Originally posted by fgaudet I was gonna run a poll but I figured that having direct feedback is probably just as good.
Who here would be just as happy if your camera would not have any kind of video mode?
I am asking for a few reasons.
1- I personally never shot a video with my K3 and I can't remember shooting one with the K5. I did try it on the Kr but regardless, it was more for testing it out.
2- Most comparisons I see between Pentax and the other brand come down to two things, poorer AF (no as true anymore) and weaker video performances (probably true).
3- I keep flipping the video switch on my K3 thinking it is the AF dial like on the K7/K5 and I am just about to glue it in still mode (old habits die hard).
I understand that there are a few videographers within our ranks but I am more interested in the casual still shooter
I'd say I use the video mode on my K-5 maybe 50% of the time. Around 40000+ photos, and 6000+ videos. If Pentax continues the way it does, I will leave Pentax. And Pentax becomes completely unsuitable for professional photographers who are more and more hired only if they can do stills and video. If you want to be an in house photographer for a company, doing product shoots etc., better also be proficent at video. Otherwise don't even bother to apply, regardless of whether it's mentioned or not.
@simon6z: Regular video cameras are dying, they are only for consumers, and consumers will just use their phones to shoot video. Professional video cameras though are very successful. Canon is putting DSLRs in a slightly different body and charges $10000+ for them... and they sell a ton of those cameras. It's so successful that they purposely limit their DSLRs in terms of video functionality in order to push buyers towards those overpriced cameras.
Panasonic and Olympus made a similar camera, the Olympus OM-D E-M1 and the Panasonic GH4. Olympus said if you want video, buy Panasonic, we are focused on stills. Panasonic can't make the GH4 fast enough, Olympus is struggling (even though in terms of stills the Olympus is better). Now Olympus seems to have given OM-Ds with beta firmwares to people working in Hollywood, in order to make the camera more suitable for videographers. Otherwise they can give up.
Nikon is putting effort into making their cameras useful for photographers who are hired to do stills and video, because they have realized that they have to to reach professional photographers (and consumers look at what "pros" use, that's part of the reason why Pentax went from dominating the SLR market to Pentax? Do they still exist?). Sony did ok with the A7 and A7R... but the video centric A7S? It's huge.
I guess most photographers here are hobbyists, and as such you're free to do whatever you want to. I am for the most part too, though I do enjoy video. A phone or point & shoot or video cam is really not an alternative for me, as it doesn't give me the look and the creative control that I'd like to have. To get those I would have to spend around 5-10k on a dedicated video camera, or I get a DSLR or mirrorless camera. I don't have the budget to do that, and no interest in carrying 2 separate and heavy cameras plus lenses for them, when I can flick a switch and do both with one device.
In any case, it's fine if Pentax doesn't do video, but don't expect many users to come to the brand, and some to leave it (me included). It will remain a non-professional hobbyist brand (except for the high end medium format shooter. If a company can afford him, they can probably also afford a videographer + crew).