[Class A]

Unless he uses a wifi device for operating, which sounds like a really bad idea, unless the wifi works perfectly. I wouldn't trust it while operating, though.

Why assume it does not work perfectly?

And why not trust it, given that transmission distances will be short and hence communication reliable?

As johnmflores mentioned, latency could be an issue in practice.

[TomGarn]

Why assume it does not work perfectly?.

Yes, I thought about that ...for example to get a wifi smartphone that could
temporarily be fixed on the camera top rail that I use for light, mic and one
free extra position ... So I might fix the smartphone to the hot shoe position
or even take it in my hand while the cam is positioned on the ground ...

But 1. there is a time lapse - so you will hardly find the right focus - well
maybe ... but not good and quick enough while focuspulling to and fro.
and 2. to use the wifi for focuspulling on the smartphone or bigger will be
a mess even more ... But in some cases that is a nice gimmick I'm shure.

[Mutters]

Why assume it does not work perfectly?

And why not trust it, given that transmission distances will be short and hence communication reliable?

As johnmflores mentioned, latency could be an issue in practice.

I, for one, will be very surprised if live view via tablet or such will actually be live - as in live motion.

Just think of the bits and bytes that have to be pushed out. If it does show live motion, I believe it will be very choppy and/or low resolution.

I reckon you'll have to push a button every time you want live view updated, even with stills.

I will be very, very happy to be proven wrong though.

AB

[fuent104]

Why assume it does not work perfectly?

And why not trust it, given that transmission distances will be short and hence communication reliable?

As johnmflores mentioned, latency could be an issue in practice.

You have provided one of the primary answers to your question - latency. Generally, on professional video shoots, I usually try to avoid unnecessary additions to my kit or workflow that introduce margins for error. Using a wi-fi monitor instead of plugging a monitor in would qualify as such an addition.

[Mutters]

That may be true ... then it must have been a very bad sensor ... (crying and same time laughing smiley)
I have only heard the K-5 is as bad as the K-7 so I didn't even care to look closer anymore...
.[/I]

The quote that the K-5 is no better than the K-7 is wrong - way off the mark.

There's a whole lot more shadow detail in the K-5 and of course native 1080p.

To me it renders better than the K-01 also.

AB

[falconeye]

If streaming to an external monitor (e.g., smartphone or tablet) works well then I'd say that beats an articulated monitor easily.

Actually, HDMI monitors are the de-facto standard for video operators now and there are nice ones even adding peaking. No problem to use them with the K-5.

However, some monitor the clean HDMI output directly (requiring a much more expensive rig) which has full HD resolution beating the LV monitor. That's not possible with the K-5 as it outputs a lower resolution video over HDMI during recording.

I reckon you'll have to push a button every time you want live view updated, even with stills.

No reason to speculate, you could have asked a question instead.

LV over WiFi or USB is both reliable and fast. Same quality as on the rear monitor. Just some extra latency which however, isn't that much larger than the K-5 already has to its rear screen.

I tried with Helicon Remote over USB (Nikon), iUSBPort-Camera over Wifi (Nikon), Builtin-Wifi (Sony).

I know the inner details of the protocol used by Sony. They transmit a stream of 1 JPG/frame over http (so, a VGA-sized MJPG stream basically). Which should be no more than 10 Mbps (for 30-50 KB JPGs). No problem at all for a current Wifi, esp. over short distance.

[johnmflores]

Actually, HDMI monitors are the de-facto standard for video operators now and there are nice ones even adding peaking. No problem to use them with the K-5.

However, some monitor the clean HDMI output directly (requiring a much more expensive rig) which has full HD resolution beating the LV monitor. That's not possible with the K-5 as it outputs a lower resolution video over HDMI during recording.


No reason to speculate, you could have asked a question instead.

LV over WiFi or USB is both reliable and fast. Same quality as on the rear monitor. Just some extra latency which however, isn't that much larger than the K-5 already has to its rear screen.

I tried with Helicon Remote over USB (Nikon), iUSBPort-Camera over Wifi (Nikon), Builtin-Wifi (Sony).

I know the inner details of the protocol used by Sony. They transmit a stream of 1 JPG/frame over http (so, a VGA-sized MJPG stream basically). Which should be no more than 10 Mbps (for 30-50 KB JPGs). No problem at all for a current Wifi, esp. over short distance.

I've seen the WiFi live view of the 6d and it is quite nice, but I saw it used for stills, not for video. WiFi certainly has the bandwidth-how else could we watch HD videos of cats on YouTube? Could an Aussie with a Flucard (they're the only ones I know that got the free with the silver, albeit maybe not the final release) produce a video like this?

Youtu.be

Youtu.be

And Fluent104 has a good point - every additional piece of gear that you bring to a shoot is another potential point of failure and another thing that you need to make contingencies for in case something goes wrong. Building a nice video rig with a DSLR, separate audio, external video monitoring, and all the cables, fasteners. etc... is fun and looks cool but all that complexity is just waiting for the critical moment to fail.

[falconeye]

I've seen the WiFi live view of the 6d and it is quite nice, but I saw it used for stills, not for video. WiFi certainly has the bandwidth-how else could we watch HD videos of cats on YouTube?

Two points to consider though:

1.) LV streams don't typically use a motion-compressing codec like MP4 (it would cause extra cpu load). utube cats do

2.) Because of 1.), remote LV for stills and video behaves the same.

[Class A]

Actually, HDMI monitors are the de-facto standard for video operators now and there are nice ones even adding peaking. No problem to use them with the K-5.

Of course...

Even though I do own a K-5 II now, I'm not always aware of all its capabilities (e.g., HDMI output during video). The K100D, I'm still used to, couldn't do it!

[kadajawi]

Oh my god. I quickly skipped through the new pentaxforums review to get to the video section. That you can't select the quality/bitrate is already bad. No MJPEG is even worse. But at this line: "The Pentax K-3 implements video Shake Reduction electronically, likely to keep audible noise to a minimum while recording." the interest in this camera has dropped to subzero. If my K-5 dies I'll get a second hand K-5 II. I won't ever downgrade to the K-3. Electronic shake reduction is absolutely unacceptable. Even Sony's implementation sucks, and that is already miles ahead of what Pentax had to offer with the K-30. There is literally NO advantage over the K-5 (higher frame rates perhaps, but that is ALL), but tons of downsides. Not even focus peaking during video...

WHAT THE HELL WAS PENTAX THINKING?! Those who care about audio quality will shoot with an external, shock mounted microphone anyway. They won't pick up the "noise" from the sensor shift system anyway. The microphone of my K-5 doesn't really pick up the noise in real life situations (i.e. not in a soundproof room).

[osv]

No MJPEG is even worse.

mjpeg is an obsolete, inefficient codec that should have never been used in the first place.

the fact that pentax bailed on it is a huge plus.

still, like nearly all dslr video implementations, you'll probably be better off shooting video with a cheap camcorder than a still camera.

[TomGarn]

WHAT THE HELL WAS PENTAX THINKING?!

Good question !
It feels as if they are listening to a thousand and one voices of some bad marketing-research-company
without paying for and gaining clear results - They just loose the picture and get lost again and again in
details ... in loss of a holistic vision - they can't see the forest for the trees - they just can't give up guessing
in wrong directions about what customers really want ... and how to win back their old friends
They still can't compete and get lost in panic to loose even more ground under their feet. It's a tragedy.

[rdj92807]

Can someonw compare the SR jello effect in the K-3 versus the K-01? Is it better in the K-3 or about the same?????
Help please!

[Dave L]

mjpeg is an obsolete, inefficient codec that should have never been used in the first place.

the fact that pentax bailed on it is a huge plus.

Only a direct comparison of K-5 video with K-3 video will show that - as with shake reduction, and sadly, even after the new PF review, we are still waiting.

[osv]

Only a direct comparison of K-5 video with K-3 video will show that - as with shake reduction, and sadly, even after the new PF review, we are still waiting.

it is frustrating, because the review doesn't even list the bitrates that the video/audio is recorded at... I can't find bitrate numbers listed anywhere on the 'net, it's like pentax is deliberately hiding the specs.

if I could download a short raw video clip from the k-3, I could probably figure the bitrate out... can't even locate that, tons of stills but no video samples, just recompressed youtube garbage.

for comparison purposes, raw video is sort of comparable to a 100% crop.

explaining why codecs/bitrate is so important is a bit technical, you are probably thinking about things like jello cam, and why the picture pauses during a zoom.