[SSGGeezer]

I miss that lens.

I still ended up paying a bit more than a KEH Exc+ lens they have on the site now. But I prefer the forum since KEH kind of disappointed me the last time I had to return a lens. But they have all kinds of cool colored K-50s for sale that would be a great 2nd body! But you and the dentist broke my monthly budget!

[BigMackCam]

I will say that it is difficult to imagine using a fold out screen in the manner that you mention. If you are close enough to use the touch screen to focus and then back up, the focus will be off. If the goal is simply to take selfies, then that seems a bit limited as well and probably a phone will give better results.

It seems to be quite a popular feature for vloggers (I believe that's the right term - I'm sure I'll be corrected if not ).

Auto focus in video with SLRs is a bit clunky. Pentax and Nikon both have it. I've not read that one implementation is particularly better than the other, but everyone says that if you are shooting video with wide aperture lenses you had best learn to manual focus with video, because the camera will be constantly zooming in and out to try get right focus. Mirrorless do seem significantly better at this, for what it's worth.

Very recent Canon models - e.g. the otherwise-maligned 6D MkII - are apparently quite good in this respect... But, having seen examples, there's still quite a lot of AF hunting. It's far from "immediate"...

[bigdavephoto]

If you have priority on video you better avoid using DSLR altogether as there are many inherited limitations from old that makes it difficult to make video work well on DSLR. AF in video is usually worthless on DSLR, and lenses may not support adjusting aperture during video very well.

.

Actually, if you go and look at some of the higher end Canon, Nikon and Sony, You will see that video is working quite nicely. I think it is Canon that has started to do something called duel pixel autofocus where when you are focused on a subject and using the touch screen on the back of the camera, you can change the focus to something else. Of course, this comes at a price in that, I think, it is only available on the mid price and higher DSLRs.

Also, a lot of small time film makers have been using DSLR to video their project.

If I was into video though, I would still go and buy a video camera just because of some of the drawbacks in video capability's that is in DSLR video.

[northcoastgreg]

Sure one can say if your friends cannot focus a picture use a phone instead, or buy a dedicated videocamera, or buy another brand for action. Well what does it leave Pentax for? The niche is getting increasingly narrow and offers no place for wider usage. It makes the overall impression that there's not much to expect from Pentax especially in aps-c front. Long gone are the days when Pentax was the only brand offering ibis, weather sealing and good image quality. Yes there are some die hard loyalists (I still consider myself being one), but what about attracting new users?

Would it be nice if Pentax could develop better video and tracking AF? Sure, but is it realistic? No, Ricoh doesn't have the resources to do it. Developing high-end video and tracking AF is not a trivial enterprise.

I would challenge this idea that in order to sell cameras, you need off more features. Is it really true that the vast majority of serious photographers are doing intensive video work or require state of the art focus tracking and high fps? What's really the niche? Photographers who need high end, state-of-the-art, stuffed to gills with specs photography devices? Or all those photographers who never post on internet forums and who are just quietly going about their business taking photos and who bought a DSLR in 2012 and who don't see anything on the horizon that will satisfy their needs any better? The biggest complaint I hear from photographers is not that their cameras can't do enough stuff, but that their cameras are too complicated and confusing to operate. My sister is a book cover photographer. When she was in Yosemite to attend her son's wedding, her Nikon D7000 spontaneously defaulted, much to her discomfort, to automated selection of AF points. She had no idea how to fix the problem. It involved diving into the menus, and on many cameras, particularly Nikons, that can be a hazardous business.

Photography magazines and review sites don't seem to have people like my sister's interests in mind. While undoubtedly these cameras we see bursting at the seams with video and AF specs are meeting genuine needs among hobbyist and professional photographers, there is nonetheless a cynical side to this business of chasing specs and wallowing in features many photographers don't need and never will use. Camera companies would like their customers to update their cameras every two or three years, as many did back in the early days of digital photography, when an updated camera actually meant something. So they try to convince photographers that all this fancy technology is important and that a camera that lacks it is somehow wanting. But maybe this narrative, promulgated by camera companies, review sites, and a coterie of photographers with very special requirements, must be challenged. Maybe what's needed is not more cameras that can do 20 fps and AF track a speeding bullet, but cameras that are less complex, that are designed for normal human beings rather than just for technophiles and professionals shooting sports and action photography. In short, there should be room for all kinds of cameras, not just cameras like the Sony A7iii and Alpha A9. In any case, Pentax isn't going to attract new users by out-Sonying Sony. Pentax has to play to its strengths. But ironically, these strengths may be a better fit for a lot of photographers out there whose needs are being ignored in the market by the big companies.

[BigMackCam]

Would it be nice if Pentax could develop better video and tracking AF? Sure, but is it realistic? No, Ricoh doesn't have the resources to do it. Developing high-end video and tracking AF is not a trivial enterprise.

An excellent post in its entirety, Greg - I agree wholeheartedly

[Fogel70]

Actually, if you go and look at some of the higher end Canon, Nikon and Sony, You will see that video is working quite nicely. I think it is Canon that has started to do something called duel pixel autofocus where when you are focused on a subject and using the touch screen on the back of the camera, you can change the focus to something else. Of course, this comes at a price in that, I think, it is only available on the mid price and higher DSLRs

Then you also need lenses designed for smooth AF in video, which few DSLR lenses are. For Nikon it is the AF-P series, and for Canon lenses with STM motor.

Also, a lot of small time film makers have been using DSLR to video their project.

Film makers usually do not rely on AF. It is often too unpredictable for them.

If I was into video though, I would still go and buy a video camera just because of some of the drawbacks in video capability's that is in DSLR video.

[sqrrl]

With regards to Video;
I'm actually ok with the focus in video mode, I tend to use manual focus on anything bigger than a cellphone, and I mainly use the Kp for top down stuff, or at least fixed position filming.
I can handle the screen on the Kp, though it'd be nice if I could flip it right over so it was face in to the body (I do use an external 7" hdmi screen for framing).
I can even handle being stuck in FHD at 30 frames per second, 60fps would be nice, but it's not essential. (EDIT - I'm talking 30fps progressive at FHD - Interpolated or 720p don't count)

I'd personally like some more bit depth and a wider data stream to play with in post (though admittedly it's on a par with most consumer dslr's).
And I'd love it if they eventually implemented stabilisation, I really don't get why they haven't looked at that.

---

Last edited by sqrrl; 08-18-2018 at 02:06 PM. Reason: noted

[parinya-ekparinya]

Like what others already said, Pentax is not going to heavily invest for videography at least for the few upcoming years.

If anything for Pentax to improve, it is definitely the marketing part in my opinion...

[BigMackCam]

Like what others already said, Pentax is not going to heavily invest for videography at least for the few upcoming years.

If anything for Pentax to improve, it is definitely the marketing part in my opinion...

Much as I don't personally need or care about marketing to make my own buying decisions, I actually agree with you. There are so many more potential Pentax enthusiasts out there, if only Ricoh was to make some concerted and continued effort in marketing...

[normhead]

Much as I don't personally need or care about marketing to make my own buying decisions, I actually agree with you. There are so many more potential Pentax enthusiasts out there, if only Ricoh was to make some concerted and continued effort in marketing...

Unfortunately it's also a matter of cost. Would you be willing to pay and extra $25 per Pentax product purchased to pay for that marketing? If not, how much would you be willing to pay?

The original estimate given to Ricoh to create the same presence in the market as Sony, Nikon and Canon was 1.5 billion. That's a lot to spread around among 100,000-200,000 users.

[Rondec]

Actually, if you go and look at some of the higher end Canon, Nikon and Sony, You will see that video is working quite nicely. I think it is Canon that has started to do something called duel pixel autofocus where when you are focused on a subject and using the touch screen on the back of the camera, you can change the focus to something else. Of course, this comes at a price in that, I think, it is only available on the mid price and higher DSLRs.

Also, a lot of small time film makers have been using DSLR to video their project.

If I was into video though, I would still go and buy a video camera just because of some of the drawbacks in video capability's that is in DSLR video.

Using an SLR for video requires some kind of steady cam rig, the right lenses (cine lenses are pretty expensive), and some type of sound capturing device. Of course, if you don't really care about all of those things, then you may actually do better shooting with an actual camcorder. Auto focus is actually the least of the concerns.

There is a reason why I can't watch other folks home movies. It is a lack of editing, poor sound quality, and a shaky cam aspect that makes the presence of auto focus irrelevant.

[BigMackCam]

Unfortunately it's also a matter of cost. Would you be willing to pay and extra $25 per Pentax product purchased to pay for that marketing? If not, how much would you be willing to pay?

The original estimate given to Ricoh to create the same presence in the market as Sony, Nikon and Canon was 1.5 billion. That's a lot to spread around among 100,000-200,000 users.

Fair point.

In the past, I've usually been a little defensive when folks gripe about the lack of Pentax marketing. But I've got to thinking that might be because I consider myself - and many people on these forums - savvy enough to go do the research themselves, rather than relying on magazine and online adverts, viral videos, promotion days at dealers, etc. As time goes by, I'm softening to the idea that Pentax's market might potentially be considerably bigger, if only they did a little more well-designed and equally-well-targeted marketing. Despite what a relatively small proportion of our members would say, most of us know Pentax mostly offers really excellent products (depending on individual requirements) at very competitive prices. Now, maybe Ricoh Imaging doesn't want a huge marketplace - that might be too much for it to fulfill. I get that. But carefully-considered marketing might at least optimise its required market.

Of course, I don't really want to pay $25 more for each product... not even $10 more... especially not $50 or $100 more. But I'm beginning to think I probably would pay a bit more if we saw at least some degree of credible marketing. It might not have any direct impact on my buying decisions, but it could improve the market reach and longevity of the brand, and that would be a good thing.

Either way, though, I'm not going anywhere (much to the disappointment of a select few, I'm sure )...

[clackers]

Yeah, I'd really like the posters above who say they need video so much HD isn't enough to please link to YouTubes or Vimeos of what they've already taken. You don't need 4k to make bad home movies!

Very few photographers do anything but play occasionally with video. That's across all brands in my experience.

We have hard evidence of it on this forum too.

The 2018 survey had 1600 respondents, and found:

"Contrary to what one might believe, 4K video seems like an unwanted feature to the majority, as are touchscreens."

[Fogel70]

There is a reason why I can't watch other folks home movies. It is a lack of editing, poor sound quality, and a shaky cam aspect that makes the presence of auto focus irrelevant.

It's fortunate that we are only interested in photography, because I's usually enough with handful of keepers from each day.

For video you have to nail 25-30 images per second.

[reh321]

Unfortunately it's also a matter of cost. Would you be willing to pay and extra $25 per Pentax product purchased to pay for that marketing? If not, how much would you be willing to pay?

The original estimate given to Ricoh to create the same presence in the market as Sony, Nikon and Canon was 1.5 billion. That's a lot to spread around among 100,000-200,000 users.

I'm not clear on what people mean by "marketing", which is more than just advertising. The greatest weakness I see in Pentax here in the US is their absence from retail outlets. When I purchased my first Pentax in 1979 I lived/worked in Indianapolis and I just spent a lunchtime downtown at Roberts one day; four years later, when I purchased my second Pentax, I purchased it at a "catalog store" (*) here in South Bend. Five years ago I could have purchased a K-50, but only that model, at a Target store {competitor of Walmart}. I have no idea where I could purchase one today if I wanted to touch it before putting my money down.


(*) B&H, with their Superstore and online order system, may be a modern variant of how these stores operated - but their retail area was one relatively small room.