[Kunzite]

Yes, you are right but going by Pentax narrative they ditched videographers consciously aiming to make photographers cameras.

Nope, that's not Pentax' narrative.
In the first place, they didn't had the videographers to be able to ditch them.

[biz-engineer]

Yes, you are right but going by Pentax narrative they ditched videographers consciously aiming to make photographers cameras. Dunno if it was good or bad choice, but we will see in few years how it will end.

Video was added to cameras and used as a selling point. I admit I still have to learn a lot, and the more I learn the more I see how camera marketing disconnects from the art. When I was a kid, I studied and worked on analog TV transmission electronics, video and sound resolution was limited by the transmission medium (radio bandwidth and modulation methods). At the time, the bandwidth assigned for analog TV and viewing distance was set according to the measured human vision. One thing I remember very well, was that instructors presented video and photos as having totally different requirements according to human vision properties. Due to the dynamic nature of video and latency of human vision and the difference between color vision and monochromatic vision, video resolution requirements were much less than photo requirements. Technically, it's just non sense to have video and photography in the same device. Small sensor, low resolution at high frames rates is what makes video great. Resolution is a much more important parameter for still images, and the frame rate is secondary most of the time, except for special applications. Photography cameras needed video capabilities is really a marketing thing, there is no technical ground to support the claims that video is required in a photography camera.

---------- Post added 09-07-22 at 09:40 ----------

The thing about video is you don't know if you'd like it or appreciate it till you have it. XT4 was an eye opener and I did buy it intending on doing video with it.

I think the thing about video is that you don't know that you'd like it or appreciate it until you vlog on youtube. I'm 100% I wouldn't use video even if I had an XT4, I don't edit videos, I don't have the skills for it, I don't have the software for it and I don't run a youtube channel. I print images, and as a consequence, my equipment , my approach, the places I go, the subjects I choose are such that they support my end results. Same for you, as you run a vlog on youtube, you find that the video recording capabilities of your XT4 are useful to you.

[Rondec]

Looking at the videos that appear on social media, the quality is generally terrible. I don't mean whether they are 4K or HD. I simply mean that people don't spend time to edit their videos enough to tell a decent story. Furthermore, most people have no particular story that is worth other people spending time listening to them and all of the influencers main attribute seems to be their looks and style.

Vlogging and Podcasting are both the worse for not having time limits. Long rambling interviews and videos are just not enjoyable for anyone except friends and family to view or listen to.

I shoot a little video -- mainly kids events and family memories. I even bought some software to try to help video edit, but it is way more time intensive to get something that anyone but your mom would actually be willing to watch than it is to edit photos.

I'm not saying that Pentax shouldn't improve their video capabilities -- they should. But from what I've seen the majority of people are shooting video with their phone at this point and I don't think it is going to be a huge seller going forward.

(Sorry for the rant, but movies are like novels -- plot, character building, and story telling are far more important than the quality of the paper they are printed on and most people just don't have it.)

[lytrytyr]

...Eh. It was basically a half-featured K-30 without the green solenoid and the same sticker price. Not exactly what you'd call a tough achievement.

No way! Where's the aluminum in the K-30?

[acoufap]

Looking at the videos that appear on social media, the quality is generally terrible. I don't mean whether they are 4K or HD. I simply mean that people don't spend time to edit their videos enough to tell a decent story. Furthermore, most people have no particular story that is worth other people spending time listening to them and all of the influencers main attribute seems to be their looks and style.

Vlogging and Podcasting are both the worse for not having time limits. Long rambling interviews and videos are just not enjoyable for anyone except friends and family to view or listen to.

I shoot a little video -- mainly kids events and family memories. I even bought some software to try to help video edit, but it is way more time intensive to get something that anyone but your mom would actually be willing to watch than it is to edit photos.

I'm not saying that Pentax shouldn't improve their video capabilities -- they should. But from what I've seen the majority of people are shooting video with their phone at this point and I don't think it is going to be a huge seller going forward.

(Sorry for the rant, but movies are like novels -- plot, character building, and story telling are far more important than the quality of the paper they are printed on and most people just don't have it.)

I think you‘re right.

To start with video making I read books on story telling, making videos and of course using appropriate software. Using sound effects and music also do need a lot of dedication and the ability and will to learn a lot. My feeling is that it‘s something for a group of people, i.e. a project team, having different capabilities to create a nice story telling movie / video.

But of course there are topics that may have different demands, by example educational videos about using special software.

[reh321]

No way! Where's the aluminum in the K-30?

He means the electronics.

Even that is not quite true, considering the battery and aperture control, but my understanding when I did get the K-30, was that it basically had the same innards as the K-01. I got the K-30 solely because of the viewfinder, and even though I’ve personally experienced “Dark Image Syndrome”, I would still make the same decision. Two years of photographing with the viewfinder was still more than worth the “Dark Image Syndrome”’ that followed.

[Serkevan]

No way! Where's the aluminum in the K-30?

Because machining aluminium is somehow harder than forming plastic? Come on. We were talking about engineering achievements.
The point still stands, the K-01 is the guts of a K-30, with the PDAF and OVF modules gutted out, in a (dubiously) prettier, sturdier case. It took longer to design the case than to make the rest of the camera.

[biz-engineer]

The thing about video is you don't know if you'd like it or appreciate it till you have it. XT4 was an eye opener and I did buy it intending on doing video with it.

I had a similar eye opening experience with Pentax . When I bought the Pentax K1 and DFA 150-450, I did it with the intention of taking photographs of wildlife and I didn't believe it could be useful as a 3.5 Kg dumbbell, although the dumbbell feature was provided for free, I didn't think I'd use it. As I flexed my biceps while shooting BiF, my muscle became stronger and stronger, it was an eye opener for fitness as well. Later I tried the Fuji is the shop, but they are clearly not as good as Pentax for my fitness routines, definitely too light weight.

---------- Post added 09-07-22 at 14:37 ----------

The point still stands, the K-01 is the guts of a K-5

Yes, you are right. The K-5 was the first with 16Mpixels sensor. The K-30 was a K-01 with added OVF and PDAF.

[Lord Lucan]

Photography cameras needed video capabilities is really a marketing thing, there is no technical ground to support the claims that video is required in a photography camera.

Don't worry, separate specialised video cameras will be the next marketing thing, a return to the pre-2005 situation.

Currently, the marketing people are successfully persuading people to keep ditching their existing cameras to buy a succession of new ones, each with incremental increases in video resolution and frame rate, but that marketing effort will run out of steam when it eventually dawns on everyone that further technical improvements in that direction are pointless. The direction in which the marketing people will then turn will be telling us (with some truth) that a camera designed for video from the ground up, and looking not at all like a DSLR/DSLM, is the only acceptable way to shoot video.

I knew a retired professional TV news cameraman, who had started with analog TV cameras. He was scathing about digital camcorders, let alone DSLRs as video cameras, because of something to do with the position of the centre of gravity in relation to the optics. Beyond my understanding, or caring, but certainly DSLRs/DSLMs did not seem to cut the mustard.

[Serkevan]

Yes, you are right. The K-5 was the first with 16Mpixels sensor. The K-30 was a K-01 with added OVF and PDAF.

The K-01 and K-30 came out within months of each other, so I assume they developed them together and just released the K-01 first, because it's an easier design to finalize .

[jslifoaw]

I don't quite understand the fuss over the option to have video in our cameras. The technology and tools continue to evolve, and people find different ways to utilize them. I don't think we can just call it a marketing gimmick; why does it matter if someone's choices as to how they use a tool or feature of a tool differs from your own?

As awkward as it might be to hold up a camera to shoot video (assuming no other form of support), people will find solutions to achieve their objectives, even if their goal is just to casually capture a moment. I appreciate the option to have a telephoto view which is hard to attain with a smartphone within my narrow scope of capturing video. I also don't miss carrying a separate camcorder, whether it be handheld or, more traditionally, resting on my shoulder with my head up against the side looking into the protruding viewfinder. That option still exists today for a predominantly professional target market, but there are plenty of professional artists who are successfully publishing video shot on DSLRs/mirrorless cameras (or even smartphones in some instances). There might be very limited / exclusive situations where for whatever reason the use of certain equipment might be demanded for marketing / appearance's sake, but those should be infrequent.

The access to generally excellent video quality in multiple hardware form factors (and price points) gives freedom to the artist to decide how they want to create content and if they wish to leverage (or not) the capabilities at their disposal whether it be high frame rates, high resolution, high dynamic range, or a large imaging medium (i.e. sensor).

Pentax is in a great position to blend modern capabilities while remaining faithful to some key traditional design elements. The possible price increase that might trigger is going to happen either way since they'll otherwise have to deal with a shrinking pool of customers which will necessitate higher prices and a likely winding down into obscurity (which some will welcome for the short term fire sale of equipment). Attempting to evolve their target market by focusing on the higher end and/or expanding functionality is also a risk, but at least has a chance of being successful. If they fail, they can at least say they tried.

[biz-engineer]

I don't quite understand the fuss over the option to have video in our cameras. The technology and tools continue to evolve, and people find different ways to utilize them. I don't think we can just call it a marketing gimmick; why does it matter if someone's choices as to how they use a tool or feature of a tool differs from your own?

Well, video and photography are like apples and oranges, or soccer and tennis. Why should a tennis racquet be designed with a soccer ball attached to it, and why should we tell tennis players that a 2 in 1 racquet-ball is better than a tennis racquet because he can also play soccer with it? To me, if you play only tennis you develop the muscles and talent for tennis, you don't need a ball. And if you play soccer you don't need the tennis racquet attached to it. Ah ok, I get the point, if you are mediocre tennis player, and mediocre soccer player, than it's cheaper if you buy the 2-in-1 racquet-ball. I get it, the video that's being sold in cameras isn't going to be used by Hollywood, I get we are talking mass market, amateur/hobbyists here.

Basically, what Ricoh are saying is that video comes as a byproduct of having the streaming capability builtin the camera sensor, but they select the sensor for photography primarily. What's wrong with that?

[Serkevan]

Well, video and photography are like apples and oranges, or soccer and tennis. Why should a tennis racquet be designed with a soccer ball attached to it, and why should we tell tennis players that a 2 in 1 racquet-ball is better than a tennis racquet because he can also play soccer with it? To me, if you play only tennis you develop the muscles and talent for tennis, you don't need a ball. And if you play soccer you don't need the tennis racquet attached to it. Ah ok, I get the point, if you are mediocre tennis player, and mediocre soccer player, than it's cheaper if you buy the 2-in-1 racquet-ball. I get it, the video that's being sold in cameras isn't going to be used by Hollywood, I get we are talking mass market, amateur/hobbyists here.

Basically, what Ricoh are saying is that video comes as a byproduct of having the streaming capability builtin the camera sensor, but they select the sensor for photography primarily. What's wrong with that?

This is one of the most ridiculous analogies I've read in a while.

[biz-engineer]

This is one of the most ridiculous analogies I've read in a while.

Yes, bad analogies. If analogies were the problem it would be easy. I think solving the problem of "Pentax video is not good" should start with sending the camera user to a professional videography training. What photography and videography have in common, is if you have no skills for video making, it's not buying a Sony or a Fuji that's going to make your videos interesting. Over the years, I found that no amount on online comments will solve lack of education. What sad about it, the vast majority of camera users never attended any professional multimedia training / certification program at a university, and when they don't get good video results the first thing they do is to blame the camera specifications. Starts with the basics (https://www.adobe.com/creativecloud/video/discover/what-is-videography.html) , with stabilizer etc... and then after you nail all technical and artistic issues, we discuss again about Pentax video problems.

[Serkevan]

Yes, bad analogies. If analogies were the problem it would be easy. I think solving the problem of "Pentax video is not good" should start with sending the camera user to a professional videography training. What photography and videography have in common, is if you have no skills for video making, it's not buying a Sony or a Fuji that's going to make your videos interesting. Over the years, I found that no amount on online comments will solve lack of education. The vast majority of camera users never attended a single hour of professional multimedia training at a university, and when they don't get good video results the first thing they do is to blame the camera specifications.

Yeah, and when they don't get good photos they blame the camera (or lens) specifications as well. I mean, I can think of a certain someone who keeps complaining about Pentax lenses and bodies not having enough resolving power for country-wide prints

The point still stands - photo and video are recorded with roughly the same tools. At most, you could say that a car fitted for Nascar is not necessarily the best option for a rally.