[karl79]

I love the video-image the K-7 produces, I shot video with Canon 5DmkII and Canon 7D but no matter what settings, they both just can't provide the organic-feeling video image of K-7.

My question now is: since K-7 has a Samsung sensor and K-x will have one from Sony...

...will K-x give us a similar video image or will it's characteristics change quite a lot due to the different sensor?
I'm absolutely no tech guy and have no clue what's responsible for that beautiful K-7 out-of-cam-video but I'm thinking about getting the K-x because of 24fps but only if video image characteristics be the same.

Can't wait for more samples to look at so, any thoughts?

[NunoBarbosa]

I would like to see some movie files of the K-x, in low light and rolling shutter.
I'm wondering if i will keep the k-7 or jump for the k-x.

[Sew-Classic]

I would expect the 30 fps on the K-7 to be an advantage over the 24 fps on the Kx in video mode. But I'm sure the Kx has nice video.

I think it's great that Pentax works to improve every camera along the way. I sus[pect that a year or two from now, performance and features of the Kx will be exceeded by the next generation. That's how it usually goes.

[NunoBarbosa]

I would expect the 30 fps on the K-7 to be an advantage over the 24 fps on the Kx in video mode. But I'm sure the Kx has nice video.

I think it's great that Pentax works to improve every camera along the way. I sus[pect that a year or two from now, performance and features of the Kx will be exceeded by the next generation. That's how it usually goes.

In fact for me is a not a vantage, i'm in PAL land, and it is easyer to convert 24p to 25. 30p to 25 is really a pain, and the results aren't perfect. Another reason is that k-7 is a bit noisy in low light, more than any other DSLR with video capabilities. But i want to keep it

[karl79]

But in general,
what gives a DSLR it's unique image characteristics aside from lenses? Sensor, processor, software/algorithms, the sum of all?

It's just that videos from all current Canon vDSLRs felt extremely harsh to me, whilst Nikon and especially Pentax HD video feels much more organic.

The K-7 handles the shadows so differently and so much nicer than the competition!

Might the Sony sensor in K-x change that?





Btw, Nuno, I read that rolling shutter of K-x causes worse jello than most other DSLRs

[richtrav]

Hmm, one thing the K-7 (and Nikon) does differently is use motion jpeg compression, which chews through memory but does take a separate shot for each frame produced and results in subtle changes from frame to frame, like film would give. Canon uses h264 compression which only records the change from frame to frame between keyframes. That can cause no movement over static parts of the image, which can look unnatural at times (some people even add a little grain to their videos later to make them look more "real"). Canon also seems to crush the blacks quicker than Pentax and generally applies more noise reduction to their images so fine details can look mushy. I've heard Panasonic clips the blacks quickly too but haven't used one. But that's part of the K-7's overall philosophical approach to noise and detail.

Canon's video really isn't that bad if you use Faithful or Neutral mode and maybe adjust the contrast a little down and put the sharpening at 1 instead of 0 (but no higher than 2). The default settings are way too harsh and coarse, with the look of a cheap videocamera or 10-year old digicam. By contrast the K-7 takes nice videos right out of the box, with good dynamic range and detail and subtle tonal gradations that gives for a more filmlike look. Resolution-wise the K-7's 1536 mode also gives the 1080 mode on the Canons a good run for their money

One area where Pentax notably got it "right" was by deriving its 720 mode from downsampling and cropping off the larger 1024 image. Other camera makers apparently use a coarser sampling routine for their 720 mode which gives a less detailed image (or they don't go higher than 720 at all in Nikon's case). The K-7 is definitely ahead of the Nikons in terms of detail and crispness but the overall look is not dissimilar

The two drawbacks to the K-7's videos are the higher levels of moire/color aliasing and, less critically, the lack of a higher data rate in 1024 mode. Other than that it's really exceptional for a first generation implementation from a company with no video experience. I hope they continue their excellent video in the next model and don't shy away from going with formats other than the rigid 16:9 1080 or 720 modes, especially if more can be done from the sensor's readout (the full-frame 1536x1024 on the K-7 being an example).

I've only seen one video from the k-x online and it's indoors and a bit grainy, hard to tell anything from it. We'll see, I imagine it will resemble Nikon's videos

[WerTicus]

I would suggest the sensor will change everything. Its a seriously major component and we will trade something for the higher iso

much like the k20d at 100iso has more detail than any of the canikon cameras.

[Torphoto]

I would suggest the sensor will change everything. Its a seriously major component and we will trade something for the higher iso

much like the k20d at 100iso has more detail than any of the canikon cameras.

Something I would recommend, Actually pick up a canon 5d MKII, 1Ds mk or Nikon D3 anything, hell even a 7D and compare it to a k20D in raw and come back and tell me that statement again. Now if you said a 50D or 90D yes you would be right.

[Coby]

> I've only seen one video from the k-x online.

Really? I'm sure there are more, but manwhile here's one very modest clip that includes both lowlight (the forest interiors) and occasional movement that showcases the K-x's pronounced jello. (There are a few shots that are from a trailcam, not the K-x, but you'll recognise those.) The final third of the clip was shot in very dim light and was noisy, but the footage responded fairly well to some Neat Video plugin smoothing.

Vimeo

The HUGE limitation of the K-7's video implementation, and the reason it will never be taken seriously as a VideoDSLR, is that it has no manual shutter control. Very disappointing!

[FullertonImages]

Something I would recommend, Actually pick up a canon 5d MKII, 1Ds mk or Nikon D3 anything, hell even a 7D and compare it to a k20D in raw and come back and tell me that statement again. Now if you said a 50D or 90D yes you would be right.

Way to challenge a thread that's been dead for a year. But anyways, I've done that, and he's right. I've compared real world results with lots and lots of cameras from canikon, both pro bodies and amateur bodies, pro lenses and amateur lenses, pro shooters and amateur shooter, and I Haven't seen anything yet that has the color, contrast, and sharpness of K20d at iso100. I'm not saying that lots of those cameras aren't better at high iso's, but at 100, nothing has beaten it yet.