[Edgar_in_Indy]

If video is as important to you as stills, Pentax is not the system to wait on.....If you can't afford to run two systems, go with the one that makes you overall happier, not brand loyalty. m4/3 stills aren't too far off from APS-C either.

Good advice. I love Pentax for my stills, but I've become more interested in video the last couple years, so it is now a factor in my choice of system. And I've kind of been spoiled by a couple cameras that do great video...first the Sony RX100 II and then the Panasonic LX100.

[magkelly]

Bottom line Pentax isn't making video cameras. It's making digital cameras with some film capacity which is NOT the same thing. Pentax makes their cameras mainly for PHOTOGRAPHERS not for people doing video. Their video capacity is meant for occasional short filming for fun not for making epics. You want a video camera capable of really making movies than go buy a VIDEO camera. This is an argument I am really getting sick of, no offense, but I'm tired of seeing people moan and complain about Pentax DSLRs and that not being set up for doing major video. They're STILL cameras that just happen to be able to handle doing a quick video for You Tube or whatever. They're not meant for doing videos much beyond that and I think it's asking too much to try to use them that way.

Honestly I don't even know what 4K is and nor do I particularly care. I admittedly have yet to use the video capacity on any of my cameras. It's just a bonus thing that the cameras I own are capable of but that so far I haven't had much use for. Pentax cameras they're all about making PHOTOGRAPHS not movies. The fact that you can shoot a short film I suppose is cool if you're into that, but so long as I can do PHOTOS I don't care much if the cameras they make have video capacity. I've never understood why people are trying to make DSLR's into video cams. Shooting video all the time isn't particularly good for or with a DSLR. A video camera still makes more sense for this...

[Edgar_in_Indy]

Bottom line Pentax isn't making video cameras. It's making digital cameras with some film capacity which is NOT the same thing. Pentax makes their cameras mainly for PHOTOGRAPHERS not for people doing video. Their video capacity is meant for occasional short filming for fun not for making epics. You want a video camera capable of really making movies than go buy a VIDEO camera. This is an argument I am really getting sick of, no offense, but I'm tired of seeing people moan and complain about Pentax DSLRs and that not being set up for doing major video. They're STILL cameras that just happen to be able to handle doing a quick video for You Tube or whatever. They're not meant for doing videos much beyond that and I think it's asking too much to try to use them that way.

Honestly I don't even know what 4K is and nor do I particularly care. I admittedly have yet to use the video capacity on any of my cameras. It's just a bonus thing that the cameras I own are capable of but that so far I haven't had much use for. Pentax cameras they're all about making PHOTOGRAPHS not movies. The fact that you can shoot a short film I suppose is cool if you're into that, but so long as I can do PHOTOS I don't care much if the cameras they make have video capacity. I've never understood why people are trying to make DSLR's into video cams. Shooting video all the time isn't particularly good for or with a DSLR. A video camera still makes more sense for this...

I usually agree with your posts and enjoy them, but I don't know why it would make you so mad that somebody wants the same video features that the competitors are offering. It's the direction the industry is going, and it's what a lot of normal people want.

I don't know if you have kids, but when you are already holding your camera, with your fancy lens, and taking pictures of your kids, it's very nice to be able to push a button and immediately switch to making high-quality video that looks good even when viewed on a large display. Is it a crime to want video that is not low-contrast, grainy, jaggy, sparkly, aliased, moired, washed out, and just generally ugly?

I imagine many other photographers...wedding folks, documentary people, news reporters, etc...would enjoy the same capability. Photography and video is not as far apart as you make it out to be. They are much more similar than they are different.

I'm well aware that Pentax isn't offering much in the way of video. That was the whole point of my original post. I didn't get mad. I didn't rant. I just said that since Pentax isn't offering the video features I want, I am now regretfully considering camera/system B. I thought the post was constructive, but it was predictable to me that some people were going to jump up on a soapbox.

Is it better when customers abandon the brand, that they just do so in silence, and not share the reasons why? I don't see how that helps Pentax or anyone else.

[Bunch]

So what cameras offer 4K and have still photo IQ that is on par with the K-3? The $8,000 Canon 1DS and the $2,500 Sony A7s? Any others? I'll take the K-3 prices instead.

[Edgar_in_Indy]

So what cameras offer 4K and have still photo IQ that is on par with the K-3? The $8,000 Canon 1DS and the $2,500 Sony A7s? Any others? I'll take the K-3 prices instead.

Yeah, the perfect low-cost, camera doesn't seem to exist. The Samsung NX1 is supposed to be very good though. It's got a new, 28MP APS-C sensor. But 4K obviously is not important to you, so the K-3 is hard to beat. No argument there.

BTW, I just looked up the Samsung NX1 on DxoMark, and it actually beats the K3...83 vs 80. I know some people scoff at DxoMark scores, but from what I have seen they correlate very well to real-world sensor performance. As far as cost, it just came out, and for the body it's $1499. Not too much more than the $1299 the K-3 was released at a couple years ago.

Like I said earlier in the thread, if Samsung had given the NX1 sensor stabilization, it would be my obvious choice.

[TaoMaas]

So what cameras offer 4K and have still photo IQ that is on par with the K-3?

You're right...it's a very short list. BUT, if Pentax could offer 4K and keep their photo IQ, they would have a market advantage over Canon and Nikon.

---------- Post added 07-17-2015 at 07:57 PM ----------

If video is as important to you as stills, Pentax is not the system to wait on.

You've only been with Pentax for a short while, true? Otherwise, you'd know that Pentax is worth waiting for.

[Edgar_in_Indy]

You've only been with Pentax for a short while, true? Otherwise, you'd know that Pentax is worth waiting for.

The problem is, my kids aren't waiting to grow up! I wish Pentax would bring some more video features to the table, but like others have pointed out, that's not their strength or focus.

[aleonx3]

...
Did I say that? Why the caustic tone?

No, you didn't say that categorically, but the tone of your thread sounds like a rich kindergarten kid telling the teacher to do what he wants or else he would tell his parents to cut off funding to the operation. Granted that this may not be your intention, but the tone certainly sounds like it. I can also see that if you are one of those elite group of ambassadors or high profile photographers, perhaps you may "rant" or hinted a little bit of discontent but it may also backfire on you as it may discredit yourself as a professional... just saying though...

I am not much into video and I am not familiar the significance of 4k means to you. If it does, by all means as some of the posters here already suggested finding the right tool to get the job done even if it means switching to another brand and is perfectly fine.

[Cannikin]

You've only been with Pentax for a short while, true? Otherwise, you'd know that Pentax is worth waiting for.

If 6 years is a short while, then sure, whatever you think.

My first DSLR was the K-x in 2009, a few short months after the very first Pentax DSLR with video, the K-7. Since then Pentax's video implementation has hardly progressed at all. Pretty much the only significant thing they've added is 1080 resolution in a few frame rates. In fact, they've gone backwards in one key way: the K-5's mechanical SR was fairly decent at stabilizing the image, while all recent Pentax DSLRs, including the K-3, implement the horrible "digital SR" which is completely unusable.

If you've been waiting 6 years for Pentax to give good video, you've been wasting your time. Far better video implementations already exist and have existed for several years now. Pentax has not given any indication that they will catch up anytime soon, which is why I bought a real video tool last year, the GH4. My still extensive Pentax system serves a different purpose.

[fuent104]

I've never understood why people are trying to make DSLR's into video cams. Shooting video all the time isn't particularly good for or with a DSLR. A video camera still makes more sense for this...

The honest truth is that there is still no video camera on the market with a DSLR-sized sensor (or even M4/3) That sells for moderate DSLR prices, let alone one with interchangeable lenses. The closest thing, really, would be the Sony VG10 / VG / 20 series, which have not received good reviews at all. The Black Magic 4K cinema camera could be thrown in there, and it retails for $3000.

Now does it make sense to you why people care about video?

As such people aren't trying to make cameras into anything...they're simply using one of the features (video) more often than you do.

I shoot video professionally. DSLRs are often the best tool for the job, they are used extremely frequently in Hollywood for this purpose.

[Cannikin]

I think for the foreseeable future large sensor video will be dominated by mirrorless cameras. Nikon has so far shown about as little attention to video as Pentax, and even Canon, once a major pioneer of DSLR video with the 5D Mark II, is falling behind Panasonic, Sony and Samsung. If the Big Two aren't doing so well, DSLR video's future kind of looks bleak.

[fuent104]

I think for the foreseeable future large sensor video will be dominated by mirrorless cameras. Nikon has so far shown about as little attention to video as Pentax, and even Canon, once a major pioneer of DSLR video with the 5D Mark II, is falling behind Panasonic, Sony and Samsung. If the Big Two aren't doing so well, DSLR video's future kind of looks bleak.

It's not that they are not doing well, it is a matter of choice. Canon DSLRS are much more heavily used than any of the mirrorless cameras in Los Angeles, despite the technical disadvantages.

Canon obviously has a line of cinema cameras, and Magic Lantern proved years ago that better video features and quality were available with existing hardware.

[Rondec]

The honest truth is that there is still no video camera on the market with a DSLR-sized sensor (or even M4/3) That sells for moderate DSLR prices, let alone one with interchangeable lenses. The closest thing, really, would be the Sony VG10 / VG / 20 series, which have not received good reviews at all. The Black Magic 4K cinema camera could be thrown in there, and it retails for $3000.

Now does it make sense to you why people care about video?

As such people aren't trying to make cameras into anything...they're simply using one of the features (video) more often than you do.

I shoot video professionally. DSLRs are often the best tool for the job, they are used extremely frequently in Hollywood for this purpose.

I just find an SLR to be not a great way of shooting video. Yes, the quality can be decent if your codec is decent, but they really require stabilization of some kind (even mechanical SR isn't that great), some type of external mic, and the end result is not very good at all ergonomically. To me the big thing SLRs bring to the table is the ability to change lenses. You can shoot really narrow depth of field video with them that you have difficulty doing with a normal camcorder. But that doesn't mean that they are easy to use and when your depth of field gets shallow, they are even harder to use.

[fuent104]

I just find an SLR to be not a great way of shooting video. Yes, the quality can be decent if your codec is decent, but they really require stabilization of some kind (even mechanical SR isn't that great), some type of external mic, and the end result is not very good at all ergonomically. To me the big thing SLRs bring to the table is the ability to change lenses. You can shoot really narrow depth of field video with them that you have difficulty doing with a normal camcorder. But that doesn't mean that they are easy to use and when your depth of field gets shallow, they are even harder to use.

If a camcorder had a large sensor and interchangeable lenses for under a grand, I'd buy it.

A with shooting stills, it is common to accessorize one's camera when shooting video.

[Rondec]

If a camcorder had a large sensor and interchangeable lenses for under a grand, I'd buy it.

A with shooting stills, it is common to accessorize one's camera when shooting video.

I'm not against Pentax upgrading their video. I think they should and am sure they will over time. I just think that it is limited usefulness to most folks -- more about grabbing a short clip when you don't have a camcorder with you than trying to film your child's dance recital or them skiing or whatever life events you want to document. If you know you want to do video, it feels like a clumsy tool to use for it.