[Merv-O]

But here is the thing... Competitors already do all of that stuff.

Sony and Canon autofocus is light years ahead of Pentax and so are most other competitors.

Video is not really adequate... the quality is of course all about the glass but it would not be too expensive, if anything at all to capture in modern formats. Camera already does a lot great.. i.e. comes with a headphone jack... but lack of 60p.

K3iii would need 4k.... if an iPhone has it, no reason Pentax can't.

It's not about the cost... it means losing people to competitors as video becomes more important.

For instance, I do video and stills... I do not want to carry three cameras... photo, video + action.
VERY close to selling my K3 and glass and replacing with Sony A6400.

I understand that the current Pentax line up may not be for you. You want video. that's fine. I never found taking video (I use a viewfinder) with a K-3ii, K-1 or other DSLR to be comfortable. The ergonomics is really for still photos. My Samsung video camera is the size of my 18-55mm lens and light. It takes 4K and easily transfers data. I see no disadvantage to that.
Also, the K-1/ii series focus is fast--real fast...In fact, the KP locks in well also....I agree the K-3ii is aging, but perhaps I have the advantage of using several different bodies for different types of photography.
Last week, I was at the A-10 NCAA championships and I was using a K-5ii with a 50-200mm kit lens. Below is a sample of how fast my 6 year old K-5ii was. It did very well and basketball is a fast-paced game.
In the end Maksim, it's the photographer. I learned to shoot on manual cameras over 50 years ago as a boy and my Grandfather always said to me that if you can shoot manually, you can take pictures with any camera. AF is nice and AFC is convenient, but the human mind with an ergonomic kit and good glass can achieve great results. That's why so many vintage film cameras are still in demand.
If that isn't you style, then I hope you find what you're looking for.

Attached Images

View Picture EXIF

File Date

 

[totsmuyco]

But here is the thing... Competitors already do all of that stuff.

Sony and Canon autofocus is light years ahead of Pentax and so are most other competitors.

Video is not really adequate... the quality is of course all about the glass but it would not be too expensive, if anything at all to capture in modern formats. Camera already does a lot great.. i.e. comes with a headphone jack... but lack of 60p.

K3iii would need 4k.... if an iPhone has it, no reason Pentax can't.

It's not about the cost... it means losing people to competitors as video becomes more important.

For instance, I do video and stills... I do not want to carry three cameras... photo, video + action.
VERY close to selling my K3 and glass and replacing with Sony A6400.

It's OK to like other stuff. If you feel that you've out grown your system, then move on and don't look back. The most important thing is you like what you have. But my advice to you is, look at the system that you want to go to. Understand how it works well and make sure that that is the right one. Then do the shift. It will be quite expensive jumping from one system to the next if you won't make the right choice. Good luck.

[The Squirrel Mafia]

VERY close to selling my K3 and glass and replacing with Sony A6400.

I would have probably done that had the a6400 come with IBIS & more APS-C lenses available. IBIS comes in very handy when shooting semi-smooth video without a gimball & when you want to shoot low light stills without a tripod. There is a supposed higher end Sony APS-C model on its way along with about +-10 new APS-C lenses, but who knows when & if it's really true. As for now, I'm still waiting for that upcoming Pentax APS-C flagship.

[Maksim]

I understand that the current Pentax line up may not be for you. You want video. that's fine. I never found taking video (I use a viewfinder) with a K-3ii, K-1 or other DSLR to be comfortable. The ergonomics is really for still photos. My Samsung video camera is the size of my 18-55mm lens and light. It takes 4K and easily transfers data. I see no disadvantage to that.
Also, the K-1/ii series focus is fast--real fast...In fact, the KP locks in well also....I agree the K-3ii is aging, but perhaps I have the advantage of using several different bodies for different types of photography.
Last week, I was at the A-10 NCAA championships and I was using a K-5ii with a 50-200mm kit lens. Below is a sample of how fast my 6 year old K-5ii was. It did very well and basketball is a fast-paced game.
In the end Maksim, it's the photographer. I learned to shoot on manual cameras over 50 years ago as a boy and my Grandfather always said to me that if you can shoot manually, you can take pictures with any camera. AF is nice and AFC is convenient, but the human mind with an ergonomic kit and good glass can achieve great results. That's why so many vintage film cameras are still in demand.
If that isn't you style, then I hope you find what you're looking for.

Oh believe me, you are preaching to the choir.

I love the Pentax color science and for stills it is an amazing camera. The AFc I can work around.

When it comes to video though that is a big let down, primarily from the formats and focusing. AutoFocus in video is completely slow and unreliable.

There are a few members who suggested buying a video camera.... WELL... for most people that "video camera" is a Sony Mirrorless camera and the best video cameras under $3k are essentially all Sony mirrorless cameras, A7sii, a7iii... and now the a6400.

I did actually play with the a6300 and a6500 for a bit but ended up returning them... overheating issues on 4k and the color science did not do it and were too big issues to deal with.

Right now, the overheating issues are solved and the color science has changed. And amazing AF is just really calling the name.

The big thing is... if you look at the consumer trends of who buys cameras... video is more and more a requirement. Yes, Pentax can be the best still camera... but soon they will find themselves making the best Fax machine in an "all in one" world.

Have not tried the others but the Pentax K3 is only okay with 1080p and only on a tripod with great glass. There is not even 1080 60p.... all things that other competing cameras from Nikon and Canon had.

No one is asking Pentax to pack Sony a6400 video into their bodies but it should at least be usable with the times.

Reason why Sony and Canon are doing well right now is that they are "quite good" all around with their main models. As such, they can afford to release great niche products like the A9, A7sii, etc.

The kicker is... improving video would be fairly easy... the sensor and glass are doing the hard work.

[Merv-O]

No one is asking Pentax to pack Sony a6400 video into their bodies but it should at least be usable with the times.

Thanks for the detailed and well-reasoned response.

I'm going to poke around the Forum and see if there is a viable video only thread. To be honest with you, the Samsung video camera I use was only about $400 and fits in my pocket. The cost of the K-P and the Samsung Video camera was still significantly less than the Sony bodies you mentioned (let alone the cost of the glass). Does anyone have knowledge of a video only thread here?

I do agree that quality video capability is a throw-in more camera manufacturers are value adding to their offerings; let's wait and see what RICOH does with the new incoming APS-c body. Hopefully, they will improve the video enough to retain Pentaxians like you for the next several years.

In any event, keep snapping until you hit that 200K on the K-3ii--I often wondered if anyone had exceeded that number with the K-3 series and how it was going (similar to the fellow who drives a F150 400,000 miles--always want to know what they did or wa sit just a one-off lucky model.

[MarkJerling]

There are a few members who suggested buying a video camera.... WELL... for most people that "video camera" is a Sony Mirrorless camera and the best video cameras under $3k are essentially all Sony mirrorless cameras, A7sii, a7iii... and now the a6400.

These are all video cameras. You'll see than none of them look much like a DSLR.













Using a DSLR for video is always going to be a compromise. So, if a DSLR manufacturer really wants to wow videographers, they need to incorporate a whole heap of features stills photographers don't want to pay for.
Therein lies the problem.

[Racer X 69]

Sony and Canon autofocus is light years ahead of Pentax and so are most other competitors.

Video is not really adequate... the quality is of course all about the glass but it would not be too expensive, if anything at all to capture in modern formats. Camera already does a lot great.. i.e. comes with a headphone jack... but lack of 60p.

Light years?

And, I have no need for my DSLR to do video. If I wanted to shoot video, I'd buy a video camera.

These are all video cameras. You'll see than none of them look much like a DSLR.



Using a DSLR for video is always going to be a compromise. So, if a DSLR manufacturer really wants to wow videographers, they need to incorporate a whole heap of features stills photographers don't want to pay for.
Therein lies the problem.

A light year is a long time.

As for video on a DSLR, I wish it was an option, rather than standard equipment.

I would be perfectly happy with a full frame DSLR that didn't have video. Make it smaller and lighter, and lower the cost a bit.

[Riggomatic]

These are all video cameras. You'll see than none of them look much like a DSLR.



Using a DSLR for video is always going to be a compromise. So, if a DSLR manufacturer really wants to wow videographers, they need to incorporate a whole heap of features stills photographers don't want to pay for.
Therein lies the problem.

I wish those video cameras did a better job at still photograhy

[reh321]

A light year is a long time.

As for video on a DSLR, I wish it was an option, rather than standard equipment.

I would be perfectly happy with a full frame DSLR that didn't have video. Make it smaller and lighter, and lower the cost a bit.

I'm not sure it would affect size/weight.

Cost would be lower only if they haven't previously implemented video for the same sensor / processor combination.

[FozzFoster]

DSLR

They kinda look like a medium format dslr... with a square hood and extended viewfinder/monitor attachments.

:P

[Racer X 69]

I wish those video cameras did a better job at still photograhy

Then there would be a compromise and they wouldn’t be very good video cameras.

[clickclick]

Maybe part of the slowness with the release of the new APS-C is because of the addition of things like 4K video and blazing AF, and they're still dialing it in to get it right, just like they have refused to release the DFA* 50 and DA*11-18 until they got it right.

[Merv-O]

A light year is a long time.

As for video on a DSLR, I wish it was an option, rather than standard equipment.

I would be perfectly happy with a full frame DSLR that didn't have video. Make it smaller and lighter, and lower the cost a bit.

It's exactly what I said several posts ago....The ergonomics of a DSLR to shoot video is at best, a compromise....ergo, DSLR for stills and VTR for video....

[normhead]

The kicker is... improving video would be fairly easy... the sensor and glass are doing the hard work.

I've never seen a single informed post on the cost of adding video.

One person's "kicker" is another persons stare of disbelief.

[Merv-O]

I've never seen single informed post on the cost of adding video.

One person's "kicker" is another persons stare of disbelief.

Newsflash: most TV's don't display beyond 1080p despite being "high def"....this is so ridiculous....if video in your DSLR is your main focus, buy a VTR and don't take pictures.