you find the one that you want). There are issues with AF performance, particularly tracking AF, but in those situations where that is not a big concern (or managed with smaller apertures/increased DOF), I'd prefer the workflow of 4K stills vs. a high FPS stills camera.

In some ways it is like shooting a JPG (it's best to nail your exposure and white balance in camera) and pick shutter speeds and apertures with the still in mind (no 2 times the frame rate calculations).

And the quality is surprisingly good when you do it right. When I submit my stories, I send the publisher a folder of images. They choose the ones they want to publish and choose which photo to feature on the two page spread. Without knowing, they chose the shot that was pulled from 4k video for the two page lede spread above. And of the nine photos of mine chosen for the story, five of them were stills pulled from 4k video. Not once did they question the quality, and I know that they are picky.

I'm very much intrigued by the GH5 with 18 megapickle stills from 6k video. There are very intriguing stills applications for 4k and 6k video and I hope that Pentax recognizes this.

[Kunzite]

That's real nice of you to label me a heretic LOL.

I have to ask you to quote me labeling you a heretic, and if you can't, to stop putting words in my mouth.

[johnmflores]

I have to ask you to quote me labeling you a heretic, and if you can't, to stop putting words in my mouth.

Right here:

Oh, wait - you're a m4/3 user now; that explains everything, especially your desire to unfairly and unnecessarily make Pentax looks bad.

[surfar]

I'm very much intrigued by the GH5 with 18 megapickle stills from 6k video. There are very intriguing stills applications for 4k and 6k video and I hope that Pentax recognizes this.

Software update coming late Sept,it will be interesting.

[MarkJerling]

My goal is to tell travel stories. And I usually travel alone, so action shots of me riding a motorcycle have been notoriously challenging.

I think you do that very well.

[Kunzite]

Right here:

Sigh... and I asked nicely.

[totsmuyco]

The way I see it is, the task of professional photographers are changing. Some will need videos and take pictures at the same time. A lot of younger people would like to have this camera as well.

Guys who have experienced the film era would normally stick to shooting plainly stills. There are also younger people who simply like stills rather than videos. These set of people simply love photography and I guess, the love for photography will always be there. And those who love this hobby/profession will always look for cameras that can offer good still pictures and wouldn't mind if their cameras have 4k or 6k videos. Myself included.

[Mikesul]

This interchange regarding whether John is somehow a traitor or heretic or aberrant for using another brand to get what Pentax does not offer is a disturbing trend that seems to be taking over many forum threads. Anyone who has been around the Q section knows about John's work and, I suspect, admires him a great deal. I have always appreciated his thoughtful and sometimes unconventional contributions. His response above is a good example of the kind of measured, articulate and intelligent posting we need here.

[mee]

Right here:

It is that type of stuff that keeps me from discussing at length anymore. You throw out an aspect the brand could focus on to accommodate you or a weakness of the brand and people take it to another level on you, in their minds, attacking their precious. It isn't even about disagreeing but taken to another level. As if their life revolves around the brand. That's sad.

I think your responses have been very respectful and well measured, despite the harshness thrown your way.

Oh and thanks for explaining that one photo of you riding with the camera on your back. You shared that one before and it left me wondering how that one was achieved... neat trick and nice work.

[clackers]

Look, John's a very good photographer (and, despite any disagreements I've had with him, seems a cool guy, too!), and that's what counts.

I've had two experiences with m43 photographers in the last couple of weeks.

On a birding excursion, an Olympus owner showed me her pics of the same birds that I and the Canikon APS-C and FF dudes were shooting. We were of course usually doing the f8, 1/1000s thing. She was apologizing for all the noise in darker subjects and backgrounds. I just shrugged my shoulders and smiled supportively, but she was going to have to buy and use a flash to get better results. This is problematic, since that group is philosophically opposed to that.

Last night my Panasonic buddy and I were videoing seven female empowerment speakers. I had my K-1 for the three quarter shots, he had his usual GH5 for the head-and-shoulders, I'll multicam in post. I used Pentax face recognition to setup focus, he decided to use the GH5's focus peaking, with nice blue outlines.

In reviewing the footage, his stuff is often front focussed. Cranked up to f2.8 because of the light levels, the blue outlines around the microphone were fine, there are none on the face because of the uniform illumination, but because ear rings or strands of hair were also outlined, he assumed not that they were areas of high contrast, but they were in focus, and so too would be everything in between them and the mike.

We always have two 1080 (not 4k!) frontal shots for every moment to choose from, and GoPros were on at the front and back of the room, so we'll work something out, but it's hazardous to go by the hype of advertisers.

[biz-engineer]

I'll never buy another camera without 4k video.

If you look over the last decade, video was not available in still cameras, then it was available at low resolution, then 1080p 25FPS, then 1080p with 60 frames per second, now some cameras offer 4K. We tend to get more and more image and video quality out of new camera products. I'm confident that all camera will ultimately offer 4K and even 8K. 4K is on its way to becoming the new standard of display, will ultimately make it in our homes when we will replace our current HD displays (for all people like me who still don't have a 4K display). As for cameras, it not only depends on camera designs but also sensor designs (by Sony, etc). If Pentax is still around, they will also offer 4K (that will be in Theta first). Pentax are usually late to market for some camera features, they usually catch-up when the market is confirmed, so they lose customers who want to have leading edge camera gear. For other customers who don't necessarily want to have the latest tech in their camera, they just have to keep using the Pentax gear they already have, wait a couple of years and get the 4K for free (without the price premium of leading edge cameras) in their new Pentax camera. I wouldn't be concerned very much that Pentax may not offers what other brands offer, I'd be more concerned about the ability of Pentax to survive Ricoh's management decisions, because there are different types of corporate leaders, some of them are builders, while a lot of them are bean-counters (they downsize to tweak the bottom line, stay a few years to take their salaries and leave early enough not to have to cope with the long term effects of their decisions: we call them Lucky-Luke style leadership because them move faster than their shadows).