[normhead]

Touchy

[photoptimist]

I grab my head and wonder how on earth small smartphone can top out big ass pro dslr... It just feels wrong.

But it's not wrong -- just the opposite.

Video and stills are simply different. Doing great video with a big sensor is technologically hard. Doing great stills with a small sensor is technologically hard. Dollar-for-dollar, small sensors will always have an advantage in video. And dollar-for-dollar, big sensors will always have an advantage in stills.

I'm sure you can find a compromise camera that does better video than the K-1 but it will do worse stills than the K-1 unless you pay an extremely large amount of money.

Rather than create a compromise camera, Pentax decided to design the best stills camera possible when they made the K-1. And their choices for pixel count, sensor choice, sensor tuning, etc. make the K-1 a awesome pro stills camera. But those decisions actually make "good" video much harder if not impossible.

[Aristophanes]

A) Pentax' priority are stills, not video. This has been known for years. If you want just video, go with Sony or Canon or Samsung, get a camcorder.

Autofocus (tracking especially) and video are the current Pentax soft spots.

There is no such thing as "stills" priority. The reason why is all manufacturers put out equivalent quality stills. It's a non-competitive metric, especially when sensor tech is near-homogenous and optics the same.

As dedicated camera become more niche, they need to become multi-function on par with the competition or suffer sales.

The omission of better video performance is not equivalent to a supposed priority on better-then-the-copetition stills effort. When the latter is no better than the competition (and isn't), your entire system is now dogged down by the lack of requisite features.

[normhead]

As dedicated camera become more niche, they need to become multi-function on par with the competition or suffer sales.

The sales have already been suffered. Those of us who are left need video very rarely or are willing to buy a separate piece of equipment just for video.

If you are arguing they might get customers back with better video, that's debatable. It's too late in the game. When the K-5 came out and pretty much kicked the poop out of every other APS-c DSLR in the game the increase in sales was marginal. Same with the K-1.

Pentax is still the "best stills per dollar" company. You can get the same IQ in other brands but you'll pay more. Which is why I generally laugh off these kinds of threads. You bought into the "how do I get the same great IQ as other companies at a better price" brand. Well not maxing out the video capabilities or paying for multi-chip AF was part of the formula.

So you went with the formula but want to change what made it a successful formula so it can be like the others, the one's you didn't buy. Am I the only one who sees how illogical, and ironic that is. The argument seems to be, every brand should excel at the same feature set, no one should be different. It almost makes a person feel guilty for enjoying things the way they are. Gnerally when it's a choice between me feeling guilty for liking things as they are, or dismissing the opposing argument, and calling the proponent a knob or a weenie, I'll choose to dismiss the other person as a knob ( or a weenie) and go with my own happiness. I'm selfish that way.

Or to be more precise, I like the K-1 video and AF the way they are and I'm not paying $1000 to get a D810 that's better in both. I really appreciate the choice to not pay for those things. What folks are trying to do here is have improve Pentax AF and video so they can have in Pentax what everyone else has. I just want the good price for top quality stills.

I get really tired of people saying "it wouldn't cost anything". Well, OK then, put up or shut up. Where is the camera with great video and stills capability that can give you the same IQ and features as a K-1, for the same money or less? I'd be much more accepting of the idea that it can be done, if someone had actually done it. Until someone has it's hypothetical. All I hear is "Pentax can do this and this and this for almost nothing" from a bunch of people who aren't on the design team and have no idea what the trade offs or costs are.

I watched the Blue Jays baseball game last night and I can tell you for certain, they would have won if they just followed a few of my managerial suggestions. The difference between me and these posters is, I've managed enough teams to know it's way more complicated than that and that my talk is worth dog poop when I say stuff like that. ( That doesn't stop me from enjoying saying it however.) I doubt even one person posting in the forum advocating better video and Auto-Focus has actually sat in on the meetings where these things were discussed and trade offs were examined for potential market impact and cost. Not one. It's all fluff.

---

Last edited by normhead; 08-07-2017 at 08:06 AM.

[tgchan]

Pentax is still the "best stills per dollar" company.

This is why I am using Pentax gear. I love it and actively support it.

I just wish they could improve what is within the firmware reach (e.g. mechanical shake reduction in video/focus peaking during recording etc.), that's it.

Hopefully there's something underway.

[photoptimist]

Autofocus (tracking especially) and video are the current Pentax soft spots.

There is no such thing as "stills" priority. The reason why is all manufacturers put out equivalent quality stills. It's a non-competitive metric, especially when sensor tech is near-homogenous and optics the same.

As dedicated camera become more niche, they need to become multi-function on par with the competition or suffer sales.

The omission of better video performance is not equivalent to a supposed priority on better-then-the-copetition stills effort. When the latter is no better than the competition (and isn't), your entire system is now dogged down by the lack of requisite features.

That's simply not true. None of the fullframe cameras based on Sony's 36 megapixel sensors are that good for video compared to other similar-priced (or cheaper) cameras that have fewer megapixels or smaller sensors.

And if you look at what it takes to get video frame rates off a big sensor, you either have to add cost to the chip or degrade the DR for stills. It really is a trade-off at the fundamental hardware level.

And then there's the added engineering cost for the processor, firmware, and data channels to get good video. Those video-focused engineering costs either come out of the budget for developing a better stills camera or they add to the price of the body. And those development cost issues are especially acute for smaller manufacturers who have lower volumes to spread video development cost over.

There's no free lunch when it comes to good video.

Now some might think that Pentax lost sales by not having better video. And that may be true. But it's just as likely that Pentax would have lost even more sales if they'd sacrificed stills performance for a more video-oriented sensor, taken engineering time away from stills performance to made the video better, or jacked up the price of the K-1 to cover the added costs of video.

For those like normhead, me, and most of the buyers of the K-1 who don't give a rat's ass about video, another jack-of-all-trades, master-of-none camera would suck.

[Aristophanes]

That's simply not true. None of the fullframe cameras based on Sony's 36 megapixel sensors are that good for video compared to other similar-priced (or cheaper) cameras that have fewer megapixels or smaller sensors.

And if you look at what it takes to get video frame rates off a big sensor, you either have to add cost to the chip or degrade the DR for stills. It really is a trade-off at the fundamental hardware level.

And then there's the added engineering cost for the processor, firmware, and data channels to get good video. Those video-focused engineering costs either come out of the budget for developing a better stills camera or they add to the price of the body. And those development cost issues are especially acute for smaller manufacturers who have lower volumes to spread video development cost over.

There's no free lunch when it comes to good video.

Now some might think that Pentax lost sales by not having better video. And that may be true. But it's just as likely that Pentax would have lost even more sales if they'd sacrificed stills performance for a more video-oriented sensor, taken engineering time away from stills performance to made the video better, or jacked up the price of the K-1 to cover the added costs of video.

For those like normhead, me, and most of the buyers of the K-1 who don't give a rat's ass about video, another jack-of-all-trades, master-of-none camera would suck.

I disagree.

if the competitor does it, you need to as well. Pentax sales are hampered primarily by not being feature par with he competitor.

Again, they simply cannot do "better" stills than the competition. Not all using the same Sony sensors or Canon and Fuji equivalents.

The survival of the K-1 and Pentax will depend on par design and engineering, not some manufactured IQ superiority.

It's been like that for a decade in digital cameras, save for a few camera like the Nikon D700 which leapfrogged ISO. Those are the exception, not the norm. The norm is every brand has near-identical IQ. indistinguishable. After pricing (the main differentiator), the feature package is what matters.

This is absolutely no different than in the film days. When AF came out, everyone suddenly had to be there equivalent or sales would tank, as we see what happened to Olympus who exited that market.

DSLR or mirrorless, makes no difference. The niche camera market with optical pedigree is now firmly entrenched in the video world. Even Leica has 4K now. They were bluntly told by their user base that this was no longer an option, but a sales necessity.

Finally, one of the main drivers of mirrorless has been video, and mirrorless is eating the DSLR camp for lunch right now. And we know Pentax has been tinkering with video because of their 55-300 and 18-50 lenses.

it's coming increasingly clear that statements about "stills" being a priority are not holding water in the market. There no competitive advantage there. in fact, the opposite. Any brand that says their "stills" are superior because of camera design or bran priority will be relentlessly—and deservedly—mocked. The market is about price, features, lens array, and ergonomics.

[stevebrot]

And the thread is not about the specs so stfu and go troll somewhere else.

Touchy

That is correct. The thread is not about the specs. It is about the OP getting better results from a smartphone than the K-1. One may want to take a look at the examples, though I am not sure where the K-1 clips start...

TGC - Shorts - YouTube


Steve

(...free bump for the OPs channel...)

[stevebrot]

It's been like that for a decade in digital cameras, save for a few camera like the Nikon D700 which leapfrogged ISO. Those are the exception, not the norm. The norm is every brand has near-identical IQ. indistinguishable. After pricing (the main differentiator), the feature package is what matters.

Indeed. That is the mindset that drives Web purchases with "compare" and/or reference to the tables at Consumer Reports and elsewhere. It was that process that provided me with an under-powered lawnmower that always clogs in the Spring. (CU tests their mowers on the dry grass of California.) I can't complain, though. It does reliably start as noted in the review and is wonderful at mulching dry grass later in the Summer.


Steve

(...actually am fond of CU, just not their camera reviews...Rebels for everyone! )

[normhead]

Again, they simply cannot do "better" stills than the competition. Not all using the same Sony sensors or Canon and Fuji equivalents.

Getting lame dude... no one said they do better. We said they do it at a better price. You're shadow boxing here.

if the competitor does it, you need to as well. Pentax sales are hampered primarily by not being feature par with he competitor.

Nonsense, even the competition doesn't do all these things well on every camera system. The IDx doesn't have the same still quality as a D810 or K-1. Everyone doesn't do everything even on their own different camera bodies. As a smaller company, Pentax owes it to their customers to be the best at a few things done well, not try and have different bodies for everything like everyone else does. Nikon have the D810 for stills, the 750 and D4 as sports type bodies. The easiest way to kill Pentax is to have them try and compete in every category the big boys do and spend their limited R&D money on as few bodies as possible.

For the most part , there are no high frame rate cameras over 20 MP, the exception being the A9 at 24 MP. The Camera everyone seems to advocate all the time, the great tracking, high frame rate terrific for movies K-1. Pentax tends to do things about a year after everyone else, so once again, this time in bold...

Where is this camera that does 36 MP files, great video, high frame rate, and great AF for the cost of a K-1 or cheaper?

Where is the camera that gives us what the K-1 has, and more, for a better price? When you look at internal image stabilization and pixel shift, you can't even find another FF that has what the K-1 has.

Harping on about something that doesn't exist is just engaging in fantasy. Claiming Pentax can do what nobody else has, well maybe they can, but then, why haven't bigger companies with more resources already done it?

If you answer a few of these questions, some of which I'm asking for the second time, you positions might have a bit more credibility.

I'm not getting obscure here. I'm just asking the basic questions everyone should ask before engaging in this kind of thinking. If you haven't answered them, you've got nothing.

[stevebrot]

Even Leica has 4K now. They were bluntly told by their user base that this was no longer an option, but a sales necessity.

The...ummmm...L-mount cameras...how are sales on those models?


Steve

[Aristophanes]

The...ummmm...L-mount cameras...how are sales on those models?


Steve

How are Pentax sales? Seen the Ricoh financial thread? Care to compare to Leica?

Leica is offering 4K video in their APS-C and FF line on the TL and SL series. Will it come to M-mount? Remains to be seen, but clearly Leica sees fit to put their efforts into a variety of systems where video is forefront because that is where the market is going. The market that is shrinking is the dedicated stills photo market. Multi-purpose cameras are now dominant. Canon, Sony and even a reluctant Fuji all put video capabilities at he forefront.

---------- Post added 08-07-17 at 02:30 PM ----------

Getting lame dude... no one said they do better. We said they do it at a better price. You're shadow boxing here.



Nonsense, even the competition doesn't do all these things well on every camera system. The IDx doesn't have the same still quality as a D810 or K-1. Everyone doesn't do everything even on their own different camera bodies. As a smaller company, Pentax owes it to their customers to be the best at a few things done well, not try and have different bodies for everything like everyone else does. Nikon have the D810 for stills, the 750 and D4 as sports type bodies. The easiest way to kill Pentax is to have them try and compete in every category the big boys do and spend their limited R&D money on as few bodies as possible.

For the most part , there are no high frame rate cameras over 20 MP, the exception being the A9 at 24 MP. The Camera everyone seems to advocate all the time, the great tracking, high frame rate terrific for movies K-1. Pentax tends to do things about a year after everyone else, so once again, this time in bold...

Where is this camera that does 36 MP files, great video, high frame rate, and great AF for the cost of a K-1 or cheaper?

Where is the camera that gives us what the K-1 has, and more, for a better price? When you look at internal image stabilization and pixel shift, you can't even find another FF that has what the K-1 has.

Harping on about something that doesn't exist is just engaging in fantasy. Claiming Pentax can do what nobody else has, well maybe they can, but then, why haven't bigger companies with more resources already done it?

If you answer a few of these questions, some of which I'm asking for the second time, you positions might have a bit more credibility.

I'm not getting obscure here. I'm just asking the basic questions everyone should ask before engaging in this kind of thinking. If you haven't answered them, you've got nothing.

In case you hadn't noticed, the DSLR market is shrinking.

The stratagem of sticking to a "stills" market and a multi-function market, etc. (remember the loooooong delay for the Nikon D300s replacement?) is a figment of marketing, not consumer preference. It's the dinosaur trying to survive after the asteroid.

This is the broken assumption: that the market is large enough or all these sub-markets—one for stills, one for faster FPS stills, one for video, and all these semi-pro users are going to be a Thom Hogan and get multiple bodies.

It's not working.

What's eating them are the multi-function systems that do it all. Look at the Sony A9 marketing. Look at Canon's latest marketing. These companies are clearly going to winnow down the line of models and bodies and focus on multifunction cameras. This is what the market data is telling us about the DSLR camp as mirrorless (and I count Sony's A series as a DSLR because it stakes a sales target in that realm) chews up the sales.

My point is that none of Pentax's current bodies are capable enough in video nor AF. Saying they are competitive in "stills" because that is a Pentax strategy is a rabbit hole of convenience. We say it but it means nothing because the K-1 put out identical quality to every other FF. We cannot tell the difference anymore unless DxO merely hints at one to become the next meme.

[photoptimist]

I disagree.

if the competitor does it, you need to as well. Pentax sales are hampered primarily by not being feature par with he competitor.

Again, they simply cannot do "better" stills than the competition. Not all using the same Sony sensors or Canon and Fuji equivalents.

The survival of the K-1 and Pentax will depend on par design and engineering, not some manufactured IQ superiority.

It's been like that for a decade in digital cameras, save for a few camera like the Nikon D700 which leapfrogged ISO. Those are the exception, not the norm. The norm is every brand has near-identical IQ. indistinguishable. After pricing (the main differentiator), the feature package is what matters.

This is absolutely no different than in the film days. When AF came out, everyone suddenly had to be there equivalent or sales would tank, as we see what happened to Olympus who exited that market.

DSLR or mirrorless, makes no difference. The niche camera market with optical pedigree is now firmly entrenched in the video world. Even Leica has 4K now. They were bluntly told by their user base that this was no longer an option, but a sales necessity.

Finally, one of the main drivers of mirrorless has been video, and mirrorless is eating the DSLR camp for lunch right now. And we know Pentax has been tinkering with video because of their 55-300 and 18-50 lenses.

it's coming increasingly clear that statements about "stills" being a priority are not holding water in the market. There no competitive advantage there. in fact, the opposite. Any brand that says their "stills" are superior because of camera design or bran priority will be relentlessly—and deservedly—mocked. The market is about price, features, lens array, and ergonomics.

We can certainly agree on the importance of price, features, lens array, and ergonomics. And for some of us, the current Pentax cameras win hands down on all four dimensions. Where we disagree is on features, the cost of adding certain missing features (i.e., "good" video), and the actually change in the numbers of buyers if Pentax offered more expensive cameras those features.

Only a large (or foolish) company goes head-to-head with the competition. Most companies, especially the smaller ones, actually try to be different from the competition. The brands don't have identical IQ at all. A quick look at DXO shows they all vary on performance at low-ISO, high-ISO, DR, color accuracy, etc. In many cases higher-prices cameras actually have worse IQ. And they are all different in their own way. By your logic, clearly Canon, Nikon should be relentlessly—and deservedly—mocked for not putting IBIS, astrotracer, composition adjust, automaytic horizon leveling, and pixel shift in their cameras. But they aren't being mocked because different photographers want different features from their cameras.

Following the bandwagon is simply bad business. If you think camera companies should look where the growth is and move to be more like the cameras that are eating everyone's lunch, then they all should abandon niche ILCs and make smartphones. But fortunately, smarter companies aren't going to jump of every bandwagon that comes along.

[stevebrot]

How are Pentax sales? Seen the Ricoh financial thread? Care to compare to Leica?

Sure! Tell me about Leica!

Leica is offering 4K video in their APS-C and FF line on the TL and SL series.

At last count, those comprise two cameras. Now about those Leica sales figures for the L-mount cameras...if you don't have them that is alright.


Steve

[Aristophanes]

We can certainly agree on the importance of price, features, lens array, and ergonomics. And for some of us, the current Pentax cameras win hands down on all four dimensions. Where we disagree is on features, the cost of adding certain missing features (i.e., "good" video), and the actually change in the numbers of buyers if Pentax offered more expensive cameras those features.

Only a large (or foolish) company goes head-to-head with the competition. Most companies, especially the smaller ones, actually try to be different from the competition. The brands don't have identical IQ at all. A quick look at DXO shows they all vary on performance at low-ISO, high-ISO, DR, color accuracy, etc. In many cases higher-prices cameras actually have worse IQ. And they are all different in their own way. By your logic, clearly Canon, Nikon should be relentlessly—and deservedly—mocked for not putting IBIS, astrotracer, composition adjust, automaytic horizon leveling, and pixel shift in their cameras. But they aren't being mocked because different photographers want different features from their cameras.

Following the bandwagon is simply bad business. If you think camera companies should look where the growth is and move to be more like the cameras that are eating everyone's lunch, then they all should abandon niche ILCs and make smartphones. But fortunately, smarter companies aren't going to jump of every bandwagon that comes along.

Head to head? On "stills"? That was yours and others' premise earlier on. And it's a moot argument these days. Did Nikon shoot better Kodak film than Canon? No.

So the whole emphasis on a "stills" market is pointless now because it has shrunk entirely and continues to do so. As phones have intruded into compact and video camera space the ILC systems need to intrude onto sharing (media transfer, etc.) and video space. Here, Pentax has had zero choice but to follow the bandwagon. These have become the norm, the baseline.

The DxO variance is minimal and not observable unit prints get up to 3 ft! And who prints (another shrinking market)? Even on a 5k monitor I cannot tell the pixel difference. The biggest difference is between sensor size and ISO in low light. But again, the ubiquity of the Sony sensors and the Canon and Fuji equivalence shows almost no discernible separation in IQ. They all perform "real world" identically. Hence the market tries "pixel shift" and FPS and buffers. Only m43 is (slightly) lagging and one can say their momentum continues because they "got" video first and better from the outset over the DSLR stalwarts. Sony was very open in stating their move to the E-mount was partly because of the merging of video and ILCs.

Video is different from the other metrics. Very different. Video has become part of the irrefutable norm of ILC systems. And Pentax is discernibly lagging on this score. The old "stills" superiority is a dead meme. There's no equivalent of YouTube for pixel shift. Pixel shift is a minor gimmick; video is a multi-billion viewer/creator market.

Part of the problem for the larger sensors is the long cycle of new bodies. The Sony and new Canon and upcoming Nikon FFs are all video strong, and the K-1 will instantly look dated and inferior if it cannot compete. This is particularly true as the tightening market reduces the competing bodies in play (looking at Nikon in particular).

And Pentax is weird. Astrotracing came before real tethering, for pity's sake!

---------- Post added 08-07-17 at 04:17 PM ----------

Sure! Tell me about Leica!



At last count, those comprise two cameras. Now about those Leica sales figures for the L-mount cameras...if you don't have them that is alright.


Steve

No one does. But Leica's public financials show phenomenal growth at a time when DSLR makers are seeing negative growth. So, Leica has a better formula right now, and obviously their brain trust sees moving away from the M-mount towards mirrorless systems (with 4k video, no less!) as being part of their growth strategy.

The problem with video is if it's available in a $200 device at 4k60, something equivalent needs to be available for the $2,000 system. Fuji said as much when it released the XT-20. You have to go where the market goes. Fuji acknowledged that video was becoming a deciding factor in consumer preference.