[normhead]

This topic is very confusing!

So, which tastes better? A Rover or a burger?

Personally, I prefer the burger. The Rover won't even do in a pinch.

At least a K-3 will do video in pinch. But the quality is to intended to be the same as super 8 film. Film makers used 16mm film. Big production film makers used 35mm film. I don't know of even one guy who shot super 8 film and then complained it wasn't as good as 16mm. Yet you have people complain their DSLR isn't as good as a video camera.

There have always been different qualities of video. The mistake is in the first line of the OPs first post. He thought the K-3 would be better. My comment remains, "don't think that". The rest is a discussion of the finer points of the obvious.

[drypenn]

Tablet!
No not that type of tablet, this tablet:

I've a funny feeling that this thread will go down this route, in this order:

1) A funny repartees ridiculing the comparison
2) A mention of Sony
3) Thread will be moved to "non-Pentax Section" because of the word "Sony"
4) Even funnier exchanges
5) Thread will be moved to Lounge Area because it has become grossly non-photo related
6) Another volley of attacks vs. Pentax' video
7) Mods swoop down for a stern warning
8) Participants ignore
9) Mods lock the thread

Of course, #9 can come in anytime.

[ChristianRock]

You missed facepalm cat. He could also come in anytime

[bertwert]

You missed facepalm cat. He could also come in anytime

.....

[ChristianRock]

This thread is now ready for the next steps in drypenn's lists

[normhead]

I've a funny feeling that this thread will go down this route, in this order:

1) A funny repartees ridiculing the comparison
2) A mention of Sony
3) Thread will be moved to "non-Pentax Section" because of the word "Sony"
4) Even funnier exchanges
5) Thread will be moved to Lounge Area because it has become grossly non-photo related
6) Another volley of attacks vs. Pentax' video
7) Mods swoop down for a stern warning
8) Participants ignore
9) Mods lock the thread

Of course, #9 can come in anytime.

We should pay you to just do all the posts on your own, it would save the rest of us a lot of time and trouble. I'm sure you know what I'm going to say, and a lot of other people. We could authorize you as our official agent and give you access to our accounts.

It's a viable business model, take it to the bank.

I've said the same thing so many times so many different ways, I'm surprised when people post things that don't anticipate my pre-programmed response.

[bertwert]

We should pay you to just do all the posts on your own, it would save the rest of us a lot of time and trouble. I'm sure you know what I'm going to say, and a lot of other people. We could authorize you as our official agent and give you access to our accounts.

What!

I like posting here and randomly talking about scottish sweets!

[kadajawi]

I am going to start a new thread: K-3 vs a burger. Veredict: the burger is much tastier!
I don't know why people keep comparing apples to oranges.

That's a stupid comparison.

I've compared a 2012 Panasonic video camera, top of the line, to my 2010 Pentax K-5. The K-5 wins hands down in everything but sharpness. Low light? Pentax is better (though it isn't particularly good). Dynamic range? No comparison, AT ALL. The Panasonic fails at scenes with little dynamic range, getting the colors wrong because of the lack of dynamic range.

Granted, that thing had a 1/6" sensor (3 of them, they are monochrome sensors). But I was still shocked by how bad it is.

The Sony has comparatively large sensor for a video camera, almost being reasonably sized already.

As to why the K-3 lost... a) settings perhaps, you can get a bit dynamic range by tweaking the image settings and b) The K-3 (and K-5) does a ton of line skipping. It may even only take 1080 lines out of the 4000 pixels there are. Granted, some of them would be lost anyway because of the different aspect ratio, but there are still roughly 3400 rows of pixels left when shooting 16:9... and it takes only 1/3 of them. It probably won't do any binning either with all the pixels in that row, so you can imagine how tiny the pixels that are actually used are going to be. Tiny pixels with a ton of space around them.

Modern DSLRs, for example ones by Nikon are significantly better. They tend to read all pixels within the 16:9 crop (the Samsung NX1 does, for example), and downsamples the image to the 2 MP Full HD image. That way you get huge pixels, and good dynamic range.

If you want to take good video, get a videocamera. Some DSLR do OK for video - some are set up fairly well. None will be as good as a videocamera of the same cost. Use the right tool for the job. Sony does make some nice midrange videocameras.

Which is why Lauren is shooting corporate videos on bunch of K-3s. Which is why my company is shooting corporate videos (also for other international big name companies) using a 6D and a 600D. Because they suck compared to a consumer camcorder. Right.

Or why Mercedes Benz hired two videographers to shoot a video for their latest car using a Sony A7S II.
https://vimeo.com/channels/mercedesbenz/156395271

Trailer for a feature film shot on a Canon 7D:

You Tube

You Tube

And another one:

You Tube

You Tube

GH2:
https://vimeo.com/ondemand/diamondflash/33546292

Nikon D800:

Vimeo

Sony A7S II again:
https://player.vimeo.com/video/155505711

Panasonic G7:

You Tube

You Tube

Documentary shot on a 5D:

Vimeo

But yeah, these people and many more should have just used small consumer camcorders... right.

Btw.:

You Tube

You Tube

This is the Sony mentioned here vs the Panasonic that I've had access to... you can see how bad the dynamic range of the Panasonic is. Plenty of clipping pretty much everywhere. Just look at the skies, how the colors shift there because the sensor can't handle the "brightness". Plus that everything in focus look you get from small sensors.

[ChristianRock]

That's a stupid comparison.

That was my point, entirely...

[kadajawi]

That was my point, entirely...

Not really. One is a camera, the other is, erm, a camera. At least compare food. Say a McDonalds burger vs. something at a high end restaurant. Or cars. Fine. But food with camera is really, really stupid.

Besides, if DSLRs and DSLMs were so terrible for video, why are pros actually using them? Even for things that are shown in cinemas or on TV? Camcorders are only used, if at all, for reality TV.

To get the look that a DSLR will get, you need to spend roughly 10x as much on a video camera. Before lenses.

Why don't you shoot your photos on a smartphone? It has a decent camera, everything is in focus. Why do you use a DSLR?

[LaurenOE]

Which is why Lauren is shooting corporate videos on bunch of K-3s. Which is why my company is shooting corporate videos (also for other international big name companies) using a 6D and a 600D. Because they suck compared to a consumer camcorder. Right.

Exactly.

<sigh>

I think I am going to have to make a "boilerplate post", so when I see a thread that says Pentax sucks at video - I automatically post one of my demo reels.

Everything you see here - except for drone shots, and GoPro and Osmo - are done with a K3.

K3 on sliders.
K3 on Jibs.
K3 on Ronins.
K3 on Glidecams.

Macro, stop motion, you name it.

Enjoy.

(sorry for the people that have already seen this...like a hundred times already, right?)

Vimeo

Maybe we should have a "sticky" that shows what a Pentax K3 can do with video.

[TER-OR]

It was my understanding that a DSLR has a fairly limited duration for video before it overheats. What might be great for short-duration or multiple camera videography may not work for someone recording a sporting event or play with a single camera. Correct me if I'm wrong. I know plenty of video, even higher-end work, are being shot on DSLR, it's hard to miss the commercials.

[kadajawi]

It was my understanding that a DSLR has a fairly limited duration for video before it overheats. What might be great for short-duration or multiple camera videography may not work for someone recording a sporting event or play with a single camera. Correct me if I'm wrong. I know plenty of video, even higher-end work, are being shot on DSLR, it's hard to miss the commercials.

Overheating is IMHO pretty much a thing of the past. But for tax reasons DSLRs are usually capped to 29 minutes at best.

Anyway, DSLRs are IMHO more appropriate for professional shoots (though there there is the possibility of renting higher end gear). They make the most sense for planned stuff, though some may also be suitable for more run and gun kind of shooting. What they aren't made for is home videos. Camcorders are made for that. You're not using a DSLR for snapshots either. It's meant for "proper" photography.

The 10 minute or so limitation of a reel of film wasn't a big issue for filmmakers either... and 10 minutes was the max, with a fresh roll of film. You may very well only have had a minute left before having to take a break.

[LaurenOE]

It was my understanding that a DSLR has a fairly limited duration for video before it overheats. What might be great for short-duration or multiple camera videography may not work for someone recording a sporting event or play with a single camera. Correct me if I'm wrong. I know plenty of video, even higher-end work, are being shot on DSLR, it's hard to miss the commercials.

No one watches a single take, that would go beyond what a dSLR can do - unless your name is Kubrick.

Because the K3 is so fast, stopping and starting hardly makes a dent.

Probably less than a second.

If long takes are critical, and you have to make sure you capture everything, then use two cameras.

Shoot for the edit, and in doing so, a dSLR "limit" as to time, is moot.

[ChristianRock]

Not really. One is a camera, the other is, erm, a camera.

Ummmm no. One is a video camera. The other is a stills camera. I've said it before... just because they share some types of basic components, doesn't make them the same any more than a truck would be the same as a sports car.

I'm not saying you can't shoot decent video with a DSLR, but that is not its primary purpose, so I was taking a shot at the OP with that comment. When you have to explain a joke, it's never funny...