[rparmar]

The AF100 is not aspopular as you would think for video. It is quite difficult to achieve decent dynamic range with it, and larger sensors are more popular.

Did I say it was popular? I don't remember.

At the price the only thing competitive is the Sony FS100, right? Then you are locked into E-mount. And have to use a pretty clunky interface (they tell me). If you have ten times as much to spend, then, yes, there are alternatives.

As to dynamic range... to get the looks and do the grading most people are after these days, you actually want the flattest possible image and decrease the dynamic range. At least, that is my understanding, but I am not a videographer.

Anyway, all this is rather irrelevant to the main point about Pentax competing in this market.

P.S. The AF100 being a couple years old, no doubt we will see a successor with more dynamic range and (likely) lower pixel count. The goal-posts are always moving.

---

Last edited by rparmar; 02-11-2013 at 06:55 PM.

[fuent104]

My point about the AF100 was that it does not prevent Pentax from producing a quality camera, or from being competitive. Only Pentax can do that.

[Alizarine]

I have both the GH2 and VG900 that I use with my Pentax lenses, here are two videos shot with the same Pentax 50mm F1.4 FA lens two years apart, one with the GH2 the other with the VG900:

Thanks for that post! those are very good samples!

as for Pentax making a video camera, well, isn't the enthusiast videographer segment growing also?

[Tanzer]

The AF100 is not aspopular as you would think for video ... and larger sensors are more popular.

Aside from cinema cameras, aren't most normal professional studio and ENG cameras using 1/3" or 2/3" sensors, which are smaller than micro-four-thirds? I could be wrong about this.

But I am quite certain that many people (and this is not directed at the poster quoted herein), in general, incorrectly assume that bigger is always better. Probably just based on the hype around the 5D Mk II/III.

If pentax were to make aexceptional camera for a great price (maybe without a low pass filter) ....

I believe that having a low pass filter is even more critical to have, when a high-resolution DSLR sensor is pressed into service as a considerably lower-resolution 1080, 2k, or 4k video sensor. I could be wrong about this too.

---

Last edited by Tanzer; 02-11-2013 at 10:29 PM.

[Tanzer]

I have both the GH2 and VG900 that I use with my Pentax lenses, here are two videos ...

Thanks for posting this. The videos are short -- care to summarize your impressions of how the two cameras compare? I would assume the VG900 rips the GH2 apart in terms of ergonomics and video-specific features. But as casual videos, both those clips look great.

[jogiba]

Thanks for posting this. The videos are short -- care to summarize your impressions of how the two cameras compare? I would assume the VG900 rips the GH2 apart in terms of ergonomics and video-specific features. But as casual videos, both those clips look great.

The VG900 is the only full frame camcorder made and shoots jpeg/raw 24mp stills with shutter speeds from 30-1/8000 sec and iso from 100-32000 so it's also the only full frame mirrorless hybrid camera so all of my Pentax lenses work in full frame or APS-C mode since the VG900 has both modes. The VG900 has the Sony High contrast XGA ( 2359K dots ) OLED Tru-Finder(TM) EVF w/ eye sensor compared to 1530K dots on the GH2 EVF. The VG900 also has clean HDMI output for uncompressed 1080p. The GH2 with m4/3rds has a nice selection of fast primes like the 17.5mm, 25mm and 42.5mm F0.95s. I have the 25mm F0.95 that is the sharpest lens ever tested on Lenstip and is fantastic in low light.

So I would say the VG900 has the advantage of a full frame sensor that also crops it to APS-C size when using APS-C lenses like the new Sony 16-50mm power zoom lens with silent AF and OSS that I just purchased for it to use like a consumer camcorder. The GH2 has the advantage in cost since it's a fraction of the price and also works with all of my Pentax lenses in 2x crop mode. But you are correct in that the VG900 has all of the video controls that you would need when shooting video along with optional XLR adapter kit for pro audio.

[Tanzer]

Oh that's wild! I played around with a NEX-7 for the first time, and was surprised how well that felt. I mention this because this demonstrates that there are good video solutions which work with K-mount lenses, at lower price points, too. Maybe there isn't much opportunity left for Pentax after all, I dunno.

[FullertonImages]

I would personally love to the the K-0x line turn into a dedicated and awesome video lineup. The form factor is perfect really. Look at where everyone is going, the FS-100/700, the RED Epic/Scarlet, the Black Magic Cinema Camera; it's all about a box with a brain and a sensor in it. Form factor doesn't matter, peripherals are better added on specific to what you need at the time.

As far as I can tell, the K-01 hasn't hit on big with the photo community, and I remember the filmmakers around here being pretty exited that it would be our answer to filmmaking, but it wasn't. It's does well, but it's not amazing. It has manual controls and a few other things, but the image from the K-5 still looks much better IMHO, and it's still missing quite a few features that would make it the bomb.

But I totally think that if they abandoned it as photo camera, put a native resolution 2K sensor in it and packed it ful of video related features, that it would be quite the popular piece of gear.

[jogiba]

I purchased the K-01 from B&H the first day it was available for $749 (body only) and it now sells for $299 or $316 with 40mm XS lens that makes it the best deal in a 1080p APS-C mirrorless. If Pentax came out with a full frame version with high quality EVF like in my VG900 it would be a hot seller at the right price to users who have a bunch of full frame K-mount lenses like me but I just don't think that would happen and I am satisfied using my K-mount lenses on my VG900. It's nice to see the full 94° FOV from my ultra compact full frame SMC Pentax-M 20mm F4 for the first time since using it on my 35mm Pentax SLRs.

[fuent104]

Aside from cinema cameras, aren't most normal professional studio and ENG cameras using 1/3" or 2/3" sensors, which are smaller than micro-four-thirds? I could be wrong about this.

You are correct. It is with cinema cameras that dslrs "compete." essentially, they provide better opportunities for subject isolation through shallow depth of field than ENG cameras do.

I agree that most people assume the 5DMkIII because of hype. However, I also think most people would chose it objectively when asked whether its image was more aesthetically pleasing than an ENG camera.

[rparmar]

We are lucky and spoiled. There is a tool out there already for every need, with capabilities that far outshine the talent that is applied to them (in most cases). Post-process can get you any look you desire from the high quality streams at our disposal. But first you need the storyboard, the lighting, the rig, the audio, the acting talent, etc. Arguing about the minutiae of camera sensors gets tiring.

I agree that most people assume the 5DMkIII because of hype. However, I also think most people would chose it objectively when asked whether its image was more aesthetically pleasing than an ENG camera.

No doubt true, because ENG cameras are made for ENG, hardly an aesthetic enterprise!

There are those who would argue that the GH1 is aesthetically superior to the GH2/3 and Canon cameras. Search and one can find the threads. I don't have the experience to argue this one way or the other.

Even easier to encounter are those opinions that equate thin DOF with "cinema". That demonstrates an almost complete lack of knowledge of film history. Plus a slovenly devotion to what is trendy at this exact minute.

My next video might well examine this fetish.

[fuent104]

But first you need the storyboard, the lighting, the rig, the audio, the acting talent, etc

Even easier to encounter are those opinions that equate thin DOF with "cinema".

I've had quite a few discussions about this (cinematography is what I do for a living). My conclusion is that it relates to your first comment about lighting, storyboards, etc. I think there are many things that contribute to quality movie production that are simply out of the reach / knowledge of most consumers, such as the things you mentioned, as well as quality tripods, dollies, etc. Shallow depth of field and 24fps progressive video were traditionally two more aspects of cinema that were unavailable to most consumers. Both of those have been addressed by dslr video, and they are two of the only things a consumer can do in-camera, without any additional equipment or knowledge, to create a "cinematic" look. As a result, I think people have gone nuts with it.

[FullertonImages]

You are correct. It is with cinema cameras that dslrs "compete." essentially, they provide better opportunities for subject isolation through shallow depth of field than ENG cameras do.

I agree that most people assume the 5DMkIII because of hype. However, I also think most people would chose it objectively when asked whether its image was more aesthetically pleasing than an ENG camera.

I think you're very right here.

I remember talking with Corey Rich, a pretty high level adventure photographer, a while ago at a seminar. He was was of the first guys to really jump on the DLSR video thing when the D90 first came out and start trying to do serious work with it (at least among the people I follow closely). One of the first big projects he did was using a DV camera (don't remember what kind, but I'm sure it was something respectably high end for DV at the time) as the main camera, and a D90 as the B camera. He said once they started cutting it together and you could see the footage side by side, it was just astounding how much the DV footage looked like shit compared to the D90; and he's never been able to enjoy the look of DV footage since.

There's a lot of hype around DSLR video, but for the most part, I would say it's very deserved. My knowledge of filmmaking doesn't date back very far, but from my understanding of things, prior to DSLRs if you want a cinematic look to you footage, it was extraordinarily expensive to achieve. Now all of the sudden, we have a box-office feature film (Act of Valor) being filmed 80% with a camera (5DmkII) that costs less than $3000.

I would almost argue that the magnitude of the shift that DSLRs brought to filmmaking couldn't possibly be overhyped.

[Alizarine]

I would almost argue that the magnitude of the shift that DSLRs brought to filmmaking couldn't possibly be overhyped.

And with good marketing moves, Pentax could actually snatch a good portion of that market.

[fuent104]

And with good marketing moves, Pentax could actually snatch a good portion of that market.

They would need to add some competitive features, too. The only real advantage I can think of for Pentax right now is in-body stabilization. Which is a huge advantage. But Canon's video features crush Pentax's in most other categories.