[Steve.Ledger]

You know how I expressed my disappointment? I bought a Panasonic. And then another. And then 3 primes. And then 2 more bodies. And then 2 zooms. And then another body. And now I'm thinking that I can do what I need with a pair of GX8s and F2.8 zooms. Pentax not only lost out on a bunch of money from me already but may lose me altogether. My inertia may be with Pentax but not my loyalty. My loyalty is to the stills and videos that I produce that have my name on them, not Pentax's or Panasonic's..

^ This...

But I went with Olympus..

[grispie]

Edit: I do hope the OP of this thread has gotten a useful answer to his question...

I think so. Somewhere in the beginning of this thread, before things got out of control :-)
But a healthy discussion is always fine.

i do think it shows the dissapointment to the fact that the K-1 has not made progress in video vs the K3. Something we all seem to have in common. I also believe it is an industry 'no can do'. And i am not expecting them to make a video beast.

For me, the K3 made a progress vs the prior cameras (although with some backstep on the sr front, which does really not matter to me, but does to a lot of people it seems). And as far as i'm aware, the K-1 hasn't at all.

Despite the issues of a pentax for video, whenever i projected something at my academy or some small festival, i almost always get questioned on what camera i used. Really strange.

You know how I expressed my disappointment? I bought a Panasonic. And then another. And then 3 primes. And then 2 more bodies. And then 2 zooms. And then another body. And now I'm thinking that I can do what I need with a pair of GX8s and F2.8 zooms. Pentax not only lost out on a bunch of money from me already but may lose me altogether. My inertia may be with Pentax but not my loyalty. My loyalty is to the stills and videos that I produce that have my name on them, not Pentax's or Panasonic's.

I'm not telling you to leave Pentax; that's totally up to you. But I do find it ironic that you are choosing to stay with a company that you clearly think is quite short-sighted and stupid.

p.s. - You made up more numbers again. You have no idea if designing this new SR system to support video (thus be active for up to 25 minutes at a time or longer instead of the shorter duration that it is needed for stills camera) would require more or larger electromagnets or more heat sinks or more/larger/faster angular velocity sensors or whatever. You have no idea how this would affect the size of the components which might affect the size of the body. You have no idea if having SR active during video would require a customized Milbeau CPU or a custom ASIC to feed a standard Milbeau an already-stabilized video stream. You have no idea if having an SR system active for up to 25 minutes while recording video would require changes/upgrades to the power circuitry to support FF 60FPS video capture and SR and the costs of such upgrades.

It looks like you skimmed over a patent application or something to learn the names of some of the parts involved, but the fact that you say things like "feed an already-stabilized video stream" indicates that you really have no idea how this kind of stabilization actually works.

You ignored a comment previously in the thread that pointed out that SR works in live view on the K-3. If this is also true on the K-1, then you have your undeniable answer as to whether it was disabled in video mode on a whim or because of some imaginary technical obstacle.

Let's face it, the only reason Pentax ever had sensor shift in video mode was because it was 'free' once they had sensor shift at all. This is also why they didn't hesitate to disable it at the first complaint. It took zero engineering.

I don't know why you're so hell bent on making a mountain out of that mole-hill.

If you can take 30 minutes worth of 30 second SR'd still exposures, then you could do 30 minutes of video. Ditto, if you could sit in live view for 30 minutes with SR. You don't even have to take my word for it! A little logic goes a long way!

And my K-5 only records video for ~5 minutes at a time anyway. The new Nikon flagship D5 can only record three minutes! Even if heat were a concern, it wouldn't be enough of one to kill such an important feature on a technical basis.

Why try to obscure the facts?

[kadajawi]

Hey, there is no reason to be rude about it! And calling me ignorant is a bit of stretch. I am most certainly not the most technically inclined person on this forum, but I do work as full-time journalist for a broadcasting station. Part of that is working with either a camera man with ENG-cam ore as video journalist with a small, but pro Sony cam PMW-100 (PMW100) : Product Overview : Netherlands : Sony Professional. Although the bit rate isn't that good on my K-3 the editors love the look and the sharpness of the material they get from it. It has the DSLR look and the DA*16-50 is far sharper then the permanently attached lens on the Sony. I also use the K-3 for a art project. The material is for web-use only. Working within the possibilities of the camera has earned me multiple pay checks. And yes I only shoot from a tripod. No thrills, almost no pans, tilts, but just plain old story telling.



Most current Pentax users probably are already used to the way Pentax handles video and care more about stills than video. Perhaps it is a weak point in attracting new users. But the combination of the price and specs of the K-1 could be enough to overcome that hurdle.

Edit: I do hope the OP of this thread has gotten a useful answer to his question...

Yeah. I could work my way around the limitations. Or I could get a camera that has the same limitations, but doesn't give me a cropped view. That gives me less compression artifacts. And an image that can be graded better. Probably at a lower price point.

I maintain that Pentax could make a camera that, while not amazing and world changing, would be competitive. That has a couple of short comings, but excels in other areas so much that it is a viable choice and worth considering. What Pentax does instead is be sub par at pretty much everything, without having an advantage.

Yes, the K-3 can give a beautiful image, but these days, so can others.

As to johns conspiracy theory that Pentax can't provide SR for other reasons... I wouldn't be surprised if that was indeed true, though judging by how reliable and how well the system works in the K-5 I'm more inclined to think of some contracts between Pentax and Sony... yes, Pentax may use Sony sensors, but they aren't allowed to make it good at video. So that Sony has it's niche. Possible, I suppose. But otherwise, giving the explanation that they are stupid and too ignorant to take customer feedback/dumb to ask customers, may not be better than to admit that there are actual technical reasons, valid reasons. So what if they admitted the mechanism won't be able to survive constant use for months, if not years. It's not going to matter to stills photographers, who don't keep the mechanism active for so long. Ever. So what if they admitted that the SR mechanism during prolonged use heats up and would cause issues. How is that any worse than saying they don't listen to their customers? Again, for stills photographers it doesn't matter if SR produces a bit of heat.

Besides: Why would you be allowed to use SR in live view, if there are any issues with heat, longevity etc.? I've kept my camera in live view for a long time, and I can't be the only one.

john: A couple of people leaving the brand, and many others not buying into the brand, won't be noticed by Pentax. They need to know WHY it happens. Only then can they improve.

Panasonic doesn't have the tech/interest in doing a video mode that I'd want. Canon and Nikon don't have either. All of them want to sell expensive lenses. Sony has no clue about user interface, IMHO (or aims them at people who are very clearly not me). Olympus may eventually end up offering something I really want, but there's still the small sensor, and that is never going to change). Samsung has given up. Who is left? Fuji? Leica? Pentax has the right hardware to make me happy, they just need to work a little on the firmware. Still, they are probably closest to making the camera I want, and I would buy. The self imposed limitations however make it a bad choice for me. One that could be changed relatively easily, but they don't want to.

If Pentax had done just a bit more with the K-1, I'd be saving money right now to get it as soon as possible.

"You have no idea if having SR active during video would require a customized Milbeau CPU or a custom ASIC to feed a standard Milbeau an already-stabilized video stream."
?!?! It would not be an issue at all. Users have been shooting with a OIS lens on a K-3 before, and it works. No need for a customized Milbeaut. Besides, the K-3 DOES have SR active during video. It simply does. It is called live view. Live view is a video feed. The only difference is that it is not going to the encoder, but to the display. And gets an overlay along the way. If it had clean HDMI, just set the camera to live view and record from there. Beautifully stabilized video.

Again, if there were technical limitations, they wouldn't allow it in live view. They do, so... case closed.

Btw., Nikon also uses Milbeaut processors, which most likely also have the stabilizing feature. They don't use it. It would actually be an improvement if Pentax didn't offer Movie SR.

There's no way the K-1 could do higher frame rates or higher resolutions. Fine. Perhaps there's no way it can give clean HDMI, perhaps there is and they couldn't be bothered to implement it. But a picture profile that is flat? I can almost do it with the picture profile settings in the camera. It only requires a bit more work. Activating SR? After all the reasons given, nah. Still just flicking a switch. If there are indeed disadvantages, such as noise, or perhaps heat, then just put that in the manual. Or on screen. Users can decide what they want.

@kawajawi,

Yeah. I think the reason this is so aggravating is that Pentax is so close to ticking all the boxes, but stops just short for what can only be (to us consumers) profoundly stupid reasons.

Attempts invent justifiable reasons that Pentax would do this are just attempts to rationalize this failure in a way that can be accepted without the above mentioned aggravation. I get why someone would do that, but it does show a lack of self-awareness...

For video, it's like they built the entire camera and just decided to leave out the sensor, because it might get dusty. Well, gee, thanks Pentax. What a lovely paperweight.

Moving to Sony will be a rather depressing compromise for me. Here we are, holding out our money for Pentax (despite the fact that the photo/video world at large thinks us crazy for doing so) and Pentax is saying, "no thanks."

Maybe I'll learn to appreciate the new Sony cameras as much as I have Pentax... I say this after having sworn many, many years ago never to own another Sony product (and I don't!). They seem to be changing their ways though.

[Steve.Ledger]

Panasonic doesn't have the tech/interest in doing a video mode that I'd want. Canon and Nikon don't have either. All of them want to sell expensive lenses. Sony has no clue about user interface, IMHO (or aims them at people who are very clearly not me). Olympus may eventually end up offering something I really want, but there's still the small sensor, and that is never going to change). Samsung has given up. Who is left? Fuji? Leica?.

Don't under estimate the MFT sensor. BlackMagic chose that form factor as well as Panasonic, Olympus and Kodak of course.
Yes the APS-C sensor is larger than the MFT (which is based on the 110 film size) but for decent 1080p video only 2Mp are needed, so sensor size is a moot point. Yes, Olympus don't yet do 4K video, but the lack of 4K was actually one of the reasons I chose Olympus along with beautiful design, build quality & size. The GX8 is just too big, the OMDs are almost the same size as the 35mm film SLRs. Having had plenty of Pentax Kit lenses in the past I am also extremely impressed at the IQ from the three kit lenses I got with the OMD, in particular the 45mm F.18 - an incredible lens. Stills are fabulous, the colours are awesome and I'm sure the dynamic range is greater than anything I shot with the K-7/K-01 and K-50 (in spite of what it may be on paper). In short, the switch to Olympus has been a good one and a real eye opener for me. I never thought I'd be anything other than a Pentax user, especially since the bad taste of trying Canon was still in my mouth..


I don't quite understand this comment, can you expand?
"Panasonic doesn't have the tech/interest in doing a video mode that I'd want."

[Fries]

Yeah. I could work my way around the limitations. Or I could get a camera that has the same limitations, but doesn't give me a cropped view. That gives me less compression artifacts. And an image that can be graded better. Probably at a lower price point.

I maintain that Pentax could make a camera that, while not amazing and world changing, would be competitive. That has a couple of short comings, but excels in other areas so much that it is a viable choice and worth considering. What Pentax does instead is be sub par at pretty much everything, without having an advantage.

Yes, the K-3 can give a beautiful image, but these days, so can others.

As to johns conspiracy theory that Pentax can't provide SR for other reasons... I wouldn't be surprised if that was indeed true, though judging by how reliable and how well the system works in the K-5 I'm more inclined to think of some contracts between Pentax and Sony... yes, Pentax may use Sony sensors, but they aren't allowed to make it good at video. So that Sony has it's niche. Possible, I suppose. But otherwise, giving the explanation that they are stupid and too ignorant to take customer feedback/dumb to ask customers, may not be better than to admit that there are actual technical reasons, valid reasons. So what if they admitted the mechanism won't be able to survive constant use for months, if not years. It's not going to matter to stills photographers, who don't keep the mechanism active for so long. Ever. So what if they admitted that the SR mechanism during prolonged use heats up and would cause issues. How is that any worse than saying they don't listen to their customers? Again, for stills photographers it doesn't matter if SR produces a bit of heat.

Besides: Why would you be allowed to use SR in live view, if there are any issues with heat, longevity etc.? I've kept my camera in live view for a long time, and I can't be the only one.

john: A couple of people leaving the brand, and many others not buying into the brand, won't be noticed by Pentax. They need to know WHY it happens. Only then can they improve.

Panasonic doesn't have the tech/interest in doing a video mode that I'd want. Canon and Nikon don't have either. All of them want to sell expensive lenses. Sony has no clue about user interface, IMHO (or aims them at people who are very clearly not me). Olympus may eventually end up offering something I really want, but there's still the small sensor, and that is never going to change). Samsung has given up. Who is left? Fuji? Leica? Pentax has the right hardware to make me happy, they just need to work a little on the firmware. Still, they are probably closest to making the camera I want, and I would buy. The self imposed limitations however make it a bad choice for me. One that could be changed relatively easily, but they don't want to.

If Pentax had done just a bit more with the K-1, I'd be saving money right now to get it as soon as possible.

"You have no idea if having SR active during video would require a customized Milbeau CPU or a custom ASIC to feed a standard Milbeau an already-stabilized video stream."
?!?! It would not be an issue at all. Users have been shooting with a OIS lens on a K-3 before, and it works. No need for a customized Milbeaut. Besides, the K-3 DOES have SR active during video. It simply does. It is called live view. Live view is a video feed. The only difference is that it is not going to the encoder, but to the display. And gets an overlay along the way. If it had clean HDMI, just set the camera to live view and record from there. Beautifully stabilized video.

Again, if there were technical limitations, they wouldn't allow it in live view. They do, so... case closed.

Btw., Nikon also uses Milbeaut processors, which most likely also have the stabilizing feature. They don't use it. It would actually be an improvement if Pentax didn't offer Movie SR.

There's no way the K-1 could do higher frame rates or higher resolutions. Fine. Perhaps there's no way it can give clean HDMI, perhaps there is and they couldn't be bothered to implement it. But a picture profile that is flat? I can almost do it with the picture profile settings in the camera. It only requires a bit more work. Activating SR? After all the reasons given, nah. Still just flicking a switch. If there are indeed disadvantages, such as noise, or perhaps heat, then just put that in the manual. Or on screen. Users can decide what they want.

Kadajawi, at this point I don't care so much for the reason why Pentax did not enhance the video in the K-1. It is what it is and it does not surprise me because they publicly were clear about their priorities beforehand. Yes we can endlessly discuss why the K-5's SR is not available in the K-3 series and the K-1. And yes we can complain and touch on this subject in many, many threads in this forum. But this is a users forum. It is not primarily a means of communication with Pentax ore Ricoh. My, friendly advice would be to not put that much energy in the problem you have with the video function of our Pentax camera's because:

1. If Pentax/Ricoh is not up to speed about your (and others) dissatisfaction by now, they will never be. Your point has been made to such a degree that hammering that nail over and over again is becoming pointless.
2. At this point the only thing you can probably achieve, is annoying some fellow Pentax users on this forum.
3. This is the video section of Pentax forums. Perhaps we should share more of the stuff we do achieve with our camera's and try to help each other out when we encounter problems. Something I know you also have been doing. In short, celebrate our creativity (ore lack of it.)

I am not denying anyone the right to voice their opinion. The only thing I ask for is some moderation in doing so.

Cheers,

Remco

[kadajawi]

Don't under estimate the MFT sensor. BlackMagic chose that form factor as well as Panasonic, Olympus and Kodak of course.
Yes the APS-C sensor is larger than the MFT (which is based on the 110 film size) but for decent 1080p video only 2Mp are needed, so sensor size is a moot point. Yes, Olympus don't yet do 4K video, but the lack of 4K was actually one of the reasons I chose Olympus along with beautiful design, build quality & size. The GX8 is just too big, the OMDs are almost the same size as the 35mm film SLRs. Having had plenty of Pentax Kit lenses in the past I am also extremely impressed at the IQ from the three kit lenses I got with the OMD, in particular the 45mm F.18 - an incredible lens. Stills are fabulous, the colours are awesome and I'm sure the dynamic range is greater than anything I shot with the K-7/K-01 and K-50 (in spite of what it may be on paper). In short, the switch to Olympus has been a good one and a real eye opener for me. I never thought I'd be anything other than a Pentax user, especially since the bad taste of trying Canon was still in my mouth..


I don't quite understand this comment, can you expand?
"Panasonic doesn't have the tech/interest in doing a video mode that I'd want."

They put SR into their lenses, and I prefer in body SR. Yes, I can use a simple shoulder rig with follow focus for professional shoots, but I do like the option of going completely handheld. IIRC the GX8 (which is LOVELY) doesn't do video SR, despite having it. God knows why. But anyway, they'll be interested in selling their OIS lenses, which means no SR.

I'm talking about the look of mFT. I've tried a few, and despite using relatively fast lenses it just didn't have the look that I like. I do like to have shallow DoF. Not always, but the option is nice. The A7 II (and likewise the K-1) will have a ton of that, with the Olympus or Panasonic you need to try really hard.

The only viable option is Sony, but I just don't like the way how they are used. It just does not feel right. It's not natural, and I'm bothered all the time. Hate it.

I'll (hopefully) be shooting more video soon, together with a colleague. We have two Canons, my K-5, and a DJI Phantom 3 Pro. Should be interesting how they match up. Audio will come from a rather expensive Sennheiser lav mic with Sennheiser wireless, erm, transfer thing, connected to a Tascam DR-60D Mk II. Tried the Tascam today, seems to work nicely.

Not sure if I'll be allowed to post them here, though.

Hopefully Pentax will see the light, I mean they could probably give me all I really want and need via firmware update. I highly doubt it will happen, of course, it's just not their style. But if it does, and I haven't bought into a different system yet, I will buy it. If another brand offers what I want, I'll go there. No one does, though. The K-5 might actually be the closest thing to what I want.

MFT may be OK for video, but I wouldn't want to shoot stills on a sensor that small. This is 2016. It's reasonable to expect to be able to shoot stills and video on the same camera with minimal compromise.

[Steve.Ledger]

I'm talking about the look of mFT. I've tried a few, and despite using relatively fast lenses it just didn't have the look that I like. I do like to have shallow DoF. Not always, but the option is nice. The A7 II (and likewise the K-1) will have a ton of that, with the Olympus or Panasonic you need to try really hard..

Gosh, nothing could be further from the truth. But OK, you have made up you mind so I'll not push it further.

MFT may be OK for video, but I wouldn't want to shoot stills on a sensor that small.

Oh my, well I'd urge you to really check out samples at Flickr or 500px , the 16Mp MFT sensor used in Olympus cameras is exceptional. The results are stunning and the colours are breathtaking. Don't get hung up on the word 'micro'. It isn't that small at all. And please, let's not start a 'size matters' debate. Technology has come a very long way (as you point out, it's 2016). Results matter and the results I get from the OMDs I purchased are simply awesome - and I'm not just saying that because I bought them.
Smartphone and point'n'shoot cameras have small sensors, MFT are simply 'smaller' than APS-C.

Gosh, nothing could be further from the truth. But OK, you have made up you mind so I'll not push it further.


Oh my, well I'd urge you to really check out samples at Flickr or 500px , the 16Mp MFT sensor used in Olympus cameras is exceptional. The results are stunning and the colours are breathtaking. Don't get hung up on the word 'micro'. It isn't that small at all. And please, let's not start a 'size matters' debate. Technology has come a very long way (as you point out, it's 2016). Results matter and the results I get from the OMDs I purchased are simply awesome - and I'm not just saying that because I bought them.
Smartphone and point'n'shoot cameras have small sensors, MFT are simply 'smaller' than APS-C.

Yeah, I don't want to open that can of worms either. Notice that I said "I wouldn't want to". I know what I like to shoot and I know that its a lot harder to do with a small sensor (and with a large sensor with too many megapixels). Then there's the whole theoretical-vs-practical thing. I'm a practical person and I don't care if one can theoretically get the same picture on MFT if one has a theoretical lens that money can't buy. To me full frame is attractive in the K-1 because of the (real) lens options it opens up (I have a small collection of m42 takumars). The 36 megapixels are probably a liability (but I get it, since they need to have a reasonable resolution in the crop mode to support all those DA lenses...). Of course, it all totally depends on what you're shooting. If it's broad daylight and you WANT wide depth of field, then by all means, go ahead and use a 1/4" sensor. It'll be fine. (Waaay back at the beginning of this thread I recommended 1/4" sensor action cameras as a way to get good quality 1080P at a reasonable cost for many applications).

It's a shame because I think the sigma art f/1.8 lenses would probably work great for video on the K-5 and give you that full frame like image at a reasonable 16 megapixels. However, it's hard to recommend that anyone buy those lenses in K-mount since their resale value is so much lower (and this will only get worse), than in the Canon or Nikon mounts.

These new focal reducer adapters are game changers too. Turn that mirrorless APS-C into a full-frame, or turn that MFT into an APS-C...

[kadajawi]

Gosh, nothing could be further from the truth. But OK, you have made up you mind so I'll not push it further.


Oh my, well I'd urge you to really check out samples at Flickr or 500px , the 16Mp MFT sensor used in Olympus cameras is exceptional. The results are stunning and the colours are breathtaking. Don't get hung up on the word 'micro'. It isn't that small at all. And please, let's not start a 'size matters' debate. Technology has come a very long way (as you point out, it's 2016). Results matter and the results I get from the OMDs I purchased are simply awesome - and I'm not just saying that because I bought them.
Smartphone and point'n'shoot cameras have small sensors, MFT are simply 'smaller' than APS-C.

It can be done, sure, but the lenses won't be so cheap. I tried an A7 II and then a Fuji X-T1, and then an OM-D E-M1. Just not such a big fan of the look from that Olympus, though otherwise it is a perfect camera. Just personal preferences, I know it is a great, wonderful camera, with good image quality. I just happen to prefer APS-C, or perhaps FF.

[grispie]

the 16Mp MFT sensor used in Olympus cameras is exceptional. The results are stunning and the colours are breathtaking. Don't get hung up on the word 'micro'. It isn't that small at all.

I agree. I personally wouldn't care whether i am shooting with apsc or mft. There also seems to be a nice lens selection available.
It's just that: i want to use my nice pentax m primes for video and the crop factor becomes so big...

[johnmflores]

You ignored a comment previously in the thread that pointed out that SR works in live view on the K-3. If this is also true on the K-1, then you have your undeniable answer as to whether it was disabled in video mode on a whim or because of some imaginary technical obstacle.

Let's face it, the only reason Pentax ever had sensor shift in video mode was because it was 'free' once they had sensor shift at all. This is also why they didn't hesitate to disable it at the first complaint. It took zero engineering.

I don't know why you're so hell bent on making a mountain out of that mole-hill.

If you can take 30 minutes worth of 30 second SR'd still exposures, then you could do 30 minutes of video. Ditto, if you could sit in live view for 30 minutes with SR. You don't even have to take my word for it! A little logic goes a long way!

And my K-5 only records video for ~5 minutes at a time anyway. The new Nikon flagship D5 can only record three minutes! Even if heat were a concern, it wouldn't be enough of one to kill such an important feature on a technical basis.

Why try to obscure the facts?

As to johns conspiracy theory that Pentax can't provide SR for other reasons... I wouldn't be surprised if that was indeed true, though judging by how reliable and how well the system works in the K-5 I'm more inclined to think of some contracts between Pentax and Sony... yes, Pentax may use Sony sensors, but they aren't allowed to make it good at video. So that Sony has it's niche. Possible, I suppose. But otherwise, giving the explanation that they are stupid and too ignorant to take customer feedback/dumb to ask customers, may not be better than to admit that there are actual technical reasons, valid reasons. So what if they admitted the mechanism won't be able to survive constant use for months, if not years. It's not going to matter to stills photographers, who don't keep the mechanism active for so long. Ever. So what if they admitted that the SR mechanism during prolonged use heats up and would cause issues. How is that any worse than saying they don't listen to their customers? Again, for stills photographers it doesn't matter if SR produces a bit of heat.

Besides: Why would you be allowed to use SR in live view, if there are any issues with heat, longevity etc.? I've kept my camera in live view for a long time, and I can't be the only one.

john: A couple of people leaving the brand, and many others not buying into the brand, won't be noticed by Pentax. They need to know WHY it happens. Only then can they improve.

If Pentax had done just a bit more with the K-1, I'd be saving money right now to get it as soon as possible.

"You have no idea if having SR active during video would require a customized Milbeau CPU or a custom ASIC to feed a standard Milbeau an already-stabilized video stream."
?!?! It would not be an issue at all. Users have been shooting with a OIS lens on a K-3 before, and it works. No need for a customized Milbeaut. Besides, the K-3 DOES have SR active during video. It simply does. It is called live view. Live view is a video feed. The only difference is that it is not going to the encoder, but to the display. And gets an overlay along the way. If it had clean HDMI, just set the camera to live view and record from there. Beautifully stabilized video.

Again, if there were technical limitations, they wouldn't allow it in live view. They do, so... case closed.

Do either of you know if the imaging pipeline for Live View is identical to the imaging pipeline for recording video? Do either of you know the video specs of Live View, i.e., frame rates, resolution, color space? Is it 24P? Is it 1080P, is it 720P? What are they doing to get the image off the 36 MP sensor onto the rear screen - are they line skipping, pixel binning, or something else? Would a feed from the Live View be high enough quality? What does it take to provide clean HDMI out? Is it just a setting or something more?

I doubt that either of you know any of those answers, but there's clearly no way to sway you from this conspiracy theory that they turned it off for no good reason or, worse yet, because some stupid product marketing person doesn't want Pentax to be competitive at video and offer a feature that nobody else has.

The idea that they don't want to implement a feature that is part of their core value proposition and something that would give the K-1 a big differentiating feature from competitors and take just $5 max to implement is truly laughable.

But at this point it's taken up too much of my time. Have a nice day. Enjoy your photo and video taking. I'm going to shoot some video of my nephew playing basketball. And I'm bringing a small monopod to stabilize the shots.

---------- Post added 03-05-16 at 02:36 PM ----------

I agree. I personally wouldn't care whether i am shooting with apsc or mft. There also seems to be a nice lens selection available.
It's just that: i want to use my nice pentax m primes for video and the crop factor becomes so big...

Pentax lenses render quite nicely on Micro Four Thirds

M28mm F3.5

Screenshot - Panasonic GH2 with Pentax M28mm F3.5 by John Flores, on Flickr

DA70

Video Still: Daniel Sanabria, Marine Veteran by John Flores, on Flickr

[grispie]

Pentax lenses render quite nicely on Micro Four Thirds

John,
Can you tell me what you use for more wideangle on mft?
I agree, the tones of your examples are very nice, but i guess the 28mm just gets too much crop to offer a nice wide view.
I saw that olympus offers a 17mm 1.8. I'd want a manual aperture for video though..
tnx

or someone else..