Originally posted by Alex645 Comparing an $1800 K1 to a $2800 D810 is like comparing a D810 to a D5 ($6500) with 14 fps.
The D810 can at best (I assume using fast shutter speeds, with jpegs, fast memory card, etc.) shoot "up to 5 fps" which means 5 fps is a best case scenario. Up to 4.5 fps for the K1 is not "sub-standard" if Canon's $1800 FF 6D runs at up to 4.5 fps, and perhaps the Nikon D610 at $1300 can brag about 6 fps. But this is really splitting hairs and for the price, it IS the standard.
In fact, when comparing fps, it seems to me that people often leave out megapixels from the equation, resulting in "apples and oranges" comparisons.
It is not AT ALL surprising if a 24MP camera (D610) has higher fps than K-1, a 36MP camera. Of course.
The data flow rate is around 33% lower for a 24MP camera, so it's only expected and natural that the fps will be higher.
We might as well say the D810 (5fps, 36MP like K-1) is sub-standard compared to D610 (6fps, 24MP) !!! If that sounds ridiculous, same goes for K-1, which is also 36MP.
In fact, if anything it is the 6D (4.5fps) which could be seen as "sub-standard", when compared to D610 (6fps), because both are 20 to 24MP machines, same ballpark.
And again, in comparing the K-1 against D810 we're talking 4.4fps versus 5fps, and that works out to 9 frames in every 2 seconds versus 10 frames every 2 seconds. The difference is just one frame. Doesn't seem like a significant difference in real world usage. Indeed if high fps is what is really required, eg for sports, then arguably 36MP is not optimum, may be better to go for lower resolution but higher fps, eg K-3 (24MP, 8.3fps).