[Bart]

...And anyway what about live view as on the k20d? video is just a half step up from that..

I'd be more worried about having equipment stolen or accidently dropping it than it going wrong...

Thanks, I almost forgot about live view: I would pay more for a DSLR without Live view as well

I think this would solve Jannemans fear for the swivveling lcd as well: not much use for one of those if there is no Live view.


About equipment going wrong, there was a wise person some time ago who said: If something can go wrong, it will go wrong.
Murphy?
I'm a great believer in Murphy.:ugh:

ps he also said: If something does go wrong, it will go wrong in the worst possible situation.

[dopeytree]

haha very true! I personally don't want a swivel screen they are actually like video cameras and flip phones and never feel sturdy enough. Live view seems pretty poor to me except maybe the times when i'm doing macro but only if I can see the screen in the bright sunlight which is rare!

and it terms of things going wrong yes they can and it's normally just after the warranty runs out just before some big shoot but then "Every cloud has a silver lining" and you get to get the upgrade in time for your big shoot

[cpopham]

I think the key difference with your analogy is that video doesn't tack on hundreds of dollars more to the MSRP as compared to an FF sensor. And it's really inconceivable for manufacturers to leave out video from here on out since it's another checkbox on the specs list when comparing models. Pentax can get away with not having a FF body still since a lot buyers are oblivious to sensor sizes, but the lack of video mode is something easily noticed by prospective buyers.

I'm not talking about market realities, I fully understand it's not really a feature they can leave out anymore - I'm simply responding to the original question "why are some people anti-video in SLRs"

I only mentioned Full Frame to provide another example of something which is irrelevant to me, regardless of whether it was an extra $10 or an extra $1000

I don't see the comparison. A FF sensor is a massive expense and video functionality is mostly software innovation. As camera sensors get more dense, buses and buffers get bigger. This was a natural progression and I don't think we will pay heavily for it. Even Nikon didn't sell their D90 for more than their usually overpriced cameras.

It seems Pentax has been working on video since the K20D.

It wasn't meant to be a comparison, I'm simply attempting to explain why some people aren't keen on video - for me, it's just a useless space on the mode dial I'd have to turn past - based entirely on the fact I personally don't want it as a feature, I think no SLR should have it.

Will it add much to the cost of an SLR, no, probably not. A lot of the concern comes from the fact that well... converged devices tend to be inferior compared to both devices they replace in some ways. Thus a converging feature like video might lead to design decisions which compromise still shooting.

A good example of this is a modern smartphone (let's arbitrarily pick the iphone). Compared to the plain old nokia which is in my pocket right now, it's strictly speaking worse AS A MOBILE TELEPHONE. To give some examples - the lack of MMS support, increased size and weight, decreased battery life, lack of tactile feedback on the numberpad

To continue vizners post. adding video may even reduce the price of the new camera as it will without any doubt boost sales., or more precisely, when most other (and that will come) dslr's feature video they won't sell many and therefore have to have higher prices in order to make it more profitable .

You're right, except that I'm talking in general, about video as a feature in any SLR - it's just not something which interests me as all, therefore I'd rather not be paying for its development, or carrying around the (almost) insignificant weight of a microphone.

All three of you made really good points - but please realise this, it's not a logical thing, I'm not looking to have my opinions about video in SLRs changed. It's just not a feature I care about, it brings nothing to the table for me. I bought an SLR to take still photos - if I wanted videos I'd have bought a video camera!

[sluggo913]

Video is a nice me to feature, but if I want to shoot video I will use my VIDEO camera not my STILL camera. Each has their own place so instead of being a me to brand give us improvements in other areas, I shot a concert 2 weeks ago both video and stills and not once did I wish my K10 or K20 had video as I had my 2 Sony video cameras doing what they were designed for the only thing I wished is I had brought my assistant with me. As my dad always told me use the right tool for the right job, no video or live view required maybe a couple more fps and slightly better auto focus but don't fill my memory card with video.

[KungPOW]

Video is a nice me to feature, but if I want to shoot video I will use my VIDEO camera not my STILL camera. Each has their own place so instead of being a me to brand give us improvements in other areas, I shot a concert 2 weeks ago both video and stills and not once did I wish my K10 or K20 had video as I had my 2 Sony video cameras doing what they were designed for the only thing I wished is I had brought my assistant with me. As my dad always told me use the right tool for the right job, no video or live view required maybe a couple more fps and slightly better auto focus but don't fill my memory card with video.

Maybe this is a new tool, that will be used for new jobs that people have not yet thought about?

Maybe there is a job out there that is just waiting for this new tool?

[ghost]

Maybe this is a new tool, that will be used for new jobs that people have not yet thought about?

Maybe there is a job out there that is just waiting for this new tool?

A job like Megan Fox for the cover of Esquire taken with a Red One video camera? I for one would love to experiment with shallow DOF on video. Or if you subscribe to Geek Brief, Kali's recent update was done with a lens baby. It looked awesome. So I think video is a natural progression.

It's like the CD v Vinyl debate. They both have their place in the market. Deal with it.

[Gerhard]

I didn't care about video functions on a dslr camera in the past.
But when I think of the possibilities you have because of the great lenses you got on a dslr,
maybe this will open up a whole new world of home video recording....

[janneman]

All three of you made really good points - but please realise this, it's not a logical thing, I'm not looking to have my opinions about video in SLRs changed. It's just not a feature I care about, it brings nothing to the table for me. I bought an SLR to take still photos - if I wanted videos I'd have bought a video camera!

As I have said in another post, video is of no real interest to me. Not enough to warrant buying a video camera. But stil there are some situation where it would be nice or at least a lot of fun to have some video capabilities. I won't buy a dslr because of video but if it has it, I may be very inclined to use it....
For example, last year I visited a few tractor pulling events, lawnmower races and combine racing.... I think a small video here and there would have been fun.
combinerace Photo Gallery by jl2 at pbase.com.

Ofcourse , as a Pentaxian you'd want your video camera to be weather resistant (in fact this feature is even more important for video cameras than for dslr's, IMHO at least) but at this point the video cameras are where photography was a looong time ago: A few high end videocameras and a few "P&S level"video cameras.. Your Pentax dslr may be the best possibility for weather resitant video of at least some quality without paying top-prices AND lugging about a professional video camera about.

[janneman]

Video is a nice me to feature, but if I want to shoot video I will use my VIDEO camera not my STILL camera. Each has their own place so instead of being a me to brand give us improvements in other areas, I shot a concert 2 weeks ago both video and stills and not once did I wish my K10 or K20 had video as I had my 2 Sony video cameras doing what they were designed for the only thing I wished is I had brought my assistant with me. As my dad always told me use the right tool for the right job, no video or live view required maybe a couple more fps and slightly better auto focus but don't fill my memory card with video.

a few extra memory cards take up less space than a video set.
my brother has a decent video system and he uses it to record events...
Even if you bring TWO dslr's, one decicated for photos and one solely for video, you'd need less space. Only downside on the dslr ai that, because these video cameras use more than one sensor, their DR is far greater.

[Steelski]

Got to my photo dealer today.

I tld him about the K-7 which he wasn't aware of (so all dealers are not in the know. I know him well he would told me, cryptic way but he would).

His answer was 'Strange what I saw although it was a wood mockup had K30D written over it'.

Remember that in an interview, a Pentax exec said there was a recent shift/change of concept ?

IMO, the K30D was ready or almost but didn't sport Video which would be bad on a marketing PoV.

IMO they postponed it as to implement Video.
Of course this is pure speculation, but it is into the realm of possible IMO.

Food for thoughts.

It is not likley and afterthought and something they would not have thought about at the time. Remember the 21FPS video ish mode.
Besides. The chip would have to be able to support the mode. If they were using the same chip as the one in the K-7 then they would have already known it was capable of video and would have included it.
Either Samsung gave them the go ahead to to use the video capable chip late in the day so then they would have to change the concept. Or it was there all along. And if they did change the chip then it was late late late in the day. But now we will see what we have.

[Philippos]

...If they were using the same chip as the one in the K-7 then they would have already known it was capable of video and would have included it...

You forget that the processing engine is essentially the same as the one in the K10D - that's OLD. Canon Had to build a new processor (Digic4) for their full HD 5DmkII, as their Digic3 was insufficient. Prime is not as powerfull as Digic3.
PRIME is not able to handle Video, especially in full HD. I doudt the on board buffer is fast enough too. The whole processing engine needs a major update in order to compensate with full HD video recording, which is probably why now it CAN handle stills at 5fps. I doudt the current mirror/shutter box can perform at 5fps however, even with a stronger (or maybe an extra) motor. We may get our 5fps or more with a mirror lock, which means no viewfinder and no focusing.

[Steelski]

You forget that the processing engine is essentially the same as the one in the K10D - that's OLD. Canon Had to build a new processor (Digic4) for their full HD 5DmkII, as their Digic3 was insufficient. Prime is not as powerfull as Digic3.
PRIME is not able to handle Video, especially in full HD. I doudt the on board buffer is fast enough too. The whole processing engine needs a major update in order to compensate with full HD video recording, which is probably why now it CAN handle stills at 5fps. I doudt the current mirror/shutter box can perform at 5fps however, even with a stronger (or maybe an extra) motor. We may get our 5fps or more with a mirror lock, which means no viewfinder and no focusing.

Yet another thing which would have had to have been in the original design concept for it to make sense in them putting video in now.

I do believe that there could have been a mock K30D, but the difference could have been elsewhere

[dopeytree]

You forget that the processing engine is essentially the same as the one in the K10D - that's OLD. Canon Had to build a new processor (Digic4) for their full HD 5DmkII, as their Digic3 was insufficient. Prime is not as powerfull as Digic3.
PRIME is not able to handle Video, especially in full HD. I doudt the on board buffer is fast enough too. The whole processing engine needs a major update in order to compensate with full HD video recording, which is probably why now it CAN handle stills at 5fps. I doudt the current mirror/shutter box can perform at 5fps however, even with a stronger (or maybe an extra) motor. We may get our 5fps or more with a mirror lock, which means no viewfinder and no focusing.

They werew half way there... If the k20d could record 22fps at 1.2mp (full hd quality size) then all they needed to do was put back the buffer from the k10d (800mb/s) and have a chip to process it all and save it.

Full hd video is only about 40mb/s which if you think about it is a k20d raw file is about 24.4 MB now multiply that by 3fps and you get 73.2mb/s although it's only for 14 shots

they probably just need a faster proccesor to keep up and autofocus at the same time and a bit more buffer as the K10D had - they seemed to reduce it in the K20D

[Philippos]

They werew half way there... If the k20d could record 22fps at 1.2mp (full hd quality size) then all they needed to do was put back the buffer from the k10d (800mb/s) and have a chip to process it all and save it.

Full hd video is only about 40mb/s which if you think about it is a k20d raw file is about 24.4 MB now multiply that by 3fps and you get 73.2mb/s although it's only for 14 shots

they probably just need a faster proccesor to keep up and autofocus at the same time and a bit more buffer as the K10D had - they seemed to reduce it in the K20D

No, the buffer is exactly the same. There is a lot more data being output from the sensor however and it seems to choke the system.

HD data is 40 megabits per second which translates to 5 or 6 megabytes per second of material to be transfered to the SD. However this is the bandwith AFTER processing and compression. The RAW data being output by the CMOS is significantly bigger (I don't know by what factor).

They definately need a better (or an extra) processor to perform decently.

[Aristophanes]

I'm simply attempting to explain why some people aren't keen on video - for me, it's just a useless space on the mode dial I'd have to turn past - based entirely on the fact I personally don't want it as a feature, I think no SLR should have it.
I bought an SLR to take still photos - if I wanted videos I'd have bought a video camera!

You did buy a video camera.

All CCD/CMOS capture devices are effectively freezing motion from a continuous video feed.

If you don't want one, keep using film.