Originally posted by BigMackCam 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.