[Bertrand3000]

I never take videos, not because that I can't, not because Pentax is "bad" at it, but only because I have no interest in it.

When I bought my K-S2, I compared Pentax to other brands at this time, sure most websites were complaining that the Pentax was behind for video, but I didn't care for that kind of flaw. Other qualities I was looking for were in the K-S2, that's why I turned Pentaxian.

[Cerebum]

Yes I have. 8.000 photos with the HUAWEI P30 Pro in 2 months, though quite a few of them are raw files, which it saves in parallel with jpegs. The image quality is spectacular, the sharpness at 40 MP (!) insane. It's also amazing how much you can recover highlights without the image falling apart. I'd say at least as good as the K-5, though low light performance isn't quite as good. But having IS, f1.6, a 1/1.7" sensor AND yellow instead of green pixels does help quite a lot. Another 13.000 in 3 months with a Sony Xperia XZ2, which is quite decent, though not having raw files is a serious let down. But having a shutter button is nice. I've only done 1.300 in 2 months with the Xperia XZ3, as I wasn't traveling and I already knew the camera (being identical to the XZ2). Xiaomi Mi 6 2.500... it was okay. Another 11.000 with my LG V20, which can do great things thanks to Gcam, but the replacement front glass (the original one spontaneously cracked due to cold weather) is constantly smudged and the app keeps crashing. Having to slow down helps though.

Not sure I understand your vlogger comment.


IMHO video on large sensor cameras should not be for beginners. As in, don't cater to beginners. DSLRs and mirrorless cameras mostly don't cater to beginners for stills, that's what point and shoots are there for. Neither should they for video. That's what camcorders are there for. Point, shoot, be happy. I don't care for AF, as long as I can judge focus while shooting. AF needs to be extremely good for it to make any sense, and even then I want maximum control. But really no priority. Give me raw video and good controls. Give me good stabilization. And great color science (which Pentax has), especially if there's no raw.

@Walkingwolf: I'd expect the K-S2 to be better, as long as you deactivate image stabilization. At least it will give you a more pleasant look. Pentax is miles behind competitors, however they are still using bigger sensors etc.

Apologies, no offence meant I was referring to the vloggers who produce opinionated rubbish and mark Pentax and the others down because they arent canon. There are some very good bloggers out there

[onlineflyer]

Who here never, ever used the video mode?

Does Pentax even have a video mode? No, I've never used video mode because I'm only interested in still photography. To think of it, my Pentax KX file camera didn't have video mode, either.

[hadi]

I used it once as a wedding I was shooting randomly asked me to record a certain speech. I told em right away that I CAN NOT PROMISE ANYTHING video related. Not sure how it went, and I had no idea what i was doing. I just hit video, pressed record, and aimed the camera at the mic.

the couple wasn't happy. But I told em that I dont do video. They were happy with the pics though.

If it were me, and i was making a follow up to the K1, I would make certain changes, but would remove the video capability completly. It would bring down the price, and attract more people to pentax who want to get into full frames, or photography or whatever.

[ecostigny]

I shot a couple of brief videos with my K-5 to confirm that feature worked, but the K-5 is definitely not a video-centric camera--which is OK, because I'm not a video-centric person. I've shot several videos of our cats with my phone (simply because my phone is always with me), but that's it. I fuss over my stills enough; I cannot imagine finding the time to edit video properly.

[RobA_Oz]

After 18 pages of people saying much the same thing, over a four-year period, I guess the OP’s got the feedback he requested. If he’s still around, perhaps a poll would be more informative on the question of how many (rather than who). I suspect Ricoh knows, and the current state of Pentax video suggests what they know. On the other hand, video on the Theta V and Z1 proves that Ricoh can do 4k video – obviously, they haven’t wanted to use it in their DSLRs, up until now.

[kadajawi]

I used it once as a wedding I was shooting randomly asked me to record a certain speech. I told em right away that I CAN NOT PROMISE ANYTHING video related. Not sure how it went, and I had no idea what i was doing. I just hit video, pressed record, and aimed the camera at the mic.

the couple wasn't happy. But I told em that I dont do video. They were happy with the pics though.

If it were me, and i was making a follow up to the K1, I would make certain changes, but would remove the video capability completly. It would bring down the price, and attract more people to pentax who want to get into full frames, or photography or whatever.

Imagine you're a wedding photographer, and your clients tell you your competitor also shoots video. What then? Are your stills so good that they will still go with you?

Also, would removing video make it cheaper? Really? How? The processor? Has the functionality. Removing it would mean a custom chip, which would drive up prices. The sensor? Has the functionality. Removing it... would remove live view. And cost more, probably. What is left? Firmware? Yeah they could make that a few kb smaller I guess. And save on development costs, which, looking at the progress Pentax makes, is minimal. They could leave away a button or two and a bit of print. That's gonna be a few cents at best?

In turn, sales would be even poorer. Which would drive up prices badly. The only thing is that Pentax would have to cut costs regardless, in order to get anyone to buy these cameras. But that's not profitable. Pentax needs MORE customers, not fewer, and it needs them to spend money.

I really fail to see how leaving off video can save more than a few cents, but the reduced appeal can easily drive up cost a lot. Btw., Panasonic has done something really smart, IMHO. They have created two cameras, which, under the hood, are nearly identical. But one is aimed at videographers, the other at still photographers. But since they are essentially the same, the stills camera is still amazing at video and vice versa. It's just the way the camera feels that is different. They can order more parts, driving down costs. IMHO this would be a valid approach for Pentax too... god knows they need to sell more cameras. However it is crucial that features aren't artificially cut. They are just not up in your face. Having used the G9 for a few months, it is a wonderful stills camera. It takes great photos, and it puts photos first. It IS a wonderful video camera, but at no point does that feature hinder your ability to take stills. It is just there, in case you need it. And in several places improvements made for video enable it to be better at stills, too.

@Cerebum: No offense taken. Part of my job is to have the latest gear and gadgets (though I'm not a vlogger...). So I see the way things move forward year to year, and it's really impressive and could probably surprise a couple of folks here.

I think an issue with vloggers and the likes is that they know the algorithms. Even those who do not want to do it, know they have to. Those who don't, well, I hope they have another job and only do this for fun. Until people stop clicking link bait (which I try to do), they will put out the crassest headlines. And contents, that will create engagement on YouTube. And controversy works. Perhaps on Canon videos they will talk trash about Canon.

In any case, I don't see a reason to buy Pentax anymore, but I'm glad there are still people who do.

[kiwi_jono]

Wow I didn't notice this post previously and so I'm very late to it!

Well firstly, I used video a few times with my K-x, maybe twice on my K-5 and so far not at all on my K-1. For me its a nice to have and nice to know its there. And I think that Pentax video is fit for purpose for occasional use but not necessarily the videographer.

The problem is a number of the mainstream online DSLR reviewers put some emphasis on video and this ends up skewing the conclusions if a brand doesn't have good video. So Pentax needs improved video for the market even though it appears from this thread that the most Pentaxians don't care much about video.

[kadajawi]

Wow I didn't notice this post previously and so I'm very late to it!

Well firstly, I used video a few times with my K-x, maybe twice on my K-5 and so far not at all on my K-1. For me its a nice to have and nice to know its there. And I think that Pentax video is fit for purpose for occasional use but not necessarily the videographer.

The problem is a number of the mainstream online DSLR reviewers put some emphasis on video and this ends up skewing the conclusions if a brand doesn't have good video. So Pentax needs improved video for the market even though it appears from this thread that the most Pentaxians don't care much about video.

I think that good to have feeling is what drives buyers away from Pentax. I don't think the reviewers emphasis on video is to be blamed all that much... I mean, if the camera does poorly in a feature I never use, and I'm sure I'll never use, like JPEG, then I don't care. I care about the rest of the review. But might happen with new buyers is the thinking... "yeah, I'm not using video. I might not use video, ever. But what if I want to? What if my needs change? If competing cameras are similarly good, why pick the one that does poorly at a feature that I might want to use eventually?

I don't see many differences in terms of stills quality and functionality. Thus the extra bits and pieces start to matter.

Perhaps Ricoh could extend upon the SD slot with a M.2 slot. Imagine having 1 TB of storage in the camera, robust, for about $100+. Imagine it being about 10 to 30 times faster than fast SD cards. Never having to wait for the buffer to clear. Never running out of storage. AND it would be nice for video too, where it could enable raw videos. Add sensor shift video stabilization and a few histogram like live displays (useful for stills too) and videographers would go crazy over the camera (though those features really aren't meant for beginners/casual shooters...). More sales --> lower prices --> third party lens support. Everyone would win, even those who don't care about video. If Sigma can go this route from scratch out of nowhere, why can't Ricoh?

Ideally, Pentax keeps their current fanbase by offering them what they want and care about, but also add new customers. In any case, I'm really curious where the new APS-C flagship is going.

[ecostigny]

I think that good to have feeling is what drives buyers away from Pentax. I don't think the reviewers emphasis on video is to be blamed all that much... I mean, if the camera does poorly in a feature I never use, and I'm sure I'll never use, like JPEG, then I don't care. I care about the rest of the review. But might happen with new buyers is the thinking... "yeah, I'm not using video. I might not use video, ever. But what if I want to? What if my needs change? If competing cameras are similarly good, why pick the one that does poorly at a feature that I might want to use eventually?

I don't see many differences in terms of stills quality and functionality. Thus the extra bits and pieces start to matter.

Perhaps Ricoh could extend upon the SD slot with a M.2 slot. Imagine having 1 TB of storage in the camera, robust, for about $100+. Imagine it being about 10 to 30 times faster than fast SD cards. Never having to wait for the buffer to clear. Never running out of storage. AND it would be nice for video too, where it could enable raw videos. Add sensor shift video stabilization and a few histogram like live displays (useful for stills too) and videographers would go crazy over the camera (though those features really aren't meant for beginners/casual shooters...). More sales --> lower prices --> third party lens support. Everyone would win, even those who don't care about video. If Sigma can go this route from scratch out of nowhere, why can't Ricoh?

Ideally, Pentax keeps their current fanbase by offering them what they want and care about, but also add new customers. In any case, I'm really curious where the new APS-C flagship is going.

A lot of product marketing these days plays on people's aspirations: "I might not know how to use this feature now, but I want to have it in case I need it down the road." For example, you don't see advertising for low or mid-range smartphones; only the flagship models get the airplay, and the airplay emphasizes the latest-and-greatest features. Night mode? Sounds handy if you want to take a picture in the dark. Super slo-mo? Yeah, might need that if the cat does something hilarious too quickly to capture in normal mode. Water resistance? You never know when you'll be stuck alongside Jim Cantore in a hurricane.

People don't want to be limited. You don't see too much stuff marketed as amateur grade; the target audience wants to be assured that if they use the professional-grade product and apply themselves rigorously, the have the potential to equal what the pros can achieve. Where we're going with this gear, there are no constraints!

[kiwi_jono]

A lot of product marketing these days plays on people's aspirations: "I might not know how to use this feature now, but I want to have it in case I need it down the road." For example, you don't see advertising for low or mid-range smartphones; only the flagship models get the airplay, and the airplay emphasizes the latest-and-greatest features. Night mode? Sounds handy if you want to take a picture in the dark. Super slo-mo? Yeah, might need that if the cat does something hilarious too quickly to capture in normal mode. Water resistance? You never know when you'll be stuck alongside Jim Cantore in a hurricane.

People don't want to be limited. You don't see too much stuff marketed as amateur grade; the target audience wants to be assured that if they use the professional-grade product and apply themselves rigorously, the have the potential to equal what the pros can achieve. Where we're going with this gear, there are no constraints!

Yeah I do think this a factor - particularly those new DSLRs. I remember when I bought my first DSLR (K-x), I was certainly looking at the features and reviews of those features. Wasn't sure which I would find important until I had used a DSLR for a while - I remember thinking video might be quite useful (but not so much in actual fact).

[kadajawi]

A lot of product marketing these days plays on people's aspirations: "I might not know how to use this feature now, but I want to have it in case I need it down the road." For example, you don't see advertising for low or mid-range smartphones; only the flagship models get the airplay, and the airplay emphasizes the latest-and-greatest features. Night mode? Sounds handy if you want to take a picture in the dark. Super slo-mo? Yeah, might need that if the cat does something hilarious too quickly to capture in normal mode. Water resistance? You never know when you'll be stuck alongside Jim Cantore in a hurricane.

People don't want to be limited. You don't see too much stuff marketed as amateur grade; the target audience wants to be assured that if they use the professional-grade product and apply themselves rigorously, the have the potential to equal what the pros can achieve. Where we're going with this gear, there are no constraints!

Yes, exactly. Just look at that SUV craze.

(Though to be honest I think night mode is a really useful feature, as smartphones usually fall apart when light isn't that great... night mode fixes that. And even if there is enough light, night mode usually extends dynamic range. And the water resistance is more related to accidents happening... the phone falling out of the pocket and into a puddle... or the toilet).

Yeah I do think this a factor - particularly those new DSLRs. I remember when I bought my first DSLR (K-x), I was certainly looking at the features and reviews of those features. Wasn't sure which I would find important until I had used a DSLR for a while - I remember thinking video might be quite useful (but not so much in actual fact).

I remember that when I was buying my first DSLR, the one I looked for was the Sigma SD-10 (?). That camera couldn't even save JPEGs, which was fine for me (and would have been, had I ended up with one). But I can imagine many turning away because of this... erm, interesting choice by Sigma.

DSLR and mirrorless video usually aren't meant for average joe IMHO, they are meant for people who take their videography seriously. Just as much as they take their photography seriously. If you want to capture a snapshot, you use a point and shoot or phone. Camcorders are the video equivalent.

[ecostigny]

Yes, exactly. Just look at that SUV craze.

(Though to be honest I think night mode is a really useful feature, as smartphones usually fall apart when light isn't that great... night mode fixes that. And even if there is enough light, night mode usually extends dynamic range. And the water resistance is more related to accidents happening... the phone falling out of the pocket and into a puddle... or the toilet).



I remember that when I was buying my first DSLR, the one I looked for was the Sigma SD-10 (?). That camera couldn't even save JPEGs, which was fine for me (and would have been, had I ended up with one). But I can imagine many turning away because of this... erm, interesting choice by Sigma.

DSLR and mirrorless video usually aren't meant for average joe IMHO, they are meant for people who take their videography seriously. Just as much as they take their photography seriously. If you want to capture a snapshot, you use a point and shoot or phone. Camcorders are the video equivalent.

We have had an SUV for 16 years (You cannot kill Hondas). I cannot clearly remember using its 4x4 mode (maybe once, during a snowstorm) or taking it off the pavement beyond driving on a friend's gravel driveway. We did tow a UHaul trailer from Florida to Connecticut once. Other than that, we probably could have gotten by with a (gasp!) minivan.

Night mode does sound like a useful feature--especially with smartphones and their tiny sensors. Of course, the smartphone advertisers act like it's something that they invented. Never mind that the Pentax Kp can shoot at ISO 819200, which sounds like a form of night mode to me. And let's not forget the long-standing commitment of Pentax to weather resistance in their cameras and lenses.

[disconnekt]

zombie thread?

Just in time for Halloween (っ•o•)っ<Bwahahahaha

[kadajawi]

We have had an SUV for 16 years (You cannot kill Hondas). I cannot clearly remember using its 4x4 mode (maybe once, during a snowstorm) or taking it off the pavement beyond driving on a friend's gravel driveway. We did tow a UHaul trailer from Florida to Connecticut once. Other than that, we probably could have gotten by with a (gasp!) minivan.

Night mode does sound like a useful feature--especially with smartphones and their tiny sensors. Of course, the smartphone advertisers act like it's something that they invented. Never mind that the Pentax Kp can shoot at ISO 819200, which sounds like a form of night mode to me. And let's not forget the long-standing commitment of Pentax to weather resistance in their cameras and lenses.

And minivans tend to be more practical and economical. They just aren't as cool I guess.

Smartphones usually have point & shoot sized sensors (like lesser Pentax Q models), significantly bigger than what is used on most camcorders. Some smartphones have 1/1.7" sensors (or even larger ones). For example the Huawei Mate30 Pro has a 1/1.7" main camera and a 1/1.54" ultra wide. Plus a tele camera, but I think they didn't communicate the specs there, so it won't be as impressive. Basically as good as the better Pentax Q cameras. The combination is pretty impressive, I was able to capture quite a few stars handheld with night mode, without much noise. I'd say the night mode elevated the P30 Pro beyond what even full frame sensors can accomplish (handheld, and with reasonable noise levels).