[PePe]

What we will see almost certainly is K200D and K20D replacements built around the K-m chassis.

I think it was officially stated by Pentax that the K-M "would be the starting point for a whole range of new bodies" or something along these lines.

[Kunzite]

Sorry, folks. The K20D replacement will be bigger than the K-m (but probably smaller than K20D).
The secondary wheel, b&w LCD, more buttons, weather sealing - all of those require space, which the tiny K-m don't have.
And I find the K-m too small, btw. In fact, I quite like the K20D size and weight

[monochrome]

I think it was officially stated by Pentax that the K-M "would be the starting point for a whole range of new bodies" or something along these lines.

I guess it is "Back to the Future," Pentax style.

30 years ago the M bodies and lenses were introduced; smaller, lighter and in some ways more sophisticated then the K bodies (well, K2 and KX anyway).

Pentax seemed committed to the enthusiast market, but missed the "aspirational" consumption of the 80's and 90's, in which baby-boomers bought Canon cameras because pro's used them (functionally given away to pro's by Canon), and the repetitive and ubiquitous Canon advertising campaign.

The MX was the semi-pro camera in this body size; the LX was a truly groundbreaking camera - even today it is in high demand used. But the marketing strategy - produce a better camera value and it will sell itself - never did compete well against the repetitive Canon marketing colossus.

Is this the old/new direction for Pentax? Will it work this time?

[fs999]

And *maybe* HD movie recording.

No NEVER !!!

Buy a HD video camera, it will be cheaper, better and lighter...

[sarcasm]Why not an integrated printer ?[/sacarsm]

[vinzer]

No NEVER !!!

Buy a HD video camera, it will be cheaper, better and lighter...

[sarcasm]Why not an integrated printer ?[/sacarsm]

I don't see why people are so averse to this. If it doesn't cripple the camera and doesn't tack on a lot of money to the MSRP, then by all means, put it there. You don't want it? Then don't use it. Simple as that. With live view being available, anyway, it's not gonna be that much harder to implement and is a natural evolution. That, and it keeps up with Canon and Nikon on the head-to-head specs checklist that's oh-so-important for a lot of DSLR buyers.

Integrated printer? Sure, why not. Tomy's Xiao already has it.

[frogger]

I don't see why people are so averse to this. If it doesn't cripple the camera and doesn't tack on a lot of money to the MSRP, then by all means, put it there. You don't want it? Then don't use it. Simple as that. With live view being available, anyway, it's not gonna be that much harder to implement and is a natural evolution. That, and it keeps up with Canon and Nikon on the head-to-head specs checklist that's oh-so-important for a lot of DSLR buyers.

I agree, I don't see whats the big deal. Its as if people think by adding video they will skimp on improving other areas.

[Peter Zack]

I've said this before and agree that I don't want video in my DSLR. Now that being said I can just not use it. But my reasoning is this. The sensor is now going to be on for however long the manufacturer decides the chip can handle the heat and how much the buffer can hold/process. Heat is a contributing factor to dead or hot pixels. I'm willing to bet that it will shorten the life of the chip.

As for not using it, we don't know what compromises are made in the designs to allow both video and single shot uses are. There has to be some. Maybe the circuits that allow the sensor to shut on and off at a high frame rate effect still shot images. I'm no engineer but in any "blended" product I've ever seen or used. Compromises occur and the final result is that the unit does neither function to the best ability, a single function dedicated unit can.

Just consider primes vs zooms. You can get lots of f2.8 zooms and lots of f2.8 primes. If it was possible to produce a zoom that could match or out perform a prime at the same FL. why would anyone ever shoot with a prime? I haven't seen a top quality zoom yet that can out resolve a top quality prime.

---

Last edited by Peter Zack; 12-21-2008 at 07:10 PM.

[*isteve]

I agree, I don't see whats the big deal. Its as if people think by adding video they will skimp on improving other areas.

First try using video on an SLR. I tried it on a D90 and IQ issues aside its an ergonomic joke. Focusing, zooming etc, while shooting is pretty much impossible.

In fact its pretty hopeless without a tripod and you can forget the sound quality. Its awful. Then you have the minor issue of continuous lighting and other video attachments (such as a decent mike for one thing). By the time youve added all that to an SLR you have added a lot to the cost and wieght. If you dont, then whats the point in high def video with low def sound in daylight only?

Sorry I think the whole idea is pretty stupid. If an SLR was a good form factor for video, video cameras would look like SLRs. Its much easier to take a still picture on a video than the other way round.

[wallyb]

First try using video on an SLR. I tried it on a D90 and IQ issues aside its an ergonomic joke. Focusing, zooming etc, while shooting is pretty much impossible.

In fact its pretty hopeless without a tripod and you can forget the sound quality. Its awful. Then you have the minor issue of continuous lighting and other video attachments (such as a decent mike for one thing). By the time youve added all that to an SLR you have added a lot to the cost and wieght. If you dont, then whats the point in high def video with low def sound in daylight only?

Then, well.... just don't use it! Unless it directly affects your ability to take still photos, I don't see why someone who doesn't think they'll use it has the need to form a negative opinion.

[Douglas_of_Sweden]

I guess it is "Back to the Future," Pentax style.

30 years ago the M bodies and lenses were introduced; smaller, lighter and in some ways more sophisticated then the K bodies (well, K2 and KX anyway).

Pentax seemed committed to the enthusiast market, but missed the "aspirational" consumption of the 80's and 90's, in which baby-boomers bought Canon cameras because pro's used them (functionally given away to pro's by Canon), and the repetitive and ubiquitous Canon advertising campaign.

The MX was the semi-pro camera in this body size; the LX was a truly groundbreaking camera - even today it is in high demand used. But the marketing strategy - produce a better camera value and it will sell itself - never did compete well against the repetitive Canon marketing colossus.

Is this the old/new direction for Pentax? Will it work this time?

The difference now from then is the internet, where some things actually sell without much marketing in the real world. But I can't judge if it is enough. Hope they will not trust such a "marketing" alone.

Local camera shop here is pushing a kit around the K200D as their x-mas DSLR kit, but the bigger electronics shop next door is just selling canikon, and may sell more despite not knowing really what is up or down on the cameras. Typical story?

[*isteve]

Then, well.... just don't use it! Unless it directly affects your ability to take still photos, I don't see why someone who doesn't think they'll use it has the need to form a negative opinion.

You seem to think that its free. Its not even close to being "free" otherwise camcorders would be cheap.

I dont see why I should pay for something that is pointless when the same research and development effort could have gone into something useful.

Perhaps if they were not so keen to implement this on the 5D they might have noticed some of the other issues.

I want the best stills camera I can get for the money, I dont want a video camera that doesnt work when I could have had a better AF module instead.

[vinzer]

You seem to think that its free. Its not even close to being "free" otherwise camcorders would be cheap.

I dont see why I should pay for something that is pointless when the same research and development effort could have gone into something useful.

Perhaps if they were not so keen to implement this on the 5D they might have noticed some of the other issues.

I want the best stills camera I can get for the money, I dont want a video camera that doesnt work when I could have had a better AF module instead.

Like I said, as long as it doesn't tack on extra cost to add, then go for it. It's technology that can be distilled from live view, anyway.

Peter raises good points, too, like Steve:

I've said this before and agree that I don't want video in my DSLR. Now that being said I can just not use it. But my reasoning is this. The sensor is now going to be on for however long the manufacturer decides the chip can handle the heat and how much the buffer can hold/process. Heat is a contributing factor to dead or hot pixels. I'm willing to bet that it will shorten the life of the chip.

As for not using it, we don't know what compromises are made in the designs to allow both video and single shot uses are. There has to be some. Maybe the circuits that allow the sensor to shut on and off at a high frame rate effect still shot images. I'm no engineer but in any "blended" product I've ever seen or used. Compromises occur and the final result is that the unit does neither function to the best ability, a single function dedicated unit can.

Just consider primes vs zooms. You can get lots of f2.8 zooms and lots of f2.8 primes. If it was possible to produce a zoom that could match or out perform a prime at the same FL. why would anyone ever shoot with a prime? I haven't seen a top quality zoom yet that can out resolve a top quality prime.

Should there be compromises in sensor design owing to the inclusion of video mode, then yes, I also don't want it then. It's interesting how Canon is now allaying disgruntled 5D Mk II owners by attempting a fix for the black dots and banding (feel free to correct me if I'm wrong) seen on that new sensor. If that's attributable to forcing HD video capture in that sensor, then yes, I don't want it.

I haven't heard similar complaints on the D90, though, or maybe I'm just not aware.

As for the inclusion of HD video by Canon and Nikon, well, they needed a new feature spec to woo people to buy their new rehashed products. They've already got good FPS counts and AF speeds, plus ever cheaper FF products.

If Pentax can manage to improve AF and FPS counts while still including a no-compromise video capture mode, then I don't see why not. You and I may not want video on our DSLRs (I'll stick to my trusty camcorder), but I know a lot of friends who bought (or saving to buy) a D90 just for the lanky video mode, warts and all.

Personally, that's a small price to pay (to reiterate, as long as it's a no-compromise video mode) to see Pentax keep up with the big two and generate sales. The more units Pentax moves, the better it will be for our existing K-mount investments.

It's basically the same reason why I wasn't railing against the K-m like some others have.

[legacyb4]

I just bought the K20D to replace the K10D I was testing Pentax DSLR waters with. Honestly, the K10D more than met my needs and the only reason I sold it was because there was an opportunity to.

With the handful of "old" glass that I own, I'm anticipating that the K20D will probably be more camera than I need for the foreseeable future.

No K-mount support on newer models would be a shame but not the end of the world at this point.

[benjikan]

I just bought the K20D to replace the K10D I was testing Pentax DSLR waters with. Honestly, the K10D more than met my needs and the only reason I sold it was because there was an opportunity to.

With the handful of "old" glass that I own, I'm anticipating that the K20D will probably be more camera than I need for the foreseeable future.

No K-mount support on newer models would be a shame but not the end of the world at this point.

I totally agree. The K20D does most of what I require in a camera.

[Tom S.]

No K-mount support on newer models would be a shame but not the end of the world at this point.

I do not agree - at least from a personal stand point. My old glass kept me from buying another brand and waiting for Pentax to come out with a digital that I could use them on. My glass investment far out weighs my camera body investments. For Pentax to abandon the K mount would break my heart and my allegiance.