Originally posted by Adam If you've never shot serious video before I disagree, it gets the job done.
.
Adam, you are absolutely right! I'm exclusively using my K1's to record the videos for my YouTube channel.
K1 video images look good to me when setting the camera to "Full HD at 24P". Using high quality Zeiss and Voigtlander lenses helps too I'm sure.
Of course you need a pre-amp (like shown below) to boost the audio signal that gets fed into the K1. But, as most of you already know, most of the other full frame cameras out there (e.g. Canon, Nikon) also have weak/poor audio pre-amps.
I use a Rode "
Broadcaster" mic plugged into my
preamp which goes directly into the K1 for really nice sound quality.
Have you tried making handheld videos with your K1's shake reduction on? I have. Takes some getting used to, but after you get the hang of it it works pretty good. Of course Nikon and Canon full frame cameras do not even have in-body shake reduction (of course those shooters can always buy an
expensive gimbal).
Also, just like stills, get yourself a good software for editing your videos (I use Adobe Premiere) and learn how to use it and your K1 videos will look much better than those produced right out of camera!
I haven't shot enough video with other systems to compare to the K1; but if you do the above with the audio, and know what you're doing with the video editing, the K1 (as Adam says) "
Gets The Job Done".
Sure it's not 4K, but I don't need 4K. I can't image that many "amateur" videographers like me need either 4K or slow motion.
DC Shooter, could you please provide us with some detail on why you feel the
"K-1s video capabilities are pretty abysmal". What don't you like about it? What are the K1's shortcomings that cause it to not stack up against the video capabilities of Nikon and Canon full frame cameras?
.
Last edited by Fenwoodian; 12-23-2017 at 12:12 PM.