[kadajawi]

I would be beyond happy if Pentax could even just match the video quality of the Nikon D750 (surprisingly good from the reviews I've seen.) I'm not holding my breath though because I just don't see Pentax caring enough (especially as they missed a HUGE opportunity with the video in the 645z.) But I still have a couple weeks left of dreaming that they might surprise.

I really wish Pentax would make one camera that has a little more attention to movies (the Q line or a re-booted K-01 type mirrorless.) I don't expect them to try to compete with Sony or Panasonic but maybe they could get some tech from Samsung seeing as they seem to be on their way out and have a previous connection with Pentax.

Fortunately, it should be a great stills camera so I'll just have to keep looking towards a second cam to handle video.

They didn't miss a huge opportunity with the 645z. It's not good for video, but that's because the hardware can't do it. They'd need a new sensor that works better for video, and I wonder if that (back then) was even possible. Arri has put a lot of effort into doing a large sensor video camera, and that thing is expensive. I think the 645z has video because the sensor was developed to offer live view (can be useful in the studio). They just tap into that. For proper video they'd need insanely fast sensor readout speeds.

I am mostly writing all day, but also shoot product photos, perhaps eventually events and some image photos too. I also will soon take over some video duties, such as shooting videos and doing other corporate video stuff. As such a camera that is able to do both is important. I don't expect perfection. I don't expect to get Alexa quality and handling. But I hope that Pentax makes full use of the hardware. That most likely means 4K with pixel binning from a fast sensor reading at higher resolutions, and 1080p with pixel binning too. Proper one, not just putting together nearby pixels. That means a decent encoder with a high bitrate option. That means shake reduction during video (which would be huge, and might draw over people from other brands! Such a missed opportunity!). And it means LOG and focus peaking. Give me those things, and I'll be happy. Auto focus... not necessary. I wouldn't complain if it were there and worked well, but if not, so what. Learn to focus manually, AF is for beginners.

Anyway, IMHO Pentax needs to offer DECENT video (not necessarily class leading) in order to stay competitive and attract professional users. At the 645z end of things clients will hire a videographer, but lower down...?

@monochrome: I've seen a group of wedding photographers that was shooting Nikon. Like 4 or 5 of them. One was using a Glidecam and mostly shooting video. But all of them occasionally shot video, and the one with the Glidecam would shoot stills too. That way they could cover the whole event, get multiple angles. Also, a photographer may be offering video next to his stills services. More business is good, especially if he doesn't have to spend a lot in terms of additional gear.

Shot duration isn't such a big issue IMHO. Yes, for events where you'd place the camera somewhere, hit record and leave, useful. But aren't you mostly shooting relatively short takes? Especially when it comes to more planned shooting.

I do think it is possible to do a camera that is great for stills and for video (not as great as an Alexa for example, but lets stay reasonable here). One that doesn't cost all that much to develop and make, and where the added video features that may add a bit to the cost of the camera make the camera so attractive that there'll be more buyers.

Pentax cameras are great, and would be fine for video, if they weren't limited by the firmware. It seems like Pentax treats video as something that is for beginners. Even on their pro cameras. In terms of stills features they implement things that are complicated, hard to understand, hard to work with, because they trust that there are users who want these features, and who understand them and are able to use them, work around their limitations etc. That is the attitude I want to see on the video side too. I know SR is a bit noisy. I understand that. Let me still use it, and I will record audio externally. I know high bitrates have disadvantages, such as short recording times and big files. I can live with that sometimes, and then I want to be able to have the advantages of high bitrates. Options are fine, options are good. Choice is good. Imagine not being able to shoot RAW stills because they take up a lot of space and are harder to process, so Pentax deactivated the function. You'd be up in arms.

What confuses me: The K-3 has SR deactivated. But they had to implement electronic SR, which means they must have put some work into it. And SR did still work in live view, so the code was there. They developed it or kept it from the K-5. They actually spent money to make the camera worse. That is insane. And it's not like they didn't care about video. What about the dedicated switch? Without it, maybe they could have kept the K-5 body? Saved money in creating new forms, tools etc. to make the camera. They put in a headphone out port, which is entirely video focused. It too must have cost money to make. They wrote software to do manual gain control, something that is for the more sophisticated video people out there. Clearly they wanted to aim this at more serious videographers, videographers who are using external microphones and headphones to monitor audio. Those people shouldn't be bothered by SR noise, because the external microphone wouldn't pick it up anyway. It doesn't make much sense.

Btw., for those complaining about video duration and file size... the Canon 1D C, which is aimed at professional work, even cinema use, and the 1D X II both shoot MJPEG video. At 4K. The 1D C has a 500 Mbps bitrate, the 1D X II 800 (!!!). The K-5 had 80 Mbps (and options of 40 and 60), later Pentaxes are more around 20 Mbps.

[grispie]

Anyway, IMHO Pentax needs to offer DECENT video (not necessarily class leading) in order to stay competitive and attract professional users.

this pretty much sums it up for me. Someone at ricoh corporate management must realize this...

Your assesment on the K3 is spot on. In some areas they have added in some really nice features for videographers but they managed to leave out a couple as well. The fact that they did make a serious effort on the K3, gives me hope that they will (or have ;-) put in the effort for the FF.
cross fingers -

[kadajawi]

this pretty much sums it up for me. Someone at ricoh corporate management must realize this...

Your assesment on the K3 is spot on. In some areas they have added in some really nice features for videographers but they managed to leave out a couple as well. The fact that they did make a serious effort on the K3, gives me hope that they will (or have ;-) put in the effort for the FF.
cross fingers -

I have the feeling they don't ask videographers for feedback, that's why we get the cameras we want. So they try to do something good for video, but when people start complaining they say oh, video isn't important for us. The K-3 clearly shows that isn't the case though... they did try, they just failed.

[sunny16]

The K-3 clearly shows that isn't the case though... they did try, they just failed.

Yeah, with the K-3 they added the prominent headphone jack port and I think most people assumed (I think fairly) that it was a sign that there would be more attention paid to the video... but it hasn't really turned out that way.

Obviously it is a bit of a divisive topic. There are definitely people who couldn't care less about video in their "photo" camera and I respect that. All I am (and it seems like some others here) are saying is that I am not at a level that I would go out and buy a pro videocam but I still care about video. Video that is shot on these larger sensors has a different aesthetic than the average box store handycam (that uses cell phone sized sensors) and I love using my old takumar lenses when shooting video. Yes, I could just buy a Sony A7s and be done with it but all I am saying is that IF I have the option of getting both things from one PENTAX camera, that would be ideal. In the end that may not be what happens but surely even those who don't care about video can see why someone who does care would be cheering for Pentax to improve on it.

Thanks all & have a pleasant day!

[jake14mw]

I understand all of the people that don't care about video, but please try to take the wider view. We would all benefit from Pentax being a bigger brand. Video is becoming a bigger and bigger slice of the artistic pie. Right now, for anyone who has any interest in video, the simple answer is don't invest in the Pentax system. Pentax doesn't need to match Canon or Nikon, or become video centric, just make it so that there is not an automatic answer of no when it comes to video and Pentax. Instead, make the answer, well, yes, the Pentax K-1 will handle your video needs just fine. I don't think the K-5 was that far away.

I do 90% photos, but try to get creative with video sometimes. The world evolves, artists evolve, Pentax, please support your artists and evolve.

[jatrax]

I understand all of the people that don't care about video, but please try to take the wider view. We would all benefit from Pentax being a bigger brand. Video is becoming a bigger and bigger slice of the artistic pie. Right now, for anyone who has any interest in video, the simple answer is don't invest in the Pentax system. Pentax doesn't need to match Canon or Nikon, or become video centric, just make it so that there is not an automatic answer of no when it comes to video and Pentax. Instead, make the answer, well, yes, the Pentax K-1 will handle your video needs just fine. I don't think the K-5 was that far away. I do 90% photos, but try to get creative with video sometimes. The world evolves, artists evolve, Pentax, please support your artists and evolve.

Well said. I've made one video with a dslr, the k-x back in 2011. Never used it on any camera since. But, the creative area is changing and video (like it or not) is now an important part of the creative process. Not having competitive video on a modern DSLR is a serious marketing fail. In particular younger people, that Ricoh should be trying to attract, are going to see video as just another component of their work. If a camera does not handle that they will look elsewhere. Whether the video is ever used or not, it has to be there because it is part of the price of entry to the market. No video = no market.

[derekkite]

I'm enjoying very much the video capabilities of the K3. I don't know the acronyms, I'm certain that the complaints are valid, but for my purposes it works well.

Video is another level of complexity that dwarfs stills. That being said it is great fun. I use a tripod for shooting my long lenses, and either after I get my stills, or sometimes a video captures the scene better, or low light conditions where stills quality is poor but video is fine.

[kadajawi]

I understand all of the people that don't care about video, but please try to take the wider view. We would all benefit from Pentax being a bigger brand. Video is becoming a bigger and bigger slice of the artistic pie. Right now, for anyone who has any interest in video, the simple answer is don't invest in the Pentax system. Pentax doesn't need to match Canon or Nikon, or become video centric, just make it so that there is not an automatic answer of no when it comes to video and Pentax. Instead, make the answer, well, yes, the Pentax K-1 will handle your video needs just fine. I don't think the K-5 was that far away.

I do 90% photos, but try to get creative with video sometimes. The world evolves, artists evolve, Pentax, please support your artists and evolve.

Well said. The Nikon Df, despite being very attractive, isn't selling too well. It lacks video.

My main wish is that Pentax treats video on their pro level cameras (so K-3 series, K-1) as a pro feature. As much control as possible (next to an automatic mode that doesn't have to improve much to what we have). That way we can tell professional photographers who are interested: "It's a great stills camera, and should your client ask for video, should you want to move into video, you're covered too". As to what constitutes a camera suitable for videographers, there are working ones out there who can be asked. Make sure they know the hardware, and ask them. The price increase will be countered with better sales numbers, and everyone will be happy.

In the video world there's also demand for good primes, and there are good video lenses being produced, if Pentax is a viable option and used by videographers they may also come for the K mount. Those may be interesting for photographers too.

Btw., according to the photos there are still a headphone and mic jack on the camera... if Pentax didn't care about video couldn't they have left those away? Saved a few cents?

[ffking]

I'm another who doesn't care about video but fully accepts the logic of what jake14mw says. What I would like to add is that one of the features of digital photography which differentiates it from film is that it's harder and harder to have camera that suits everybody. Towards the end of the film days, the top of the range Canikons were state in just about everything - the only reason not to buy one as affordability, size, the fact that you didn't need the level of sophistication it offered, or you preferred to work with a larger or smaller format - come to think of it, that's still quite a few reasons!

Nowadays, the situation is much more complex - all design is about compromise and there are more compromises that need to be made. Because you can't change sensors like you used to change film, and because different sensors have different characteristics, there can be no single state of the art camera - period. Top of the range FF Canikons are built for speed, and thus have low Mpxs (these increase over time, but will never be as high as high mpx cameras of their generation). The Nikon D810 is a better landscape camera than the Nikon D5 though older and considerably cheaper.You can't have it all. A camera can't tough and weather resistant as well as lightweight, it can't have massive unlimited burst rate and state of the art high mpx - even if the processor could work that fast it would probably generate enough heat to melt the camera - or discharge the battery after 60s or whatever. So the camera designers have to decide who their target market is, and produce the camera that market wants - but there are other compromises there too: every pro feature you add pushes up the cost and more hobbyists decide they can't afford it, however much they'd like it - you gain reputation at the expense of sales as there are far more enthusiasts than pros. On the other hand, Canikon's strategy was to make pro tools in the hope (fulfilled on practice) that people would assume that their lesser cameras were the best because their flagship cameras were the best, It's all business - design, targeting, calculations. Video is the case in point here. What it comes down to is the added cost of making the video a positive feature rather than an add-on - how many customers you would lose because of price and how many you would gain because of reputation. And that, as jake14mw says, is a business decision more than a technical one - though if the technical aspects take a lot more R&D, then the cost of inclusion would escalate beyond what the market would happily bear. It's clear that Ricoh want to price the K-1 aggressively, and kenspo and others say they are aiming at increasing pro market share. There needs to be some give in the system, and it either has to be in aspects Ricoh deem less important (and so far video has proved on) - or in profit margin. The later limits future R&D or invites the need for cross-subsidisation from the Ricoh parent and is a long term strategy. It's a qestion of where they pitch their offering on a continuum, and if they get it right. That's business.

[kadajawi]

@ffking: Yes. But I still have my doubts if Pentax thinks video doesn't matter. What is the reasoning behind doing a microphone in and a headphone out? Microphone in is common enough, but a headphone out and software that allows you to set the gain manually is really not for beginners. It's a relatively serious video feature. It also required redesigning the camera, it adds hardware cost for each camera produced, etc.

Is it possible that Pentax lacks expertise in terms of video, and unlike other brands who lack it too (say Olympus) they don't go to videographers/cinematographers to ask for their opinion? Olympus got John Brawley, who may not be the biggest name in Hollywood, but at least he is a working pro with a long IMDb page.

[jatrax]

But I still have my doubts if Pentax thinks video doesn't matter.

The quote from a Pentax exec that said that may have been true or it may have been just deflecting criticism since they were not competitive with video. I agree it seems unlikely that Pentax is not aware of how important a decision factor video is regardless of whether the buyer ever uses it. Personally I would hesitate to buy a DSLR without video, even though I NEVER use it. Just because.

However, Ricoh may have had other priorities so far, and they certainly had a lot of things to fix and improve. It will be very interesting to see the video specs in the k-1, that I think will say a lot about the future of video in Pentax cameras.

[kadajawi]

The quote from a Pentax exec that said that may have been true or it may have been just deflecting criticism since they were not competitive with video. I agree it seems unlikely that Pentax is not aware of how important a decision factor video is regardless of whether the buyer ever uses it. Personally I would hesitate to buy a DSLR without video, even though I NEVER use it. Just because.

However, Ricoh may have had other priorities so far, and they certainly had a lot of things to fix and improve. It will be very interesting to see the video specs in the k-1, that I think will say a lot about the future of video in Pentax cameras.

They still have things to fix on the stills side, I agree, but a common pattern in their deficiencies seems to be that they used to be better at it in the past, and at some point they just forgot it, and no amount of users complaining seems to get it back. Maybe they are a bit stubborn?

Yup. For me the video specs of the K-1 will decide where I will go in future. Will I buy more K mount lenses, or will I not because I know I'll be switching brands the minute my K-5 dies, perhaps earlier (if so, Olympus is a likely candidate since Samsung left the market). It feels like they've had enough time to do what should have been done via a firmware update long time ago.

[madbrain]

Sigh. Looks like zero improvement in video specs on the K-1 .

Still 1080i/720p and H.264/MOV . No mention of 4GB limit or clip length limit. Very disappointing, but not unexpected. At least the message is clear - Pentax truly does not care about video.

[rdj92807]

If the Movie SR on the K-1 is much better than the K-S2, K50, K3, than that would be a big improvement. Maybe the faster processor speed will help this. Also, if the contrast auto focus is better, that would help in video as well. Might be more improvement than you think. Let's hope. I'm definitely getting a K-1 for all my full frame glass.

[madbrain]

If the Movie SR on the K-1 is much better than the K-S2, K50, K3, than that would be a big improvement. Maybe the faster processor speed will help this. Also, if the contrast auto focus is better, that would help in video as well. Might be more improvement than you think. Let's hope. I'm definitely getting a K-1 for all my full frame glass.

My video needs are exclusively on tripod, where SR is always disabled. And I don't care about AF at all, as the camera is pre-focused when I shoot video. So I don't care about CDAF speed either.

What I really want is more resolution, more fps, higher bit rate. Something like 4K/60fps @ 200 Mbps H.265 with no 4GB limit and no clip length limit.
I could justify $2500- $3000 for a Pentax FF camera that did this. Maybe $1500 for an APS-C that did the same.
But it's not possible for me to justify spending $1 for a camera with zero video improvement. Instead, I will be keeping the K-30 I got for $199 on ebay. Pentax is missing out on revenue by leaving serious video users in the cold, IMO.