Originally posted by 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.
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.