[sunny16]

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.

[ffking]

I've had a K-3 for 18 months and I've never even played with the video - useful to have, I suppose, for those moments your phone won't do, but if you want to take serious videos you'll get specialised equipment, otherwise - I'm a stills photographer

[Imp]

Or... Ricoh just buys RED and suddenly pentax DSLRS are the best in the world at everything now

[grispie]

Or... Ricoh just buys RED and suddenly pentax DSLRS are the best in the world at everything now

Chances are bigger that Ricoh will release a RED K1 ;-)

[grispie]

I would be beyond happy if Pentax could even just match the video quality of the Nikon D750

I've had a K-3 for 18 months and I've never even played with the video - useful to have, I suppose, for those moments your phone won't do, but if you want to take serious videos you'll get specialised equipment,

In fact, something like the d750 is specialised equipment for video. I guess it's hard to understand for people that are not really into video, but a dedicated videocamera with the sensor size & quality of a dslr is expensive, really expensive.

to be honest, if the FF pentax doesn't get close to the nikon D750 from an IQ pov, I will get into another brand for FF. I don't think i will be the only one & i would hope that someone at Ricoh corporate realizes this, especially when considering who the target audience should be.
my 2 cents..

[monochrome]

What makes you think the K-1 won't be significantly better than D750?

[Imp]

What makes you think the K-1 won't be significantly better than D750?

Given past Pentax video quality, it would be surprising if the K-1 was good at video.

[grispie]

Originally posted by monochrome
What makes you think the K-1 won't be significantly better than D750?
Given past Pentax video quality, it would be surprising if the K-1 was good at video.

this...
+Nikon has clearly invested in the video area of their dslrs & recognize the importance of good video.

[monochrome]

In fact, something like the d750 is specialised equipment for video. I guess it's hard to understand for people that are not really into video, but a dedicated videocamera with the sensor size & quality of a dslr is expensive, really expensive.

to be honest, if the FF pentax doesn't get close to the nikon D750 from an IQ pov, I will get into another brand for FF. I don't think i will be the only one & i would hope that someone at Ricoh corporate realizes this, especially when considering who the target audience should be.
my 2 cents..

Given past Pentax video quality, it would be surprising if the K-1 was good at video.

this...
+Nikon has clearly invested in the video area of their dslrs & recognize the importance of good video.

Video is important to a small subset of high-end users, and overvalued by our obsession with feature-based researching and ranking consumer goods in our decision-making process. For most buyers this creates a false economy. Consumers pay for more quality than they have the skill to appreciate, just because they are oversold that utility.

imp Edit: grispie suggested leaving Pentax if the K-1 IQ isn't at D750 level. K-1 may very well have significantly better IQ than D750. Until we know differently we can assume the video utility of K-1 is limited by Milbeaut and the associated downstream compromises with IBIS architecture.

My comment refers to stills IQ.

[grispie]

Video is important to a small subset of high-end users, and overvalued by our obsession with feature-based researching and ranking consumer goods in our decision-making process.

I kind of agree with that when it comes to the K3
It is a phototool & the video it does is not bad.. which for most is good enough indeed, even the SR is good enough for most consumers.

Not sure when it comes to a FF camera. I'm just thinking of who the target audience is here.. or should be.
this is not just a consumer product anymore.

[sunny16]

Video is important to a small subset of high-end users, and overvalued by our obsession with feature-based researching and ranking consumer goods in our decision-making process. For most buyers this creates a false economy. Consumers pay for more quality than they have the skill to appreciate, just because they are oversold that utility.

Yes, But...

I agree of course that most people that buy the Sony A7 series cameras, Nikon D750/810, Panasonic GH4s, Samsung NX1s, and so on are not actually going on to become famous by using them. I guess it is hard to know though how many use it enough for whatever it is they use it for to be a significant "value-added" feature. Sales/marketing has always been about getting people to see themselves in the product... sure they won't become famous film makers but everyone likes to imagine that having that "one" product will transform them into it. That said, I really do get what you are saying about the never ending feature pushing.

I guess at the end of the day this is how I see it: If Pentax is going to use a sensor from Sony (which will -or has- already been used in other cameras with a fuller video feature set) than it would seem like Pentax is maybe missing the boat more than just ignoring it. Maybe the processors in Pentax cameras would be the limiting factor (this specific hardware I know least about so don't feel able to speak to how one brand compares to others.) But video codecs seem to be somewhat a choice of what any company wants to implement. Again, I mentioned the Nikon D750 before because it apparently has surprisingly good quality given its on-paper lowly codec which makes me, as someone who really likes Pentax, wonder “hey, why can’t they do something like that?”

Again, is it just selling features for the sake of features? Or, if video is something they could improve for only a bit more technology, than wouldn’t they be silly to lose potential buyers who will not buy a camera in 2016 that doesn’t do decent video?

We hear that Pentax is apparently aiming for the pro shooters first with this camera and more and more professions (wedding to journalism) are expecting their stills shooters to also shoot video... so it just seems like a missed opportunity if they don't go in that direction. I guess we will know soon.

Thanks for the discussion (and maybe putting up with my lengthy response.) I enjoy everyone’s thoughts.

[monochrome]

Not a professional wedding shooter so maybe I don't understand - but how does one simultaneously, or sequentially within one shoot, capture video and still? If there are more than one shooter why does a pro need Vid in a stills camera - why not use a dedicated Vidcam?

In reality (whether people buy them or not) I believe we have created a function in search of an application, to the detriment of the user and the buyer.

[anu l]

Not surely, they have said several times video is not a priority. But maybe they will surprise. And just because it is expensive does not mean anything about video. I suspect video will be about the same as the k-3, there if you need it but not really competitive.

I think that the new Pentax will have better video capabilities, especially in the continuous AF field. Since I expect it to do better in Continuous AF and tracking, This should help video too. Also with a better Processor we may see better codec and better bit rates.

There is a lot of audience who want to have good video capabilities (not necessarily high end or professional) and consider it very important when purchasing their DSLR ( not me though ). If they don't pay attention to video, then they may fail to attract a potentially significant segment of photographers.

[johnmflores]

...overvalued by our obsession with feature-based researching and ranking consumer goods in our decision-making process. For most buyers this creates a false economy. Consumers pay for more quality than they have the skill to appreciate, just because they are oversold that utility.

You've just described 90% of all DSLR camera buyers

[grispie]

but how does one simultaneously, or sequentially within one shoot, capture video and still? If there are more than one shooter why does a pro need Vid in a stills camera - why not use a dedicated Vidcam?

not a pro either, but from what i understand, pro's (wedding e.g.) tend to have more than one cam and preferably the same models (with same controls to easily switch without having to think).
With regards to dedicated videocam. Such videocam with the quality and sensor size of a dslr is just way more expensive. The dslr is a bargain in that respect and that is what triggered the whole dslr videothing to begin with, at the expense of convenience. That sensor size enables the videast to play with dof and is better in lowlight. Cheaper prosumer videocams have smaller sensors and are more for the type of documentaries that you can see on TV.