[jeffkrol]

EOS1000D
Continuous: 3.0 fps JPEG to card capacity
1.5 fps for5 RAW frames or 4 RAW+JPEG
• Self-timer 10 secs (2 sec with mirror lock-up)

Sorry though speed means little to me personally, I thought some might find this funny. (You know who you are )
Just for comparison K20D:
Continuous Hi: 3 fps, up to 38 Best JPEG frames, 14 images RAW, 16 DNG*
• Continuous Lo: 2.3 fps, JPEG (Best) until card is full
• Burst mode: 21 fps 1.6MB JPEG, 115 frames*

[mattdm]

So.... your point is that Canon's new basic low-cost model has approximately the same frame rate as Pentax's top of the line model?

[jeffkrol]

So.... your point is that Canon's new basic low-cost model has approximately the same frame rate as Pentax's top of the line model?

maybe I read this wrong but 1.5 fps RAW for 5 RAW is NOT close to 3fps RAW for 14 files.. I could not care less about jpg's..
http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/read.asp?forum=1018&message=28709607

[rparmar]

maybe I read this wrong but 1.5 fps RAW for 5 RAW is NOT close to 3fps RAW for 14 files.. I could care less about jpg's..

I think what you mean is "I couldn't care less about JPGs." Because if you could care less you would be caring more.

[Priyantha Bleeker]

Canon 1000D

JPG:
Frame Burst: 3.0 FP/s
Number of Frames: N/A aka unlimited
Write to complete: 11sec(Sandisk) 12 sec(Panasonic)

RAW:
Frame Burst: 1.5 FP/s
Numer of Frames: 6 (Sandisk) 3 (Panasonic)
Buffer full rate : 1.2(Sandisk) 0.8(Panasonic)
Write tot complete: 40sec(Sandisk) 45sec(Panasonic)

Versus
Pentax K100D

JPG:
Frame Burst: 2.6 FP/s
Number of Frames: 4
Write to complete: 44(Sandisk) 48(Lexar)

RAW:
Frame Burst: 2.6 FP/s
Numer of Frames: 3 (Sandisk) 3 (Panasonic)
Buffer full rate : 1 every 3.7 sec (Sandisk) 1 every 3.9 sec (Lexar)
Write tot complete: 40sec(Sandisk) 45sec(Panasonic)

Well the K200D should do the following acording Pentax' specs:
2.8 FP's in JPG
Burst of 4 Frames
And 1.1 FPS/s in RAW, with 4 Frames.
JPG continuous after buffer is full should do 1.1 FP/s

Well I can't say it is any better than the Canon 1000D...

[Kunzite]

The K200D can do 2.8 fps in both jpeg and raw, for 4 frames.
1.1 fps is the Continuous (Lo) mode, jpeg until the card is full or 4 raw frames.

[Clicker]

I shoot mainly street and travel related subjects, fps isn't my main concern, i rely more on intuition which no manufacturer can provide (as yet)

[MikePerham]

maybe I read this wrong but 1.5 fps RAW for 5 RAW is NOT close to 3fps RAW for 14 files.. I could not care less about jpg's..
Unbelievable comment from Phil...: Open Talk Forum: Digital Photography Review

I think what you mean is "I couldn't care less about JPGs." Because if you could care less you would be caring more.

I don't see your point: "Couldn't" is simply a contraction of "could not" so I don't (do not) understand your point!

The K200D can do 2.8 fps in both jpeg and raw, for 4 frames.
1.1 fps is the Continuous (Lo) mode, jpeg until the card is full or 4 raw frames.

Hi, Kunz!

Because I've owned a K100D before I am familiar with the body and ergonomics and IMO K200D it's the most complete camera it it's price bracket. The only drawback it's the very small buffer for jpegs.

Radu

[Gooshin]

[Gooshin]

altho in all honesty thats total bullshit


is it really that hard to say "i dont care [about x]"

[Erasmo]

21 FPS isn't enough?

[ChrisA]

Quite so.

Please, could someone explain why the American equivalent of the English (and presumably Canadian and Irish?) phrase:

"I couldn't care less", is

"I could care less"?

Is it possibly a contraction of something like:

"yeah, like I could care less"

??

[Gooshin]

Quite so.

Please, could someone explain why the American equivalent of the English (and presumably Canadian and Irish?) phrase:

"I couldn't care less", is

"I could care less"?

Is it possibly a contraction of something like:

"yeah, like I could care less"

??

they are two different phrases, they are not equivalent, i think the chart explains it quite well.

[dbh]

Is this a log scale?

Postulate: It is not possible to state that one cares zero and can therefore not care less. The fact of its mention proves some residual care, below which must exist a theoretical state of care at an even lower, but non-zero level.

--
dbh