[Mikesul]

I know video is very popular now but I think back to film days when our children were small. I took loads of photos and slides with my Pentax MX and also regularly filmed them with a Super 8 movie camera. My wife still regularly goes through the photos which remain a part of our lives. We rarely look at the movies although I digitized most of them long ago. They are intense but do not have the same fascination as the stills. Long preface to say that I occasionally use the video mode but rarely revisit the videos even when they are nice. DSLRs are for still photos.

[fgaudet]

So really the only purpose of this thread is to confirm your BELIEF that no one wants video? What's the point?!

I was not trying to make a point. I was merely trying to see if I was the only one who bought a Pentax and couldn't care less if it shot video or not... Isn't this a discussion forum? On the K-3 video mode is more present than on the previous cameras. On the K-S1 even more so. Pentax always looses point on reviews because of video and honestly, you can still make very good videos with it (as you can see often posted here). Granted many people want to take videos and it is a nice feature to have... But what was wrong with having the video mode on the mode dial, along with all the other modes?

Implementing video isn't expensive, it comes for free with the hardware. Deactivating it serves no purpose, other than to be a hipster by going against the grain, being ironic or whatever.

The sensor and the chipset allow for video recording but someone still has to program the feature... It's not like it comes with a bunch of toggle switches pre-made... A programmer has to program it. And last time I checker, programmers do get paid. And as opposed to still which has been sorted out decades ago, video is evolving rapidly, new codecs, new frame rate, new resolution. But that is not the point.

I would not got out of my way to buy a camera that doesn't do video just because it doesn't do it. I will however buy a camera because I like using it, because it has great ergonomics. Given two identical cameras, let's says a K-3H (for hipster, with no video) and a K-3V (for video)... I would buy the K-3H... I'm no hipster (it's probably the last name by which people would describe me), I do not want to go against the grain and I would not do it to be ironic... I don't shot video, it's a feature I do not need.

With the K-3, we now have a direct video mode switch (and video people still complained, they want a button)... It came at the cost of re-working the focus select system... Which is good and bad, it's nice to now have it assignable to different user programs but it is very awkward to use having to operate a button and a wheel to change it, where before, without even looking you could simply toggle the switch with your thumb. So now with my still camera I have to either change the mode dial to a program where I have the proper focus mode or do the button+wheel thingy, just so the video mode is not on the mode dial?!

I bought a DLSR to take photos, stuff for which it was originally designed for. It's cool that the thing can record video too, it does open up a bit of a new market, but as a photographer I would not buy a camcorder that can take stills, no matter how good it is a doing it... But we all know that this is where the market is heading, more features, more stuff, more video, all-in-one magical box of amazement. But I for one, only want to take photos...

[Winder]

I tried it out once on my K-5. I have never used it on my K-3.

[kadajawi]

I was not trying to make a point. I was merely trying to see if I was the only one who bought a Pentax and couldn't care less if it shot video or not... Isn't this a discussion forum? On the K-3 video mode is more present than on the previous cameras. On the K-S1 even more so. Pentax always looses point on reviews because of video and honestly, you can still make very good videos with it (as you can see often posted here). Granted many people want to take videos and it is a nice feature to have... But what was wrong with having the video mode on the mode dial, along with all the other modes?



The sensor and the chipset allow for video recording but someone still has to program the feature... It's not like it comes with a bunch of toggle switches pre-made... A programmer has to program it. And last time I checker, programmers do get paid. And as opposed to still which has been sorted out decades ago, video is evolving rapidly, new codecs, new frame rate, new resolution. But that is not the point.

I would not got out of my way to buy a camera that doesn't do video just because it doesn't do it. I will however buy a camera because I like using it, because it has great ergonomics. Given two identical cameras, let's says a K-3H (for hipster, with no video) and a K-3V (for video)... I would buy the K-3H... I'm no hipster (it's probably the last name by which people would describe me), I do not want to go against the grain and I would not do it to be ironic... I don't shot video, it's a feature I do not need.

With the K-3, we now have a direct video mode switch (and video people still complained, they want a button)... It came at the cost of re-working the focus select system... Which is good and bad, it's nice to now have it assignable to different user programs but it is very awkward to use having to operate a button and a wheel to change it, where before, without even looking you could simply toggle the switch with your thumb. So now with my still camera I have to either change the mode dial to a program where I have the proper focus mode or do the button+wheel thingy, just so the video mode is not on the mode dial?!

I bought a DLSR to take photos, stuff for which it was originally designed for. It's cool that the thing can record video too, it does open up a bit of a new market, but as a photographer I would not buy a camcorder that can take stills, no matter how good it is a doing it... But we all know that this is where the market is heading, more features, more stuff, more video, all-in-one magical box of amazement. But I for one, only want to take photos...

I see.


I don't see much wrong with the video mode on the mode dial, as long as I don't have to push a button to change the mode. I was fine with that, though I would also like to have a button that immediately starts recording. But that's as much as I wanted for dedicated video buttons, the rest can be reassigned when shooting a video, that'd be perfectly fine with me. And while I never use the focus point selector (requires too much force, and I am always in SEL mode anyway), I don't see the point of having a switch between stills and video there. I once had that on a point and shoot, and I really didn't like it. Only shot stills with that camera.


If Pentax would only focus on stills they could let go of all of their engineers, there are hardly any advances when it comes to stills. I was happy with my *istDS in terms of stills... and the K-5 is more than I'll probably ever need, except for the AF which I dislike.


What disappoints is that Pentax only seems to listen to reviewers when it comes to their cameras... reviewers complain about the noise SR makes in video, and ever since that functionality was disabled, despite countless users begging Pentax to give it back. Sadly those reviewers are usually pretty clueless about video (at least those reviewing Pentax cameras), so the K-3 is rather useless (IMHO of course). As bad as the K-3 is for video, they really shouldn't have sacrificed anything for video. Pentax should have gotten the basics right. Imagine your DSLR could only shoot JPEG stills, and to make things worse they are compressed very, very strongly, so that no detail is left. That's how the video mode is. So why even bother with a dedicated switch and a headphone jack?


Btw., the Samsung NX1, a camera that Samsung pitches as a professional filmmaking tool, a camera that shoots DCI 4K (exactly what Hollywood likes to use, rather than the consumer 4K others support), that camera has a small video recording button next to the shutter. That's all. And I don't think more is needed... it certainly is all that I want.


How about having a setting in the menu where you can chose between no video, beginners video and advanced video? In addition to that a record video button next to the shutter. If Pentax offered that, plus stabilized video and decent quality (courtesy of an either better, or older codec, and a new sensor and processor), I'd gladly buy that camera... and for you guys it'd offer the option of deactivating video. More sales = Pentax can afford to hire the programmers required to make that happen.

[Winder]

I hope Ricoh continues to invest in HD and 4K - 8K video. The processing power and speed needed to implement these features will also increase functionality for still photography.

[LensBeginner]

I... never used it on purpose on my K-01, but once it was triggered by accident (camera strap -> red button!).
Since then I set the red button to toggle focus peaking...

I've considered buying the K-01 earlier and used as a dedicated video camera, but I needed about 2h of uninterrupted recording, and a DSLR/mirrorless isn't really made for this, as it will easily damage the sensor (and it will stop recording on its own after some time anyway...)

[tim60]

I... never used it on purpose on my K-01, but once it was triggered by accident (camera strap -> red button!).
Since then I set the red button to toggle focus peaking...

I've considered buying the K-01 earlier and used as a dedicated video camera, but I needed about 2h of uninterrupted recording, and a DSLR/mirrorless isn't really made for this, as it will easily damage the sensor (and it will stop recording on its own after some time anyway...)

That reminds me of a discussion of why professional sound gear costs so much more than top end domestic hifi - it is ruggedized because the demands on it are greater than those on the amateur stuff. Similarly with still/video cameras. The professional needed something that will work properly every time at the end of a ride in the back of the truck - business depends on it. The amateur would like that, but in reality is unlikely to be in danger or serious loss if it does not and cannot financially justify the additional multiples of price.

[fgaudet]

Btw., the Samsung NX1, a camera that Samsung pitches as a professional filmmaking tool, a camera that shoots DCI 4K (exactly what Hollywood likes to use, rather than the consumer 4K others support), that camera has a small video recording button next to the shutter. That's all. And I don't think more is needed... it certainly is all that I want.

Prime example of a video (highly) capable camera done right. The NX1 will more than likely turn out to be quite the beast. On paper it looks very impressive and as far as I can see, everything is well thought of. But it's a mirrorless, much more inline with video than an SLR.

I can't really see another camera with this kind of specs coming from Pentax, or even Canikon. Samsung is in a very good position to offer that kind of system, being world class in most of what they need... with a good sensor business, a great CPU business, a decent imaging department, a highly tuned chip manufacturing business and a whole lot of experience coming from their smartphone department (AF system, tracking, NR, correction...). Their only "weakness" would be their optical team but so far, their lenses were good.

The only other company that can give them a run for their money would be Sony... But Sony is Sony, they still try to push their re-package SD.. euh sorry, their MemoryStick and I'm sure they believe that they will come up with a compression system which will give better results than RAW video or everyone else Codecs... Remember ATRAC on their MD?

[kadajawi]

That reminds me of a discussion of why professional sound gear costs so much more than top end domestic hifi - it is ruggedized because the demands on it are greater than those on the amateur stuff. Similarly with still/video cameras. The professional needed something that will work properly every time at the end of a ride in the back of the truck - business depends on it. The amateur would like that, but in reality is unlikely to be in danger or serious loss if it does not and cannot financially justify the additional multiples of price.

What is professional audio gear? There is plenty of professional audio gear that isn't moved at all, for example studio gear. Isn't that professional? And top end speakers can easily cost tens to hundreds of thousands. And if you mean PA systems... they are also very, very loud, though at the cost of audio quality.

Does video really damage my DSLR, because mine hasn't gotten the news yet. It just gets too warm, but no long time damage.

One roll of 35mm film is around 12 minutes, and the amounts of data on the digital cinema cameras are so huge that they can't record for long either, so very long takes aren't an advantage of really professional gear.

Btw., DSLRs are used in Hollywood when the going gets rough. Cheaper to write off.

[LensBeginner]

The only other company that can give them a run for their money would be Sony... But Sony is Sony, they still try to push their re-package SD.. euh sorry, their MemoryStick and I'm sure they believe that they will come up with a compression system which will give better results than RAW video or everyone else Codecs... Remember ATRAC on their MD?

I know that Sony is the brand of lost causes and failed formats, I've always said that myself...
But perhaps they changed a little bit in recent times... Blu-ray actually was the format that won over HD-DVD and XAVC is essentially an expanded version of AVCHD...

[kadajawi]

Prime example of a video (highly) capable camera done right. The NX1 will more than likely turn out to be quite the beast. On paper it looks very impressive and as far as I can see, everything is well thought of. But it's a mirrorless, much more inline with video than an SLR.

I can't really see another camera with this kind of specs coming from Pentax, or even Canikon. Samsung is in a very good position to offer that kind of system, being world class in most of what they need... with a good sensor business, a great CPU business, a decent imaging department, a highly tuned chip manufacturing business and a whole lot of experience coming from their smartphone department (AF system, tracking, NR, correction...). Their only "weakness" would be their optical team but so far, their lenses were good.

The only other company that can give them a run for their money would be Sony... But Sony is Sony, they still try to push their re-package SD.. euh sorry, their MemoryStick and I'm sure they believe that they will come up with a compression system which will give better results than RAW video or everyone else Codecs... Remember ATRAC on their MD?

That was the old Sony. While they do have created their own video codec for their professional and consumer cameras, it is really just an advanced profile of h264, so perfectly compatible with what everyone has. And yes, it is vastly superior to the baseline h264 that Pentax employs. Sony simply has a better processor to enable all the advanced features of the codec.

Samsung also has a great display business.

It looks like the NX1 could also make for a very nice stills camera.

But what will happen to Pentax if they can't keep up? Will Pentax turn into Blackberry, Palm, Nokia?

[LensBeginner]

*snip*
One roll of 35mm film is around 12 minutes, and the amounts of data on the digital cinema cameras are so huge that they can't record for long either, so very long takes aren't an advantage of really professional gear.

*snip*

I need to record concerts and can't touch the camera for the whole duration, because I'm too far from it, so I just bought a consumer video camera.
There are situations where a dedicated device, even lowly camcorder, will be better than a high-quality still camera with video functions.
Also remember that here in Europe we have to contend with an artificial (and obsolete, IMHO) 30' limit on video recording, due to different taxation between still and video cameras.

[kadajawi]

I need to record concerts and can't touch the camera for the whole duration, because I'm too far from it, so I just bought a consumer video camera.
There are situations where a dedicated device, even lowly camcorder, will be better than a high-quality still camera with video functions.
Also remember that here in Europe we have to contend with an artificial (and obsolete, IMHO) 30' limit on video recording, due to different taxation between still and video cameras.

Fair enough. You could however use your DSLR, especially if it is a K-5, to get some shots handheld that you can cut into your footage. For that the short recording time (5 minutes) is perfectly fine. I think it does rather fine at concerts, I've got a few clips on my youtube channel. Might want to find a solution to recording audio without sticking out too much though...

Like there are situations like yours there are also situations where a video capable stills camera is better. For me it's because of the look and quality of the footage and because I carry my DSLR with me anyway. Having both in one camera is nice.

[LensBeginner]

Fair enough. You could however use your DSLR, especially if it is a K-5, to get some shots handheld that you can cut into your footage. For that the short recording time (5 minutes) is perfectly fine. I think it does rather fine at concerts, I've got a few clips on my youtube channel. Might want to find a solution to recording audio without sticking out too much though...

Like there are situations like yours there are also situations where a video capable stills camera is better. For me it's because of the look and quality of the footage and because I carry my DSLR with me anyway. Having both in one camera is nice.

No, I can't! I'm the one playing!!!
As for the audio, I've got that covered, independently from the video.

[kadajawi]

No, I can't! I'm the one playing!!!
As for the audio, I've got that covered, independently from the video.

Haha. You could ask someone to do it for you... friends, girlfriend, ...