In the heat of the K-7 discussion, many posters have commented that they don't need or even want video capability on their DSLR. On the other hand, many others see video properties as a significant or even deciding factor in selecting a new camera. The video properties can also bee seen as a useless gimmick or perhaps even a change in the camera shooting paradigm.

So what do you think? (I know that no matter what and how many options I choose, they will not be suitable for all )

I personally see video as such an important feature that only properly done video mode (or FF, but that's another story) could make me consider upgrading my K20D to a K-7. I don't want to carry several different cameras around and want to use the DOF control and many lenses for video too.

---

Last edited by emr; 04-30-2009 at 12:18 PM.

[falconeye]

- Do you want a video mode if only a (sparse) subset of the sensor surface is used in DSLR video mode?

I provided an argument why this may be so (in the absence of very fast busses or pixel binning).

This argument was posted here:
https://www.pentaxforums.com/forums/pentax-news-rumors/58822-quality-k-7-video.html

I know that no matter what and how many options I choose, they will not be suitable for all

First poster/reader:

The questions needs to be refined

Perhaps I should've make a poll to refine the poll options first.

[falconeye]

Perhaps I should've make a poll to refine the poll options first.

Of course, yes.
A poll only is as useful as its questions. I've never seen a poll where I wasn't discouraged by the available options.

Seriously, do you think it makes no difference if video from a DSLR would yield the same quality as a camcorder, or better? To me, that's the only and the decisive question!

[Cosmo]

It may be useful for photographer, who want to record clips with their subjects, or something for work. But video in a DSLR will never have anything on a dedicated video camera. Camcorders are going very cheap now, if you want to record home videos, get a camcorder.

I don't want Pentax to have video features, and if they do, I hope they keep it to one camera. I'd much rather they pursue image quality rather than pointless features for taking photos. I would never be swayed to get a camera due to it having video feature.

I voted, it may be a useful feature, but not a major factor.

[woodworm]

I voted gimmick as it means nothing to me and it's a feature I will never, ever use, but my K10D / GX20 have features I never use either and some people probably think they are the best bits of those cameras.

[Mike.P®]

Im quite happy to have it included as long as it has no effect on the stills quality.
Hell, I may even use it.

[Marc Sabatella]

If video can be implemented with *no* negative ramifications to any other aspect of the design and at *no* extra cost, I wouldn't reject a camera just because it had video. But as it is, presence of video generally means some design compromises had to be made to get it working, and some money I'm spending on the camera was spent on this rather than something that actually matters. So a camera with video is going to tend to *less* appealing than one without.

[Venturi]

Personally, I have no use at all for video on a SLR. To me, still photography and videography are two separate mind sets and require two different sets of tools.

For the individual that merely wants a piece of equipment they can use to make snapshots and clips of "life" the marriage of the tech works fine and I have no issue with it at all.

But there's a bit of buzz and lip service being bandied about lately though by some serious pros that has me scratching my head. I can not even fathom the workflow involved to routinely use stills from video as was apparently done for the recent cover of Esquire magazine. "Good" video starts at 24fps - that translates to 1440 frames per minute. But even if the norm was 16fps that's still 960fpm. Now, can you imagine sifting through just 5 minutes of that to get "the shot"?

I know "SLR" video is likely here to stay; I just wish there was going to be an upgrade path that didn't require me to pay for it.

[rant]

Do not put video on DLR's it a stills camera you are fighting the camera to make this work STOP it now. If I want video I'll use a video camera.

Just concentrate on making a very good stills camera not an ego extension for the magpie masses.

[/rant]

[straightshooter]

I chose marketing gimmick also. As Marc said, there are going to have to be compromises to put video into a DSLR and I don't want Pentax compromising anything on my camera. If I want a video camera, I will buy a video camera and if I want a still camera, I will buy a still camera. Personally for me, hybrids are cars, not cameras.

CW

[redpigeons]

[rant]

Do not put video on DLR's it a stills camera you are fighting the camera to make this work STOP it now. If I want video I'll use a video camera.

Just concentrate on making a very good stills camera not an ego extension for the magpie masses.

[/rant]

I remeber when I said that I dont need an MP3 player BC I have a CD player

Hack I even remember when I said digital cameras are a gimmick and it will never win over film .

I would check this poll in 2 years

[Venturi]

You'll get the same answer from me, red.

My phone is a phone, not a pager, not a camera, not a pda, not a browser. It is a person-to-person voice communication device.

I remeber when I said that I dont need an MP3 player BC I have a CD player

Hack I even remember when I said digital cameras are a gimmick and it will never win over film .

I would check this poll in 2 years

I've done my fair share of video work as well. I think I'll stick to my convictions.

Don't get my started on mp3, it should never have been implemented. There are much better encoding algorithms available.

[mrt10x]

I would hate to think I am paying a 10-20% premium for the capability,,,but if it only increases the cost of the camera by a small margin..why not.