New low-cost Pentax K-x w/HD video!
 

Compact, lightweight body
The PENTAX K-x is one of the most compact, lightweight digital SLR cameras in its class. The stainless-steel chassis and overall design offer a space-efficient layout.

Widescreen HD movie recording at 1280x720 pixels at a cinematic 24 frames per second (720p24)
The PENTAX K-x movie recording function*1 captures true-to-life movie clips in 16:9 high-definition TV proportions (1280 x 720 pixels) at a frame rate of 24 frames per second. Compatible with every PENTAX interchangeable lens ever made, the Video Capture mode opens a new world of creativity for PENTA K-x owners.

With F3.5 looks like truly expen$ive home movie camera. Most likely horrible motion effects and again- sound issues.

Aside from frame rate, will this provide the same video quality as the K-7? Just purchased a K-7 package, and am wondering if this would provide a viable option when 24P is called for.

Robert, dude, this is an interchangeable lense camera. Who cares what the kits is, when you are paying $650 for the package? Pentax has a vast array of excellent lenses and great backward compatibility.

Your home movie shooters wouldn't want 24P, and probably dont care about having an APS-sized sensor with reduced DoF either, but for a lot of independent film-makers .... that's EXACTLY what they want.

Just bayonet the superb and knife-sharp SMC-M 24mm f/2 or FA SMC *85mm f/1.4 IF or SMC-A* 135mm F/1.8 or SMC-A 200mm f/2.8 or FA 300mm F2.8 IF or FA 600mm f/4 and see what happens... :)

Manufacturer Product Page:

K-x White - Official PENTAX Imaging Web Site

Interesting thing is the sensor-based image stabilization - would be nice to use this combined with my old manual pentx lenses (assuming it works in video mode).

Unfortunately they went with MJPEG for the video codec though. No word on data rate but considering it's SD based I wouldn't expect it to be particularly high. Expect it'll fall apart with motion pretty easily.

QUOTE> will this provide the same video quality as the K_7?

The Kx has the same Prime-II imaging engine as the K7, but a different, non-Samsung CMOS sensor (12.4Mp vs. 14.6Mp in the K7). The Kx is capable of up to 720p24, vs. up to 1024p30 for the K7. Quality-wise, too soon to say but I would anticipate the K7 will be better.

Most of the footage I saw shot with DSLR (both Nikon and Canon) looked like shit. No matter how good your depth of field, how good of the lens, these cameras don't handle motion worth of crap. Plus the sound is pure garbage. Any EX1 blows these rigs out of the water, period- Not to mention HPX 300, HPX500 or PDW 355- all under 30K. 24p and DOF doesn't make a movie. You want "movie look"- shoot film- simple. Get a budget, rent a camera, buy stock and shoot. But don't fool yourself- these indy "movies" won't make it even to DVD release, not to mention a big screen. Honestly- if the only thing you can afford is DSLR don't bother hoping for big screen release. Honestly- you can make the same product with HV40. That's why imo it's a home camera and nothing more.

Robert, tell us how you really feel. :)

Owning the 5D2, the challenge is to stabilize the camera well, and use a filter if there is fine detail that will alias. If you take those two precautions, you can get great video.

Also, the sound on the 5D2 is actually very, very good - if you use an external preamp, like a juicedLink, and run Magic Lantern to disable the auto gain.

6. Canon 5D Mark II Audio Exposed - Conclusions on Vimeo

If you're shooting fine lace, handheld, on a boat in a windstorm with the built-in mic, yes, the HV40 will trounce any HDSLR. On the other hand, if you're shooting a romantic scene in a naturally lit restaurant, using a dolly, jib, steadicam, or tripod, the 5D2 (with good lenses, filters, preamp, and mic) will shred any small-chip camera.

It's all about knowing the strengths and weaknesses of the tools and using them properly. It's also about knowing your vision and choosing the right tool for the job - and the budget.

Jon, Juicelink or other device- the signal still gets compressed- this is a real issue. I am working on a documentary, where some of the footage was shot with DVX100, some with HD100, some with EX1 and now some with HM100. You can't even compare compressed sound from DVX and sound recorded from EX1 or HM100 -uncompressed, even to untrained ear. Even low budget docs will have a separate sound person with 16 or 24 bit LPCM recorder.
Honestly- movie industry is not in a business of wasting money. If DSLR would produce adequate picture even for DVD release they would use it- trust me.
Maybe the technology will get there in a year or two, but now it simply not there. So, no even this Pentax doesn't go beyond home use capabilities

That's not true for the 5D Mark II. The audio is 44.1 kHz, 16-bits PCM uncompressed. In the case of the 7D, the sample rate is 48 kHz. And with a clean preamp and Magic Lantern, the 5D2 gives true 16-bit performance.

We recorded the audio of our recent 48-hour project into the camera, and it sounded great in the theater.

Dream Job on Vimeo

In fact, look closely at the video. You won't find rolling shutter problems. There's minimal aliasing. Aside from special effects shots, we only corrected five or so shots. The rest is untouched from the camera.

No video camera in this price range could provide this result including the shallow DOF. (Red One? Yes. Film? Yes. But those cost well over five times as much.)

HDSLRs offer budget filmmakers something that we could never afford before - shallow DOF with extremely low noise.

And, yes, they are imperfect. But with skill, the imperfections are a non issue.

Jon, I should have checked Canon, but both Nikon and Panasonic have sound compression. As the matter of fact sound recorded (with a decent microphone) on Nikon was quite bad. I think it will be very hard to compare Canon 5D to K7. Canon 5D is a professional camera, costing 5 times more then Pentax or almost 2 times more then D90. So in a sense your argument doesn't contradict my statement- K7 will have most likely performance good enough for serious amateur use.

Yeah, there are DVSLRs and then there are DVSLRs.

The big difference between the top Canon cams and many of the lower priced entries is...

* uncompressed audio
* 1080p (many, including the K-x are 720)
* high quality video encoding (h.264 at 40 to 48 mbps)
* moderate rolling shutter (it's 25ms top to bottom on the 5D2)
* price (though the 7D is "only" $1,700)

Before long, DVSLRs will solve their aliasing problems and speed up the sensors to get rid of the jello. And video cameras will integrate large DVSLR sensors. The revolution isn't being televised, but you can follow it online. :)

BTW, my sons are up in Bellingham (one at Western, the other at Whatcom). We shot The Murder of Dirk Snowglobe, a 15-minute short, up there with the 5D2. We submitted it to the Seattle International Film Festival, but didn't get in. (3,000 entries for 150 spots.) We're now reworking it, and will submit it to other festivals later this week. Soon, they plan to promote an on-campus showing of our previous films to help fund this crazy stuff. :)

I don't see how they can without making the stills look soft. This is the problem with a hybrid camera. The requirements for good stills are totally different to those of video.

I've laid into the 5D and 7D a lot. Although as a DSLR to take on holiday that I can also get adequate footage with I wouldn't mind one. But the aliasing alone, never mind the sound, puts it on the 'don't bother' list for me as far as professional work goes.

Just like oversampling in audio systems, they can filter digitally. That would allow crisp stills and fantastic video, given long enough filters. The challenge is to read all of the pixels fast enough, and to have enough juice in the DSP.

Red essentially takes this approach, but not (yet) in camera. We get a heavily oversampled 4k image, and can filter in post to get a super-sharp 3k (or so) result with no aliasing. That's why Scarlet 2/3 is 3k. It's intended to produce a 1080p or 2k result.

It's *THEORETICALLY* possible. Read out the full sensor 24x a second (not skipping pixels), then downconvert the full sensor res 24p signal to normal HD (taking care here with the low pass filtering). Of course, high quality downconvertors don't come cheap, and the effort of reading the full sensor at 24fps (let alone 50 or 60) shouldn't be underestimated.
Yes, and rather than what I theorised above, it will probably be far more cost effective to just buy a dedicated stills camera and a separate dedicated video camera for a long time to come! That will also allow stills to be taken of the video production....... ;-)

Jon, i think the possibilities are there, but I think it's very slowly trickling down. There are some technical issues with how scans are done for still and for motion- also true with film cameras as well. I don't believe that hybrids are the way of the future, but larger sensor are. Also the issue is the compression, which in case of DSLR eliminate them from any fast action shooting so far- maybe it won't be the case in a year or two, but this is the case for now. I don't believe it will be any different with K-7.
I just think a lot of companies tend to hype up their product and then not deliver. The case and point is JVC's HM100, which promised a lot, lots of positive reviews, but you can't even place a filter on a lens without swiss army knife!
As far as Canon goes- I think it is not any cheaper then other solutions out there. When you add the cost of the body and some good lenses it would be equal to buying a video camera, 35 mm adapter and MXO2 mini for uncompressed recording.

I think you're right, Robert. It will take some time before HDSLRs solve the video problems. The main reason is that they won't necessarily sell lots more cameras if they get rid of rolling shutter and aliasing on the video side. Most buyers are looking to take stills. There's more hope of the video camera developers latching on to larger sensors and pushing the technology forward.

RED is one of the first to enter this race. Not so many years ago, people were gobsmacked by the idea of an S35 camera for under $18k. Scarlet S35 will cut that in half or so. RED is absolutely motivated to provide great video performance. But they won't offer the HDSLR economy in terms of sensor size per dollar. At least not for their Gen 2 products.

NAB will be interesting. Which companies will be ready to announce large sensor video cams? Which will be repackaged HDSLRs? Which will have improved video performance? Which will be adopted by broadcasters and Hollywood?

We live in interesting times...

Certainly with the Pentax and Nikons that are using low bitrate MJPEG - it's simply a bad choice for HD video period but especially falls apart with high motion. However the h.264 of the 5/7D doesn't fall apart like that - it's certainly no worse than HDV and in my own experience a little better. Ultimately all it will really take is for one of these cameras to offer live full-res 1080p out via HDMI and then the compression simply becomes a question of how much you are willing to invest in outboard capture devices. That's certainly within the technical capabilities of the current equipment, it's really just a question of customer demand & manufacturer's priorities - if Canon do ship a video-centric camera based around one of these sensors I would be very surprised if it didn't have this feature.

Well, cost of lenses is going to be the same with either solution. However, it's not just a question of cheaper - I would choose my 5D over the setup you describe any day. First, you lose a stop or two of light via an adapter, and whatever video camera you're using is going to be less sensitive to light in the first place. Not only can you not shoot in low light effectively, but you have to have fast 35mm lenses and shoot them wide open. Second, you've doubled the amount of glass between your sensor and the image, plus added a ground glass element which degrades your image even further, lowering contrast and often introducing visible diffusion in highlights. You also have more stuff to set up to make it work right - which also means more stuff to go wrong - and the whole rig is bulky and cumbersome.

My 5D, Nikon 85mm f/2 AIs, and Enduro carbon-fiber monopod make an incredibly light and fast combination to shoot almost anywhere without drawing attention to myself, cost less than $3k total, and will out-shoot any 35mm adapter combo in that price range. I'd pay twice what I it costs for the improvement to workflow over using a video camera with an adapter.

I'm with Evan. I wouldn't consider a 35mm adapter solution now that HDSLRs have emerged.

Any idea on a price on this puppy yet?

And does it record at the same bitrate (72mpbs, I think) as the K7?

OK, found the price at B&H. Very nice.

Now, about that bitrate....

Interesting, I didn't realize the k7 used such a high bit rate, although based on this review- Pentax K-7 Digital Camera Video - Full Review - The Imaging Resource! - the math works out to about 45mbps. The high-motion frames in that review are actually very good, so if the bit rate is the same but you're only shooting 24fps I would actually expect even better quality.

They also mentioned there that the sensor-based IS does a good job of eliminating the jello effect due to the rolling shutter when shooting handheld, which means this body combined with some inexpensive used k-mount primes could make for very decent video.

I'm surprised the numbers aren't a little higher because Pentax's manual says you should expect to hit the 4 GB file size limit in the highest quality mode between 7 and 8 minutes.

I also find it interesting that the highest data rate numbers are generated recording 720p, not the 1056 x 1024 format. That just cements my opinion that with this camera you will get the best footage shooting 720p. The scaling issues you run into blowing up the 1056 x 1024 frame to fill the 16x9 aspect ratio frame everyone's HDTV has unavoidably throws away any and all extra resolution you thought you were getting anyhow. So you might as well record the 16x9 720p image with better (less) compression.

I think the in-camera image stabilization of the Pentax cameras is their one biggest advantage.

The K-7 actually has the highest bit rate out of all the DSLR hybrids, going up to 72mbs.

I've seen tons of footage from both cameras...the codec doesn't fall apart.

How high does the K-x go?

There's not much K-x footage out yet - but a few comments that the jello effect is pretty bad, worse than K-7 (slower sensor scan I guess). Would you agree Gary?

Haven't noticed, never tried a K-x, but haven't seen anything bad on the few samples available. All the hybrids have that issue, just keep the camera still.