[rawr]

It seems inevitable that we will soon see on PentaxForums (after the 2020 Tokyo Olympics or perhaps even before that), a thread titled:
'Pentax is going to lose me because of 8K'.


Probably soon Samsung or someone else will release a 8K video capable smart-phone for $500, and then the flood-gates will open. It's a tough time to be a camera maker.

[Edgar_in_Indy]

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.

Yeah, that's me...a spoiled rich kid. We all know that Pentax is the camera of choice for the trust-fund types.

I am not much into video and I am not familiar the significance of 4k means to you.

If it's something you don't know or even care about, then I don't know why you would have jumped into the conversation aggressively the way you did.

I don't know or care much about astrophotography or geotagging, but I don't get obnoxious or up in arms when other people on here start talking about adding or refining such features in Pentax cameras. Why does talking about video features elicit that type of response in so many people here?

The way I see it, any feature that will attract more people to the brand will be good for the system, and will benefit everybody in the end.

[magkelly]

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.

I'm not mad I'm just making a point, that DSLR's are not really made for doing more than quick video clips. It really doesn't matter so much if they have truly great video or not. A video camera is better because you can get decent video and not have to worry about your camera heating up too much. It's for a 2 minute clip. It's not so good for much more than that. People are trying to make DSLR's into video cams. They're pushing the technology in ways that aren't necessarily that great for their cameras. Like someone else said the sensor chips for video are prone towards overheating at the present time. That's not something I want to risk too much. I'd rather use a designated video cam that is made for that than risk my DSLR.

I can do stills from video cam too but they usually look a little crappy compared to stills from a still camera. Video from a video cam is much better in most cases than video from a DSLR and since video cams are now pretty cheap and very compact for hand held use it just makes more sense to get one and use that. I mean why use the still camera for doing video when a video cam can do it so much better? Why use the video cam for snaps when a still camera is so much better? I believe in using the right tool for the job that's all.

[Edgar_in_Indy]

I'm not mad I'm just making a point, that DSLR's are not really made for doing more than quick video clips.....Like someone else said the sensor chips for video are prone towards overheating at the present time. That's not something I want to risk too much.

There are plenty of "stills" cameras that record high quality video without overheating. But I'm not talking about being able to record two hours of video on a hot, sunny day. I'm talking about the kind of short video clips you are describing. I just want them to look good. Just because my video clips aren't destined for the big screen, doesn't mean I don't care about the image quality.

Everyone is entitled to their opinions and their preferences, but your views on the capabilities and the proper rolls of DSLR's and video are antiquated, and will become more antiquated with every new camera announcement. As others have pointed out, DSLR's far outclass camcorders these days in terms of video quality. In order to get comparable quality from a dedicated video camera, you need to go to something a large/complicated/dedicated professional level video camera.

Why reinvent the wheel, if a "stills" camera already has all the major components to also be an excellent video camera? Why fight against good-looking video? I don't get it.

[Mattox]

I really hope that the new line up is as simple as a spotmatic. I am kinda over all these features and I think photography is loosing it's true charm because of it. Give me a FF with 25 MP's and fully manual function and I will be one happy photographer

[Edgar_in_Indy]

I really hope that the new line up is as simple as a spotmatic. I am kinda over all these features and I think photography is loosing it's true charm because of it. Give me a FF with 25 MP's and fully manual function and I will be one happy photographer

If I've achieved nothing else, at least I can feel good that I've given the purists a place to vent about their bewilderment and befuddlement with all the confusing buttons on their modern cameras.

The camera you describe makes about as much sense as Volkswagen releasing the 1940's Beetle with no changes other than a 400 HP supercharged engine.

[Rondec]

There are plenty of "stills" cameras that record high quality video without overheating. But I'm not talking about being able to record two hours of video on a hot, sunny day. I'm talking about the kind of short video clips you are describing. I just want them to look good. Just because my video clips aren't destined for the big screen, doesn't mean I don't care about the image quality.

Everyone is entitled to their opinions and their preferences, but your views on the capabilities and the proper rolls of DSLR's and video are antiquated, and will become more antiquated with every new camera announcement. As others have pointed out, DSLR's far outclass camcorders these days in terms of video quality. In order to get comparable quality from a dedicated video camera, you need to go to something a large/complicated/dedicated professional level video camera.

Why reinvent the wheel, if a "stills" camera already has all the major components to also be an excellent video camera? Why fight against good-looking video? I don't get it.

I wouldn't say that SLRs out class camcorders, unless you are hankering after narrow depth of field video (really tough to shoot well in my opinion). Tracking shots, situations where you need more depth of field -- most of this is done best by a camcorder. And holding an SLR in front of your face, trying to adjust the focus on the fly -- all of those things are significantly harder ergonomically than with a standard camcorder shape.

[Edgar_in_Indy]

I wouldn't say that SLRs out class camcorders, unless you are hankering after narrow depth of field video (really tough to shoot well in my opinion).

I'm not saying that shooting video with a DSLR is not without its challenges, and that dedicated camcorders do not have their advantages. But where they specifically outclass camcorders is in terms of image quality related to optics and sensors...particularly in less-than-ideal light conditions. And other things you mention, such as tracking, are improving rapidly in cameras compared to a few years ago.

One of the best arguments for endowing stills cameras with good video attributes is that you've already bought it, and it's already in your hand. You don't have to buy, learn, and juggle two devices.

[fuent104]

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.

Completely. But so are telephoto lenses, waist-level view finders, and large format cameras. It's just a matter of whether the image quality is worth it to the individual. Uns a moderately priced camcorder with the same iq and interchangeable lenses, dslr video will continue to be worth it for a lot of people.

[Rondec]

I'm not saying that shooting video with a DSLR is not without its challenges, and that dedicated camcorders do not have their advantages. But where they specifically outclass camcorders is in terms of image quality related to optics and sensors...particularly in less-than-ideal light conditions. And other things you mention, such as tracking, are improving rapidly in cameras compared to a few years ago.

One of the best arguments for endowing stills cameras with good video attributes is that you've already bought it, and it's already in your hand. You don't have to buy, learn, and juggle two devices.

I guess.

None of the SLRs I have seen does well with auto focus in video, particularly not with narrow depth of field. Mirrorless are significantly better options for video due to their EVFs, although they still aren't great ergonomically.

[osv]

Completely. But so are telephoto lenses, waist-level view finders, and large format cameras. It's just a matter of whether the image quality is worth it to the individual. Uns a moderately priced camcorder with the same iq and interchangeable lenses, dslr video will continue to be worth it for a lot of people.

sony data and market predictions show that camcorder sales have been somewhat stable, while dslr and mirrorless markets as a whole continue to decline.

so putting video capability in a clumsy form factor isn't going to save the still camera market, and indeed, that's probably why pentax hasn't embraced it in a serious way... pentax users don't care about video.

most prosumer video camera sales come from event shooters and such, not hollywood film-style shooters... event shooters are people who realize the value of parfocal lenses in a friendly form factor, neither of which you can get with any dslr.

[Edgar_in_Indy]

sony data and market predictions show that camcorder sales have been somewhat stable, while dslr and mirrorless markets as a whole continue to decline.

If stills camera sales are declining and video camera sales are holding steady, then I'm not sure I see the logic that would lead Pentax or any other stills camera manufacturer to cripple the video capabilities of their cameras. I wonder what the data would show in regards to sales trends of cameras with strong video features versus models with weak video features.

[Aegon]

Choosing a system capable of shooting better video than Pentax is a perfectly good reason to switch.

Using a 4K capable camera to shoot video is a perfectly reasonable thing to do.

Best of luck with your switch. I concurrently shot many systems, including Pentax, Olympus, Panasonic, Canon, Nikon, and some Sony. In the end I chose Olympus+Panasonic and I haven't looked back. All of these cameras are amazingly capable for shooting still images, but Panasonic (and in some circumstances Sony) shoots video at a higher level. And you'll appreciate the difference.

[fuent104]

sony data and market predictions show that camcorder sales have been somewhat stable, while dslr and mirrorless markets as a whole continue to decline.

so putting video capability in a clumsy form factor isn't going to save the still camera market, and indeed, that's probably why pentax hasn't embraced it in a serious way... pentax users don't care about video.

most prosumer video camera sales come from event shooters and such, not hollywood film-style shooters... event shooters are people who realize the value of parfocal lenses in a friendly form factor, neither of which you can get with any dslr.

If Ricoh only ever tries to sell to existing Pentax users, and continues to ignore developments in the market while other manufacturers continue to add capabilities...they will probably nerve be a market leader, and will have a hard time staying in business.

If pentax users don't care about video, it is because there isn't a Pentax camera with video with caring about.

[osv]

it takes engineering $$ to incorporate video, i can only guess that doing a half-baked job of it happens because a company thinks that there isn't enough roi to do it right... nikon also did a poor job of implementing video, for a number of years, but why can't pentax at least match what nikon offers... is 1080p60 avchd too much to ask?

canon of course started the dslr video craze, but now they have too many market segments to protect, so they refuse to be competitive the dslr video arena... it would hurt 'em somewhere else.

panasonic is very innovative, but they only make small sensor cameras, which are not very good in low-light conditions, and they've had problems with vibration in the stabilization system of at least one of their zooms... lotta bang for the buck tho, with panasonic, if you can live with the performance limitations.

the company that's creating the most excitement in the dslr/milc video arena is sony... the a7s stands alone of course, but maybe bigger than that, is the 28-135 zoom, because it's a motorized parfocal lens... no one else has done that, not even the canon cine zooms, which cost a whole lot of $$$, fill the same niche... much better glass of course, but not comparable functionality... it's like sony actually studied the overall market, and gave everyone a little bit of something... still shooters, eng, film-style hollywood types, event people, etc.

samsung is the dark horse, 28mp crop and h.265 are cutting edge.