Originally posted by Steve.Ledger Look guys, because you can sit in your computer chairs picking the heck out of the K-3s new professional video features (their words, not mine) and spent silly time looking hard for issues (just to post on a forum) that annoy you (wobbles/jello/bitrates/blah blah bloody blah) and post extremely amateur examples of rubbish results that you can get with any camera if you have zero skill then make all sort of ridiculous
"they should have done this and that" statements on a forum which doesn't matter to PR in real terms, doesn't make you right or smart enough to say about a multi billion dollar business which employs over one hundred thousand people and have been in business since before you were born if
"they have a clue". Of course they have a clue and know exactly what they are doing, otherwise they'd not have poured millions into producing a new model. Arrogance and naivety plus.. Good grief... Incredible..
@Steve.Ledger: I hope you read through this. I did not mean to condescend the Pentax engineers, I don't think I am better than them or can teach them anything.
Shaking the camera left and right does serve a purpose. It amplifies the problem to make it more visible. I could also do the same with the K-5, and upload it, the problem is you'd say I didn't move the camera at all. What use is that then? The difference between the K-3 and other cameras that have this problem is that they don't have the hardware built in to lessen it. The K-3 does, but doesn't use it.
Also I was merely talking about
suggestions. Maybe they've heard them before and decided against them, maybe they haven't. Does it harm to try?
As for Pentax/Ricoh being a multi billion dollar business with hundred thousand employees... yes, they are big, but which part exactly has been doing video? Ricoh is big in copying machines. Related to video? I think not. Pentax has been producing still cameras, apart from a few rebadged consumer camcorder in the 80s and 90s. Neither brand has been doing anything in the video area (to my knowledge). Does a linguist have a clue about quantum physics? Probably not. Does an electrical engineer have a clue about psychology? Probably not. Doesn't make any of them dumb, but different companies have different areas of expertise. Different employees have different areas of expertise, different interests.
Are you honestly 100% happy with the K-3 in terms of video? Or is there anything you'd wish for? Anything that might even be done in the firmware.
I'd like to know what the strategy behind the video portion of the K-3 is. What is it aimed at, what Pentax thinks it is for. I can understand why Canon doesn't implement RAW video on their 7D and 5D Mk III, even though the hardware can do it (as some people HACKING the camera have proven, probably without all that much access to the original source code, the specs, etc.). Canon has cameras capable of shooting RAW video. These cameras are very expensive, and they don't want to hurt the sales of those by giving way cheaper cameras the same capabilities. Pentax isn't hindered by that.
You could say Pentax doesn't care about video, so naturally they didn't put any ressources into it. But if they don't, why the headphone jack? Why manual gain? Why have a switch to go into the video mode, instead of having it hidden on the mode dial as before?
You could say the K-3 isn't meant for professional video use, so they decided to keep it simple, so that newbies can just shoot quick videos of a cute little puppy doing funny stuff. Except that the newbie will be frustrated by the lack of proper continuous video AF. Also, simplicity doesn't need to exclude power users. Pentax cameras have a green mode to dumb down the camera when needed. This could be implemented in the video mode too.
You could say they didn't have the resources for implementing a more sophisticated video mode. To do the necessary research. To implement the findings. I think that is what has happened. That is the way the camera feels. (Especially the SR... the imaging processor by Fujitsu AFAIK has an electronic shake reduction feature, and it seems like Pentax just activated it). Perhaps if we are vocal enough, if we give them suggestions of what they can look into, of what their user base wants, they may reconsider, and at least some of the work is already done. I'd like them to have a look at Magic Latern for example. See if they can implement anything that there is in that firmware. Maybe even work with the Magic Lantern guys, give them the access that is needed to properly implement what they want to.
What I meant by Pentax not having a clue about video was just that when I use a Pentax camera, any Pentax camera (at least the DSLRs), I get the sense that it was made by a photographer. I get the sense that Pentax employees, engineers are into photography, they care about it, they do it, they build the tools they want to use themselves. I don't get that feeling when I use a Canon. I get it a bit when using a Nikon, and more yet when using a Sony. But the most I get that feeling when using a Pentax, or a Fuji. But in terms of video, nope, nothing. It just seems to me as if they implemented video cause all cameras have video. That Pentax engineers are simply more interested in shooting photos than videos.
I'm not a pro. No doubt about that. I'm merely interested in it. I'd rather have others, if possible professional videographers compile a list, and maybe just contribute one or two things that I would like to have.
@grispie: I have tried the K-3. And I don't like it, to be honest. The still part is great. The video part I simply prefer my K-5. I don't have any regret for buying the K-5 when not much later the K-3 came out. And I would buy a K-5 again, over a K-3, cause the still part of the K-5 is pretty much perfect anyway (K-3 being better, but how much better than almost perfect can you get?), while I have a massive dislike for the video part, for what I am shooting, for how I am shooting it.
And hell, please ask actual professionals in the business what they'd want the K-3 to do (and maybe give them a K-5 too, so they see what the hardware can do).
Pentax is in a relatively unique position. Pentax, Nikon and Olympus do not do professional video cameras, Canon, Panasonic and Sony do. So Pentax could go crazy on the K-3, and hopefully attract new customers. Do things that Canon, Panasonic and Sony wouldn't want to do, cause they want to sell more expensive cameras. Would that be so bad? Pentax now has Ricoh behind them. And Ricoh has money.