SteveL (and others), what's wrong in having a decent Pentax for your still photography and a Canon or something else for your video if the Pentax isn't up to scratch with regards to video? A Jack of all trades camera is highly likely to be inferior for both. If you know of another camera which does do both better you've already solved your problem and know what you want. Suggesting Pentax dumb down their stills camera with extra video features isn't what Pentax are about so far. Certainly they couldn't have added more features to the K-1 without making it larger as they've already said they struggled to get what they have put into it. Clearly they weren't into reinventing one of those bulky Canikons (thank goodness!)

If the K-1 had all the video wizz-bangs some seem to want but it cost £2599+ to pay for them, would it sell the way it is? Personally I doubt it. If the video DSLRs some want already exist, why would Ricoh/Pentax try and compete in what is in effect a very limited market at that price point. Pentax have included video and for what it is it works very well for the intended market.
A reviewer may always suggest something extra, but if it had to be included it may have made the whole camera project unviable. If it hadn't been for Ricoh taking over the brand we almost certainly wouldn't have a full frame DSLR now; the brand may even have disappeared.

Canon have been a big player in video cameras for ages but don't offer things like sensor shake reduction and pixelshift stills. Surely no one would buy a K-1 for its video performance if it doesn't meet one's requirements. That would be plain daft. It isn't a video camera, it's sold as a stills camera, right? But it does do video for the occasional use that most users will be more than happy with. Conversely a dedicated video camera might take stills, but not so well as a camera designed for that function. Its horses for courses.

I am perfectly happy with what the K-1 offers. It is what it is and I know what it isn't. If someone isn't sure they can read a review.

[Quote]Canon sold more than a few d6, d60 and C-100 models to the film making community....
any sale you don't make, your competitors will...[/Quote]

Maybe but that isn't Ricoh/Pentax's intended market for the K-1. The C-100 offers less than 10MP compared to the K-1's 36 and is sold as a camcorder. Not something you'd normally buy for landscape stills and even the full frame 6D only offers 20MP (which is more than sufficient for video work but in no way competes for stills photography.)

On that I quite agree too!

Triple standards it seems.

Mike, the issue is people keep criticizing Pentax cameras for poor video, as per the DP review linked to by the OP. Seems people expect a camera offering all the features of a £7000 pro video model combined with a high quality pro DSLR all for £1599. Right camera for the right job.

The wish list was hinted at in the DP review.

The new video spec K-3000
link
Is that what you really want? Pro spec video requires pro spec cameras, not DSLRs. The right tool for the right job.

Please don't make it personal. But if you are able to say what could be added without compromising still photography features I'm sure many would like to hear. Even if you suspect they won't agree with you it surely wouldn't hurt to say if you're serious about it. Or are you just trolling?

.... Your perfect camera would be?
(I suspect not a Pentax.)
Not withstanding, the video quality of recent Pentax DSLRs is pretty damn good. Why criticize it?

Would Pentaxians pefer Ricoh dumb down the still features of Pentax DSLRs in favour of turning them into video cameras? Personally I suspect not but prove me wrong. Surely a dedicated video camera must be preferable for video photography and a dedicated still camera for still photography. When each do the job of the other type it has to be a compromise.

Ricoh seem to have them!

http://shop-uk.ricoh-imaging.eu/photo-accessories/adapter-rings/q-adapter-for-k-...