Why can't Pentax do something like Fuji did with X-T2?

Imp · 07-08-2016, 12:53 PM

Originally posted by Dipsoid

how is their video encoding for standard HD

Not far behind Canon, I believe

**THoog** · 07-08-2016, 12:59 PM

Originally posted by Dipsoid

I'm curious actually, considering Nikon depends on the same processor as Pentax, how is their video encoding for standard HD, disregarding 4k and all the fancy stuff? My biggest issue is not the spec sheet stuff, but the fact that at my job we periodically use a Rebel T3i for reference photography and video, the entry level Canon with kit lens has far better video quality than my K-3 with a prime under the same conditions (I've used my camera for b-roll). The K-3's video encoding is so poor everything looks soft and mushy, being held back by a modest bit-rate. Is this limited by the processor?

From what I've been able to find, Nikon's is no better - the EXPEED is using the same H.264/MPEG-4codec. The biggest thing Nikon provides is clean uncompressed HDMI-out, so that you can use an external recording device. However, on some models, the implementation was really clunky - you had to run the camera without an SD card in the slot for it to work.

**BigDave** · 07-08-2016, 01:03 PM

Unfortunately these days we expect our gadgets to do everything, and do them better than anyone else's gadgets to boot! Why do we have phones that are cameras and video recorders and music players, etc. But we still hit dead zones when trying to talk with people on them! If you focus on everything, you probably will be good at nothing.

To me, video is more of a convenience than a need. If I want a kickin' video system, then I will buy the video system. The manufacturers have to look at the markets and decide what to concentrate on to get the most out of their manufacturing and design budgets. OK, Canon is ahead, because they started moving in that direction first and can now improve on what was done previously. The same will happen with any system, until it gets too complicated/bulky/expensive to continue on that track, at which point they'll spin something off into a new market focus, if the market will warrant it.

I personally like the challenge of still photography, capturing that one still image that says it all. I have attached two images, one a Pulitzer Prize winner, the second, not. Both are during the same timeline and around the same subject (though not at the same location). There are also images taken seconds before AND after the Pulitzer winner, but the angle and anticipation of the image presented, makes it the winning image. Video cannot capture that single moment in time, and hold it, like still photography can. This is my personal preference, but to each their own!

Regards,

Edgar_in_Indy · 07-08-2016, 07:09 PM

Originally posted by BigDave

Video cannot capture that single moment in time, and hold it, like still photography can. This is my personal preference, but to each their own!

4K video has so much resolution that each frame is basically a high resolution photo. So when you're shooting at 30 fps you can capture a lot of perfect moments.

JimmyDranox · 07-09-2016, 01:34 AM

It's a simple problem of economy.

Some Pentax users likes to make video. For 4K video, they must buy some other brand camera and lenses. If Pentax will make a 4K camera sooner, those users money will go to Pentax instead of other brands. More. Almost all new generation users wants good, 4K video. So, Pentax need 4K just to stay on the market as a competitive choice.

**Rondec** · 07-09-2016, 02:36 AM - **1 Like**

Originally posted by Edgar_in_Indy

4K video has so much resolution that each frame is basically a high resolution photo. So when you're shooting at 30 fps you can capture a lot of perfect moments.

Eventually Sports Illustrated and places like that will probably get rid of photographers completely and just have high res video cameras track plays and then a computer sort out which is the best image. But we still aren't there yet.

A 4K video frame may be adequate as a snap shot, but the dynamic range is significantly less than the sensor can produce and you are basically getting a poor man's jpeg. In many situations it will be OK, but certainly not for many applications. In addition, I can't imagine making a family photo album by combing through 4K video footage to try to find the best frames in different life events.

On the OP's thread, I would like to see Pentax improve their video implementation. I don't think Nikon has actually done a great job to this point either and it would be nice, at least on their top end cameras, to see better video. It wouldn't be for me -- I don't think I can edit 4K video -- but I think making a good well rounded camera that meets lots of different needs is a good idea.

TaoMaas · 07-09-2016, 05:10 AM

Originally posted by claskowski

My personal preference - a split - a K-1V and a K-1P (or whatever model you prefer "P" and "V"). Same body, same sensor - different computer. One geared toward the photographic market and one to video. Each would still have abilities to do both - but the majority of processing/features/buttons/programming goes to one or the other. There are many people who like to use a DSLR for video - they can purchase the "V" version. There are many more that use a DSLR for pictures only - hence the "P" version.

This makes the most sense to me. Sony is already doing this, but then they're coming at digital imaging more from a video view than a still photography view. Those who hate the thought of video need to wake up. Digital imaging IS video! The capture process is pretty much the same. The difference is frame rates. I'm amazed at people who want those of us who want better video (and have probably been with Pentax since before they were born) to move to another brand...but since they hate video, they don't think they should have to change brands.

D1N0 · 07-09-2016, 06:16 AM

Originally posted by TaoMaas

Those who hate the thought of video need to wake up. Digital imaging IS video!

You are having trouble discerning an activity from a technology. Why people want you to move on? because they are not interested in shooting video and are tired of hearing about it. A dslr is not and never will be a perfect system for video. It was designed for still photography. The viewfinder goes black when shooting video so you need the back lcd which will be poorly visible in bright light, thus limiting the use of the camera for video.

Imp · 07-09-2016, 07:31 AM

Originally posted by D1N0

You are having trouble discerning an activity from a technology. Why people want you to move on? because they are not interested in shooting video and are tired of hearing about it. A dslr is not and never will be a perfect system for video. It was designed for still photography. The viewfinder goes black when shooting video so you need the back lcd which will be poorly visible in bright light, thus limiting the use of the camera for video.

Its not black and white like that. For some people, a dslr is just what they need for video, and it'll save them a lot of money if they are equally interested in photography as in cinematography.

**Rondec** · 07-09-2016, 07:37 AM

Originally posted by TaoMaas

This makes the most sense to me. Sony is already doing this, but then they're coming at digital imaging more from a video view than a still photography view. Those who hate the thought of video need to wake up. Digital imaging IS video! The capture process is pretty much the same. The difference is frame rates. I'm amazed at people who want those of us who want better video (and have probably been with Pentax since before they were born) to move to another brand...but since they hate video, they don't think they should have to change brands.

It is a different process shooting still photos from shooting video with different stabilization necessary. Ergonomics of most SLRs aren't great for shooting video and when folks do a steady-cam set up, they look like they are getting ready for the next Robo-Copy sequel. I think there is a reason why camcorders evolved to look different and are held differently from still cameras and that has to do with the process of getting footage.

The main reasons why folks use ILCs to shoot videos is the fact that they are capable of narrow depth of field footage and are actually relatively cheap (particularly if you already own one). That still doesn't mean that they are ideal for shooting a feature length film.

Sasha · 07-09-2016, 07:58 AM

Originally posted by Rondec

The main reasons why folks use ILCs to shoot videos is the fact that they are capable of narrow depth of field footage and are actually relatively cheap (particularly if you already own one). That still doesn't mean that they are ideal for shooting a feature length film.

I agree. Even if, paired with a gimbal, a DSLR/mirrorless could be awesome to shot videos...
But anyway, if this is what the market want, Pentax should give it, if they want to "float"... My 2 cent

D1N0 · 07-09-2016, 08:10 AM

Originally posted by Imp

Its not black and white like that. For some people, a dslr is just what they need for video, and it'll save them a lot of money if they are equally interested in photography as in cinematography.

Then they are still better of with mirrorless. I am not saying dslr's can't do video, but it is a compromise. dslr video will improve because it profits from general cmos chip video developments, but a hybrid viewfinder is not there yet. Anyway people seem to think the camera has to do all the work to be called a good video camera. Focussing stabilizing panning like some maniac recording pro sound. When you look at professionally shot video, they are not panning all the time, they are setting up shots to look good they are cutting shots together in post and have a separate guy for good sound. Video taking is not just pointing a camera and roll. It is a profession and an art. Much harder than photography.

**Rondec** · 07-09-2016, 08:25 AM

Originally posted by D1N0

Then they are still better of with mirrorless. I am not saying dslr's can't do video, but it is a compromise. dslr video will improve because it profits from general cmos chip video developments, but a hybrid viewfinder is not there yet. Anyway people seem to think the camera has to do all the work to be called a good video camera. Focussing stabilizing panning like some maniac recording pro sound. When you look at professionally shot video, they are not panning all the time, they are setting up shots to look good they are cutting shots together in post and have a separate guy for good sound. Video taking is not just pointing a camera and roll. It is a profession and an art. Much harder than photography.

The hard part to me is the editing. You probably spend a minimum of an hour editing a minute of video that is actually watchable by someone else. Unwatchable videos are seldom the result of poor resolution. They are the result of the same sorts of choices that end up in a poor image.

Go-Pro is running into financial problems now, because people have figured out that a half an hour video of them skiing green slopes at their local resort is actually really boring -- unlike the dare devil images that folks are trying to emulate.

Good sound and good lighting are really important to a well shot video -- and its why my family videos aren't watchable except by me and my family. It has little to do with presence or absence of 4K video codecs.

**monochrome** · 07-09-2016, 09:00 AM - **1 Like**

Originally posted by Imp

Its not black and white like that. For some people, a dslr is just what they need for video, and it'll save them a lot of money if they are equally interested in photography as in cinematography.

Consumers want what they want, and expect companies to give it to them regardless of the economics involved. Pentax suffers from a decade of lax investment at its own hands and of Hoya. Catching a moving target (other companies aren't standing still) is extremely challenging.

Apparently the Return on Investment in better video isn't high enough to justify the investment for Ricoh. They must believe the cost of adding better video (at this time) is higher than the number of additional cameras sold would return in revenue. Alternatively, there are other places to invest their time and money that will offer higher return in revenue than will video.

It's inductive reasoning. If one or both of the above was not true it is likely Ricoh would rapidly improve video.

TaoMaas · 07-09-2016, 06:04 PM - **1 Like**

Originally posted by D1N0

You are having trouble discerning an activity from a technology. .

No, I'm not...you are. You want to take a multi-purpose technology and make it singular.

---------- Post added 07-09-2016 at 08:10 PM ----------

Originally posted by Rondec

The main reasons why folks use ILCs to shoot videos is the fact that they are capable of narrow depth of field footage and are actually relatively cheap (particularly if you already own one). That still doesn't mean that they are ideal for shooting a feature length film.

You are exactly right. I'm a videographer by profession and my work-group is more and more using DSLRs because of the "look" of DSLR video. Not just any DSLR, btw...only full-frame because of the depth of field. Are they ideal for shooting feature length films? Oh HELL, no!

But that's only a very, very tiny fraction of the use of video. The other 99% of users shoot news stories, commercials, and industrial videos. For that, a DSLR is a very valid competitor as a platform.

07-08-2016, 01:03 PM	#48
BigDave Site Supporter Join Date: Sep 2010 Location: Hudson Valley, NY Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 2,626	Unfortunately these days we expect our gadgets to do everything, and do them better than anyone else's gadgets to boot! Why do we have phones that are cameras and video recorders and music players, etc. But we still hit dead zones when trying to talk with people on them! If you focus on everything, you probably will be good at nothing. To me, video is more of a convenience than a need. If I want a kickin' video system, then I will buy the video system. The manufacturers have to look at the markets and decide what to concentrate on to get the most out of their manufacturing and design budgets. OK, Canon is ahead, because they started moving in that direction first and can now improve on what was done previously. The same will happen with any system, until it gets too complicated/bulky/expensive to continue on that track, at which point they'll spin something off into a new market focus, if the market will warrant it. I personally like the challenge of still photography, capturing that one still image that says it all. I have attached two images, one a Pulitzer Prize winner, the second, not. Both are during the same timeline and around the same subject (though not at the same location). There are also images taken seconds before AND after the Pulitzer winner, but the angle and anticipation of the image presented, makes it the winning image. Video cannot capture that single moment in time, and hold it, like still photography can. This is my personal preference, but to each their own! Regards, Attached Images

Similar Threads
Thread	Thread Starter	Forum	Replies	Last Post
People I feel like this photo needs something but I can't pinpoint it	julbelle	Photo Critique	15	11-10-2014 04:51 PM
Why Pentax can't do this — direct communication with users?	Uluru	Photographic Industry and Professionals	6	07-18-2013 04:05 AM
Why did pentax do away with auto aperture with introduction of K mount?	geekette	Pentax SLR Lens Discussion	21	06-01-2011 10:07 AM
Why can't they make something like this...	regor	Canon, Nikon, Sony, and Other Camera Brands	22	03-20-2010 01:16 PM
Sigma DP1 DSLR-like did not get it, can Pentax do it -- now?	zaurus	Pentax DSLR Discussion	11	02-04-2008 09:41 PM

07-08-2016, 12:53 PM	#46
Imp Pentaxian Join Date: Nov 2014 Location: Washington, DC Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 1,749	Originally posted by Dipsoid how is their video encoding for standard HD Not far behind Canon, I believe

07-08-2016, 12:59 PM	#47
THoog Loyal Site Supporter Join Date: Aug 2012 Location: North Carolina Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 3,685	Originally posted by Dipsoid I'm curious actually, considering Nikon depends on the same processor as Pentax, how is their video encoding for standard HD, disregarding 4k and all the fancy stuff? My biggest issue is not the spec sheet stuff, but the fact that at my job we periodically use a Rebel T3i for reference photography and video, the entry level Canon with kit lens has far better video quality than my K-3 with a prime under the same conditions (I've used my camera for b-roll). The K-3's video encoding is so poor everything looks soft and mushy, being held back by a modest bit-rate. Is this limited by the processor? From what I've been able to find, Nikon's is no better - the EXPEED is using the same H.264/MPEG-4codec. The biggest thing Nikon provides is clean uncompressed HDMI-out, so that you can use an external recording device. However, on some models, the implementation was really clunky - you had to run the camera without an SD card in the slot for it to work.

07-08-2016, 07:09 PM	#49
Edgar_in_Indy Veteran Member Join Date: May 2010 Location: Indiana, USA Photos: Gallery Posts: 2,685	Originally posted by BigDave Video cannot capture that single moment in time, and hold it, like still photography can. This is my personal preference, but to each their own! 4K video has so much resolution that each frame is basically a high resolution photo. So when you're shooting at 30 fps you can capture a lot of perfect moments.

07-09-2016, 01:34 AM	#50
JimmyDranox Veteran Member Join Date: Oct 2012 Location: Ploiesti, Romania Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 1,632	It's a simple problem of economy. Some Pentax users likes to make video. For 4K video, they must buy some other brand camera and lenses. If Pentax will make a 4K camera sooner, those users money will go to Pentax instead of other brands. More. Almost all new generation users wants good, 4K video. So, Pentax need 4K just to stay on the market as a competitive choice.

07-09-2016, 02:36 AM - 1 Like	#51
Rondec Loyal Site Supporter Join Date: Mar 2009 Location: Gladys, Virginia Photos: Gallery Posts: 27,651	Originally posted by Edgar_in_Indy 4K video has so much resolution that each frame is basically a high resolution photo. So when you're shooting at 30 fps you can capture a lot of perfect moments. Eventually Sports Illustrated and places like that will probably get rid of photographers completely and just have high res video cameras track plays and then a computer sort out which is the best image. But we still aren't there yet. A 4K video frame may be adequate as a snap shot, but the dynamic range is significantly less than the sensor can produce and you are basically getting a poor man's jpeg. In many situations it will be OK, but certainly not for many applications. In addition, I can't imagine making a family photo album by combing through 4K video footage to try to find the best frames in different life events. On the OP's thread, I would like to see Pentax improve their video implementation. I don't think Nikon has actually done a great job to this point either and it would be nice, at least on their top end cameras, to see better video. It wouldn't be for me -- I don't think I can edit 4K video -- but I think making a good well rounded camera that meets lots of different needs is a good idea.

07-09-2016, 05:10 AM	#52
TaoMaas Pentaxian Join Date: May 2007 Location: Oklahoma City Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 3,574	Originally posted by claskowski My personal preference - a split - a K-1V and a K-1P (or whatever model you prefer "P" and "V"). Same body, same sensor - different computer. One geared toward the photographic market and one to video. Each would still have abilities to do both - but the majority of processing/features/buttons/programming goes to one or the other. There are many people who like to use a DSLR for video - they can purchase the "V" version. There are many more that use a DSLR for pictures only - hence the "P" version. This makes the most sense to me. Sony is already doing this, but then they're coming at digital imaging more from a video view than a still photography view. Those who hate the thought of video need to wake up. Digital imaging IS video! The capture process is pretty much the same. The difference is frame rates. I'm amazed at people who want those of us who want better video (and have probably been with Pentax since before they were born) to move to another brand...but since they hate video, they don't think they should have to change brands.

07-09-2016, 06:16 AM	#53
D1N0 Pentaxian Join Date: May 2012 Location: --- Photos: Gallery Posts: 6,802	Originally posted by TaoMaas Those who hate the thought of video need to wake up. Digital imaging IS video! You are having trouble discerning an activity from a technology. Why people want you to move on? because they are not interested in shooting video and are tired of hearing about it. A dslr is not and never will be a perfect system for video. It was designed for still photography. The viewfinder goes black when shooting video so you need the back lcd which will be poorly visible in bright light, thus limiting the use of the camera for video.

07-09-2016, 07:31 AM	#54
Imp Pentaxian Join Date: Nov 2014 Location: Washington, DC Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 1,749	Originally posted by D1N0 You are having trouble discerning an activity from a technology. Why people want you to move on? because they are not interested in shooting video and are tired of hearing about it. A dslr is not and never will be a perfect system for video. It was designed for still photography. The viewfinder goes black when shooting video so you need the back lcd which will be poorly visible in bright light, thus limiting the use of the camera for video. Its not black and white like that. For some people, a dslr is just what they need for video, and it'll save them a lot of money if they are equally interested in photography as in cinematography.

07-09-2016, 07:37 AM	#55
Rondec Loyal Site Supporter Join Date: Mar 2009 Location: Gladys, Virginia Photos: Gallery Posts: 27,651	Originally posted by TaoMaas This makes the most sense to me. Sony is already doing this, but then they're coming at digital imaging more from a video view than a still photography view. Those who hate the thought of video need to wake up. Digital imaging IS video! The capture process is pretty much the same. The difference is frame rates. I'm amazed at people who want those of us who want better video (and have probably been with Pentax since before they were born) to move to another brand...but since they hate video, they don't think they should have to change brands. It is a different process shooting still photos from shooting video with different stabilization necessary. Ergonomics of most SLRs aren't great for shooting video and when folks do a steady-cam set up, they look like they are getting ready for the next Robo-Copy sequel. I think there is a reason why camcorders evolved to look different and are held differently from still cameras and that has to do with the process of getting footage. The main reasons why folks use ILCs to shoot videos is the fact that they are capable of narrow depth of field footage and are actually relatively cheap (particularly if you already own one). That still doesn't mean that they are ideal for shooting a feature length film.

07-09-2016, 07:58 AM	#56
Sasha Forum Member Join Date: Jul 2016 Location: Rome Posts: 57	Originally posted by Rondec The main reasons why folks use ILCs to shoot videos is the fact that they are capable of narrow depth of field footage and are actually relatively cheap (particularly if you already own one). That still doesn't mean that they are ideal for shooting a feature length film. I agree. Even if, paired with a gimbal, a DSLR/mirrorless could be awesome to shot videos... But anyway, if this is what the market want, Pentax should give it, if they want to "float"... My 2 cent

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
	Search this Thread: Advanced Search

07-09-2016, 08:10 AM	#57
D1N0 Pentaxian Join Date: May 2012 Location: --- Photos: Gallery Posts: 6,802	Originally posted by Imp Its not black and white like that. For some people, a dslr is just what they need for video, and it'll save them a lot of money if they are equally interested in photography as in cinematography. Then they are still better of with mirrorless. I am not saying dslr's can't do video, but it is a compromise. dslr video will improve because it profits from general cmos chip video developments, but a hybrid viewfinder is not there yet. Anyway people seem to think the camera has to do all the work to be called a good video camera. Focussing stabilizing panning like some maniac recording pro sound. When you look at professionally shot video, they are not panning all the time, they are setting up shots to look good they are cutting shots together in post and have a separate guy for good sound. Video taking is not just pointing a camera and roll. It is a profession and an art. Much harder than photography.

07-09-2016, 08:25 AM	#58
Rondec Loyal Site Supporter Join Date: Mar 2009 Location: Gladys, Virginia Photos: Gallery Posts: 27,651	Originally posted by D1N0 Then they are still better of with mirrorless. I am not saying dslr's can't do video, but it is a compromise. dslr video will improve because it profits from general cmos chip video developments, but a hybrid viewfinder is not there yet. Anyway people seem to think the camera has to do all the work to be called a good video camera. Focussing stabilizing panning like some maniac recording pro sound. When you look at professionally shot video, they are not panning all the time, they are setting up shots to look good they are cutting shots together in post and have a separate guy for good sound. Video taking is not just pointing a camera and roll. It is a profession and an art. Much harder than photography. The hard part to me is the editing. You probably spend a minimum of an hour editing a minute of video that is actually watchable by someone else. Unwatchable videos are seldom the result of poor resolution. They are the result of the same sorts of choices that end up in a poor image. Go-Pro is running into financial problems now, because people have figured out that a half an hour video of them skiing green slopes at their local resort is actually really boring -- unlike the dare devil images that folks are trying to emulate. Good sound and good lighting are really important to a well shot video -- and its why my family videos aren't watchable except by me and my family. It has little to do with presence or absence of 4K video codecs.

07-09-2016, 09:00 AM - 1 Like	#59
monochrome Loyal Site Supporter Join Date: Mar 2008 Location: Working From Home Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 26,276	Originally posted by Imp Its not black and white like that. For some people, a dslr is just what they need for video, and it'll save them a lot of money if they are equally interested in photography as in cinematography. Consumers want what they want, and expect companies to give it to them regardless of the economics involved. Pentax suffers from a decade of lax investment at its own hands and of Hoya. Catching a moving target (other companies aren't standing still) is extremely challenging. Apparently the Return on Investment in better video isn't high enough to justify the investment for Ricoh. They must believe the cost of adding better video (at this time) is higher than the number of additional cameras sold would return in revenue. Alternatively, there are other places to invest their time and money that will offer higher return in revenue than will video. It's inductive reasoning. If one or both of the above was not true it is likely Ricoh would rapidly improve video.

07-09-2016, 06:04 PM - 1 Like	#60
TaoMaas Pentaxian Join Date: May 2007 Location: Oklahoma City Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 3,574	Originally posted by D1N0 You are having trouble discerning an activity from a technology. . No, I'm not...you are. You want to take a multi-purpose technology and make it singular. ---------- Post added 07-09-2016 at 08:10 PM ---------- Originally posted by Rondec The main reasons why folks use ILCs to shoot videos is the fact that they are capable of narrow depth of field footage and are actually relatively cheap (particularly if you already own one). That still doesn't mean that they are ideal for shooting a feature length film. You are exactly right. I'm a videographer by profession and my work-group is more and more using DSLRs because of the "look" of DSLR video. Not just any DSLR, btw...only full-frame because of the depth of field. Are they ideal for shooting feature length films? Oh HELL, no! But that's only a very, very tiny fraction of the use of video. The other 99% of users shoot news stories, commercials, and industrial videos. For that, a DSLR is a very valid competitor as a platform.