[sibyrnes]

A little over a year with my K-1 and I have never used the video function. I use a Panasonic camera for video work at my day job.

[tax]

A little over a year with my K-1 and I have never used the video function. I use a Panasonic camera for video work at my day job.

Same here. I wonder, why even this video function included with a professional camera designed for taking still pictures. It looks more like an afterthought. The K-1 sensor itself does not have a great video capability. Does this unnecessary video shooting mode add to the camera price itself, or it is a byproduct feature of PRIME IV processor, which costs nothing to implement?

[felixkh]

I use the K1 primarily for still photography but not the video part. I currently use a FA*28-70mm F2.8 with it but am thinking of getting the D-FA24-70mm F2.8 as the latter is WR while the former is not.

Any thoughts on the 2 lenses?

Cheers.

[dadipentak]

One day, maybe, I'll give a rat's arse about video.

Ditto but unlikely. But when that day comes, I'll look for a video device to compliment my still stuff. More than likely, it'll end up being a mobile phone.

[LeRolls]

I plan on possibly doing a Youtube channel next year but I will be keeping my beloved K-1. I will either use my 3 K-01s for the video (probably setup a dedicated room in the house) or pick up a used Sony/Canon/Panasonic body if the price is right (I don't need 4K). The channel would be focused on photography not videography so I feel that I have my priorities are straight.

[biz-engineer]

I have sold my K-1...

So what?

[Lord Lucan]

Perhaps I am behind the times, out of touch, or something, but can someone explain to me seriously what the video function on a DSLR is meant to be used for?

I had asssumed it was the equivalent of the old 5 fps film motor-drives, which were so that news photographers and others could eg blast through a whole film in the six seconds it takes a celebrity to get out of a car, in the hope that one of the 36 frames would catch a good expression (or a silly one, depending on the agenda). The same idea as the old Polyphoto self-portrait booths. You do not need actual video frame rate for that because people's expressions do not change 25 times per second (not even politicians ).

But some people seem to be talking about the video function as fully substituting for a video camera, making YouTube videos etc. Why would anyone do that? Why would they not use a proper camcorder? I have just Googled for camcorders and see that you can get them from about £150, and others at over £1000 no doubt better but still less than the difference in price between a Pentax K-1 and a Canon 5D or Nikon 850, which I understand have the video performance desired.

What am I missing here?

[Stavri]

I know how you feel, I always feel like I've kicked a puppy when I sell Pentax gear it makes me smile, it's friendly and it did nothing wrong - but I want what it cannot manage easily.

I vote to have the expression: " I always feel like I've kicked a puppy when I sell my Pentax gear" emblazoned on a t-shirt asap....

[luftfluss]

Perhaps I am behind the times, out of touch, or something, but can someone explain to me seriously what the video function on a DSLR is meant to be used for?

I had asssumed it was the equivalent of the old 5 fps film motor-drives, which were so that news photographers and others could eg blast through a whole film in the six seconds it takes a celebrity to get out of a car, in the hope that one of the 36 frames would catch a good expression (or a silly one, depending on the agenda). The same idea as the old Polyphoto self-portrait booths. You do not need actual video frame rate for that because people's expressions do not change 25 times per second (not even politicians ).

But some people seem to be talking about the video function as fully substituting for a video camera, making YouTube videos etc. Why would anyone do that? Why would they not use a proper camcorder? I have just Googled for camcorders and see that you can get them from about £150, and others at over £1000 no doubt better but still less than the difference in price between a Pentax K-1 and a Canon 5D or Nikon 850, which I understand have the video performance desired.

What am I missing here?

A few years ago, an episode of the popular television program House was filmed entirely with a Canon 5D Mk2. While I personally have zero interest in video, it is fairly easy to see why video enthusiasts would love to be able to use a DSLR. Many of the advantages of an ILC apply to video as well as photographs.

[agp1337]

I use it (and the KP) as a stills camera, but on Sunday I was doing some shots at a Remembrance Ceremony. As the band was marching, I thought, why not try a bit of video? So I did, and it's fine. Not professional quality, but you wouldn't buy a camera like this for video, surely? It was good for a couple of minutes, you can see the band marching and hear them playing, both reasonable quality, and that's all I needed.

[Rondec]

Perhaps I am behind the times, out of touch, or something, but can someone explain to me seriously what the video function on a DSLR is meant to be used for?

I had asssumed it was the equivalent of the old 5 fps film motor-drives, which were so that news photographers and others could eg blast through a whole film in the six seconds it takes a celebrity to get out of a car, in the hope that one of the 36 frames would catch a good expression (or a silly one, depending on the agenda). The same idea as the old Polyphoto self-portrait booths. You do not need actual video frame rate for that because people's expressions do not change 25 times per second (not even politicians ).

But some people seem to be talking about the video function as fully substituting for a video camera, making YouTube videos etc. Why would anyone do that? Why would they not use a proper camcorder? I have just Googled for camcorders and see that you can get them from about £150, and others at over £1000 no doubt better but still less than the difference in price between a Pentax K-1 and a Canon 5D or Nikon 850, which I understand have the video performance desired.

What am I missing here?

People who are looking at video are looking for an option that allows for shooting narrow depth of field video -- usually something that has a larger sensor and allows for changing lenses (and using wide apertures). Typically if you are shooting a professional video you would do some mixture of shots -- some stopped down and some wide open. Most of those options are pretty expensive if you get a dedicated large sensor camcorder and so people tend to look at SLR and mirrorless ILCs.

In addition, they are wanting something that will do both at least decently -- shoot stills and take video. From that standpoint, Sony is probably the best option. Panasonic is good too, but seems as though stills may take a back seat to video.

From my perspective, video is an awful lot of work -- more than shooting stills. A professionally edited video that is "watchable" requires multiple edits, good sound work and a lot of other gear to allow for sliders/steadicam (not sure the actual terms). For my purposes, getting a video clip or two of my kids here or there where I don't have my camcorder with me, probably any SLR would be about the same. Mirrorless have a little better auto focus capability (most pros don't seem to use auto focus with video).

There is plenty of room for Pentax to improve their video and they probably should do so (the sensors already do it they just have to have decent codecs). That said, I doubt it would sell nearly as many cameras for them as most video enthusiasts seem to think.

[cyberjunkie]

Some people posting on this forum seem to be unaware that there are photographers who shoot a video every now and then, birthday parties, children and the like... and there are videomakers, plenty of them. The market is not huge, they have no reasons to use a Pentax, but they do exist
Many music videos, documentaries, shorts for the Web, etc etc, are not shot with videocameras. I personally know a few videomakers who use "still cameras".
Not necessarily micro 4/3 mirrorless cameras, I've seen APS-C and FF reflex cameras too, and as far as I know the quality is good.
The problem is not the sensor. With adequate optimization/codecs/processing power my K-1 would be a great tool to shoot at prosumer level.
Ricoh seems to dedicate it's limited R&D resources to other fronts. Not surprisingly, I'd say. There are other priorities.
Though there is a market for video optimized cameras (Panasonic caters to that market, for example).

Cheers

Paolo

[tax]

Some people posting on this forum seem to be unaware that there are photographers who shoot a video every now and then,

Then such people should not be calling themselves photographers but rather videographers. Why do they need a professional DSLR when any GoPro or similar camera would do just fine?
You can hit a nail either with a hammer or with a microscope but the latter will be a less practical way to do it. Why not to use the right tool for the specific job from the get go?

[derekkite]

Then such people should not be calling themselves photographers but rather videographers. Why do they need a professional DSLR when any GoPro or similar camera would do just fine?
You can hit a nail either with a hammer or with a microscope but the latter will be a less practical way to do it. Why not to use the right tool for the specific job from the get go?

Shared album - Derek Kite - Google Photos

Shared album - Derek Kite - Google Photos

Shared album - Derek Kite - Google Photos

Three videos. These were take with the K3 and long lenses. This is why the video function is very useful. I got good stills of all three situations, and the video footage was a bonus.

[Rondec]

I would say that the video footage you can get from Pentax cameras is decent enough for casual videos. Furthermore, the quality of the video is not generally the issue holding back videographers from greatness, but rather the absence of high quality editing, sound, production values, and some coherent story. Even in Hollywood, there are plenty of movies that "look great" but are basically unwatchable. I suppose it is easier to focus on getting a camera with 4K than on the other things though.