[drypenn]

LOL...ROFL...


Steve

What?

Did I miss the chance to tell her: "Sweetheart, I am a member of a mature internet photography forum. We are convinced that a $1,300 lens mounted on a $500 DSLR (and wait until I get a K3, or the soon upcoming FF) will do a better job than your mom's $300 video camera! Do you want to try it?"

And seriously, why can't these video cameras improve their still shots?

[Clavius]

Lets twist stuff around a bit. Once I was starting with photography and carried around a good bridgecam: Fuji S9500. It did everything. Stills and limited video. But I wanted to level up a bit. I wanted more quality and putting better quality lenses in front of the sensor was part of that. So I looked into a K10d, triple the price of that S9500, but with a very dim blurry viewfinder and no video... Not even limited. No way! I put that on hold emmediately because buying a terribly expensive still camera AND a seperate video camera was to much. Eventually a year later, I bought the K10d used anyway.

Nowadays, any flagship camera with flagship price, should do both really very good.

[kadajawi]

I tried playing around with my K30 video last night.

The good news: it works! And quality is quite good even after downloading it on a 42" LED TV. I used the very best prime Pentax can offer: the FA77 and the FA31.

The bad news:
Without the use of any equipment (monopod or tripod), I now conclude that doing video on DSLR is very unergonomic (just as I thought). It's akin to using a hammer trying to drive a teeny weeny screw on a lens mount. Yes, I agree that even an iPad seems a better tool since it's more comfortable, (the first time I've tried using it was also last night). You cannot use the OVF, you have to hold it awkwardly.

Even my 10-year old daughter noticed and asked why I wasn't using the video camera.

Mounting it on a tripod, it becomes acceptable, since you just click and leave it alone, and as I've said quality is really acceptable.

The whole experiment lasted about 10 minutes.

Conclusion: I'm a monkey who cannot and will not do video on a DSLR again. I'll just use the Panny: lighter, better button placements. Right tool for the job.

Side topic: For what it's worth, you can see some kids doing some selfies with DSLRs and kit lens here. Maybe Pentax should also think about putting a front LCD on the next iteration of K3 .

Selfie with a kit lens? HOW? Though... oh yes, I have done that too once (and it was more of a group photo), before the term was known. It works with the self timer. Maybe that's what the EyeFi card (or so) is meant for?

Thanks for the experiment. I agree, the ergonomics of a video camera is better. But for me at least the financial cost, let alone the added bulk of carrying a dedicated video camera that will struggle more at challenging situations and probably won't even get down to 28mm (most seem to be at least 35 to 40mm...) means that I'd still rather use my DSLR. Heck, I think I'd rather have a non interchangeable lens still camera than a video camera for video... more wide angle, larger sensor. And it does good stills too.

It isn't too bad when you got used to it, left hand on the lens/focus ring, maybe underneath the camera to support it, right hand on the grip. That way I can reach all I need. The screen needs to be at the same level as my eyes to focus... otherwise for some reason my eyes have problems judging sharpness on the screen (focus peaking would be nice, but I don't think the Milbeaut in the K-3 can do it while recording video... the next processor will be able to do it. Maxing out sharpness would help, but I don't want that to be recorded...). When walking it helps to hold the camera further away from my body... the up and down motion that can max out the IBIS gets minimized. Makes things more exhausting though.

All being said the ergonomic issues haven't been enough to stop me from filming a lot with my camera. More than I even have with my dedicated video cameras. The actual image is nice and rewarding to me.

[TaoMaas]

I'm a still photographer by passion and a videographer by profession. I DO have dedicated video cameras available to me for use, both large and small, but none are as flexible for me as a Pentax with really great video would be. It would open up an entire world of lenses and camera placement options. A co-worker left for a job with an ad agency recently and they are VERY serious about their video. What they're shooting is a Sony camcorder that takes interchangeable lenses and putting Canon DSLR lenses on it. I already own Pentax versions of most of the lenses they're using, but that Sony route isn't open to me because they don't make a decent adapter that I know of. So I sit and wait and watch what Pentax is doing...still shooting with a K10D as my main DSLR and a K01 and Q for the rare times I can use my Pentax gear in my job...and hope that Pentax will step up and join some of the bigger players in the video field. We all have our opinions as to what is "useless" on a modern camera. For me, that list would include built-in flash, most auto exposure modes, and maybe even autofocus...but I'd have to think a bit about that last one. lol

[audiobomber]

Why the AVERSION to video? In 2007 I had an aversion to video in my DSLR because I didn't want Pentax to add video specialist engineering, spend R&D time and resources, compromise the camera's controls with extra functions and menus, add cost in development and hardware. The first Pentax with video was the K-7, which was a backward step in IQ from the K20D, despite using the same sensor.

There's not much point in arguing whether DSLR's should have video any longer, that ship has sailed and there's no going back. Pentax should spend just enough on video to support sales, without impairing photo IQ or features. If Ricoh were to suddenly decide to compete with Panasonic for video leadership, it would severely harm the Pentax brand, which is squarely photographically centered.

My hobby is photography. My aversion to video is simply that videography is a different hobby, one which does not interest me. Photography and videography are as different as fishing and hunting, baseball and football, chess and monopoly. Just because you love one doesn't mean you are interested in the other.

[GlennG]

Aversion to video? At first my answer was "no aversion - just not interested", but later, I thought "yes, I do have an aversion to video", and I can probably be safe in saying it has to do with my own lack of skills across the waterfront - low ability to choose compelling content, low ability to actually get recorded content, and low ability to edit for a decent output. Years ago I had a point and shoot that was easy to capture video, but my video selections were not good. With the k5 it is much harder to take a video, though I'm probably glad the video feature is there.

[TaoMaas]

Photography and videography are as different as fishing and hunting, baseball and football, chess and monopoly.

It's more like baseball and softball. LOTS of crossover between the two in skillset. Mostly just a matter of frame rate. Do you wanna shoot one? Or 30/sec?

[stevebrot]

Selfie with a kit lens? HOW?

Turn the camera around and push the button. The 18-55 kit will focus that close.


Steve

[audiobomber]

It's more like baseball and softball. LOTS of crossover between the two in skillset. Mostly just a matter of frame rate. Do you wanna shoot one? Or 30/sec?

Not to me, it is a completely different sport. Portrait photography and sports photography would be like baseball and softball. I don't know what settings to use for video, I don't understand the codecs, whether IS is a good feature or not. Focussing is a mystery. I can usually manage to turn video on, and I always make a mess turning it off. I have absolutely no clue how to edit.

More importantly, I don't care. I read about and practice photography constantly, it is an obsession. I have not spent any time to learn video because I have zero interest. Making mini-movies is a skill and art form that needs probably even more attention to learn it properly, but I will never take the time, because it does not pull me.

I can't even imagine doing a wedding video, not because of the skills involved, but because the end product doesn't interest me. That is the nub. The aversion is because video is not my hobby, photography is my hobby.

[Mikesul]

This thread has been an interesting study in how discussions quickly loose contact with the original idea. Aversion means distaste for and avoidance of something. Most of the thread has been debating whether video is good in a DSLR or whether Pentax is foolish not to put more advanced video features in their camras. The original question seems only to ask why there is such distaste for and avoidance of (aversion to) video. Normhead and others have continued to address the original question but most of thread has not. Interesting.

[GlennG]

This thread has been an interesting study in how discussions quickly loose contact with the original idea. Aversion means distaste for and avoidance of something. Most of the thread has been debating whether video is good in a DSLR or whether Pentax is foolish not to put more advanced video features in their camras. The original question seems only to ask why there is such distaste for and avoidance of (aversion to) video. Normhead and others have continued to address the original question but most of thread has not. Interesting.

And this thread would be different than many other threads in what way?

[Mikesul]

And this thread would be different than many other threads in what way?

Not different at all. That is the point - we tend to mainly talk past each other.

[hjoseph7]

Video is like watching TV. I'm not really negative about video, but I studied and aimed to be a Still Photographer. If I wanted to do video I would have studied that. I think there is way too much emphasis on video these days, I can understand Live View though because it comes in handy but video ? Who the heck is going to look at all these videos anyway, your grandmother ? Of course you can always post your videos on YouTube but who has the time.

Photography is about 1 picture tells a thousand words while video is something else. These days you can't get on the web without some video popping up in your face. Not only that they usually have an annoying commercial in front of it. If this keeps up people are going to lose their reading and writing skills. These videos suck up a lot of bandwidth, so if you are on the job there is a good chance the IT department will send you an email telling you to cool it. If I wanted to shoot video I would just purchase a Cam. Even a cheap Cams do a much better job than your typical DSLR.

Now the good news. Shooting video can help you expand your photographic skills. You ever watch a movie and see what goes in it. I mean these videographers use light, aperture, shutter speed, Bokeh, sound all at once and continuously. They really put us still-life photographers to shame when it comes to skills. Videos let you capture real life as it happens ! Imagine being in "Shangri la" with your camera taking pictures of the breath taking scene, when all of a sudden a flock of green yellow-headed Parrots fly above you, Why take a couple of boring stills when you can capture the entire moment on a video. Well in any case, some things, moments look better on still while others are better represented on video. At least we have a choice these days.

[Mikesul]

Video is like watching TV. I'm not really negative about video, but I studied and aimed to be a Still Photographer. If I wanted to do video I would have studied that. I think there is way too much emphasis on video these days, I can understand Live View though because it comes in handy but video ? Who the heck is going to look at all these videos anyway, your grandmother ? Of course you can always post your videos on YouTube but who has the time.

Photography is about 1 picture tells a thousand words while video is something else. These days you can't get on the web without some video popping up in your face. Not only that they usually have an annoying commercial in front of it. If this keeps up people are going to lose their reading and writing skills. These videos suck up a lot of bandwidth, so if you are on the job there is a good chance the IT department will send you an email telling you to cool it. If I wanted to shoot video I would just purchase a Cam. Even the cheap Cams do a much better job than you can typical DSLR.

Now the good news. Shooting video can help you expand your photographic skills. You ever watch a movie and see what goes in it. I mean these videographers use light, aperture, shutter speed, Bokeh, sound all at once and continuously. They really put us still-life photographers to shame when it comes to skills. Videos let you capture real life as it happens ! Imagine being in "Shangri la" with your camera taking pictures of the breath taking scene, when all of a sudden a flock of green yellow-headed Parrots fly above you, Why take a couple of boring stills when you can capture the entire moment on a video. Well in any case some things moments look better on still while others are better represented on video. At least we have a choice these days.

This is a nice, conciliatory, thoughtful post which seems to cover all the bases. Thanks.

[stevebrot]

This thread has been an interesting study in how discussions quickly loose contact with the original idea. Aversion means distaste for and avoidance of something. Most of the thread has been debating whether video is good in a DSLR or whether Pentax is foolish not to put more advanced video features in their camras. The original question seems only to ask why there is such distaste for and avoidance of (aversion to) video. Normhead and others have continued to address the original question but most of thread has not. Interesting.

The thread diverged quickly from the title in the original post.

The major premise (pervasive aversion) was false. As a result, the original post was basically a rant and rants beget rants.

Edit: But wait! There's more! The sequence goes something like this and has happened on multiple threads on this site:

• User expresses interest in buying Pentax dSLR
• Other users offer their opinions regarding the various models
• Some users might make comparisons to models from other brands
• Then someone will post that the video sucks in very dogmatic and blunt terms
• There will be a withering protest that it is not that bad
• Then a return volley that if Pentax is doomed it is because its video sucks and its execs are stupid for not seeing the room for improvement that will save the brand
• The content of the comments are a virtual copy/paste of comments from the same users on other threads throughout the site
• And so it goes...the hijack is complete

I don't believe that the behavior is simple trolling, even though it may look that way. I do believe that some contributors think that they might influence Ricoh's development path by repeated references to the same set of desired missing features. They may very well do so. After all, the presence of AA filter bracketing was the result of user suggestion.


Steve