Originally posted by cometguy I don't mean to ask this question in a way that is seen by this Forum as anathema, but what compromises are made to the K-1 II because it has video capability? In other words, if video were removed entirely, what things could Pentax put into a K-1 III camera if video were removed entirely? I use my Pentax cameras almost exclusively for still shots. Perhaps 99% of the video that I shoot is done adequately and easily with my iPhone. I'd rather have the option of a bigger sensor than anything else for my astrophotography; I'd happily take 45 or 50 Mpx. If the choice came down to 45-50 Mpx or video (whether 4K or not), I'd take the 45-50 Mpx over the video every day. I'd be interested to see how much the inclusion of video compromises other features in these cameras; it's trying to do too much in a single camera body, in my opinion. (For people needing video professionally in a camera, like at weddings, why not just have a dedicated video camera in addition to your still camera? The more that you put into any one camera body, the less that it can do all the things really well, no?)
I suggested wanted to point out again it was NOT my intent talk about EXISTING PRODUCTS... but about ideas and wishes for new FF DSLR.
There were none, zero, zip, NULL, NIL, sacrifices made in favor of video on the K-1II.
Actually its the other way around,
if you want faster bus, faster buffer, faster burst, faster af, faster darkframe-substraction, and actually all the things that are important for an outstanding stills performing camera...
You would normally have better video on it too.
Because despite the sensor... it just comes down to the capabilities of the chipset and its internal bus(es) what your camera can do in a certain amount of time.
Its just like saying, do you think, my car could go faster if i change the car-radio?
It just doesnt matter if you make small changes or add a small part to the firmware.
So you should actually welcome a stills camera that is capable of recording 6K to 8K,
and good video-AF
because that would bring with it:
Capability to save faster, so a faster cardslot format - so you can do endless stills bursts...
better noise-reduction(dark-frame subtraction needs cpu-time also),
better stills AF-C
etc. etc.
and despite all that - pentax video functions are a bit of a stub anyway,
which really does not take away anything from the stills capabilities of this camera.
there was and is not much too it in pentaxland. no Log, no option to choose bitrate, no choice between bitrate/fps scenarios etc. lagging video-af
there have been no major changes to pentax video for ... *sigh* ... AGES...
and looking at the sales number- .. i would say this is a failure.
because companies dont exist out of pure love for their brands, and all the millenials and the new photo-addicts always look at the complete specs list.
and if ricoh sells no pentax bodies and no pentax glass, chances fade away we see any upgrades ... be it glass or camera.
What took away the most, I guess, was implementing:
-additional firmware functionality so you can shovel around info tiles on the main-lcd.
-GPS and NFC(which they took away so they did not compromise the GPS signal I guess)
(they even had to break their production and design principles, and nearly kept that frugal chassis design, thx god, thats gone now.)
SO the answer to what you are essentially asking IMHO oppinion can only be:
No there was no sacrifice made to have video in the K-1II.