Originally posted by kenyee Pentax has done nicely to bring their video up to par finally, but it really is just up to par w/ Nikon IMHO. Canon/Sony/Panny has 1080/60p already and they're ahead of Nikon.
Based on the spec sheet, I'd agree with you. There is certainly more to an image than specs, though. The question is, how does the image look? Sadly, for Pentax, even if the image looks better than the image from a Canon dslr, there is nothing sexy enough about the announcement to draw users away from Canon. Unless the lack of AA filter makes the image MUCH more sharp than the Canon dslr image (which I hope it does). Dynamic range, bit depth, and color sampling are all important factors, too, and I don't think we've seen the specs on them. For example, if the K-3 shoots 10-bit moving images, I can see that as something that would draw some attention.
I think it's interesting that the Panasonic GH2 and GH3 get so much attention on blogs and website. I live in Los Angeles, and everyone I know is a filmmaker. I have literally spoken to one person ever who owned a GH2. I've never spoken to anyone who owns a GH3. I don't know anyone who has ever mentioned considered purchasing either of them. This isn't a knock on the products, but I think it's odd that these cameras are often mentioned as major players in the market, but my personal anecdotal evidence suggests otherwise. I recognize that this is not scientifically valid.
Dear John Carlson, if you are listening. Magic Lantern is a realy wonderful filmmaking tool. A lot of us would love to have similar functionality on our Pentax DSLRs. Magic Lantern is one of the reasons I bought a Canon 60D instead of a Pentax DSLR for video. I applaud you for the increased attention to video features, though.