[grispie]

Personally, I'm not looking for more, just a return to what was already there

exactly, just K5 capability added with manual control.
hec, for the money, i'd even buy a 2ndhand K5 now for the video IQ and SR alone rather than a K3.
Wonder where the K3 will stand in terms of video IQ...
My sony A77 beats the crap out of my K01 both on IQ and (digital!) SR

yes, I do believe user feedback is taken into account at some point. They did fix the auto-iso problem in the K01 combined with M lenses
Must have been user driven..

That said, pentax ergonomics beat the crap out of my A77... :-)

[Mutters]

My sony A77 beats the crap out of my K01 both on IQ and (digital!) SR

yes, I do believe user feedback is taken into account at some point. They did fix the auto-iso problem in the K01 combined with M lenses
Must have been user driven..

That said, pentax ergonomics beat the crap out of my A77... :-)

Hey Grispie, what's the video rate is with the A77? Is it H.264? If so it would be good to compare against the Ks.

I reckon they must take notice also, although they never implemented the Astrotracer for the K-01, even though they admitted it was possible and under consideration.

AB

[grispie]

Hey Grispie, what's the video rate is with the A77? Is it H.264?

It is Avchd and i believe at a rate between 25 & 28. But i'm no expert...

[johnmflores]

As kind as I can possibly be John, you seem to have plenty of time to reply comprehensively when others express their disappointment.

Personally, I'm not looking for more, just a return to what was already there, in this "professional video" bit of kit.

However you try to negate it, there are those of us really upset at Ricoh's implementation, and we're allowed to say so.

Plus there's the possibility that it can be fixed in a firmware update, so we're probably hoping someone in charge is listening.

Peace

AB

Yeah, you're right. I do spend way too much time here LOL. I guess you can protest and hope for a firmware update, I'd be happy if it happened. But I'd imagine that there was a solid engineering reason for it not to be implemented as this is a top of the range product, not margin-stealing entry level or mid-tier model.

I guess the thing that irks me is that people seem to be coming to judgements prematurely, based on info gleaned from spec sheets and a smattering of videos. It reminds me of the "don't give me more pixels because that always equals more noise" and "anything smaller than full-frame is not worthy" arguments, among others.

My perspective is that I'm looking for my video needs elsewhere until Pentax proves to me that they are serious about video, so I'm not disappointed but what's not there. And my experience with digital SR is that it's better than nothing.

Have a nice day.

[Dave L]

I guess the thing that irks me is that people seem to be coming to judgements prematurely, based on info gleaned from spec sheets and a smattering of videos. It reminds me of the "don't give me more pixels because that always equals more noise" and "anything smaller than full-frame is not worthy" arguments, among others.

Yes people may be jumping to incorrect conclusions but if they are, Ricoh have only themselves to blame for not publishing the facts in the specs. Corporate marketing and promotion tends to work by highlighting clear improvements and trying to ignore anything that's below expectations so it's reasonable to assume that Ricoh are doing just that with movie SR/shake reduction and one or two other things Pentax users have commented on.

Ricoh could and should clear up the confusion in one day, by releasing the relevant specifications or other information.

[grispie]

I guess the thing that irks me is that people seem to be coming to judgements prematurely, based on info gleaned from spec sheets and a smattering of videos. It reminds me of the "don't give me more pixels because that always equals more noise" and "anything smaller than full-frame is not worthy" arguments, among others.

one thing i must agree with, is that no single dslr is the perfect option for video and thus discussions about it might seem irrelevant. So rather invest in two (or more) separate brands according your needs. which is what i've done to a certain degree.
But it comes at an expense that is not feasible for everyone. I absolutely love my pentax primes, so i was really hoping that the K3 would be the reason to stick 100% with pentax and getting rid of my sony.

[Mutters]

Yeah, you're right. I do spend way too much time here LOL. I guess you can protest and hope for a firmware update, I'd be happy if it happened. But I'd imagine that there was a solid engineering reason for it not to be implemented as this is a top of the range product, not margin-stealing entry level or mid-tier model.

I guess the thing that irks me is that people seem to be coming to judgements prematurely, based on info gleaned from spec sheets and a smattering of videos. It reminds me of the "don't give me more pixels because that always equals more noise" and "anything smaller than full-frame is not worthy" arguments, among others.

My perspective is that I'm looking for my video needs elsewhere until Pentax proves to me that they are serious about video, so I'm not disappointed but what's not there. And my experience with digital SR is that it's better than nothing.

Have a nice day.

Thanks John. My argument was nothing to do with what you refer to. I'm happy with more pixels and APS-C.

I just don't want them taking stuff away, and really can't believe that mechanical SR is not possible. I just don't buy it.

If they made stills SR digital, then I might.

From what I've seen of the K-3 video so far, is that it has the dreaded jello effect, which is something the K-5 and such avoided.

Digital SR on the K-01 is a shocker - surely they've improved on that.

There's also the crop factor that just adds more insult.

Professional video - I don't think so!

Cheers

AB