[*isteve]

Hi Dave


….which sort of reinforces one of the main points I was trying to make, when I said:

Invariably such converging product technologies often end up being poorly implemented and usually tend to suffer from way too many limitations, resulting in undesirable compromises.
Personally I would forego all such fripperies for a vastly improved autofocus algorithm/system, which is where I believe Pentax should be concentrating a sizeable proportion of their current technical and financial resources.

Amen brother, amen! Pretty soon we'll be buying cameras from Toys-r-us.

[laissezfaire]

A while back, I predicted that this partnership would only get stronger.

https://www.pentaxforums.com/forums/362920-post25.html

I looked at this before I bought into the Pentax system, as I thought this relationship would provide a backstop and be similar to Sony's if Pentax met the fate of Minolta.

Samsung is something like 2.5 times the size of Canon. Also, back in 2002, Samsung surpassed Sony in size. So I guess we own a system that is partnered with the 800 lb gorilla in the technology/electronics space.

[Sean Nelson]

Why can't people type the words Canon or Nikon? Why do we have C***N and N***N

I've always assumed that this was a courtesy to avoid having people searching for information about one of those cameras landing on a page that really wasn't about them.

[whatever7]

Re Kunzite's suggestion:



I'm probably becoming less forgiving the older I get, but I totally fail to see the point of incorporating a movie facility within a DSLR. It's not my intention to cause undue upset, but assuming that he genuinely requires this facility and can afford to do so, might I tactfully suggest that Kunzite purchase a dedicated video camera which is actually fit for purpose !!
I have to admit that when I initially discovered C***n had decided to follow this consumerist HD direction with their new 5D MkII, I was pretty flabbergasted. I simply pray that Pentax are intelligent enough to resist such a cynical marketing ploy by playing the "me-too" game, when (hopefully) releasing their next flagship camera in due course.

Best regards,
Richard

If you get irritated by this, wait till you find out they put camera on phones.

[nixcamic]

I've always assumed that this was a courtesy to avoid having people searching for information about one of those cameras landing on a page that really wasn't about them.

Ah, this is the first explanation I've heard that makes sense, thanks.

[Kunzite]

Re Kunzite's suggestion:

How about a new version of the 14.6MP sensor with support for……..HD movies ?

I'm probably becoming less forgiving the older I get, but I totally fail to see the point of incorporating a movie facility within a DSLR. It's not my intention to cause undue upset, but assuming that he genuinely requires this facility and can afford to do so, might I tactfully suggest that Kunzite purchase a dedicated video camera which is actually fit for purpose !!

You are not causing undue upset and I appreciate your tactful reply. However, in my 'suggestion' I wrote what I think we will see and not necessarily what I want to see in the new camera.
In other words, I don't care at all about HD video - but I think the next camera will have this feature; it's a logical evolution of the current burst mode, and a must from a marketing point of view (I can think a certain review site giving a "Recommended (barely)" because of lack of video mode - if it's a Pentax camera, ofc. ).

[ewalk]

So they could use a similar sensor and just improve the image processing chips around it? What would that improve as far as camera functions?

I would assume (and someone please correct me if I'm wrong) faster FPS and possibly lower noise at higher ISOs. Just look at the advancements touted by Nikon and Canon every time DIGIC or EXPEED gets updated. Sometimes the accompanying processing chips are just important as the sensor itself.

[Ratmagiclady]

Ah, the 'do we really need video' debate again.

Thought I'd point out that it's likely any of these new developments are for the next models after whatever's supposed to be coming soon. Video's certainly not something I'd like to see the cameras' primary functions compromised for, nor the price shoot up over.

Only thing I'd really drool over would be really butt-kickin' high ISO. (And it's time to put paid to the AF speed notions, I'd think.)

[Matjazz]

"We have already secured complementary metal-oxide semiconductor (CMOS) technologies to handle more data volume," according to the executive.

This reminds me of https://www.pentaxforums.com/forums/pentax-news-rumors/27554-interesting-sams...plication.html we talked about almost a year ago. A sensor like taht would certainly need more data volume.

[Matthew]

So they could use a similar sensor and just improve the image processing chips around it? What would that improve as far as camera functions?

Image display and processing speeds! K20D goes slower than K10D in proportion to its file sizes.

[OregonJim]

Invariably such converging product technologies often end up being poorly implemented and usually tend to suffer from way too many limitations, resulting in undesirable compromises.
Personally I would forego all such fripperies for a vastly improved autofocus algorithm/system, which is where I believe Pentax should be concentrating a sizeable proportion of their current technical and financial resources.

Holy cow! I was beginning to think all sanity had left the forum these past few days. Then I find this intelligent and well articulated tidbit - my faith has been restored.

[nosnoop]

Invariably such converging product technologies often end up being poorly implemented and usually tend to suffer from way too many limitations, resulting in undesirable compromises.

I totally do not understand this type of irrational fear. Has any current DSLR with HD movie function been compromised in its photographic function? Not at all. It is just an extra function that you can pretend that it is not there, if you have no intention of using it. You may dislike the fact that you are paying for something that you may not use, but limitations only applies to the video implementation at this point, and not the photography part.

Personally I would forego all such fripperies for a vastly improved autofocus algorithm/system, which is where I believe Pentax should be concentrating a sizeable proportion of their current technical and financial resources.

Just like LiveView, HD movie is the next must-have function for the DSLR to sell to the mass market. And just like LiveView, some of you absolutely hated it, but that does not reflect the market demand.

And if you are interested in the Hybrid (e.g. NX) development, HD movie function actually would accelerate their R&D into fast and accurate contrast detection AF. And who knows, maybe they could find a way to use electronic shutters for all speed; and this would benefit most photographers as well (imagine flash X-Sync at all speed without HSS).

[Rondec]

I can certainly see using an available video function on an occasional basis, but ergonomically, I hate the idea of using my SLR to take video footage. I'd far rather use even a cheap camcorder -- much more comfortable.

[OregonJim]

Has any current DSLR with HD movie function been compromised in its photographic function? Not at all.

This is rather a misleading question, as there are only two of them on the market and they are first generation products. There's no way to tell what compromises will be made when this feature reaches maturity.

Already, though, I would argue that the "compromise" is that HD video is taking away time, money, and other resources from the R&D teams that would be better spent improving the features that a DSLR is primarily used for - e.g. better high ISO performance, longer battery life, better AF, etc.

I understand the need to stay competitive in the marketplace, but Confused is right - the history of dual-purpose devices proves that they are never as good as the single-purpose devices they were intended to replace (look at cell phone cameras, PDAs with built-in video players, or camcorders that claim to take good stills)...

[Jaboney]

This is rather a misleading question, as there are only two of them on the market and they are first generation products. There's no way to tell what compromises will be made when this feature reaches maturity.
[...]
I understand the need to stay competitive in the marketplace, but Confused is right - the history of dual-purpose devices proves that they are never as good as the single-purpose devices they were intended to replace (look at cell phone cameras, PDAs with built-in video players, or camcorders that claim to take good stills)...

Now that is misleading. It's a very long leap from cell phone to digital camera, and a much shorter one from still to movie camera, and rather than PDA to video player, portable gaming device to video player is a better analogy, in my humble opinion.

In a cell phone, the add on camera takes space and power but adds little-to-nothing to the primary function. Ditto PDA/video player. A gaming device thrives, in large part, on image display. Adding movie playback costs little but the effort may have positive spillover effects and spinoffs. Add video to a dslr and the first functionality upgrade is going to be a better autofocus... an obvious benefit to still photography. The second? Probably data transfer speeds: and a boost in frames per second taking stills would be wonderful. Not all of the problems posed by adding video will have positive side-effects, but most probably will. No doubt different companies/models will develop particular strengthens as they lean one way or another, but it seems exceedingly silly to worry that video's going to cripple the still cam.