[Lloyd_Christmas]

What makes you sure that's a real issue? Particularly since you admit you'd have to know more.

Touche

---------- Post added 08-24-21 at 11:41 AM ----------

I have to say, in normal use where I use live view for a whole afternoon, I've never had the issue. Because I turn the camera off while I'm walking around and usually use it for less than 5 minutes of photgraphy for 5 minutes of walking. That to me is the real world. This guy is some kind of weird test world.

Right on!

[Larrymc]

For their flagship camera to shoot 30 shots, bog down, and basically stop shooting is embarrassing.

Precisely how many in focus similar shots do you need. I find the buffer on the Mk III to be perfectly adequate for any situation I have encountered, but I have not encountered every conceivable shooting situation. I do shoot aircraft and humming birds with a bit of success. Being able to anticipate the moment and trigger the shutter for a 30 shot burst will meet the needs of 98% of shooters. Supersonic frame rates and overly large buffers are mostly "bragging rights" territory in my opinion.

[normhead]

Precisely how many in focus similar shots do you need. I find the buffer on the Mk III to be perfectly adequate for any situation I have encountered, but I have not encountered every conceivable shooting situation. I do shoot aircraft and humming birds with a bit of success. Being able to anticipate the moment and trigger the shutter for a 30 shot burst will meet the needs of 98% of shooters. Supersonic frame rates and overly large buffers are mostly "bragging rights" territory in my opinion.

My observation as well, when I go to shooter's Facebook pages who were beside me that day to see what they got I always wonder "why do these continuous shooting 15 FPS shooters with the extra fast lenses etc. not get better images than me?" And I'm shooting 8 fps and sometimes lenses with slow motors. To me 12 fps is a nice improvement but not necessary. But if some day I get a Katie, I'll appreciate it. But is it a necessary upgrade? hardly.

A few images taken with my K-3 that were better than what was posted from other photographers.


The guys with the big lenses couldn't move around, the people with the point and shoots couldn't get enough reach. Shot with the K-3 and DA* 60-250

Same here, everyone else sat in the parking lot with their huge tripods and lenses. I scrambled up a huge snow bank made of snow piled while clearing the parking lot to get to the same height as this Pine Martin who's about 10 feet up a tree. Same deal, none of the big name $15,000 set up guys got anything close to this image. I'm shooting with $3,000 worth of gear compared to everyone else's $5k bodies and $15k lenses.


There were six or seven guys shooting this day, including some of the park's best known photographers, even with my tripod and 500mm set up, I'm more mobile and look for better angles. As long as your equipment meets a minimum set of relatively un-impressive basic criteria, skill always trumps gear.


The video establishes what camera has better features, but passes on the more meaningful question, what kind of photographer needs it? I'm not convinced I need any of them. At this point it's all about "what frills would I like next time I have to buy a camera." (Because every camera company includes frill I own't ever likely use.) In the few minutes I watched, I saw nothin that would convince me to switch brands, or buy a new camera before my K-3 goes down for the count.

[cgchang]

It's easier, and more profitable, to sell people on what they "need" than what they don't need.

I get there's legitimate uses and desirability for high fps and infinite buffer. It just seems the way it's always brought up, like people are just itching for the day they can hold down the shutter button and capture every frame of a feature-length Hollywood film in one go.

[Larrymc]

My observation as well, when I go to shooter's Facebook pages who were beside me that day to see what they got I always wonder "why do these continuous shooting 15 FPS shooters with the extra fast lenses etc. not get better images than me?" And I'm shooting 8 fps and sometimes lenses with slow motors. To me 12 fps is a nice improvement but not necessary. But if some day I get a Katie, I'll appreciate it. But is it a necessary upgrade? hardly.

A few images taken with my K-3 that were better than what was posted from other photographers.


The guys with the big lenses couldn't move around, the people with the point and shoots couldn't get enough reach. Shot with the K-3 and DA* 60-250

Same here, everyone else sat in the parking lot with their huge tripods and lenses. I scrambled up a huge snow bank made of snow piled while clearing the parking lot to get to the same height as this Pine Martin who's about 10 feet up a tree. Same deal, none of the big name $15,000 set up guys got anything close to this image. I'm shooting with $3,000 worth of gear compared to everyone else's $5k bodies and $15k lenses.


There were six or seven guys shooting this day, including some of the park's best known photographers, even with my tripod and 500mm set up, I'm more mobile and look for better angles. As long as your equipment meets a minimum set of relatively un-impressive basic criteria, skill always trumps gear.


The video establishes what camera has better features, but passes on the more meaningful question, what kind of photographer needs it? I'm not convinced I need any of them. At this point it's all about "what frills would I like next time I have to buy a camera." (Because every camera company includes frill I own't ever likely use.) In the few minutes I watched, I saw nothin that would convince me to switch brands, or buy a new camera before my K-3 goes down for the count.

Nice set of images, Norm! My reasons for buying the Mk III is #1 I wanted a new Pentax APS-C DSLR, but not a KP, #2 Improved autofocus, #3 The Mk III's improved tracking ability. My K-3 Mk I is working nicely and I didn't have any problems with it at all! I guess it all boils down to GAS BTW, I still haven't gotten past my old Mk I operating system, some of the techniques I used are hard to over come.

[DonV]

I seldom use the continuous shooting setting, perhaps I should- but my hesitance is no doubt related to growing up with film and the high price of film and its printing!

If one wants continuous shooting, why not use the video?

Maybe I need to try it out and see what happens - once I find a reasonable target for rapid fire photos.

[Larrymc]

I seldom use the continuous shooting setting, perhaps I should- but my hesitance is no doubt related to growing up with film and the high price of film and its printing!

If one wants continuous shooting, why not use the video?

Maybe I need to try it out and see what happens - once I find a reasonable target for rapid fire photos.

The Mk III has three different High, Medium and Low Speed. You don't have to machine gun a subject but continuous shooting modes have their place. I can think of many different uses Birds in Flight, Aircraft, Moving Vehicles, People walking or Running. I have rarely used the High up to 12 frames per second mode but I do use the Medium 7 frames per second mode a bunch. Also the Low 2.5 frames per second is quite useful. You don't have to use the full burst capability but a short press of the shutter button really captures some nice scenes. Try it you may like it!! Make sure your camera is set up properly for continuous shooting.

[bobbotron]

I seldom use the continuous shooting setting, perhaps I should- but my hesitance is no doubt related to growing up with film and the high price of film and its printing!

If one wants continuous shooting, why not use the video?

Maybe I need to try it out and see what happens - once I find a reasonable target for rapid fire photos.

The only time I use it is photographing dog sports. I focus on a jump or point of interest, and let'r rip just as the dog is transiting through the area. I'd like to think I could capture the exact moment with a single shot, but in practice high FPS for a brief instant and I almost always get a good capture, and delete the others. Even then you don't need a huge buffer, they move quickly, half second max and they're through it.

With the k3.

[normhead]

The only time I use it is photographing dog sports. I focus on a jump or point of interest, and let'r rip just as the dog is transiting through the area. I'd like to think I could capture the exact moment with a single shot, but in practice high FPS for a brief instant and I almost always get a good capture, and delete the others. Even then you don't need a huge buffer, they move quickly, half second max and they're through it.

With the k3.

When people say "I don't use burst." I always think, "You don't know what you're missing."

[bobbotron]

When people say "I don't use burst." I always think, "You don't know what you're missing."

I feel like there's a time and place for it. Using burst all the time is a bad habit (totally just my opinion!) but for action it really is excellent.

[normhead]

I feel like there's a time and place for it. Using burst all the time is a bad habit (totally just my opinion!) but for action it really is excellent.

I often go single shot, for macros and other stationary objects, but when maximizing low ISO and a moving subject, I expect to have motion blur in some images. So I shoot burst to increase my odds of no motion blur. Some of my best bird images were taken at 100 ISO and 1/50. The bird moves his head, stops then moves it again. The shot in the burst you want is when the head is stationary. The rest are garbage.

I want lowest possible ISO, and at least ƒ5.6 for adequate DoF. The bird in the sequence of shots has to be stationary, not even chewing food, aligned to the camera so both head and some feathers are in sharp focus. That happens so fast you can't anticipate it, but with a short burst you might get the shot you're looking for. One of at least 10 in a long burst. And probably the one good one. It could be the first, but it's unlikely, it almost never is.

Sometimes it's not needed, sometimes it's essential. I just find it odd when people get all doctrinaire about it. I never think "ya, I'm not ever shooting burst" is a good idea. I think they probably just never gave it try in the right circumstances.

100 ISO, ƒ5.6 1/50s

[Mbaez]

I often go single shot, for macros and other stationary objects, but when maximizing low ISO and a moving subject, I expect to have motion blur in som homages. SO I shoot burst to increase my odds of no motion blur. Some of my best bird images were taken at 100 ISO and 1/60. The bird moves his head, stops then moves it again. The shot in the burst you want is when the head is stationary The rest are garbage.

Want lowest possible ISO, and at least ƒ5.6 for adequate DoF. The bird in the sequence of shots has to be stationary, not even chewing food, aligned to the camera so both head and some feathers are in sharp focus. That happens so fast you can't anticipate it, but with a short burst you might get the shot you're looking for. One of at least 10 in a long burst. And probably the one good one. It could be there first, but it's unlikely, it almost never is.

Sometimes it's not needed, sometimes it's essential. I just find it odd when people get all doctrinaire about it. I never think "ya, not ever shooting burst" is a good idea. I think they probably just never gave it try in the right circumstances.

100 ISO, ƒ5.6 1/50s

Very good example and explanation. Even with perching birds it's better to shoot a burst than a single shot because you never know when the bird is going to move (close an eye, turn its head, take off).

[bobbotron]

I often go single shot, for macros and other stationary objects, but when maximizing low ISO and a moving subject, I expect to have motion blur in some images. So I shoot burst to increase my odds of no motion blur. Some of my best bird images were taken at 100 ISO and 1/50. The bird moves his head, stops then moves it again. The shot in the burst you want is when the head is stationary. The rest are garbage.

I want lowest possible ISO, and at least ƒ5.6 for adequate DoF. The bird in the sequence of shots has to be stationary, not even chewing food, aligned to the camera so both head and some feathers are in sharp focus. That happens so fast you can't anticipate it, but with a short burst you might get the shot you're looking for. One of at least 10 in a long burst. And probably the one good one. It could be the first, but it's unlikely, it almost never is.

Sometimes it's not needed, sometimes it's essential. I just find it odd when people get all doctrinaire about it. I never think "ya, I'm not ever shooting burst" is a good idea. I think they probably just never gave it try in the right circumstances.

100 ISO, ƒ5.6 1/50s

Ah yeah totally, I've used this kind of technique as well, when you're trying to get a really picky shot, hedging your bet with a burst of shots is a great way to go.

[DonV]

When people say "I don't use burst." I always think, "You don't know what you're missing."

True,
I don't know what I'm missing; so I don't miss it at all.

That said, I will start using the burst capability on moving and potentially moving subjects; by trying it , I might just find a reason to like it.

[normhead]

True,
I don't know what I'm missing; so I don't miss it at all.

That said, I will start using the burst capability on moving and potentially moving subjects; by trying it , I might just find a reason to like it.

OK then, my work here is done.