[TaoMaas]

the go pro helmet cam certainly has it's uses- I will probably test one out fairly soon

although again no depth of field, so not really suitable for narrative shooting
but for the money (and size, and 60 fps, and waterproof), it's awesome- combine this with a kx or a gh1 and you're laughing

i think i might be sold
screw canon

I showed this to our other videographer yesterday. He went home and ordered one last night. My point is that it's basically a $100 P&S camera. So that makes the video cost, what?.....$150? That's not much.

[clark]

I showed this to our other videographer yesterday. He went home and ordered one last night. My point is that it's basically a $100 P&S camera. So that makes the video cost, what?.....$150? That's not much.

for the money you wouldn't care about putting it into shots where it could get broken- and i've seen videos of it fall of moving cars are still work
underwater too
and the size means it's not a hassle for anyone to actually wear it, trying to get someone to 'wear' a large/bulky cam is often very tricky


and because it's a fish eye it doesn't look weird having no depth of field- normal/telephoto shots done with a P&S with no depth of field look like crap, but because the field of view is so large it doesn't look 'wrong' at all, on an SLR shooting with a 11mm 2.8 you'd barely get depth of field

and I could use this as my facebook/party stills camera, 5mp is more than enough for that, and fish eye's always take interesting stills

it's such good value for money, and you can just lay it down somewhere and know (because of the depth of field and the FOV) you will absolutely get the shot, it may not be a pretty shot but it's useable
shame they charge £300 for it in the Uk, that's nearly double the price...


I do hope pentax get 60fps into their next cam

but it's probably easier/cheaper to build a 720p 60fps cam from scratch rather than try to shoehorn it into an existing cam and adapt the sensor, I don't really know though

I really need better lenses first, so a k7 priced body would appeal to me less than a kx priced body- then spend a coulple of £100 on manual focus pentax m's
canon 550d is looking tempting though, although lenses are a stinger- although I read you can get an adaptor for pentax K, which might be the best of both worlds- although still no IS unless I want to spend insane amounts of money, and canon lenses (except for L series) are horrible to manual focus

GH1 is an option, but footage looks noisy at iso 1600+, so only one stop better than my current cam), extra crop factor is an issue and the codec has some serious problems
movable screen though, and lens flexibility- could invest in the pentax 50-135 and it would become a lot more telephoto (which is a plus)
hmm

[stevewig]

I think you're right about video not being of interest to most people who are interested in a DSLR. However...(see my reply below)


Here's where I think you're wrong. I think most people DO want video on their still cameras. But I say that because I believe that most people want P&S cameras...not DSLRs. To me, that says that the development dollars might well go to video, instead of other features for DSLRs.

That's because most people people are interested in ease of use, instant good pictures and quantity over the artistic quality of the photo. Nothing wrong about either of these priorities, but for the latter group (artistic quality) I believe that these people prefer to spend their money on pure camera quality and functionality and not start increasing the price of the dslr for other types of unneeded functionality.

[TaoMaas]

That's because most people people are interested in ease of use, instant good pictures and quantity over the artistic quality of the photo. Nothing wrong about either of these priorities, but for the latter group (artistic quality) I believe that these people prefer to spend their money on pure camera quality and functionality and not start increasing the price of the dslr for other types of unneeded functionality.

There IS a brand of camera for those who prefer to spend their money on pure camera quality and functionality, while ignoring popular features desired by the bulk of the buying public. Their name is Leica...not Pentax.

[stevewig]

There IS a brand of camera for those who prefer to spend their money on pure camera quality and functionality, while ignoring popular features desired by the bulk of the buying public. Their name is Leica...not Pentax.

There are others too, Leica is NOT - by any means - the only game in town when quality and functionality are concerned. We, in this forum, have selected PENTAX.

Regardless and whether or not Leica can offer more quality and function than Pentax
this forum, so far, seems to be saying "we don't want to pay for video". Some would go so far as to say that we will switch away from Pentax if you do offer video on your next camera.

[TaoMaas]

Some would go so far as to say that we will switch away from Pentax if you do offer video on your next camera.

That has to be one of the most spoiled attitudes I've ever heard. lol It reminds me of those in my camera club who are threatening to quit because we've allowed digital photographers into the club.

Edited to add: Since video is included in the latest round of Pentax DSLRs, those who feel strongly about it should have left by now, true?

[straightshooter]

There IS a brand of camera for those who prefer to spend their money on pure camera quality and functionality, while ignoring popular features desired by the bulk of the buying public. Their name is Leica...not Pentax.

Apparently, in bringing up Leica, you missed the word price in Stevewig's comment. And I agree that if I want to buy the new Pentax, I don't want to be paying extra for the research to put video into the camera. Why should those of us who want a Pentax still camera subsidize that? As I said earlier, I know it's got to be there for marketing, I just don't want it interfering with the ORIGINAL purpose of the camera nor do I want to pay for somebody else's toy. Maybe instead of those of us what want our Pentax to do what it always has switching to Leica, those who want video should either pick up a Canikon or just a plain video camera. After all, you can just click on the B&H logo above and order it.

CW

[TaoMaas]

Apparently, in bringing up Leica, you missed the word price in Stevewig's comment.

No, I didn't miss it. He said, "...these people prefer to spend their money on pure camera quality and functionality and not start increasing the price of the dslr for other types of unneeded functionality." Canon has video...Nikon has video...Pentax has video...Olympus has video. If someone is bound and determined to avoid video, that narrows their choices down considerably. I'm going to ask an honest question here..."What are you guys so afraid of?" As I've said before, if nobody wanted video, manufacturers wouldn't be putting it on our cameras and cellphones. So what?

[stevewig]

No, I didn't miss it. He said, "...these people prefer to spend their money on pure camera quality and functionality and not start increasing the price of the dslr for other types of unneeded functionality." Canon has video...Nikon has video...Pentax has video...Olympus has video. If someone is bound and determined to avoid video, that narrows their choices down considerably. I'm going to ask an honest question here..."What are you guys so afraid of?" As I've said before, if nobody wanted video, manufacturers wouldn't be putting it on our cameras and cellphones. So what?

TaoMaas, you really seem to have a "bee in your bonnet" about video. What is going on?

The original question asked was "Video performance seems to be one area where Pentax owners want to see improvement. How about you?"


Most of us participating in this discussion are saying "hell no - we couldn't care less about video. In fact we don't want it and we don't like being forced to pay for it".

Seems like you are a real extremist on having video in your camera even though you still have that choice and will continue to for the future but you are not satisfied until you convince everybody else?

[LucD]

I definitely like having video on a dslr.
I personally find the video on the k-x to be pretty impressive, especially when combined with some nice lenses.

If video is really a big issue for you and you want it in a d-slr form factor, then maybe go with a canon 5d mkII?

[TaoMaas]

Seems like you are a real extremist on having video in your camera...

Be very clear...I'm not the extremist here. On every one of these polls, I've voted that I have no intention of leaving Pentax until they completely close up shop. The extremists are those who are claiming they'll leave Pentax if Pentax follows the pattern of the most successful manufacturers and includes video on their next DSLRs. THAT'S extreme. I'm no more extreme than those who long for FF cameras or better auto-focus. The only difference is that video scares the heck out of folks for some reason.

[TaoMaas]

TaoMaas, you really seem to have a "bee in your bonnet" about video. What is going on?

I forgot to tell you why I care. Even though still photography is my primary love, I make my living as a videographer. I own a video camera that I paid more for than all my film and digital cameras combined over the last 30-35 years (FYI, that would encompass 7 Pentax, 2 Sony, 1 Minolta, 1 Nikonos, 1 Minox, and 2 Olympus cameras). But that video camera is almost 10 years old now and it's standard def. I'm getting ready to go on vacation to one of the most scenic parts of our state, which happens to be about a 6-7 hour drive from my offices. I plan to spend two days there shooting still pics. I'd love to be able to shoot some HD video for use on the weekly show I shoot for, but my old video camera won't cut it and I don't want to check out one of our work cameras because, despite what I believe about the world standing still when I'm gone, the rest of the crew still needs to keep shooting stories. So...do I 'need' video on my next DSLR? Yes and no. Yes, it would benefit me professionally and personally....but, no, it's not a deal-breaker on either account. But, yeah, I probably have more need for it than folks who 'need' faster auto-focus so that they can take better pics of their kids or folks who 'need' FF just because.

[stevewig]

".....personally....but, no, it's not a deal-breaker on either account. But, yeah, I probably have more need for it than folks who 'need' faster auto-focus so that they can take better pics of their kids or folks who 'need' FF just because."

TaoMaas, I understand completely and take back the "extremist" word -- sometimes the written words are different when spoken - good luck with your vacation shots!

[Ben_Edict]

I forgot to tell you why I care. Even though still photography is my primary love, I make my living as a videographer. I own a video camera that I paid more for than all my film and digital cameras combined over the last 30-35 years (FYI, that would encompass 7 Pentax, 2 Sony, 1 Minolta, 1 Nikonos, 1 Minox, and 2 Olympus cameras). But that video camera is almost 10 years old now and it's standard def. I'm getting ready to go on vacation to one of the most scenic parts of our state, which happens to be about a 6-7 hour drive from my offices. I plan to spend two days there shooting still pics. I'd love to be able to shoot some HD video for use on the weekly show I shoot for, but my old video camera won't cut it and I don't want to check out one of our work cameras because, despite what I believe about the world standing still when I'm gone, the rest of the crew still needs to keep shooting stories. So...do I 'need' video on my next DSLR? Yes and no. Yes, it would benefit me professionally and personally....but, no, it's not a deal-breaker on either account. But, yeah, I probably have more need for it than folks who 'need' faster auto-focus so that they can take better pics of their kids or folks who 'need' FF just because.

Though I do understand your video needs - and will not bash anybody for looking for DSRL-video, as it opens up quite exciting possibilities – for me it is an obsolete feature.

If you "probably have more need for it than folks who 'need' faster auto-focus so that they can take better pics of their kids" I am somewhat astonished. If you had followed the many (too many, I think) discussions about AF perfromance, you would have noticed, that mainly people want improved AF (including myself), whose primary concern are not their kids (photographically, that is), but other demanding applications, like sports, vehicles, animals etc.

You should be aware, that there sure is a professional demand for DSLR-video AND that there is a professional demand for high AF-performance.

Luckily I left film-making long ago, working mainly with Arris at that time. But obviously the market for photography and video-making grow together at their fringes (events, weddings for instance) and we'll see more and more hybrid cameras. I personally cannot work with stills and moving images at the same time. It is either one or the other and then I prefer dedicated tools for each field.

Ben

[johnmflores]

Thanks guys, for bringing the conversation back to taking pictures (and video). It's interesting and thought-provoking to read about personal perspectives.

I personally cannot work with stills and moving images at the same time.

I'm with you 100% on this one, Ben. My video skills/experience are nowhere near my still image skills/experience. But in my limited exposure, video seems to require a different mindset and approach. Having a plan also helps (but is not always necessary), and with video you really need to commit to editing to make the story come together.

When I'm on a motorcycle assignment, I'm very busy thinking about photography and thinking about words and story angles and where to turn and where to eat and where to sleep. I can't imagine having space in my brain for shooting video as well. In some ways, the process may be similar - you come back home and go through all of the raw material. From that a story starts to emerge, and you use the raw material to make the story happen.

As with most things, it probably gets easier with time. I should probably commit to creating a short video segment for my next trip. Time to start playing with the K-x...