[Giklab]

So long story short. I paid for this camera, there is a cost to the video features and I thorougly resent paying that money for something I find so frivolous. Th problem with Pentax video is that I have to pay for it whether I want to or not. If they want to bring out a camera with video capabilities for those who want it, go ahead, they'll find out who cares enough about video. What I want is, I want out of paying for the development of video, the inclusion of video capability on my camera, which is after all mine, not Pentax's, and long story short, I do not want to subsidize the development of Pentax video for the whiners on here who want video, and want it subsidized by every Pentax user. Whatever I paid for the video on my camera, Pentax, disable it, and give me my $25 or whatever it cost back.

You guys crying for video are my enemies. What you want will cost me money for something that can be done better on a dedicated system. And the crazy thing about this, is all these people making up marketing excuses and every other kind of mindless drivel for having video aren't shooting video. And the guy who does has used a K-3 for a video, Benjikan, he's not complaining. Really dudes, you're just way over the top on this one. I don't have Sirius radio in my car either. The last thing I need is a bunch of clowns trying to make it standard in every vehicle along with the attendant costs. I see video proponents in the same light. They want it, they want me to help pay for it. The Pentax video tax. What a selfish attitude.

Holy shit.
This isn't meant seriously, I hope? I don't want to start digging a trench...

[GibbyTheMole]

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

I don't get the negativity of a lot of stuff in Pentaxland... I think some people just like to complain.

Getting back to the video thing, I don't use video on my K-x, but I use it quite a bit on my Q. I think it's a handy thing to have, even if you don't use it much.

[AquaDome]

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.

So your Pentax sucks because I don't use video? My Pentax sucks because you didn't buy a video camera?
There's a radio in my truck. It sucks at home-theatre, but I bought it to haul stuff.

[normhead]

If Pentax could leave off the video component and drop the price even 50 bucks, I but it would increase their sales. Everyone has a point and shoot somewhere that does video.

[VisualDarkness]

I want out of paying for the development of video, the inclusion of video capability on my camera, which is after all mine, not Pentax's, and long story short, I do not want to subsidize the development of Pentax video for the whiners on here who want video, and want it subsidized by every Pentax user. Whatever I paid for the video on my camera, Pentax, disable it, and give me my $25 or whatever it cost back.

Yes, the development and hardware costs increases but you're forgetting about the fact that is economies of scale. Since more people are inclined to buy your camera if it got video you can make more of them and therefore the production cost per unit actually lowers. Also development costs are the same no matter how many units you sell, hence the cost per unit for development costs lowers for every unit produced.

All in all, the $25 extra that the hardware cost at first might actually make you end up with a camera at the same price or cheaper than without it. That is without even taking synergy effects of the video development in consideration. This is how mass production and technological advancement works, if it didn't we would be stagnant. Empirically this is true, without a doubt.

[kadajawi]

So your Pentax sucks because I don't use video? My Pentax sucks because you didn't buy a video camera?
There's a radio in my truck. It sucks at home-theatre, but I bought it to haul stuff.

Where the hell did he write that?

I don't need the flash on my DSLR. Do I demand that Pentax removes it, just because I don't need it, and I would rather not have it because that would save space and money? No. Others use it, and if Pentax didn't have it they wouldn't buy the camera.

All cameras are pretty good at stills, the purchasing decision is being done on what else it does, and how good. And most people, when they have the choice between 2 similar cameras, one with video, one without, both costing the same, will pick the one with, even if they don't need it. They might though. In the end that will leave Pentax in a tiny niche of grouchy people averse to technological advances, and they will be left behind.

Just amongst my friends Pentax lost a couple of customers that spend a lot of money because of no video. They'd like the cameras, but the lack of good video is a deal breaker. I doubt they are the only ones. The number of people who buy a camera because of poor video is probably rather small. I want a good stills camera, that also is decent at video. The K-5 does that, the K-3 doesn't. Other brands also have good stills cameras, but they are good at video too. Why would I buy a Pentax instead?

A lack of investment in video (and it would be small to begin with) hurts the brand more than the investment would cost.

---------- Post added 11-11-14 at 15:24 ----------

If Pentax could leave off the video component and drop the price even 50 bucks, I but it would increase their sales. Everyone has a point and shoot somewhere that does video.

None of those, even dedicated video cameras comes close to the quality and look of a decent DSLR though. To get that you are looking at a much, much higher price, and much heavier and bigger gear.

And without video Pentax cameras would be much harder to sell, as they already are, which drives costs up.

[VisualDarkness]

If Pentax could leave off the video component and drop the price even 50 bucks, I but it would increase their sales. Everyone has a point and shoot somewhere that does video.

That won't be true if the quality (value of the sum of the parts in the product) that the targeted consumer is expecting isn't met or exceeded.

Not meeting the expectations of quality results in:
1. A non-interest in the intended market.
2. Leading to lower sales
3. Leading to diminishing economies of scale
4. Push the cost per unit up
5. To keep the marginals the pricing per unit goes up too

All in all you may end up paying the same or even more for a unit with lesser spec.

[Clavius]

Feels unfair to have your preference discarded as fanboism.

My apologies for that. I've encountered numerous threads where mentioning improved video support would end up in a forum flame war.

I'm not even interested in video myself, but I am capable of thinking beyond my own personal preferences and can understand its importance in todays struggling imaging business.

Such discussions always end with the ones against video not being able to answer how it would negatively impact the still image photography capabilities of the camera. Let me check to be safe... Yep, this one has reached that point as well.

[Mikesul]

Holy shit.
This isn't meant seriously, I hope? I don't want to start digging a trench...

Norm is inclined to hyperbole and a bit of satire but his post does reflect the weariness many of us feel with the constant "better video" complaint. The K3 has excellent video for my purposes. If I was serious about video I would get another camera but I would have to give up much of what makes the K3 so special for me.

[JimC1101]

Since this discussion pops up now and again with the same discussions. Here is what I posted in DPR 3 months ago, or we can post another poll.


Here is the post, 3 months ago. I have seen similar post over time but peovple still keep asking about how important video is to Pentaxians so her we go again:


How important is video in your DSLR ?: Pentax SLR Talk Forum: Digital Photography Review


It all started when people were talking about the GH4 and ask when will Pentax do this. 69% said they don't care about video just focus on improving stills.Deja vu all over again. Of course it is opinion only and unscientific but over the years, the polls still seem to show that video is not that important in Pentax cameras.

[Clavius]

So your Pentax sucks because I don't use video? My Pentax sucks because you didn't buy a video camera?
There's a radio in my truck. It sucks at home-theatre, but I bought it to haul stuff.

LOL! I'm not even going to answer that, do you mind?

[kadajawi]

Also most improvements in image quality come from advances in sensor technology... so it doesn't matter too much how much effort Pentax puts into stills. And as afraid as some people here seem to be of anything that has to do with technology and functionality I guess more still functionality isn't wanted either (why do you even care about new cameras?). What you need is refreshed cameras every couple of years. But will you buy every single iteration? I doubt it. In terms of still quality, and I take plenty of stills, a camera from 8 years ago would probably satisfy my needs. A new sale every decade per customer isn't going to cut it, what Pentax needs is a constant stream of people that upgrade every year or two. That can come from video, as every few months a camera is being released that is significantly better at video than the previous best camera... --> people have an incentive to buy a new camera.


In any case, if video didn't matter, why is Canon earning sh*tloads of cash thanks to video, why are people buying their cameras to HACK them in order to get good quality video? Why is Nikon investing into video? Why has Olympus, the "we are focused on stills" company, investing in video? Why Fuji, who said the same? Why are these companies developing firmware updates for cameras already on the market, that significantly improve the video capabilities? Massive improvements to their cameras. Clearly it makes financial sense. Leica for crying out loud is doing video now.


Btw., what Pentaxians want is only one thing... Pentax also wants new customers, which fill their R&D pockets and allow them to come up with wonderful new cameras for stills. I'm sure Pentax will not just ignore stills, no matter how much their marketing department may ask them to do video. Pentax engineers seem to be photographers first and foremost, who make the camera they would like to use themselves. And they want great stills cameras. It's not like there has to be a conflict between those.


The a7S is a great low light shooter... and that resolution that improved the low light capabilities probably came from wanting to deliver great 4K video with it, and ideally for that you have a sensor that is exactly 4K wide.

[PANGU_yien]

I have made one video since I bought my K-3. What it reminded me, was that though I've made dozens, and taught it, I don't like it. On one video, by the time you've edited and added the sound etc. you've spent hours, and often it's watched once or twice and filed.But still my video on my K-3, was fine. I still have video cameras in my closet with 12 hour batteries etc. and I don't use them either. I know that Clavius is going to say, well actually he already did, that I'm just saying that to protect the brand, but he's an insulting arrogant nobody who thinks he knows everything about everybody... I can't believe he pre-emptively insulted my opinion before I even posted. He doesn't even need to read your opinion to start spinning in to something it's not. So really no comment needed on that topic.

So long story short. I paid for this camera, there is a cost to the video features and I thorougly resent paying that money for something I find so frivolous. The problem with Pentax video is that I have to pay for it whether I want to or not. If they want to bring out a camera with video capabilities for those who want it, go ahead, they'll find out who cares enough about video. What I want is, I want out of paying for the development of video, the inclusion of video capability on my camera, which is after all mine, not Pentax's, and long story short, I do not want to subsidize the development of Pentax video for the whiners on here who want video, and want it subsidized by every Pentax user. Whatever I paid for the video on my camera, Pentax, disable it, and give me my $25 or whatever it cost back.

You guys crying for video are my enemies. What you want will cost me money for something that can be done better on a dedicated system. And the crazy thing about this, is all these people making up marketing excuses and every other kind of mindless drivel for having video aren't shooting video. And the guy who does has used a K-3 for a video, Benjikan, he's not complaining. Really dudes, you're just way over the top on this one. I don't have Sirius radio in my car either. The last thing I need is a bunch of clowns trying to make it standard in every vehicle along with the attendant costs. I see video proponents in the same light. They want it, they want me to help pay for it. The Pentax video tax. What a selfish attitude.

SO that's my aversion, I have to pay for it. Now what's the reasoning for why I should pay for something i don't want?

Norm, I'm not your enemy. I read this forum a lot and you post a lot. I do enjoy many of your posts and have appreciated your photography. Really.

You're a good guy but sometimes you're a crotchity bastard. Tell you what...next time I'm in Algonquin I'll bring you 25 bucks to offset all the trouble we "whiners" have caused. I haven't been since I moved from Guelph to Beijing. You can choose cash, beer or wine.

[Clavius]

Since this discussion pops up now and again with the same discussions. Here is what I posted in DPR 3 months ago, or we can post another poll.


Here is the post, 3 months ago. I have seen similar post over time but peovple still keep asking about how important video is to Pentaxians so her we go again:


How important is video in your DSLR ?: Pentax SLR Talk Forum: Digital Photography Review


It all started when people were talking about the GH4 and ask when will Pentax do this. 69% said they don't care about video just focus on improving stills.Deja vu all over again. Of course it is opinion only and unscientific but over the years, the polls still seem to show that video is not that important in Pentax cameras.

People that are interested in video don't choose Pentax. So, when you ask that userbase if they're interested in video, the answer is easy. But how many customers didn't choose the Pentax system because of the bad video support? Pentax already has the best APS-C DSLR system. Just a bit of development and a Pentax camera could be the 5DMKII of APS-C.

[cxdoo]

Hm, maybe we got off wrong because of misinterpretation of other side? I am not actively rooting against Pentax having better videos in their cameras. I just don't care about video.


Given the choice between two identical cameras where one does video additionally I'd


1. If the price is the same, take one with video
2. If there is a price difference, take one without.
3. If one without has better stills performance, at the same price, take one without.