[Tan68]

The argument can't stand on it's own, so here come the reinforcements.

It's no surprise why there are so few Pentax users and members of this forum remaining who care about video. They've been driven off!

And so very defensive for people who "don't care" about something...

I bought a 4/3 camera as a compact thing to have available for snapshots.
This 4/3 camera replaces a Canon SX230 p/s I have sometimes used for video.
I haven't ever tried to make a serious pro video.

Instead of propping the SX230 on the dash to record driving through a 1-lane tunnel or strapping it to a rear view mirror to record scenery or pointing it down at the floor to record only the audio of a recital at a church or at the ground to record either the audio of the dedication of a holocaust monument or the sound of bamboo leaves rustling in the breeze, I can use my new 4/3 video recorder that also takes still images. ta.

> Yeah, I use my cameras for video but just to record 'stuff I see or hear' and not 'art'.

There are people that see video as the equivalent of using a p/s for documentary snapshots; I am one of these.. We have no aspiration to be a videographer... It would be great for Pentax to supply all the tools an aspirating videotog needs. As others have pointed out, perhaps Pentax brand is not suitable for your needs. This is okay.

I have used the K-5 for one 30 second video clip inside a cathedral. It is too big for the type of video I find useful... Plus, driving while using my teeth to grip the pop-up flash of a K-5 is too awkward to be worth the trouble. I expect 4/3 to solve all this ;^)

---------- Post added 04-02-16 at 09:12 AM ----------

... GPS and Astrotracer especially, however, are as niche as you can get.

...

Scene modes and color modes fit into a niche as well.

The word needn't always have the connotation of 'outside main stream' or 'poorly accepted' or, given the context of your comments, any other negative connotation.

Often people feel quite at home in their niche. Sometimes people favoring one niche above others form a club and these clubs may have names like Harley Riders NA or Naked Skyd!vers or Pentax Forums.

> > what is boriscleto ?

[quh86]

why is everybody so concerned about brand names and things, we are all (or most of us) on this forum because we bought a pentax branded camera because it suits us, and about there ends the correlation. If we learn that others offer things that better suit us we switch. So whats the fuss??

The K-1 aims to be a stills camera with very rudimentary video features. Its long been known, if you do video for a living then look somewhere else. If you like a perfect mix of both features then look somewhere else.
there are plenty of options. there is no use in arguing about a finished product. The camera is what it is, this is an absolute! But since there are more options than just pentax-cameras you shouldnt have to worry

Moreover, this is no place to swap insults or the like, if your personal agenda is to make other peoples lifes harder then please do so via PMs or just leave it be.

Thanks

[reh321]

why is everybody so concerned about brand names and things, we are all (or most of us) on this forum because we bought a pentax branded camera because it suits us, and about there ends the correlation. If we learn that others offer things that better suit us we switch. So whats the fuss??

The K-1 aims to be a stills camera with very rudimentary video features. Its long been known, if you do video for a living then look somewhere else. If you like a perfect mix of both features then look somewhere else.
there are plenty of options. there is no use in arguing about a finished product. The camera is what it is, this is an absolute! But since there are more options than just pentax-cameras you shouldnt have to worry

Moreover, this is no place to swap insults or the like, if your personal agenda is to make other peoples lifes harder then please do so via PMs or just leave it be.

Thanks

I agree.

When the K-3ii came out just about a year ago, I viewed it as a dress rehearsal for the K-1, so I was disappointed in the negative responses to its lack of an OBF. Thirty, perhaps even twenty, years ago many, many individuals had an SLR, and we came to believe what I now see as the myth of the all-around camera - you buy an SLR and it will do any photographic chore for any person. I'm not sure that was quite true even then {because OBF was added to the SLR only at the very end of the film era}, but it was mostly true because those cameras had replaceable sensors, so you could pick a sensor, mostly from Kodak, that met your needs. Digital cameras are much more specialized {thirty years ago, virtually every one of my friends had an SLR; today some use a compact camera, some use a smart phone, and only a few have a DSLR}, partly because the sensor is built-in and partly because so many other features can be built-in, but only a certain number of features make sense in the same package. If you look at a larger manufacturer, Canon for example, they do not have a single "flagship" product; they make several different high-end products, each one with different characteristics {for example, their 50MP products are admittedly not for those who need good high ISO performance}. Pentax is not the camera equivalent of General Motors; they have to aim their products at certain generally large areas, but they cannot possibly span the entire range. I understand those who are sad, very sad, that this long-awaited product does not meet their needs, but frankly they should have been prepared for that possibility ever since they saw the decisions that went into configuring the K-3ii; there may be ways of getting around some of those decisions {for example, I still believe Pentax needs to come out with a small flash, so small that anyone would be willing to find a spot in his/her bag for it, that can serve as master, fill flash, and even have bounce capability in all directions}, but some are just there. The most I have ever spent for a camera kit was the $700 I spent on a Canon EOS Elan + lens + bag in 1995 when I went from Pentax to Canon; I know that inflation should guide me to a higher price point today, but I have known all along that no FF camera is likely to be acceptable to my bank-book {although the K-1 has a much lower price than I had feared}. I am glad, though, to see the K-1, because I believe some of that technology {such as the flippy screen} may trickle down to cameras that are within my budget, and because this product most likely means that Pentax will remain a healthy brand {after 20 years of using Canon, I came back to Pentax recently, because I came to the conclusion that their current product line is a better fit to what I need now}, and photography in general needs multiple healthy brands rather than just a few brands dictating just a couple of available models of camera.

[Mikesul]

Interesting, thoughtful post, reh321. It is amazing as well as annoying that so many posters seem to think there is some value in endlessly complaining about what a camera does not do. I guess I am just too simple. I am interested in reading about what a camera can do, what others do with their cameras and the hidden features and uses they discover. It is also useful to know about actual flaws in the camera and
work-arounds, if they exist. Bashing equipment for not being what I want is just a waste of time in our world of over abundant choices.

[derekkite]

Interesting, thoughtful post, reh321. It is amazing as well as annoying that so many posters seem to think there is some value in endlessly complaining about what a camera does not do. I guess I am just too simple. I am interested in reading about what a camera can do, what others do with their cameras and the hidden features and uses they discover. It is also useful to know about actual flaws in the camera and
work-arounds, if they exist. Bashing equipment for not being what I want is just a waste of time in our world of over abundant choices.

If it didn't do stills properly, then we would all complain vigorously. And justifiably.

A fully capable video K1 would cost another chunk of money because what video needs costs money. There was a decision to be made when they put it together, much of it predicated on the price they figured they would be able to sell it for. So choices were made.

That indicates to me that they have in the pipe a product that will satisfy those wanting that function, or they think there isn't a market for them to exploit. I suspect the first.

For a very nice video offering you need pdaf on sensor, a very good EVF, a quick and well put together data stream, and availability of lenses that work for video. Plus hooks into software and all the rest of the video ecosystem. There is a market there, and I suspect that Ricoh has a plan in place to exploit it. But it won't be a DSLR because it is fundamentally ill suited for the purpose. It is handy to have one device that does everything, but ultimately it doesn't do anything really well.

If it didn't do stills properly, then we would all complain vigorously. And justifiably.

A fully capable video K1 would cost another chunk of money because what video needs costs money. There was a decision to be made when they put it together, much of it predicated on the price they figured they would be able to sell it for. So choices were made.

That indicates to me that they have in the pipe a product that will satisfy those wanting that function, or they think there isn't a market for them to exploit. I suspect the first.

For a very nice video offering you need pdaf on sensor, a very good EVF, a quick and well put together data stream, and availability of lenses that work for video. Plus hooks into software and all the rest of the video ecosystem. There is a market there, and I suspect that Ricoh has a plan in place to exploit it. But it won't be a DSLR because it is fundamentally ill suited for the purpose. It is handy to have one device that does everything, but ultimately it doesn't do anything really well.

This is the real myth and you're perpetuating it. Some aspects of video may cost money, but as far as the SR goes, this money has already been spent. The SR is there, begging to be used, but disabled in firmware.

The truly negative people in this thread are quick to make assumptions about what I and others want.

I never expected nor wanted the K-1 to be a 'pro' video camera. I never even hinted at it.

I just wanted it (and the K-3 before it) not to be a worse camera for video than the K-5.

I have no filmmaking aspirations. And as several people have pointed out, filmmakers have a plethora of devices at their disposal for stabilizing cameras.

The K-1 is not even good for casual video shooting. Even with a tripod, because of the rolling shutter inherent in these camera designs you're going to get terrible jello with all but wide angle lenses.

The shame is on Pentax for this. All the talk about everything Ricoh says being engineered to 'save face' is made even more hilarious by this fact.

It can't shoot casual hand-held video at a time when everything else on the market can and even camera phones have optical stabilization...

Take it for what you will. I've been a loyal Pentax user since the film days and have shot exclusively Pentax in the digital age.

I'd love to buy the K-1. I have the money in my hand holding it out to Pentax... I don't need any more 'pro' video features. I don't need 4K (though that would be a nice bit of future proofing). I don't need log profiles. But no stabilization? Come on? That's ridiculous.

[Quicksand]

I'm getting the sense that the K-1 isn't for you.

I'm getting the sense that the K-1 isn't for you.

Actually, the most frustrating thing about it is the K-1 is very, very close to being exactly what I want. But not having stabilized video is like a car without a reverse gear. Actually, to stretch the analogy a little further, the gear is even in the transmission, but there's no position for it on the selector, all because someone complained about the whine. Plus having a forum full of people who claim that not having reverse is cool because real men drive in circles anyway and that if it really bothers me I should just suck it up and buy two cars, one for driving forward and one for driving in reverse! How reasonable...

There's one little configuration bit between my money and Pentax. And believe me, I would much rather not have to switch to a new system just to have the same functionality I had with my 6 year old K-5 in an up-to-date body.

[reh321]

... all because someone complained about the whine...

Where did Pentax say this is why??

Where did Pentax say this is why??

It's in both the written and video interviews with Ricoh reps. They disabled the video SR because it was noisy and they couldn't figure out a way to make it quieter.

I wonder if any Sony Alpha II series owners could chime in on this point, is the sensor shift on the Sony as noisy as it was on the K-5? I've never heard anyone mention it.

[reh321]

It's in both the written and video interviews with Ricoh reps. They disabled the video SR because it was noisy and they couldn't figure out a way to make it quieter.

I wonder if any Sony Alpha II series owners could chime in on this point, is the sensor shift on the Sony as noisy as it was on the K-5? I've never heard anyone mention it.

So are you saying you don't care if the SR is noisy, or are you saying it shouldn't be noisy?

[Dave L]

It's in both the written and video interviews with Ricoh reps. They disabled the video SR because it was noisy and they couldn't figure out a way to make it quieter.

What we are trying to get through to Ricoh, and anyone who will listen, is that making sensor shift shake reduction quieter is not necessary! I have many point and shoot decent quality videos taken with my K-5 and nobody who has seen and heard them has ever complained about camera noise. If it is a problem for certain people who strain their ears to hear such noises in quiet parts of their videos, all they have to do is turn off the shake reduction and fix any camera shake in post production. This can be done quickly, easily and cheaply with more flexibility than any built-in software SR will ever achieve. Better still, use an external microphone or audio recorder along with sensor shift SR..

It's frustrating for those of us who know there are no significant drawbacks (that we have been told about) to short sensor-shift shake reduction videos compared to software SR. But it has distinct advantages over the software SR used in K-3 and (presumably) K-1, which frankly is not fit for purpose so they may as well drop SR altogether. I hope our "whinging" as some of you call it - or logic as I prefer to call it - will filter through to Ricoh before they finalise their next APS-C DSLR at least.

[kadajawi]

I suspect that the real reason for not using sensor move SR in the video mode is power consumption - GPS and wi-fi also get turned off.

The battery life of my K-5 when shooting video with SR on is very good. And even if battery life would be an issue... let the user decide. If he cares more about battery (and can't bring spares), he'll just deactivate it.

I care about GPS. But I don't need to have it in the camera, I just let a GPS tracker run on my phone. The GPS receiver in my phone is excellent, wouldn't be surprised if it is better than that in the camera. Plus it doesn't eat up the battery in camera. Astrotracer... can't think of a feature I care less about... there are plenty of stills features I'd rather have, including some sensor shift based ones. Doesn't mean I want to have it removed. Great for those who care about it.

So why do you stick with Pentax and not one of the other players with better video? Is it because of the still image quality? Why can't the other players deliver something as common and basic as still image quality?

Pentax has SR (well, MY Pentax has...), the only alternatives with SR are Olympus (small sensor) and Sony (ergonomics that make me want to shoot myself after a short while). Plus the Pentax JPEG engine (which is crucial for video) is better than that of competitors. Ergonomics are generally better (the 70D cursor buttons feel extremely cheap for example, though I prefer the AF point selection there), and the cameras are tough and small.

I have the feeling that at Ricoh only those features that Ricoh employees care about are implemented. They like to take very high res images (pixel peepers...), so they implemented a feature for that. They enjoy outdoors photography, so the cameras are tough and sealed. They enjoy astrophotography? The camera gets an astrophotography feature. There are no interior architecture photographers working at Pentax though, so no sensor shift based bracketing. There are no videographers there, so video functionality is kept to a bare minimum... however I guess they care a lot about audio, so that's why they completely ruin image quality for better audio quality.

Pentax doesn't just want to keep Pentaxians as customers... they also want to expand. Video may not matter to most Pentaxians, but to enough users of other brands it does. And I reckon that with a couple of minor tweaks the K-1 would become so good that some will switch, or at least add Pentax to their gear.

If Pentax was absolutely terrible at video, and it would require a ton of work to improve, I'd say screw it. Fuji would be such a case (but now they are getting pretty good at video...). Pentax however has the right ingredients, and they used to be better at it. The only company that got worse at video. The K-1 with a firmware developed by Olympus for example, or with a firmware that is closer to the K-5, would be perfect. Better (at least for me) than any other DSLR or DSLT, and, for me again, better than even professional video gear by companies such as RED.

@jatrax: There is no camera that is what I want. Not at any budget (nope, I don't want to carry 5-20 kg of gear in front of me). The K-1 is very close, but the software limits it.

If it didn't do stills properly, then we would all complain vigorously. And justifiably.

A fully capable video K1 would cost another chunk of money because what video needs costs money. There was a decision to be made when they put it together, much of it predicated on the price they figured they would be able to sell it for. So choices were made.

That indicates to me that they have in the pipe a product that will satisfy those wanting that function, or they think there isn't a market for them to exploit. I suspect the first.

For a very nice video offering you need pdaf on sensor, a very good EVF, a quick and well put together data stream, and availability of lenses that work for video. Plus hooks into software and all the rest of the video ecosystem. There is a market there, and I suspect that Ricoh has a plan in place to exploit it. But it won't be a DSLR because it is fundamentally ill suited for the purpose. It is handy to have one device that does everything, but ultimately it doesn't do anything really well.

I prefer the SR in my K-5 over that of Olympus. Yes, the Olympus is much more effective, but I don't like the look of it. The system that Pentax had worked very well, and it also does in the K-3. You're just not allowed to use it anymore. Oh and the in lens SR of Nikon? At least with the lens I've tried I didn't like what I saw. It's about the way the SR moves, what it filters out, and what it doesn't, and how it catches up with the camera movement. And Pentax is just perfect here, it gives me exactly the look I want. It filters out what I don't want, but doesn't smooth too much. Shame they took that away.

Btw., your video with the grizzly... it wobbles. Yes, you've put the camera on a tripod, but I guess that tripod isn't perfectly solid. There is shake. With the K-5, and SR activated, that video would be perfectly, 100% stable. With the K-3, because of Movie SR and lack of real SR, it wobbles. Yet again a situation where having SR would have been an advantage.

The K-3 lacks a high bitrate high quality recording option. The K-5 had that. On the other hand, the K-5 lacked low bitrate long recording time options. The perfect camera would have both, because sometimes you need the best quality (like raw) without caring about file sizes, and sometimes you want to squeeze as much as possible onto the SD card.

Manual lenses with a nice focusing ring are a good start for video. Primes. Pentax has those. People use Pentax lenses adapted for their cameras to shoot video. Yes, they aren't some high end cinema lenses, but they'll do. AF is more useful for consumers, no camera at the high end professional level has AF, and no one cares. I think the most professional camera with AF is a Canon C something, and those are on the cheaper side of things. EVF... not really necessary. There are external monitors for that, for example.

@steve: I don't care about AF, I focus manually anyway (if there'd be a really good implementation, with adjustable focusing speed and touch to focus etc., yeah, that would be nice, but I don't need it). SR I do use a lot. Clean HDMI could very well be a technical limitation of the processor, as is focus peaking. Nothing with the Lumix label (IIRC) has SR during video. Only Olympus and Sony. And, once, Pentax.

To those saying that Pentax doesn't care about video: The video functionality is pretty decent, with a few more or less deadly sins mixed in which ruin what would otherwise be a good camera for video. Not many cameras have a microphone in AND headphone out jack. That is a pretty professional video feature, that costs money per camera produced and increases the price of the camera. If they didn't care about video at all, why would it have these ports?

@todd: Out of the camera, without lots of grading, Pentax videos look better than most of their competitors (IMHO). And with SR and higher bitrates they would offer something that is actually better than what others have. Yes, there'll be some aliasing, but SR (and the lack of wobble and rolling shutter issues that come with it) will easily make up for that, as has SR made up for the complete lack of useful frame rates in Olympus cameras.

Give me a video firmware for the K-1 (it just has to move the camera closer to the K-5), at cost, and I will get a K-1. And the firmware, of course. I know I wouldn't be the only one.

Anyway, sorry for the hijacking. I was reading through the manual to find out about the video functionality. Some in here care. Please, feel free to find stuff that interests you in there and post it here. I'm curious about what else can be dug out, if there's anything special about the K-1 we don't know yet. I couldn't find anything about sensor shift bracketing, and only minor improvements as to focus point selection. But maybe there is more?

So are you saying you don't care if the SR is noisy, or are you saying it shouldn't be noisy?

The SR noise doesn't really matter, because a) if you care about good audio, you'll be attaching an external microphone anyway (and the K-1, like the K-3, is great for that because you can monitor audio levels and the audio in general), and b) if you're not that fuzzy, the noise it makes won't make things much worse anyway. The microphone is not good. Of course it isn't, and it doesn't have to be. It's not a video camera. Also, in the K-5 it is barely audible. In the K-r (or so...) it is much more noticeable. But again, if it bothers you, use a mic, or deactivate it. Problem solved.

I will be covering events as well as shooting interviews with multiple cameras. And while I do have a shoulder rig with follow focus, it makes changing lenses troublesome, and it limits the angles I can shoot from. For tall subjects I'm in trouble, plus it's heavy. The SR of my K-5 offers at least the same level of stabilization as the rig, but without adding another kg or two. I can also lift up the camera much easier to shoot at eye level. For that alone it's nice to have.

I shot this with 3 cameras, main camera being the K-5. The K-5 was easiest to grade, had the by far best image quality, and the SR meant I could shoot handheld and even move around while recording, still getting good results. It was a dream, and there's no reason why the K-1 couldn't be. It could be all the K-5 was, plus the benefits of the K-3, plus better image quality and a larger sensor. It could be, but isn't. And there is no alternative in the market at this point. I'd still much rather shoot with my K-5 than with any other camera. (I'm not using the K-5 for video until the 1:15 mark or so...).

You Tube

You Tube

So are you saying you don't care if the SR is noisy, or are you saying it shouldn't be noisy?

No I don't care if it's noisy, I use an external microphone (or an external audio recorder) anyway.

---------- Post added 04-02-16 at 11:09 PM ----------

What we are trying to get through to Ricoh, and anyone who will listen, is that making sensor shift shake reduction quieter is not necessary! I have many point and shoot decent quality videos taken with my K-5 and nobody who has seen and heard them has ever complained about camera noise. If it is a problem for certain people who strain their ears to hear such noises in quiet parts of their videos, all they have to do is turn off the shake reduction and fix any camera shake in post production. This can be done quickly, easily and cheaply with more flexibility than any built-in software SR will ever achieve. Better still, use an external microphone or audio recorder along with sensor shift SR..

It's frustrating for those of us who know there are no significant drawbacks (that we have been told about) to short sensor-shift shake reduction videos compared to software SR. But it has distinct advantages over the software SR used in K-3 and (presumably) K-1, which frankly is not fit for purpose so they may as well drop SR altogether. I hope our "whinging" as some of you call it - or logic as I prefer to call it - will filter through to Ricoh before they finalise their next APS-C DSLR at least.

Indeed. Even if Ricoh were inclined to listen to their customer base, everyone who knows or cares about the issue is being bullied for daring to mention it, so it's unlikely that they'd read about it here...

[derekkite]

Btw., your video with the grizzly... it wobbles. Yes, you've put the camera on a tripod, but I guess that tripod isn't perfectly solid. There is shake. With the K-5, and SR activated, that video would be perfectly, 100% stable. With the K-3, because of Movie SR and lack of real SR, it wobbles. Yet again a situation where having SR would have been an advantage.

It is 500mm. If it wobbles it is because I touched the body to start and stop the video. Or because it was a hot day. I doubt if SR would make a difference. It doesn't in stills at that length. The tripod and gimbal are also a compromise; If I wanted something very stable that would not shake if I touched it, I would not have it with me when I run into situations like this because it is too heavy. I am very well aware that there are no easy answers, every benefit comes at a cost, money and function.

I would be interested if I could put the thing on a dampened tripod, and follow a bird in flight. In focus, as sharp as I get my stills. If I spent twice my annual income I suspect I could get something like that. Otherwise it is just a toy, some fun. That particular day I was too far to get a good stills shot, the video is interesting only because it captured an interesting moment. On a technical level it sucks, as did the stills from that day.

My frustration with using a dslr for video is that it is profoundly unsuited. Sure it can work, but ultimately it is a compromise. I can focus quite well through the viewfinder but not on an lcd screen. Focus peaking helps, but how do you focus at arms length looking at an lcd and keep the thing stable? It demands a tripod and larger screen. Or a well designed EVF. But EVF's available now are profoundly unsuited for what I do primarily, and I wouldn't buy one even if it gives me good video.

For me what I would need for video wouldn't fit in a stills body, so I'm content with the limited ability of what this offering has. It promises to be very capable for stills. That is why I'm interested in it.

What I see around here are either goPro type video or serious Red or equivalent professional gear. Or the ubiquitous phone. Maybe Ricoh is seeing that the dslr/video is at the tail end of it's market usefulness, and would rather put their efforts into something they can sell in the next couple years. It seems that the market is segmenting into video capable with low/moderate stills function, or stills capable with low/moderate video function. Both the stills people and the video people are getting more discriminating. The moment that their respective needs converged into one device has probably passed.