[stevebrot]

There's a video mode on my K-3?

Yes, there is a lever on the back. Turn it one way and you get video. Turn it the other way and you get paint-gun.


Steve

---------- Post added 11-01-14 at 12:29 PM ----------

Paint-gun works great in burst mode, but sucks when used with flash.


Steve

[starjedi]

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 never take video using my DSLR.

[bigdavephoto]

I have a K7 and have never used it for video and never plan to. I wish the makers had never put it in the camera, just useless fluff.

[clackers]

Yes, there is a lever on the back. Turn it one way and you get video. Turn it the other way and you get paint-gun.

Nikon is so much better at tracking targets in Paintgun mode. Pentax is doomed.

Btw, I think I'd actually shoot paint before video. Retaining viewer interest after six seconds requires more skill than I have!

[PabloFP]

I have never used it and Never needed it either

[clackers]

I have a K7 and have never used it for video and never plan to. I wish the makers had never put it in the camera, just useless fluff.

Dave, Pentax and Nikon don't bother with doing anything special. The Fujitsu Milbeaut chipset (as used by PRIME) comes with those video capabilities already on board.

From a marketing perspective, I think any manufacturer has to say its device does video, even if they know it's rarely used.

[Jean Poitiers]

Used rarely on my K-5 ...

[lesmore49]

I have two cameras with video capability. One is a Canon G 12, the other a Pentax K-5. I've tried video both....one time each with both cameras.

The video works well, both my Canon and my Pentax. I just tried them to make sure they worked, but I'm primarily a still photo photographer.

That is why if I were ever to go into the Nikon system, I would consider the Nikon Df DSLR.

[kadajawi]

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).

[ZombieArmy]

I shoot video very often on my k-01. Often enough to where I'm heavily considering a Sigma lens with OIS.

[RockvilleBob]

Never used with either K-5 or K-3; no plans for video but if I do decide to try video there are too many good video recorders for me to consider a DSLR for video.

[gaweidert]

Never used it on my K5 or K5-IIs. I did play with it on my MX-1 but that is it.

[bigdavephoto]

Dave, Pentax and Nikon don't bother with doing anything special. The Fujitsu Milbeaut chipset (as used by PRIME) comes with those video capabilities already on board.

From a marketing perspective, I think any manufacturer has to say its device does video, even if they know it's rarely used.

I know both Pentax and Nikon don't really put anything special on board. I can also see where marketing comes into play in that you can appeal to a wider demographic by including video in a SLR type camera, but as has been noted by a lot of people, something is always lacking. How many times have you heard where somebody is shooting video with a DSLR even a high end Nikon or Canon and they need to figure a work around a minor problem that they wouldn't have had if they had just used a normal video camera?


I know it is just my thoughts and they don't really count for much, I just wish the marketing people would go back to SLR's for photographs and video camera's for video.

[clackers]

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.

With that many videos, just get another camera, Kadajawi. Who owns just one?

Very few people have that percentage split you have, and many don't care at all!

[kadajawi]

With that many videos, just get another camera, Kadajawi. Who owns just one?

Very few people have that percentage split you have, and many don't care at all!

Simple. Because another camera costs $10000. I don't have $10000. Don't get me started with that consumer crap that you can get for $1000. My smartphone takes better video than that! Why do you use a DSLR for stills? A smartphone can do that too, right? Or at most a point & shoot. No. A DSLR gives you control over your photos, and it gives you a certain look, and control over that. A camcorder doesn't give you that, you'll never get shallow DoF or a high dynamic range on a camcorder. If you want that, you need to step up and spend a lot of money. And then you need to carry 2 cameras. Switching between both won't be easy... I'd have to stow away one before I can use the other, plus professional videocameras are huge and heavy. It makes literally no sense at all, and a camcorder doesn't give me the look I want.


Btw., I had several camcorders before my Pentax K-5, but I barely used them. Only got really interested in video once I had the K-5, because that is finally a tool that can do what I want. It's a creative tool. Consumer camcorders are only there to record what happens. They are easy to use and do everything automatically... they are the point & shoots or smartphones of the photography world. You guys are telling people who want video on their DSLR to essentially get a point & shoot camera... aren't you belitting them a bit? What if someone tells you to get a point & shoot because you want to take photos? Either that or a medium format camera.


Of course, I will eventually get another camera. I'll use it for videos and stills. And since Pentax isn't willing to give me that, it will not be a Pentax. They will have lost a loyal customer.


And again, if Pentax wants to capture the professional market, they don't need full frame, they need video. Or full frame and video. But without the video portion, Pentax will exclude plenty of potential customers who just can't buy Pentax, no matter how much they want to. I wonder how well Pentax can survive without professional photographers. Oh, right, the market share Pentax has right now is a good indication of what happens when the pros go elsewhere.