[VisualDarkness]

Good points...the "invisible" benefits of having video in a DSLR. I need to remember them if I ever "graduate" from my K-5II to a K-3 and feel that video/stills switch that I'll never use under my thumb where the AF button/switch should be.

Well, that's a question about ergonomics linked to what the customers prioritize and not actually about incorporating video tech. Sony A7 is pretty cleaver in where they put the button, it's easy to reach when needed but hidden when normally using the camera for stills.

[D1N0]

Dslr's have video because they have live view. When you have live view you might as well have video. When you don't want video, get a K10D.

[Clavius]

I understand why the Pentax users in here seem to have an aversion to video. It's a Pentax weak spot. And pointing that out is a very bad think. Should be dealt with immediately with a enormous load of negativity, it seems.

What I don't understand is the aversion Pentax themselves have towards video. Why did they nerf the excellent video capabilities of the K5?

Little personal story about how Pentax shoots themselves in the foot with that aversion: Like many or all here, I'm mainly into still image photography. But our household also has the obligatory video camera. One of those simple little Sony videocams. There's a 16gb onboard memory in there and that's more then enough. The quality seemed to be really ultra good, comparing to the decommisioned tape driven DV cam that I had before, and to cellphone quality... Until I got curious and tried out the video on my K5. WOW! Turns out the output looks freaking good on my big LED TV!! Do we now still take the Sony videocamera along? No way! In fact, my wife wanted the K5 for filming so often that I had to get the K-3. There was no choice. We share lenses. She films, I take pics. We (tried to) switch roles. (But the K-3 video sucks.) Lots of fun. Anyway, that was another point for Pentax over Sony again.

---------- Post added 11-11-14 at 11:31 ----------

I can purchase a refrigerator with a television embedded in the door, though I honestly have
never understood this pairing, (no, I don't own one, but someone, somewhere thought it
was a needed option.).

Good that you mention refrigerators. Because the image capturing technology behind photography and video are currently so much alike, that I dare to say that the combination makes as much sense as refrigerators with a freezing combination. Same tech, same function why don't do both?

It makes even more sense in cameras, because it doesn't take up any space whatsoever. Having good video capabilities does not affect the size, weight or functioning of the photocamera. It's just one more key ingredient to the survival of the dedicated camera.

[Mr Bassie]

I have no aversion to video. My K-01 is a decent little recorder that gives good results.

That said, if pentax took away the video it wouldn't matter that much to me as I have several other ways to record videos.

[kadajawi]

[/COLOR]Thank you very much for the post, and some of the comments here.

A good DSLR or mirrorless will give you almost the quality of a cinema camera... at a fraction of the cost. Not everyone of us can spend $10000 on a camera, and then more on the lenses. And not everyone of us want to do one OR the other.

Yes, the ergonomics aren't ideal, but even with added gear it is much cheaper. And stabilisation gear is actually not necessary with the K-5. That should have made it quite attractive to many, if it had been advertised well (sadly no one in the videography community noticed the camera). And then Pentax even removed that advantage, out of weird obsession with audio (I think a DPReview review criticised the noise of SR, and ever since it was gone... they also lamented the lack of manual gain, and the next camera then had manual gain... and a video button).

AF for video is mostly a consumer feature, and I'd say the video mode of DSLRs is just not really aimed at consumers. It's gear for people who are serious about photography or videography. And you will just have to learn how to pull focus by hand.

Good video functionality benefits stills shooters, as mentioned. The NX1 is aimed as a serious video camera as well as a serious stills camera, as a result it has a beast of a sensor and a beast of a processor. That they have used to make it a really fast stills camera too, where for a pure stills camera lesser hardware would do. Keep in mind that the demands of video are much higher.

The problem is Pentax seems to only listen to reviewers... they are scared of bad reviews and do what reviewers ask for... sadly those aren't really videographers for the most part, and if they call in one, it is for a camera that is supposed to be the saviour in video anyway. So instead of focusing on what matters they do stupid things like dedicate too many switches and buttons to video. In comparison the NX1 from Samsung has ONE record video button next to the shutter button. That is all. And that is a camera they hired Joseph Gordon Lewitt for to shoot a movie with. They want it in the hands of indie film makers. A record video button is all I'd ask for. The rest is a bit of software.

Btw., Fuji, the we don't do video company, is soon to release a firmware update for the X-T1 that greatly enhances video capabilities. Olympus did that too, before, activating SR for video AFAIK. And a much bigger update is supposed to come. Even Leica embraces video these days it seems. Only Pentax is left behind, and they barely ever upgrade their cameras once sold. All the others improve them even when in the hands of people already...

Btw. I love the video my K-5 takes. Couldn't do it with any other camera. Either they have a stabilizer, but a crappy 1/6" sensor (yes... you can find those in $1500 camcorders!), or they don't, and thus wobble around like mad. Carrying a Glidecam all the time would be insane. The K-3 could be the same, but better. I want the manual gain, I want the manual controls, and even perhaps the added switches. In addition to the better AF etc. A shame that they screwed up the SR and the actual files it records...

Maybe someone can tell me what the sacrifices made for video are, because I can't think of any, except for the screwed up controls of a Pentax (who seem to bumble around clueless when it comes to video).

[PANGU_yien]

You weren't really very specific about what the problem is with video on Pentax. The only key features missing from the video implementation on Pentax DSLRs that I'm aware of are live AF and the ability to write to a card until it's full. I've experimented a bit with video on my K7 and K5iis but the lack of live AF means it's not really practical for the sort of video I generally shoot, which is just off-the-cuff travel video. So I bought a Panasonic camcorder for video. If I was more serious about video, I'd buy a more serious video camera, not a DSLR.
So while I respect your suggestion, I wouldn't want to improve video at the cost of still image functionality. You'd probably need a full set of SDM lenses to really overcome the focussing problem, because live AF on anything other than a lens with the motor built into it would just be too slow and noisy.

To be a little more specific, I'm referring to two aspects of video.
1- controls while shooting (frame rate, shutter speed, manual exposure, etc...)
2- quality of final output. Does the video look good (same meaning as "does the picture look good?)

The K-5 did poorly on the first point. Without odd workarounds you couldn't select anything other than ISO and aperture. (However, as others have noted, the final output was very nice) Those controls improved slightly with the K-30 and K-3 but then they failed with the file output....poor compression, codecs... For those of you that shoot stills but not video, think jpegs made from 8bit RAW compared to 12 or 14bit.

[Clavius]

The introduction of the ugly head-phone jack hump but the removal of mechanical video SR in the K-3 does indicate that Pentax doesn't have the foggiest idea of what goes on. So my theory is that they are completely oblivious as it comes to video, but just lucked out with the excellent K-5.

[PANGU_yien]

[/COLOR]
Maybe someone can tell me what the sacrifices made for video are, because I can't think of any, except for the screwed up controls of a Pentax (who seem to bumble around clueless when it comes to video).

This!

[Rondec]

Pentax needs video, because the consumers who use SLRs look for it and wouldn't buy one that didn't have it as a feature,

That said, I don't use it much because I'm not very good at video and video requires quite a bit of work. You have to spend a fair amount of time cutting, editing and putting together clips for anyone besides dear friends not to die of boredom during a video you have created. Still photography is quicker in that I can see what is good and what isn't and I can do pretty quick edits on most things and they are done.

I can't imagine editing 4K video, although I guess it is coming...

[JimC1101]

I wouldn't say that I have an aversion to video on my DSLR, I just don't see it as being that important in a DSLR. When you think about it, most user come up with videos usually shoot quick clips for Youtube postings and for what Pentax includes in their cameras is fine for that. What I don't get is when people will say Pentax needs to improve video and I ask why ? There are a lot of Video cameras out there that are made specifically for the higher end video output that they are needing but I don't think they are saying, that is great but their camcorder needs to add improvements to match DSLR stills. I like that Pentax has HD movie output and I do it use at times on vacation but I have a dedicated movie cam for that also.

[cxdoo]

I understand why the Pentax users in here seem to have an aversion to video. It's a Pentax weak spot. And pointing that out is a very bad think. Should be dealt with immediately with a enormous load of negativity, it seems.

Um, I'm sorry but I don't give a rats ass about what is Pentax weak or strong spot. I don't care about video in a DSLR, period. I own a fine, if old, video camera that I use (rarely) to record video.


Now maybe it's not important what I think, and maybe video should be included because that's what the market demands, but the reason I (and presume many others) don't care/want video has nothing to do with Pentax being strong/weak in it.
FWIW, Pentax is strong in WR and I don't particularly care about that too.

[PANGU_yien]

This is in no way meant to be sarcastic, but why the fascination in video?

I honestly don't get why DSLRs must incorporate videos in their "must-haves". But then again, I don't have a clue as to why people do these "selfies." It must be my age.

Don't worry, it didn't read as sarcasm. I'd say my fascination with video comes from the same reason as my fascination with photography. Conveying an emotion, telling a story, capturing beauty, capturing the decisive moment... seeing the light.
Contrary to what many on PF seem to want to believe, the fundamentals in making video are the same as in making photos. You're just adding the dimension of time in a new way. There's a reason films were first called "motion pictures".

---------- Post added 11-11-14 at 08:24 PM ----------

Um, I'm sorry but I don't give a rats ass about what is Pentax weak or strong spot. I don't care about video in a DSLR, period. I own a fine, if old, video camera that I use (rarely) to record video.


Now maybe it's not important what I think, and maybe video should be included because that's what the market demands, but the reason I (and presume many others) don't care/want video has nothing to do with Pentax being strong/weak in it.
FWIW, Pentax is strong in WR and I don't particularly care about that too.

Fair enough.. what is the reason?

[kadajawi]

The introduction of the ugly head-phone jack hump but the removal of mechanical video SR in the K-3 does indicate that Pentax doesn't have the foggiest idea of what goes on. So my theory is that they are completely oblivious as it comes to video, but just lucked out with the excellent K-5.

This. You summed up my sentiments exactly. It's like they atr trying, but the only source of ideas and knowledge about video is coming from some rather clueless reviews done by stills people.

If only they hired a videographer... or even just a translator to translate our video wish list thread, which should give them a start.

[PANGU_yien]

I understand why the Pentax users in here seem to have an aversion to video. It's a Pentax weak spot. And pointing that out is a very bad think. Should be dealt with immediately with a enormous load of negativity, it seems.

What I don't understand is the aversion Pentax themselves have towards video. Why did they nerf the excellent video capabilities of the K5?

Little personal story about how Pentax shoots themselves in the foot with that aversion: Like many or all here, I'm mainly into still image photography. But our household also has the obligatory video camera. One of those simple little Sony videocams. There's a 16gb onboard memory in there and that's more then enough. The quality seemed to be really ultra good, comparing to the decommisioned tape driven DV cam that I had before, and to cellphone quality... Until I got curious and tried out the video on my K5. WOW! Turns out the output looks freaking good on my big LED TV!! Do we now still take the Sony videocamera along? No way! In fact, my wife wanted the K5 for filming so often that I had to get the K-3. There was no choice. We share lenses. She films, I take pics. We (tried to) switch roles. (But the K-3 video sucks.) Lots of fun. Anyway, that was another point for Pentax over Sony again.

---------- Post added 11-11-14 at 11:31 ----------



Good that you mention refrigerators. Because the image capturing technology behind photography and video are currently so much alike, that I dare to say that the combination makes as much sense as refrigerators with a freezing combination. Same tech, same function why don't do both?

It makes even more sense in cameras, because it doesn't take up any space whatsoever. Having good video capabilities does not affect the size, weight or functioning of the photocamera. It's just one more key ingredient to the survival of the dedicated camera.

I was reading this thread on my phone while I was on the subway this afternoon and you literally took the words right out of my mouth with your response to the fridge analogy!!

[Mikesul]

This may sound like a rant, so please be prepared to forgive me if you're planning to read further. If you just want the final point, skip down to the bottom of my post.

I don't get the negativity toward video in Pentax land.

I suspect that there is very little to zero negativity toward video. It is that many of us are weary of the steady stream of demands that Pentax have better video and declarations that the cameras are somehow flawed if they do not produce video of the quality the posters want. There is some negativity toward that viewpoint. If they improve video without interfering with the still image features we all love I doubt that anyone would complain. But the recent Pentax DSLR cameras (and the Q and K-01)have be still photo gems. Video by all means but many (probably most) of us do not need it. Do not take indifference for negativity. I had great video on my A6000 but that did not influence my difficult decision to sell it.