[FozzFoster]

most TV's don't display beyond 1080p

but a lot of PC monitors do, and YouTube allows 4K...

just playing devil's advocate

[monochrome]

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.

This.

[Merv-O]

but a lot of PC monitors do, and YouTube allows 4K...

just playing devil's advocate

That's fair...Honestly, video can be upscaled on most TV's. My 4K Sony 65" will automatically upscale lower def if I select that feature and it does a great job, particularly on B/W film channels like TCM, where the median age of their films are at least 50 years old. t's not integral, unless you must have it on a still based camera.
But, then again, there are people here that need the latest, greatest, most MP's as well even though the sweet spot for most applications is 24mp.
C'est La Vie'

[normhead]

That's fair...Honestly, video can be upscaled on most TV's. My 4K Sony 65" will automatically upscale lower def if I select that feature and it does a great job, particularly on B/W film channels like TCM, where the median age of their films are at least 50 years old. t's not integral, unless you must have it on a still based camera.
But, then again, there are people here that need the latest, greatest, most MP's as well even though the sweet spot for most applications is 24mp.
C'est La Vie'

VIdeo is just to much work to do it right. I know everyone here owns their own studios and hire bazillion skilled technicians to produce their videos, but I don't.

[Merv-O]

VIdeo is just to much work to do it right. I know everyone here owns their own studios and hire bazillion skilled technicians to produce their videos, but I don't.

LMAO...and to think it all starts with a NikCanOny 4K body...Oh my, just think, take that mighty fine Pentax video and forgo the movie studio...Excellent Norm. that puts an exclamation point on this video nonsense. Because after all, any big Hollywood director, uses video off a DSLR--that is the new technology...

[CharLac]

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.

Yeah but if my camera had a cool 4k label on it I could finally hang with all my CNS (big three camera companies) buddies.

[Merv-O]

Yeah but if my camera had a cool 4k label on it I could finally hang with all my CNS (big three camera companies) buddies.

Excellent...but true...aside from the poor ergonomics of using a DSLR as a video camera (over a VTR), Pentax builds in other qualities that photographers prefer. Like I said, if you need more extensive video, get a VTR. Almost everything in life that is a convertible or multi-tasker has compromises. Example: most telephoto lenses are not as fast as quality prime lenses, but telephotos have utility of carrying less equipment, thus compromise. All in One copiers rarely if ever, match a dedicated photo printer (of the same cost) for sharpness/quality of image.

Let's move on from here.

[CharLac]

Excellent...but true...aside from the poor ergonomics of using a DSLR as a video camera (over a VTR), Pentax builds in other qualities that photographers prefer. Like I said, if you need more extensive video, get a VTR. Almost everything in life that is a convertible or multi-tasker has compromises. Example: most telephoto lenses are not as fast as quality prime lenses, but telephotos have utility of carrying less equipment, thus compromise. All in One copiers rarely if ever, match a dedicated photo printer (of the same cost) for sharpness/quality of image.

Let's move on from here.

I am agreeing with you Merv. I almost never use video....I was just being sarcastic.

Every here and there I have used video on my DSLR but I am not a videographer. If I was, I'd be buying some specialty equipment. For all I need it for, the built in video on the K-7 and the K-3 and served me well enough.

[Racer X 69]

Example: most telephoto lenses are not as fast as quality prime lenses, but telephotos have utility of carrying less equipment, thus compromise. All in One copiers rarely if ever, match a dedicated photo printer (of the same cost) for sharpness/quality of image.

I think you meant to say zoom, not telephoto.

[normhead]

I am agreeing with you Merv. I almost never use video....I was just being sarcastic.

Every here and there I have used video on my DSLR but I am not a videographer. If I was, I'd be buying some specialty equipment. For all I need it for, the built in video on the K-7 and the K-3 and served me well enough.

I used to teach video, it took my students at leas 10 hours of class time and countless hours of time outside class to produce a 2 minute video that met my standards. I find it hard to believe that the video uses people are discussing here would end up being anything but cute little snippets of next to nothing. Of interest only to folks fascinated by cute little snippets of nothing. In 10 years since I left the classroom, I produced maybe 4 short videos, and even those, just to demonstrate the abilities of my K-5 and K-3 in case I ever wanted to use my skills., but alas, it never happened. My skills remain wasted.

[Fenwoodian]

.

Some of my friends who are primarily stills shooters are now including short videos of their chosen subjects in their social media and/or websites. They are finding that their customers like to see both. For example, a friend recently shot both stills and video of a nest of baby great horned owls. The stills were good, but watching the mother actually feeding the chicks in a video was terrific and I think helped sell the story behind his still photos.

So, if you are shooting stills of something that moves, having a DSLR with good video capability gives one the option to quickly switch from stills to video. Stills photographers who also need to be able to shoot good video usually don't have the budget to buy dedicated video cameras; and most would not have the interest in carrying two systems (and taking the time to continually switch over from stills to a dedicated video camera).

1080P is not at all competitive with 4K. 4K is these days what is needed to be competitive. Just because you don't ever shoot video does not negate the importance of having good 4K video in your digital camera. Cameras need to be made for everyone, not just the few, and that's why camera manufactures need to include so many features that not everyone needs. For example, I've never used GPS, catch in focus, horizon tilting, or astro photography features on my Pentax K-1 cameras. However, I understand why Pentax put them in - to sell K-1 cameras to a broader group of potential customers. So, it's OK that you don't shoot video, but realize, that state of the art video must be included in a new flagship digital camera, or the camera manufacturer will be severely restricting their potential customer base.

[Merv-O]

I think you meant to say zoom, not telephoto.

I stand humbly corrected....ZOOM --

---------- Post added 03-26-19 at 11:06 AM ----------

I am agreeing with you Merv. I almost never use video....I was just being sarcastic.

Every here and there I have used video on my DSLR but I am not a videographer. If I was, I'd be buying some specialty equipment. For all I need it for, the built in video on the K-7 and the K-3 and served me well enough.

Oh Charlac, I knew you were kidding...I wanted to make sure that those members coming to this thread know that we are however, serious about using equipment for its primary and/or intended purpose because most of us are serious about the still photo medium, either as a profession or a hobby, and to me, RIcoh doesn't make a movie camera, unlike the CaNikOny oligarchy.

Keep up the good humor and the fine photos.

[Racer X 69]

I stand humbly corrected....ZOOM --

[stihlmania]

I am agreeing with you Merv. I almost never use video....I was just being sarcastic.

Every here and there I have used video on my DSLR but I am not a videographer. If I was, I'd be buying some specialty equipment. For all I need it for, the built in video on the K-7 and the K-3 and served me well enough.

What CharLac said except for the fact that my K3- II video gets better the more I use it, just like the high ISO images. For the first 8,000 images on my K3- II high ISO ( above 1200 ) was not good. I am shooting up to ISO 8000 now ( with F2.8 or faster lens) and can print 20 x 24. Video improvement is not that dramatic but it is as good as my GoPro 5. Is the camera getting better the more I use it or is it me? I think it is the camera....

[MarkJerling]

.

1080P is not at all competitive with 4K. 4K is these days what is needed to be competitive. Just because you don't ever shoot video does not negate the importance of having good 4K video in your digital camera. Cameras need to be made for everyone, not just the few, and that's why camera manufactures need to include so many features that not everyone needs. For example, I've never used GPS, catch in focus, horizon tilting, or astro photography features on my Pentax K-1 cameras. However, I understand why Pentax put them in - to sell K-1 cameras to a broader group of potential customers. So, it's OK that you don't shoot video, but realize, that state of the art video must be included in a new flagship digital camera, or the camera manufacturer will be severely restricting their potential customer base.

With all due respect, that seems somewhat counterintuitive.

Here's a car. It would be a bit of a pain to drive every day.



Here's a car made for going offroad. It can go places you can't go with the other car.



In the same way as these two are very different cars, for very different uses, in the same way a DSLR is never going to deliver "state of the art video". DSLR's simply don't have the capability, nor should they, to deliver video like a "real" video camera can.

Here's the typical recording format capabilities of a good video camera:

XAVC Intra:
XAVC-I QFHD mode:MPEG-4 AVC/H.264, CBG, Max.600 Mbps
XAVC-I HD mode:MPEG-4 AVC/H.264, CBG, Max.222 Mbps

XAVC Long:
XAVC-L QFHD mode: VBR, maximum bit rate 150Mbps, MPEG-4 H.264/AVC
XAVC-L HD 50 mode: VBR, maximum bit rate 50Mbps, MPEG-4 H.264/AVC
AVC-L HD 35 mode: VBR, maximum bit rate 35Mbps, MPEG-4 H.264/AVC
XAVC-L HD 25 mode: VBR, maximum bit rate 25Mbps, MPEG-4 H.264/AVC

MPEG-2 Long GOP:
MPEG HD422 mode: CBR, maximum bit rate 50Mbps, MPEG-2 422P at HL
MPEG HD420 HQ mode: VBR, maximum bit rate 35Mbps, MPEG-2 MP at HL

DVCAM:
DVCAM mode: CBR, 25Mbps, DVCAM

ode:
LPCM 24-bit, 48kHz, 4 channels

XAVC Long:
XAVC-L mode: LPCM 24-bit, 48kHz, 4 channels

MPEG-2 Long GOP:
MPEG HD422 mode: LPCM 24-bit, 48kHz, 4 channels
MPEG HD420 HQ mode: LPCM 16-bit, 48kHz, 4 channels
DVCAM:
DVCAM mode: LPCM 16-bit, 48kHz, 4 channels

Here's the frame rates:

XAVC Intra:
XAVC-I QFHD mode: 3840 x 2160/59, 94p, 50p, 29.97p, 23.98p, 25p
XAVC-I HD mode: 1920 x 1080/59, 94p, 59.94i, 50p, 50i, 29.97P, 23.98P, 25P 1280x720/59.94P, 50P

XAVC Long:
XAVC-L QFHD 150 mode: 3840 x 2160/59.94P, 50P, 29.97P, 23.98P, 25P
XAVC-L HD 50 mode: 1920 x 1080/59.94P, 50P, 59.94i, 50i, 29.97P, 23.98P, 25P 1280 x 720/59.94P, 50P
XAVC-L HD 35 mode: 1920 x 1080/59.94P, 50P, 59.94i, 50i, 29.97P, 23.98P, 25P
XAVC-L HD 25 mode: 1920 x 1080/59.94i, 50i
MPEG-2 Long GOP:
MPEG HD422 mode: 1920 x 1080/59.94i, 50i, 29.97P, 23.98P, 25P, 1280 x 720/59.94P, 50P, 29.97P, 23.98P, 25P
MPEG HD420 HQ mode: 1920 x 1080/59.94i, 50i, 29.97P, 23.98P, 25P, 1440 x 1080/59.94i, 50i, 29.97P, 23.98P, 25P, 1280 x 720/59.94P,50P

DVCAM:
DVCAM mode: 720 x 480/59.94i, 29.97PsF, 720 x 576/50i, 25PsF

My point with all this is: If you want a "state of the art video" camera, then buy a video camera. It's completely unrealistic to suggest that a DSLR should be, or could be, that video camera. Whatever you do, a DSLR is fundamentally designed to be a stills camera. It may be a stills camera that shoots video poorly, or reasonably well, but it will never be a video camera. And, nor should it be. Why would those of us who never shoot video want to spend double to have a device that could do both? Bragging rights? I don't think so.

(Photos from the internet - not my images)