[kadajawi]

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.

Thank you. I think that's what many customers think when they are buying a camera, and really, there isn't much to differentiate Pentax from other cameras in terms of stills. They all are good at this point, with only small advantages for this brand or for that brand. So the thought of what if I do want to shoot a video at some point appears. Smaller economies of scale for the brand without video and little cost for video will make the brand without be more expensive...


The Df was slammed because it omitted video without any need to do so. The camera didn't get cheaper to make or anything...


It's a bit like the K-3... while it does have video, 2 more options that would probably have been easy to do would have greatly enhanced the camera. It wouldn't have hurt anyone... certainly less than removing the AF switch (I don't like the position of the AF button now... it was absolutely perfect on the K-5...) for a video switch... another button near the shutter that's easy enough to reach would have satisfied me. Or even making the Fx button at the side assignable to start a video recording.


Pentax needs to know that superficial additions to the camera like a headphone jack and some video switches don't make it into a usable video tool... the underlying quality is what counts, if you screw up that you can put it into the shape of a C300 and no one will give a f***.

---

Last edited by kadajawi; 11-11-2014 at 10:17 AM.

[VisualDarkness]

Thank you. I think that's what many customers think when they are buying a camera, and really, there isn't much to differentiate Pentax from other cameras in terms of stills. They all are good at this point, with only small advantages for this brand or for that brand. So the thought of what if I do want to shoot a video at some point appears. Smaller economies of scale for the brand without video and little cost for video will make the brand without be more expensive...

Basic microeconomics!

[roberrl]

Let's put this a different way. I have a nice Pentax still camera which has many facilities I will never touch - mostly down in the custom menus. Then I think " I have a device which has fabulous lenses, a sensor, and a memory card; I can record excellent stills but can decent video really be so difficult; after all my 100 $ P&S can do it". Any video camera which can offer the same optical quality is way beyond my means. I'm only suggesting that video may be as valuable to me as HDR may be to others so I find it amazing that this debate generates so much heat. The fact that 90% of users won't use a function hasn't stopped manufacturers adding functions to almost every domestic device; for example our washing machine has so many programs you need an IT degree to program it and the microwave will do almost everything except eat the food for you if you can only find the manual.

[normhead]

You're a good guy but sometimes you're a crotchity bastard.

Guilty as charged, now what were you saying again?

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.

If you ever do make it, we have a cabin out the back we let people use. Anyone coming up to do some photography or just take in the park is free to use it. We do like it if you bring us something, but there's no official charge. Whiners are equally welcome.

[Rondec]

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, the cost of having no video is greater than the cost of having video. Assuming that you are using a modern CMOS sensor, every one of them out there since the K7 is capable of video. The codecs are now sunk cost as well -- it costs next to nothing to shoe horn them into the next body. This is all software, remember and software that Pentax hasn't spent a whole lot of time on.

On the other hand, if Pentax released a K1 full frame body -- equivalent in every way to a D810, except that for some reason there was no video enabled, the number of sales would decrease significantly -- actually increasing the cost of the camera. It is pointless to rail against a feature that you don't use, but that is expected.

I agree with those who say that if Pentax has video (and they will), then do it right. They don't even have to develop it themselves. Just license something good from Fuji or Sony and run with it. It adds a few of dollars cost to an SLR and it is harmless if you don't use it.

[normhead]

Norm, the cost of having no video is greater than the cost of having video. Assuming that you are using a modern CMOS sensor, every one of them out there since the K7 is capable of video. The codecs are now sunk cost as well -- it costs next to nothing to shoe horn them into the next body. This is all software, remember and software that Pentax hasn't spent a whole lot of time on.

On the other hand, if Pentax released a K1 full frame body -- equivalent in every way to a D810, except that for some reason there was no video enabled, the number of sales would decrease significantly -- actually increasing the cost of the camera. It is pointless to rail against a feature that you don't use, but that is expected.

I agree with those who say that if Pentax has video (and they will), then do it right. They don't even have to develop it themselves. Just license something good from Fuji or Sony and run with it. It adds a few of dollars cost to an SLR and it is harmless if you don't use it.

You mean I can't even get $25 off? Man that sucks...

[kadajawi]

You mean I can't even get $25 off? Man that sucks...

Just be glad if video actually drives down the cost of your camera and makes Pentax profitable. :P


And hope that Pentax will offer a way to deactivate the functionality and reassign buttons if not needed. I really think they should do that...


Hopefully Pentax will ask working videographers, cinematographers and even hobbyists such as most video people on this forum like me for example as to what we would like to see (in general, ask for feedback, please?! Where's my composition adjustment bracketing? Easy way to shoot wider occasionally without having to buy a new camera), and implement those that are most wanted and easy enough to add. It's mostly software. Or even let Magic Lantern do the work.


Good video functionality doesn't have to be expensive (Canon isn't even trying, they try to stop it from happening, and still people, unpaid, hack their firmwares to unlock those features and even implement them from scratch), and it will make the camera more interesting to more people, so development costs can be spread more, driving down costs, and making more obscure lenses viable. Video people love their high quality primes... isn't that what Pentax is great at?

[stevebrot]

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.

The negativity toward video in Pentax land is almost exclusively the result of a few very vocal people who are distressed that Pentax's implementation does not meet their expectations. The rest of us are either happy with the implementation or don't use it or don't care.

To be blunt, most of us are quite happy with the video implementation. It is a non-issue.

For those who are unhappy, I suggest they buy the (non-existent) product that does meet their needs and pocketbook.


Steve

[drypenn]

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.

Not always the case with technology. In a similar but quite different case, Android phones (specifically Samsung) keeps adding software, various 1001 sensors, on their phones (literally almost everything but the proverbial kitchen sink), and their margins are getting thinner, and thinner by the unit because their costs in relation to their selling price (variable costs ratio) keeps getting squeezed, being unable to increase their prices vis-a-vis competition. Apple, on the other hand, plays the laggard in the specs department, yet because it is arguably the best in doing what it does best (intuitive, minimalist design and interface, creating and disrupting product lines), it commands higher prices, and better margin despite trailing Samsung in market share now.

Can Pentax be the best in "still shots" and continue ignoring the video crowd? Will that be enough to develop a niche market allowing it survive with a healthy bottom line? Fuji seems to be running this strategy nowadays, realizing the futility of engaging the two behemoths at cut throat competition.

If Pentax incorporates video, I fear that it will still play catch-up, and at best, may be good enough only to retain the Pentax fans who wants video. I strongly doubt whether those sitting on the fences will suddenly decide to get Pentax over a Canon/Nikon just because Pentax camera has suddenly improved video capabilities.

At the end of the day, the business model of the DSLR is not with the camera per se. I believe that the general vision of all DSLR manufacturers is to hook users with the body, and encourage them to continue buying lenses where better margins are made. This was how Canon was built (thanks to the L). Just maybe, if Pentax can focus at developing and projecting an image that it is the best at taking stills, and back it up with the development of better AF, faster glasses, a lot of people here will be happier (to the chagrin of the wives.)

[kadajawi]

@drypenn: I think Pentax could easily offer competitive, if not better video than Canikon. Canon doesn't even want to offer good video!

At least anecdotally Pentax could have had one or two more sales (a significant portion of my friends that do spend a lot on cameras), if they had offered competitive video. They have the lead on APS-C stills and offered what these guys wanted. Needless to say that those sales didn't go to Canikon.

All I'd like to see is a bit more effort from Pentax, acknowledging that some users care about video and want some more advanced software features and controls, and the ability to deactivate it for those who don't want it.

[magkelly]

To me DSLR's and similar cameras they're made for still work. Even with all the improvements in video in DSLR's they still can't hardly touch what a good video cam can do. What's the limit you can record before you risk burning the camera out? Sure, you can do it longer than you used to be able to but still it's not a video camera but you can't take it out and film for 2 or 3 hours straight with one. It's just a convenience thing really but people do use their DSLR cameras as if they were video cameras and then complain when they overwork their DSLR's or can't get the same results they could if they were filming with a proper video cam. Whatever.

I don't disdain it. I just have no use for it really. If I was going to make a short film or something I'd use a video camera. It's the right tool for the job, but I'm not a video person. I'm a still photographer and as such any video capacity in my cameras is just a non essential for me. If you need it and like it use it, but I don't think it's wrong to regard it as a non-important item if all you do is still photography. I don't use half the capacity of my cell phone either. I rarely if ever use the camera, or dl applications or games and I have yet to text on it. I use it for phone calls and occasionally I'll set an alarm for myself, but that's about it. It's just not big enough for me to do anything else on it comfortably. I want to play a game, IM someone, read, etc, I'm still reaching for a tablet or my PC. Just because my new phone can do something doesn't mean I want it to or need it to. I'm the same with my cameras. I just want to use them to take pics, that's it.

[kadajawi]

To me DSLR's and similar cameras they're made for still work. Even with all the improvements in video in DSLR's they still can't hardly touch what a good video cam can do. What's the limit you can record before you risk burning the camera out? Sure, you can do it longer than you used to be able to but still it's not a video camera but you can't take it out and film for 2 or 3 hours straight with one. It's just a convenience thing really but people do use their DSLR cameras as if they were video cameras and then complain when they overwork their DSLR's or can't get the same results they could if they were filming with a proper video cam. Whatever.

I don't disdain it. I just have no use for it really. If I was going to make a short film or something I'd use a video camera. It's the right tool for the job, but I'm not a video person. I'm a still photographer and as such any video capacity in my cameras is just a non essential for me. If you need it and like it use it, but I don't think it's wrong to regard it as a non-important item if all you do is still photography. I don't use half the capacity of my cell phone either. I rarely if ever use the camera, or dl applications or games and I have yet to text on it. I use it for phone calls and occasionally I'll set an alarm for myself, but that's about it. It's just not big enough for me to do anything else on it comfortably. I want to play a game, IM someone, read, etc, I'm still reaching for a tablet or my PC. Just because my new phone can do something doesn't mean I want it to or need it to. I'm the same with my cameras. I just want to use them to take pics, that's it.

35mm film cameras take video for at most 12 minutes. And, a APS-C sensor has the same size as 35mm film, and uses similar lenses. You can not do that with a proper video cam, at least not those in the consumer field. If we are talking professional cinema camera, yes, they do have the look. They save videos onto SSD drives that costs hundreds if not thousands of dollars, and you can fit a couple of minutes on one. Let alone that a camera like that will cost you more than a really nice car.


For the regular consumer who just wants to aim at something, let the autofocus do everything, and record for hours, yes, a DSLR is a very bad idea. But for those who are a bit more ambitious but don't have the big bucks, DSLRs are it. You can get a rather filmic look with a DSLR, and with a video camera, ... not so easy. It gets expensive very fast. Essentially you are saying... get a point & shoot for stills. Why do you need a DSLR? A point and shoot or a phone takes photos too, and you don't have to bother with post processing, or settings in the camera, and it's lighter and more convenient...


Basically a video DSLR lets people try and be filmmakers. Be ambitious about what they make, and take things into control. People make TV shows with them, they make short films and movies, I've even seen them being used for documentaries etc. on TV (and some of the content you see on TV was shot on DSLRs, though I guess they are moving more and more towards something like the C cameras from Canon, as they have the budget for that). I'm not a filmmaker, but I enjoy the look a lot, and I have seen what consumer camcorders can do... unfortunately they give a very video look, with blown out highlights, awful dynamic range, ... well, at least they are easier to use.

Would you be happy with a 1/2.3" sensor for your photography? If not, why should we be with a 1/6" sensor (my phone in comparison has 1/3")? Yup, that's what $1500 buys you. Granted there are cameras in that price range that have bigger sensors, but at the very most it's 1/2.3". Even professional gear tops out at something like 2/3", unless you go for cinema cameras, which are basically DSLRs in a more video form factor.

And new DSLRs don't line skip anymore, so the whole big sensor is being used, giving you plenty of dynamic range, light sensitivity, sharpness, ...

[Giklab]

You Tube

You Tube

I'm just going to leave this here. Food for thought.
Also, I agree with kadajawi, especially the last three paragraphs.

[normhead]

If what you want to do is make movies, go do it, we have a whole section dedicated to it. Pentax already does that. You'll notice, not everyone is interested. Pentax offers folks the chance to come film makers. Most people don't even explore that. I've seen very few Pentax made videos posted, it just isn't their market. Whether or not it could be, that's speculation. Whether or not it would be good for them, that's also speculation. I'm starting to feel about video like I feel about some still guys. Quit yakking and go shoot. I actually have a video posted on the site somewhere. Used my opportunity to become a film maker. I did just fine with my K-3. I know, all the experts here need more and better, so I'll let them go on about what Pentax has to have, because Pentax is holding them back, that rotten Pentax. Pentax is doomed.
Pentax Film SLR Discussion - PentaxForums.com

[kadajawi]

If what you want to do is make movies, go do it,
Pentax Film SLR Discussion - PentaxForums.com

Not sure I understand.


Anyway, we are just trying to explain why someone would rather use a DSLR than a video camera for videos, because several comments seem to show a lack of understanding ("buy a video camera..."). Mainly because the quality is better, even though it is less convenient. There is more control over the look, and it has a "better" look to it. Video cameras are great for non serious use/for convenience, but once you want to step up the game a DSLR or mirrorless camera is the way to go... from there there are steps up too, but they cost an arm and a leg.


And as long as it doesn't hurt the stills capabilities and broadens the possible customer base, I mean, what's wrong with that?


Some things that come from video, but help stills, are for example the ability to capture photos completely quiet, and without using the shutter. At the moment rolling shutter is a problem, but sensors get faster.
Or you might soon be able to shoot short bursts of 4K video, with the ability to quickly go through to find the perfect moment (think sports photography for example).
PDAF on the sensor... at least for mirrorless cameras that means more choice of AF points that are also much smaller, thus it's easier to judge if you hit the right spot. Also, object tracking becomes possible.
General performance increases when it comes from transfering data from the sensor to the processor, and faster processors, though yes, the hard coded parts that encode video may not help too much.
Quieter AF motors.
Better live view with things such as focus peaking.


IIRC that video that Giklab posted doesn't even go into mirrorless or DSLR cameras... the quality that those offer _can_ be leaps and bounds ahead of a video camera. At some point I have posted screen grabs from a $1500-ish 2012 Panasonic top of the line consumer camcorder, and from my Pentax K-5, both shooting video in broad daylight at the same time. Even under such conditions the output from the K-5 looks much, much better in every way, shape or form. More aliasing on the Panasonic, ridiculous oversharpening, the color of the sky changes into turquoise as the sensor just can't cope with the dynamic range... and it wasn't even a challenging scene, I've seen much worse from that camera. Admittedly the Pentax wasn't too sharp, but the 18-55 didn't help, and I turned down sharpening. The Panasonic is nice to use, it can compress video really well, can record for hours without problems, it has a ridiculously good stabilizer (though it does look too artificial IMHO). It has reasonably good audio too, even in surround. But as far as image quality goes? No competition. At all. My ancient K-5 just kills it, let alone the output of say a Nikon D5300 (not to mention a GH4 or (probably) a NX1).


Ah, now you make more sense, normhead, though that link went to the wrong section (film, as in 35mm analog...). I think, and so do all the other brands, that going after video people too helps them sell cameras, and brands that didn't think so in the first place have changed their mind apparently (just look at Olympus). The thing is, the K-3 shows Pentax did actually try to do something decent, but for some reason they screwed up in other areas. Yes, competitors may not have been much better back then either, but Pentax had the potential to do something better, something that can beat the competition, and the hardware, and even most of the software was already there. Heck, they can still do it via a firmware update, as other brands do it these days. THAT is the frustrating thing. The K-3 could have been a great tool, beating Canikon, but Pentax has chosen to limit it. Makes little sense... The hope is that at some point, Pentax will actually listen und unlock what we would like to have.


Don't worry, I shoot plenty of video, though I rarely edit and upload it.