[Metalwizards]

I have a decent selection of pentax cameras and lenses, but I find them rather inadequate for video - Pentax is just a stills focused brand, who lags behind when it comes to video quality and features

Do you any of you shoot video with other brands? If so, what are your experiences?

[Steve.Ledger]

I think it depends on the style of video you are interested in shooting.
If you're looking for huge depth of field, then it's probably better to go for a smaller sensor type like the GH4.
But for shallow DoF cinematic style video, the Pentax systems seem adequate. I've seen good results from skilled videographers on this and other forums.
If you already have a decent selection of Pentax cams and lenses it would seem an expensive exercise to jump to another system though..

[roberrl]

I have faced this dilemma as well. Although I'm very happy with results from my K-01 most of the time. I just bought a Sony NEX-5 body and K-mount adapter. So far the results are inconclusive although I haven't done an exhaustive comparison. My initial reaction is Sony video quality is somewhat better, Pentax useability much better. Single biggest benefit of the Sony is the articulating screen but we should be seeing that on a Pentax soon if the pix from CES are to be believed.

[johnmflores]

I shoot video with a hacked GH2, which is still better than anything Pentax has. I'll often use Pentax glass via an adapter.

You can get DOF with M43 if you mind you camera-subject-background relationship.

[CDW]

When I owned K5, K3 bodies, I found them quite good for producing time lapse clips, not so good for actual video. I use a GH4 with a generic no-name adapter I purchased on eBay, when I want to use K mount lenses. The video quality and capabilities of the GH4 (1080P or 4K) pretty much surpass anything available from a currently available DSLR, particularly if documentary/nature videos are of prime interest. If you're wanting a more cinematic look with precise control of DOF, you may prefer to give up some qualities and go for a larger sensor body. But DOF control is possible with m4/3 sensors, as others have pointed out, it just takes a bit more care in lens selection and staging of the shoot.

The GH4 is my prime camera for video and more casual still shooting, with a 645Z for serious landscape/nature still work. The video produced by the 645Z is essentially unusable for any serious video project.

[Na Horuk]

I think Canon is the best for video in the DSLR world. But it will cost you. Canon shooters also like to use Pentax glass. You can even find for sale Pentax glass that was declicked and comes with Canon adapter.

Edit: Also, look at what you need. What is it that you want, but Pentax doesn't deliver for you? High speed videography? 4k? Different codecs? External mic jack? Get the stuff that you think you need and your current cameras don't have.

[Obin Robinson]

I think you should take a look at this:


https://www.blackmagicdesign.com/products/blackmagicpocketcinemacamera


THAT is a high quality video camera and at that price it's a steal. You couldn't dream of paying $30,000 for a camera like that only a few years ago. Here's the key:

Blackmagic Pocket Cinema Camera records into high quality ProRes 422 (HQ) and lossless compressed CinemaDNG files so you retain fine image detail with wide dynamic range for amazing images. This means that Blackmagic Pocket Cinema Camera is one of the few cameras to support true open file formats, so you're not locked into a strange file format that your editing software can't handle.

I would seriously consider something like that for video.


obin

[Metalwizards]

I think Canon is the best for video in the DSLR world. But it will cost you. Canon shooters also like to use Pentax glass. You can even find for sale Pentax glass that was declicked and comes with Canon adapter.

Edit: Also, look at what you need. What is it that you want, but Pentax doesn't deliver for you? High speed videography? 4k? Different codecs? External mic jack? Get the stuff that you think you need and your current cameras don't have.

I do professional videography, and while my k-01 and k-r do an excellent job with stills, video files have a LOW native bit rate, even at the highest settings, and footage almost always looks very soft. If the scene is excellently lit, then the image looks alright, but more natural light creates a soft image with tons, I mean tons, of moire. It's just not an excellent source for video in my estimation, reviews for more current bodies don't seem to fair much better.

Here is a very silly video to give you an idea of the softness and moire I am speaking off -

You Tube

You Tube

I do like the focus peaking however.

[grispie]

But for shallow DoF cinematic style video, the Pentax systems seem adequate.

I'd agree with this. especially if you already have a stack of pentax lenses.
However, for wide & large depth of field shots with lots of details, I am considering to buy an extra camera with a smaller sensor that can go along with it & does a better job at that. Something smallish that can serve as take-with-me photocamera as well. Not sure yet what is on the market though. Maybe something from panasonic or sony.

IMO the K3 fares a lot better than the k01..

[normhead]

Have you considered a dedicated Video camera? I assume they still make them. But, when I shot a lot of video that's what I used. A DSLR is always in the "ya you can use that, but why would you?" category as far as I'm concerned.

[Obin Robinson]

Have you considered a dedicated Video camera? I assume they still make them. But, when I shot a lot of video that's what I used. A DSLR is always in the "ya you can use that, but why would you?" category as far as I'm concerned.

I agree 100%. The Blackmagic Pocket Cinema is less than the cost of many DSLRs and it does video in non-proprietary formats as well. They have a better dynamic range than a DSLR and will produce true cinema quality video. They are basically taking 24 raw frames a second rather than just a compressed file. If I was in the market for a cinema camera I would want to go with something long term rather than just a stopgap solution. You can find them for under $800 used.


obin

[grispie]

DSLR is always in the "ya you can use that, but why would you?" category as far as I'm concerned.

Because they have a larger sensor & you might want to play with shallow depth of field and they are usually more capable in low light.
If not, there are indeed some decent videocameras in the market.

I don't think you referred to the black magic cinema camera with videocamera. But for someone really "video-cinema" oriented, this is a valid option. You'll need to spend more than just the price of the body though to get started.

[mamethot]

Having so much invested in Pentax K mount glass would be a valid reason to consider using Pentax gear for video.

Especially since Ricoh advertises "professional H.264 video capture" on their site for the K-3.

IMHO.

I bought a GH3 with a couple of lenses for when I want to shoot better video. Completely satisfied. I now use it for snapshot as well, the Pentax lenses are used with an adapter and the Pentax body used for stills only.

[monochrome]

My daughter can send me a like new Sony HXRMC2500 that was to be used for remote location tests. If I wanted to do video I'd just do video.



I know it doesn't answer the question the OP asked but that's the way I roll. Even B&H new is priced in dSLR List Price ballpark.

[johnmflores]

A stills camera (DSLR or mirroless) is not nearly as convenient as a dedicated video camera, requiring all sorts of attachments to replicate some of a video camera's features.


So far yet so close... by john m flores, on Flickr


And they're particularly poorly suited to fast-moving run and gun type shooting. But there's no denying that it can give you a look that you can't get elsewhere. Here are some stills from GH2 videos that used adapted Pentax glass


Video Still: Daniel Sanabria, Marine Veteran by john m flores, on Flickr


Screenshot - Panasonic GH2 with Pentax M28mm F3.5 by john m flores, on Flickr