[rawr]

Such videocam with the quality and sensor size of a dslr is just way more expensive.

Black Magic and Sony themselves have some high quality APS-C and micro-4/3 dedicated video-cams. Cheaper than many a full-frame DSLR.

The wedding photogs who use video that I have seen at work usually have a two team setup - one person does the stills, another does the video (most usually 2 people for video). The video camera is setup as a completely different rig from the stills operation - different camera, different lighting, different audio, different grips, different lenses, different post-production workflow. Sometimes specialised people and gear deliver the best results.

[grispie]

Black Magic and Sony themselves have some high quality APS-C and micro-4/3 dedicated video-cams. Cheaper than many a full-frame DSLR.

the sony models apsc & micro 4/3 offerings are in essence coming from the same evolution where dslrs developed video. In essence they are also photocameras.
black magic jumped on the bandwagon of dslr/mirrorless popularity for video.

I'm comparing the cost of these offerings vs a dedicated super35 (or large sensor videocam) & lenses. not FF vs apsc.
I think you know what i mean.

[Imp]

imp suggested leaving Pentax if the K-1 IQ isn't at D750 level.

Did not, I'd never do that! Can't even afford a K-1, let alone a K-3

[monochrome]

Did not, I'd never do that! Can't even afford a K-1, let alone a K-3

Oops- my bad. It was grispie.

[Imp]

Oops- my bad. It was grispie.

np

[grispie]

Originally posted by monochrome
imp suggested leaving Pentax if the K-1 IQ isn't at D750 level.
Did not, I'd never do that! Can't even afford a K-1, let alone a K-3

yes, it was me :-)

But i didn't mean i'd leave my pentax apsc gear. What i meant is that if i'd wanted to go FF, i wouldn't spend 2 grant or whatever on the FF pentax if they can't deliver similar quality video as the D750.. A camera has to last several years for me, so i want it to be good at both video & the type of photography i want from a FF (the wide-angle / shallow DOF type..). I'd rather spend a bit more then on something like the d750 with two nice primes.

And this doesn't have to be top notch either. The D750 is no 4K with all the bells and whistles for video. it just delivers clean 1080p video with little artifacts, no moire or aliasing, clean hdmi out & good dynamic range.

I'm sure pentax can do that. And aside from IQ issues, the K3 is a pleasure to film with. It has a headphone jack, audio meters in camera for when i'm not recording separately, a good viewable lcd, good battery life, easy navigation. focus peaking, highlight warnings, mute profile. It just lacks a bit of IQ to complete the package.

I'm hoping to be pleasantly surprised...

[madbrain]

yes, it was me :-)

But i didn't mean i'd leave my pentax apsc gear. What i meant is that if i'd wanted to go FF, i wouldn't spend 2 grant or whatever on the FF pentax if they can't deliver similar quality video as the D750.. A camera has to last several years for me, so i want it to be good at both video & the type of photography i want from a FF (the wide-angle / shallow DOF type..). I'd rather spend a bit more then on something like the d750 with two nice primes.

And this doesn't have to be top notch either. The D750 is no 4K with all the bells and whistles for video. it just delivers clean 1080p video with little artifacts, no moire or aliasing, clean hdmi out & good dynamic range.

I'm sure pentax can do that. And aside from IQ issues, the K3 is a pleasure to film with. It has a headphone jack, audio meters in camera for when i'm not recording separately, a good viewable lcd, good battery life, easy navigation. focus peaking, highlight warnings, mute profile. It just lacks a bit of IQ to complete the package.

I'm hoping to be pleasantly surprised...

Video on all Pentax, even the 645Z, still has the major issue of stopping after 25 mins, or 4GB, whichever is first. 16min is first on my K-30 at the highest quality. And Pentax has been using H.264 with no better bitrate (actually, worse) than my Canon camcorder of 8 years ago. It's really a shame to have those big sensors, great optics, paired with low bit rate video, and a short recording limit. Definitely not for "pros". I'm an amateur and those limits are very frustrating to me.

Even the Nikon D750 has a 20 min limit at the highest quality, 30 min at lower quality.

42 Mbps video bit rate at the highest quality, presumably at 1080/60p.

My Pentax K-30 is 22 Mbps at 1080/30p. Don't know if the other Pentax cameras have a higher bit rate, but if they do, they will hit the 4GB even faster. Ie. even less recording time than the 16 mins I get on the K-30.

---

Last edited by madbrain; 02-06-2016 at 04:30 AM.

[clackers]

I personally would not want the FF to cost a single cent more or be delayed a minute longer for video capability,, nor do I think I'm alone.

But I accept that for what I suspect is a minority of DSLR users - and even smaller proportion of Pentax owners - it's an important feature.

I'm not even interested in knowing where the video controls on my bodies are, but someone else like @Kadajawi once claimed he shot as many videos as he did stills.

[ffking]

I personally would not want the FF to cost a single cent more or be delayed a minute longer for video capability,, nor do I think I'm alone.

sure not!

[grispie]

Originally posted by clackers
I personally would not want the FF to cost a single cent more or be delayed a minute longer for video capability,, nor do I think I'm alone.
sure not!

I wouldn't fear for that.
Even if the videopart becomes a bit better, it is part of ongoing r&d costs and wouldn't make a difference in pricing nor timing of releases. I do believe the videopart does make a difference for a brand to remain competitive & maintain or gain market share, even if this is only in perception towards consumers.

[infoomatic]

I personally would not want the FF to cost a single cent more or be delayed a minute longer for video capability,, nor do I think I'm alone.

ack. However, should the FF lack video capabilities and should it sell quite well I think it's not impossible that we get a firmware with improved video later...

[clackers]

ack. However, should the FF lack video capabilities

Well, that won't happen.

It probably uses the Fujitsu Milbeaut 8 chipset that became available in October of last year and that apparently has 4k built into it.

[infoomatic]

Well, that won't happen.

It probably uses the Fujitsu Milbeaut 8 chipset that became available in October of last year and that apparently has 4k built into it.

I think so, too, but this does not guarantee that Ricoh will use the chipset to its full potential, see shake reduction: in video which was used in the original K5 but not onwards.

[johnmflores]

I think so, too, but this does not guarantee that Ricoh will use the chipset to its full potential, see shake reduction: in video which was used in the original K5 but not onwards.

Yup. Competitive video is not just about turning on the chip's features. There are power, heat, data throughput, and myriad other issues to deal with.

[osv]

I wouldn't fear for that.
Even if the videopart becomes a bit better, it is part of ongoing r&d costs and wouldn't make a difference in pricing nor timing of releases. I do believe the videopart does make a difference for a brand to remain competitive & maintain or gain market share, even if this is only in perception towards consumers.

canon is certainly catering to that with the 1DX Mark II, afaik it's the first dslr to have 4kp60, continuous af, a dedicated 4k frame grab function that spits out an 8.8mb jpeg, etc... of course it also costs $6k