[gatorguy]

Having six different camera lines worked in the 2010 to 2012 range, but I expect the number of new Z mount camera sales to start slowing down considerably. Of course there was a wave of Nikon users moving over when Nikon finally released an MILC, but at this point, those folks have moved over and it seems likely they will hold their current cameras for a while unless they drop them off a bridge or something like that.

The latest industry reports have the raw number of changeable lens cameras sold tanking, down 92% in the past decade. In 2021 there were only slightly more than 8 million changeable lens cameras sold. Repeat: Just about 8 million. That compares to 121 million/year just over 10 years ago. NO ONE's unit numbers are increasing. Yet at the same time camera company profits are up. Huh, you don't say?

Well guess now why camera mounts keep changing, and the only real differentiating features between cameras are on the video side which is being marketed hard and non-stop? If the manufacturers fail at convincing you that video is essential and that photos made possible by mirrorless are inferred to be impossible with a DSLR then the sales numbers become unsustainable even faster, and the ridiculously high-priced mirrorless lenses and batteries and adapters won't be purchased.

You can enjoy photography and get great results by concentrating on the stills performance, and you can get very good value from eminently capable DSLR gear both new and lovingly pre-owned. You don't have to be wealthy to be a photographer. My $500 K-70 DSLR gives me as generally as good stills results as $2000 competitors' mirrorless cameras, and the lenses designed for it are far more numerous and affordable than on any of the new MILC's.

---

Last edited by gatorguy; 07-10-2022 at 06:11 AM.

[EssJayEff]

An item to think about: How many of our biases on the subject of video on DSLRs are rooted in the probable fact that most of us here at PentaxForums are predominantly still-image photographers? How else does one explain the fact that the Canon EOS 5D Mark II revolutionized the way videographers and filmmakers flocked to the camera. That camera initiated what filmmakers call the "the "DSLR revolution." That was not an inexpensive camera, with the introductory price of $2,700 USD in 2008 dollars, which is about $3,600 in 2022 dollars.

[biz-engineer]

Several months ago I saw Jordan Drake's (DPReview professional videographer) YouTube video on this topic, but here is his written version:"Why I shoot video with mirrorless cameras (and not video cameras)". There is a link below his article to the YouTube video.

I think I should withdraw from the discussion and I would prefer to have the opinion of a professionals working as videographers for out national TV broadcasters. In my country, I've seen the personnel recording videos for national TV channels at sport venues, and I can confirm that they are not using a camera, not a single one. Who is Jordan Drakes? Worked as sales personnel for a camera shop, then worked as camera review editor for a web marketing site of consumer electronics. Did he receive any education to work full time as videographer?

Canon EOS 5D Mark II revolutionized the way videographers and filmmakers flocked to the camera. That camera initiated what filmmakers call the "the "DSLR revolution."

If the 5DII revolutionized film making with its HD 30i/s no IBIS specifications, why the Pentax K1 having the save video capability isn't good for video, and why the Pentax K3 III isn't good enough with 4K and IBIS ? It's a bit strange.

[reh321]

I think I should withdraw from the discussion and I would prefer to have the opinion of a professionals working as videographers for out national TV broadcasters. In my country, I've seen the personnel recording videos for national TV channels at sport venues, and I can confirm that they are not using a camera, not a single one. Who is Jordan Drakes? Worked as sales personnel for a camera shop, then work as camera review editor for a web marketing site. Did he receive any education to work full time as videographer?

Frankly, I don’t care if my camera does video. The only moving pictures I’ve ever taken are by accident. As long as it doesn’t impact my experience taking a still photo…..
On the other hand, I’m perfectly comfortable someone’s obtaining a camcorder if they want video - after all, in the film era, a person who wanted both would own both an SLR and a movie camera.

[biz-engineer]

Frankly, I don’t care if my camera does video. The only moving pictures I’ve ever taken are by accident. As long as it doesn’t impact my experience taking a still photo…..

I'm recording video for work with my Pentax K1, on a tripod / gimbal (but not professionally I should say). The results are pretty good, much better than 4K on my phone, lighting and the gimbal make a huge difference, the camera not so much IMO. If I didn't have the K1, I'd use my phone, because video is very low priority for me, that's why the video that Pentax offers in DSLR is good enough for me, even 1080p.

[wadge22]

In my country, I've seen the personnel recording videos for national TV channels at sport venues, and I can confirm that they are not using a camera, not a single one.

I've definitely seen people making video at NBA games with DSLR/mirrorless cameras, for the broadcast. Some using gimbals (following players or hype-squad people around on court during short game breaks or after the game has finished) and some from the ground on the baseline for action shots at the rim from a different angle than the main game cams can provide (there are also people with traditional shoulder video cameras in that area).

[house]

Interestingly Pentax has mic AND headphone jacks on several models. Some cameras with better video features lack that.

The discussion is missing several points about video.

1. The large sensors and lenses allow for a wide scope of creative looks. Same as for photography the smooth filmic look is hard with small sensors and lenses.
2. There are more types and levels of video being made now. Professional video isn't only broadcast tv and movies. It's all the types of photography but in video form. Product, birthday, portrait, landscape, action but also vlog and talking head types. Some of these have different requirements than old fashion pro video and the way they are being viewed is very different from tv or cinema.
3. One and two above means that convergence is meaningful for lots of people pro and amateur alike.

I also completely agree that the convergence and focus on video is driven by profit when facing the photo plateau as well as the logic of youtubers being naturally biased towards video features. Youtubers occupying a strange land where the personal guides the professional to a previously unusual amount gladly just talk about their personal needs all day long.

"Normal" reviewers also survive on the churn of models and the hairsplitting of differences in features. With video being where change is happening they naturally find it very interesting as it's where their money is at. We've seen some of that with eye af as well. Reviewers reviewing eye af at distances, focal lengts and apertures where focussing on the body would be good enough due to dof. Professional reviews unable to see how they are testing meaningless conditions because their livelyhood depends on them not seeing it.

[TwoUptons]

An item to think about: How many of our biases on the subject of video on DSLRs are rooted in the probable fact that most of us here at PentaxForums are predominantly still-image photographers? How else does one explain the fact that the Canon EOS 5D Mark II revolutionized the way videographers and filmmakers flocked to the camera. That camera initiated what filmmakers call the "the "DSLR revolution." That was not an inexpensive camera, with the introductory price of $2,700 USD in 2008 dollars, which is about $3,600 in 2022 dollars.

I'd argue the 5D mkII was an inexpensive camera... for shooting "high-end" video at the time...

Loads of people bought them to shoot the wedding video and the wedding stills with the same camera/lenses... that was something you'd never really been able to do before...

There was a similar parallel with "high-end" camcorders 20 years earlier... I remember CNN got hugely popular during the Gulf War in the early 90s. One reason is that they gave their photographers (called photographers, not videographers) "inexpensive" (around $5,000 US) Hi-8 gear instead of "proper" professional Beta stuff costing 10 times as much.

There was much gnashing of teeth among the old-school video folks that sounded an awful lot like much of this thread...

It isn't surprising to me that the OEMs would try and capitalize on that behavior, though I'll note Canon is also very happy to sell you 'proper' video cameras that cost loads more if you so desire...

Pentax can't keep up with that, and while I agree that video upgrades are important (the 4k on the K3iii was a relief), I'm glad Ricoh isn't trying to catch Sony and Canon at a game it would lose. Now if they'd just announce something else so we can switch up the threads, that would be great

-Eric

[biz-engineer]

1. The large sensors and lenses allow for a wide scope of creative looks.

Sure, the larger format look benefit video as well. Now, there are design compromises. Among the best for video cameras are the 12Mpixels FF. High resolution sensors can't flush out the full sensor area @ 30, 60 or 120 frames per second, so what they do is either crop the sensor readout area or skip lines, which means the video image quality doesn't get the quality from the entire sensor area. The GFX100/S offers 4K @ 30i/s video, but that's heavily down-sampled because the full sensor readout can only provide 4 frames per second, video quality is equivalent to the video quality from an aps-c or micro 4/3 sized sensor. The video/photo IQ tradeoff isn't going to change, as readout speed vs image quality contradict each other. There is also the image processing bottleneck after the image sensor. The image processing pipeline (processing unit and data buses) has a finite bandwidth, can only transfer a fixed quantity of image data regardless if it's video or photo.

The problem in all these forum discussions regarding whether Pentax should do A or B type cameras, is that we customers aren't competent and haven't got enough information to decide for Pentax. Ricoh have much more technical and marketing information than we have, and they've been in the camera industry for 100 years. Also, everyone of us , customers, have no idea how many other customers are still buying Pentax camera products worldwide, everyone of us think as if Ricoh owe us something, but what if there are 1000 Pentax customers left and 990 of them don't need video, should Ricoh focus on high performance video for 10 customers?

[reh321]

I'd argue the 5D mkII was an inexpensive camera... for shooting "high-end" video at the time...

Loads of people bought them to shoot the wedding video and the wedding stills with the same camera/lenses... that was something you'd never really been able to do before...

There was a similar parallel with "high-end" camcorders 20 years earlier... I remember CNN got hugely popular during the Gulf War in the early 90s. One reason is that they gave their photographers (called photographers, not videographers) "inexpensive" (around $5,000 US) Hi-8 gear instead of "proper" professional Beta stuff costing 10 times as much.

There was much gnashing of teeth among the old-school video folks

I remember when CNN ruined a professional outfit covering a hurricane, so they purchased an ordinary camcorder at Radio Shack and continued on. Old school video folk have ‘standards’ - the real issue to a professional newsman is covering the story by whatever means will work; the story is more important to them than the quality of the pictures.

[surfar]

Who is Jordan Drakes?

A member on this forum.

Worked as sales personnel for a camera shop,

Yes.

Did he receive any education to work full time as videographer?

Only a university degree.

[c.a.m]

A couple of things from the interview caught my attention.

(from the DeepL translation, as posted in Posts 2 and 3)

Attributed to President Akahane (my emphasis):

"It is true that Ricoh's camera business is facing a major turning point, but we are not looking to withdraw from the business."

and

"President Akahane acknowledges that the trend of interchangeable lens cameras is rapidly moving in the direction of mirrorless cameras, but says that it is precisely because we are in such an era that he is "focused on the value of SLR cameras. He says, "We can only do this because we are a small manufacturer, but no matter how big the trend becomes in the mainstream, there are still values and roles that exist in the side streams.


I wonder what is the "major turning point."

- Craig

[Kunzite]

According to industry professionals it would cost more to remove video features than to just keep them in place. It's part and parcel of the sensor package, already paid for in large part.

Except "remove video features" doesn't mean a sensor without video capabilities (mostly needed for Live View, too), nor a processor without video encoding capabilities. It means disabling/not including video capabilities in firmware and the camera's interface.
The cost of removal is actually in lost sales. From this point of view, yeah, it would cost much more to remove the video, than to have some "basic" video features.
And I guess you explained quite well the mindset which would lead to this

[surfar]

I'd argue the 5D mkII was an inexpensive camera... for shooting "high-end" video at the time...

Loads of people bought them to shoot the wedding video and the wedding stills with the same camera/lenses... that was something you'd never really been able to do before...

And what a great idea, that company seems to innovate and duly reap rewards.

I'll note Canon is also very happy to sell you 'proper' video cameras that cost loads more if you so desire...

They will also sell you cameras of "PROper" capability for not much more than a standard stills body.

The R5 is the standard high end body for stills with a few video features added on.Earlier this year The R5 Cinema model was released for just a few hundred dollars more.Its basically the still camera on one menu and a Cinema camera on the other.It deletes the IBIS but adds the cooling needed for the high data flow.

[TwoUptons]

And what a great idea, that company seems to innovate and duly reap rewards.



They will also sell you cameras of "PROper" capability for not much more than a standard stills body.

The R5 is the standard high end body for stills with a few video features added on.Earlier this year The R5 Cinema model was released for just a few hundred dollars more.Its basically the still camera on one menu and a Cinema camera on the other.It deletes the IBIS but adds the cooling needed for the high data flow.

I thought the R5 was an excellent example, but I didn't want to go too far down that rabbit hole... there's a limit to the off-topic-ness sometimes

But Ricoh will never do something like that... they don't have the resources...
When Canon does a "variant", it is a "no-IBIS, big cooler" video machine variant of an existing camera.
When Ricoh does a "variant", it is all black... even the potential monochrome version of the K3iii (which I hope happens) is nothing in terms of complexity to the changes needed for the R5 Cinema...

-Eric