Originally posted by normhead He said weddings. OK, so what happens when you're at the magic moment, the ring is about to be placed on the Bride's finger and you want both stills and video?
At a wedding, one camera just doesn't cut it.
Resolution isn't everything? Yes but it's not insignificant either. Nor is the dynamic range issue. In fact, given that I have some very nice video taken with my K-3, I'd propose that anyone with decent videography skills can do video with a K-3. There is just nothing you can do to make up for lack of resolution and dynamic range when you go to a Canon system. And I can point you at a couple of folks who switched from Canon to Nikon recently (at significant cost) based on those two issues. Lack of Dynamic Range and Resolution. Those are issues real photographers change systems for. Lack of video that's idiot proof... not so much.
I'm not really sure what your angle is in defending this guy.
Fair enough. Maybe record 4K video and grab stills? That could work, yes, it's just 8 MP, but that's not too bad.
What I did see was a wedding photography company that came with several people, one shooting video with a Nikon DSLR on a glidecam, the rest mostly shooting stills on Nikon DSLRs, but also video at times. That way they could cover different angles when editing it all together, and the footage matches up nicely.
From 20 to 24 MP the difference isn't big, I am using 16 MP and am perfectly happy with it. Before that I had 6, and that was fine too usually. Mind you I don't crop so much.
I'm not saying that the K-3 is a terrible camera for video, I do like the image a lot. The way it looks. However, the encoder is pretty bad, and the bitrate is too low etc. The K-5 didn't have a great encoder either, but they threw 4 times the bits on it, and the result is really nice. I'm sure the K-3 could do the same. The lack of SR is a shame, because while most others don't have that either, for them it would mean new hardware, for Pentax it would mean a small firmware update. The hardware is there already. It certainly is useful when you're not shooting with stabilizing gear.
I don't really defend this guy. His choice of Canon is odd. If he really wants to do better video and decent stills, then he should be going to Sony, Samsung, Olympus or Panasonic (with the latter two being a step down in terms of stills). What I do say is that Pentax should hopefully invest a little bit, really just a little bit into video... especially in finding out what videographers want. That could help them move cameras and give them exposure to the public.
Canon does need to up their sensors, I agree. Not that they are terrible, those cameras are perfectly capable, but the competitors are just better. (Which neatly summarizes video on Pentax.)
I can point you to rich hobbyists who did switch to Panasonic and Sony from Nikon and Canon because of video.