[MarkJerling]

This is a DSLR:







This is a video camera:



This is a sports car:



This is a ute:



Buy the right tool for the job.

[PJ1]

Buy the right tool for the job.

Exactly!! I doubt many people are buying DSLRs because they really want video cameras. Shooting an "art film" with a iPhone is a gimmick, not a game changer. If I want to shoot video I will buy a video camera.

[Paul the Sunman]

Would I like better video? Yes.

Would I use it more often? I doubt it.

Would I refrain from buying a future Pentax DSLR because of weak video, if it's great otherwise? No.

[WorksAsIntended]

A lot of semi professional vid3os are taken with mirrorless cameras now, not dedicated video cameras. With full frame sensors delivering 4k60p and acceptable focus capabilities they are perfectly fine for non wildlife non action filmography in many cases.
I am pretty sure there are people choosing their camera also because of video capabilities and I must admit that both my Pentax DSLRs are pretty disappointing in that matter. I do not think though it is a make or brake feature.

[peterh337]

Indeed some ideas got mixed up. I brought in the stuff about connectivity to phones because somebody said DSLRs should be free of other functionality.

Yeah, a lot of people get really heated up...

Pentax presumably can't do video easily because they would need better hardware and software. The other stuff they could do but it is hard if your product is not based on an OS which does most of it for you.

I've been developing hardware and software since microprocessors came out, btw.

[roberrl]

Just picking up on Mark's analogy above - while a 2020 Ford Ranger will never be a Ferrari it's certainly more car-like than its predecessors with comparable comfort and conveniences , why?
Because that's what the market demands.

[BigMackCam]

Just picking up on Mark's analogy above - while a 2020 Ford Ranger will never be a Ferrari it's certainly more car-like than its predecessors with comparable comfort and conveniences , why?
Because that's what the market demands.

That Ford Ranger may have better road manners and be more car-like than its predecessors, but it's still going to do a dreadful job around a test track compared to the Ferrari. It'll go round it, sure - but there are far better tools for the job.

With respect, we can knock analogies back and forth all day long to make our points.

It's not as if Pentax doesn't do video. It does - just not very well compared to some (most) other brands and especially dedicated video cameras... and as I pointed out in my original thread reply, we've not seen huge demand for video from the majority of forum members. Previous surveys have placed it fairly low down the list of collective priorities. So, whilst I'd welcome better video for those folks that want and need it, I don't believe it's a make or break requirement for the brand's survival.

---

Last edited by BigMackCam; 02-19-2020 at 02:45 AM.

[Serkevan]

Indeed some ideas got mixed up. I brought in the stuff about connectivity to phones because somebody said DSLRs should be free of other functionality.

Yeah, a lot of people get really heated up...

Pentax presumably can't do video easily because they would need better hardware and software. The other stuff they could do but it is hard if your product is not based on an OS which does most of it for you.

I've been developing hardware and software since microprocessors came out, btw.

A DLSR will never be as good as a MILC for video - in quality of the video itself yes, certainly, but video requires the mirror to be up all the time, so you are wasting the extra bulk of the pentaprism and mirror assembly for nothing. You also don't have the option of using the VF, so you depend completely on the back LCD. Whether that will lead to the "demise" of the DSLR is a different story. Sure, manufacturers will use it as another excuse to steer customers to the easier & cheaper to build MILCs, but it is difficult to know how much is marketing and how much is customers making informed choices. Ricoh seems to understand that a lot of us are here for the OVF and ruggedness of our cameras, not for video. In all honesty, if anyone in 2020 wants best-in-class video and is STILL with Pentax, then they probably should get the memo . I suppose everyone who wants a camera for video has one by now.

After all, if you want to make some amateur videos, there is basically no need to go above M43 (Oly and particularly Panasonic make amazing stuff there), and if you really *really* want serious stuff a FF MILC won't cut it as much as a dedicated video cam with cine lenses...

[beholder3]

I see not the faintest evidence for the speculative claim made in the initial post of this thread.

[WorksAsIntended]

That Ford Ranger may have better road manners and be more car-like than its predecessors, but it's still going to do a dreadful job around a test track compared to the Ferrari. It'll go round it, sure - but there are far better tools for the job.

With respect, we can knock analogies back and forth all day long to make our points.

It's not as if Pentax doesn't do video. It does - just not very well compared to some other brands and especially dedicated video cameras... and as I pointed out in my original thread reply, we've not seen huge demand for video from the majority of forum members. Previous surveys have placed it fairly low down the list of collective priorities. So, whilst I'd welcome better video for those folks that want and need it, I don't believe it's a make or break requirement for the brand's survival.

Every analogy suffers from oversimplification.
The fact that not many are asking for video in this forum may as well mean those people already left or never entered and post in CaNiSo forums as it may mean it is not of great interest.
In the end, without a big market analysis we are just posting our opinions on this topic. Educated guesses at best.
Sony seemes to have come to the conclusion it is important, Canon now changed its mind about it (Canon r and rf lack good video, for the R5 it is a major point in the advertisment) and Nikon is somewhat unconclusive on this topic.
Pentax either decided it is not too important or simply cannot deliver as they need to build everything from skretch (Sony and Canon both build videography cameras and propably can reduce r&d for the mirrorless cameras video function this way).
For me, the Pentax cameras have a video capability not good enough to use it, but for me personally it is not a deciding factor on which camera I get. Videos are too much postprocessing work for me and I prefer watching a good picture over watching a clip.

[BigMackCam]

Every analogy suffers from oversimplification.
The fact that not many are asking for video in this forum may as well mean those people already left or never entered and post in CaNiSo forums as it may mean it is not of great interest.

I think that's at least partially true. There aren't a great number of video enthusiasts left shooting Pentax. Frankly, I'm not convinced there were many in the first place.

In the end, without a big market analysis we are just posting our opinions on this topic. Educated guesses at best.

Exactly the point I made in my second response in the thread: "Anything anyone says in this thread - from your original post to any and all responses - can be nothing more than opinion, speculation and/or conjecture"...

Sony seemes to have come to the conclusion it is important, Canon now changed its mind about it (Canon r and rf lack good video, for the R5 it is a major point in the advertisment) and Nikon is somewhat unconclusive on this topic.
Pentax either decided it is not too important or simply cannot deliver as they need to build everything from skretch (Sony and Canon both build videography cameras and propably can reduce r&d for the mirrorless cameras video function this way).

Honestly, I don't think Ricoh Imaging has the resources to significantly improve video whilst working on other "must do" development items. But again, this is just a guess.

For me, the Pentax cameras have a video capability not good enough to use it, but for me personally it is not a deciding factor on which camera I get. Videos are too much postprocessing work for me and I prefer watching a good picture over watching a clip.

One of our long-established members - @LaurenOE - has shot professional video with Pentax cameras in the fairly recent past (the last few years), although she now uses other brands. In late 2018 (i.e. not that long ago), she had this to say:

The K5/K3/K1 are decent tools when you need a "field camera" that can also shoot videos. They all have great battery life, use great Pentax glass, have reasonable mic inputs and other bits to make video a respectable option in a Pentax body.

Any camera can get the job done, and Pentax can, and does fit into my workflow...however....my workflow has become less forgiving of the shortcomings of Pentax cameras in regards to video. I harbor ZERO resentment, and when the shortcomings are rectified, Pentax cameras will no doubt become part of my video workflow again.

If you are just starting into video...a K5/K3/K1 is an excellent tool.

So what are those shortcomings? In 2018, I like to shoot at 60p. Either at 2K or 1080p as a minumum. I need at least 50mbps, but ideally want 100. I can get away with 8bit, but need 10 for grading (although I make custom LUTs).

I love how Pentax lenses have NOT gone "fly-by-wire", and a DA lens with a Novoflex adapter is the perfect cinema lens. Pentax with their APS-C line is pretty much Super 35mm and so DA lenses are wonderful to adapt to many cameras that make use of the Super 35mm sensors.

The image quality does not suck from a Pentax camera, and if I wasn't swimming in Sony, then I might continue to squeeze out what I could with my Pentax bodies.

I am REALLY hoping that the K3 replacement fixes some of the video shortcomings.

So, it's possible to shoot "decent enough" video (commercially viable, if you have Lauren's skills) with a modern Pentax DSLR. It's just that other brands and dedicated video cameras do a better job...

[MarkJerling]

Just picking up on Mark's analogy above - while a 2020 Ford Ranger will never be a Ferrari it's certainly more car-like than its predecessors with comparable comfort and conveniences , why?
Because that's what the market demands.

"Car-like" is why I picked it for my analogy. If you're moving your mate's fridge to his new flat; Do you turn up in your Ferrari or the Ranger? Likewise, if your mate wants you to video his wedding; Do you arrive with your video camera or your DSLR?

[Sandy Hancock]

If Pentax had class-leading video, my complete lack of desire to shoot video with my DSLR would stay the same.

[Rondec]

I think video is over rated as a reason that MILCs and SLRs sell well. It is more a box that people check. Yes, they may snag an occasional video clip with their ILC, but the reality is that it isn't always easy to get high quality video with a non-video camera. Form factor and accessories are the biggest things.

I think that in the beginning there was this idea that using an ILC would allow independent film makers to get artsy shallow depth of field shots for much cheaper than they could otherwise. And that might be true, but those are not the majority of shots that are in a well designed film.

Furthermore, quality of video has very little to do with why a movie is watchable or not. Movies that are watchable are coherent, have good lighting, staging, planning of shots, and are well edited. Which is another way of saying that while the videos of today may have 4K, they are much less watchable than many of the classic movies of the past by directors who had a vision for their films and then shot accordingly.

[peterh337]

we've not seen huge demand for video from the majority of forum members

I think that is a trap. If you ask the converted, you will get answers from the converted.