[Kguru]

Hang. Where's that new can o' worms? Ah, yes. Here it is. Lemme get a tin opener.

*readies tin opener*

You'd also need a very, very high shutter speed to prevent the howitzer round looking like a very faint streak...

Didn't you see the US Navy photo I posted on page 2 of this thread?
Doesn't look like a faint streak at all ...

[Lowell Goudge]

I can see the benefits, but I doubt the "average user" is going to be hindered by a camera that lacks this function.

Kinda' like those individuals who drive around the city in 4x4s, just in case they encounter a mountain on their way to the shops.

In some ways I agree, specifically FPS and the average shooter, especially those who started with film, because we knew the value (and cost) of each frame,

Today's shooter is different. Electrons (or bytes) are relitively free. 1TB costs about $250.

But I still don't put much importance in it.

There have been many discussions in the past, and on this forum, about the frame rate, and the general conclusion was, it only matters if you don't have any idea about what you are shooting.

We had a great photo of someone falling off a horse, caught in mid air between the saddle and ground. I did the math and concluded it would take about .6 seconds to fall the distance (from gravity) and since even the best reaction times are in the range of .4 seconds (see NHRA dragracing as a reference) the person falling off a horse would be past the mid point long before the shutter tripped. The shooter KNEW, or subconciously his brain KNEW what was about to take place, and tripped the shutter in anticipation. He KNEW because he was familiar with the sport, and recognized long before the event something was wrong, not because he had a great frame rate.

If there was one area that woould be more important than frame rate, it is reaction time, both the camera's and the shooters.

The camera is nearing the limit, so it's time for all you shooters to get your act together and improve.

I can honestly say this, I have captured my son breaking boards in TaeKwon-Do. Frame rate is nothing, timing and anticipation is everything.

As for a 4x4 it is not so much about the risk of a mountain between their house and the way to the shops, but the fact that the 4x4 to many has replaced the family station wagon. They are big because in a colision Mass Wins! Also many more people today go out to the country on weekends, Ski in the winter, carry boats on the rooves in summer. They are useful

[Arpe]

...it only matters if you don't have any idea about what you are shooting.

This is the first time I have ever contradicted someone on this board - but I think that is utter crap.

He KNEW because he was familiar with the sport, and recognized long before the event something was wrong, not because he had a great frame rate.

That's fine for a piece of action that only lasts under a second, but other sports a moment of climax or action can last much longer. I am very very familiar with the sport I like to take photos at, but I still want a higher frame rate, because it helps. I still get photos I am proud of, but feel I would get MORE with the higher fps.

[blwnhr]

There have been many discussions in the past, and on this forum, about the frame rate, and the general conclusion was, it only matters if you don't have any idea about what you are shooting.

I do not agree.

[distudio]

The camera is nearing the limit, so it's time for all you shooters to get your act together and improve.

The fact is if you've ever used a camera capable of high burst frame rates you'd realize that the camera is generally more responsive in single shot mode too. Moving from a fast camera back to one of the Pentax bodies makes you very aware of just how long the finder blanking is, on a fast body at high shutter speeds it's often barely perceptible.

[Lowell Goudge]

The fact is if you've ever used a camera capable of high burst frame rates you'd realize that the camera is generally more responsive in single shot mode too. Moving from a fast camera back to one of the Pentax bodies makes you very aware of just how long the finder blanking is, on a fast body at high shutter speeds it's often barely perceptible.

finder blanking may have a slight issue with respect to faster burst rates, I agree, it is the time for the mirror to return, but that has NOTHING AT ALL to do with the response for the initial shot. that is all between yoour ears.

or maybe its just that since I shoot single frame mode all the time, as I suspect most do, I just don't give a dam. I have yet to miss a shot because of the limit on FPS. I do mis lots due, however to my own transient stupidity

[RiceHigh]

Here's an interesting poll.

The Online Photographer

I think the results might be surprising.

Meaningless poll IMHO. The key point is not about whether one THINKS if he/she "needs" it or not, it is just about if there is an OPTION HERE for you to use WHEN you need it. It's just like the high mega count of the DSLRs, we can still ask: Do we need it? But the fact is that NO DSLR maker makes DSLR less than 10MP now.

[lithos]

Didn't you see the US Navy photo I posted on page 2 of this thread?
Doesn't look like a faint streak at all ...

Nope. I wasn't gonna trawl through the whole thread.

[bymy141]

For me its not.

- Bert

[blwnhr]

but that has NOTHING AT ALL to do with the response for the initial shot. that is all between your ears.

I always hit the shutter at the time I want the shot and 95% of the time get the exact shot I'm looking for. I shoot motorsport, and other unpredictable sports, I would like to have high FPS for the shots that no one can see coming. The wheel dipping off the track, the car losing control, etc. etc. Not to mention facial expressions in all forms of sports. You can't predict that.

The FPS team in the K10D is also let down by the AF system, but we'll save that for another thread.

Meaningless poll IMHO. The key point is not about whether one THINKS if he/she "needs" it or not, it is just about if there is an OPTION HERE for you to use WHEN you need it.

I completely agree.

There must be a market for this technology or it would have never been invented in the first place.

[Andrew Faires]

**snip**
They may want more but that is a trade off. they can get it but go elsewhere at present. The frame rate is not just the processing, but the shutter, mirror mechanism etc. to take the frame rate up, is a big mechanical change and cost, to all users, for something that I am not really sure is needed. Pentax, in most areas has a camera superior to all others for a price Don't forget that.

The cost is absorbed by the people who will buy the camera - and personally I'd have no qualms about paying more for that. I'd rather wait a year or so and spend more on a k1d (or whatever it's called) that gives me 99-100% (assuming it delivers on the increased performance) of what I'm looking for at $2200 (or thereabouts) than spend $1300 on the k20d which gives me 80% of what I'm looking for now.

If you don't need faster fps or an improvement to the current AF system that pentax uses, then the k20d looks like the right match based on what Pentax has available. On the other hand, there's a lot of people who shoot subjects which would benefit from an increase in performance to the shutter, mirror, etc.....not because they can't work with what the k10d already does, but because they'd benefit from what pentax CAN do in that department (and hopefully the higher spec'd camera that they're talking about for next year will deliver on these fronts).

I've also got to agree with RH about having the 'option' of the increase in performance available for when I need it. I wouldn't use it for about 80% of my photography. I'd like it for the other 20% which involves birds and other animals. And it's not that I couldn't make due with the DS2 last year or now the k10d.....it's just that I'd like to do better than 'make due' with those subjects.

[soularis]

for me buffer size is more important than speed. the k10d has a good buffer. the k200d does not. i like 3 seconds or more of 3fps burst shooting.

[George Lama]

The whole analogy of the FPS issue being similar to the 4x4 in the city issue - I understand that.

First - clarification - 4x4 does not mean SUV. Most SUVs on the road are not 4x4 anyway. The analogy was more along the lines of people buying off-roading vehicles that will never be off-road, except in someone's muddy driveway.

Perhaps a better analogy would have been the mother of a toddler buying a Porsche Cayenne, an SUV with 500hp that can do 0-100kph in under 5 seconds, solely because it's a nice comfortable car that she will use to take her baby to pre-school, at a top speed of 50 kph.

FPS isn't an issue for most people - but for some of us who want to have it in our arsennal it is important. As I've said before about other features and options, some of us just need it because we want to know it's there if and when we need it. If I want to capture a photo finish at a race, if I want to capture the instant a female praying mantis snaps the head off of the male, or the moment a gymnist performing a tumble reaches the apex of the arc as she leaps, or the instant a baseball begins to leave a pitcher's fingers - right at that point when the finger tips are still on it... Simply put, I want to know my camera is capable of doing this. For most of these situations 3 fps is fast enough, but for some... give me more!

[SpecialK]

If I want to capture a photo finish at a race, if I want to capture the instant a female praying mantis snaps the head off of the male, or the moment a gymnist performing a tumble reaches the apex of the arc as she leaps, or the instant a baseball begins to leave a pitcher's fingers - right at that point when the finger tips are still on it... Simply put, I want to know my camera is capable of doing this. For most of these situations 3 fps is fast enough, but for some... give me more!

I can't tell what side of the fence you are on with your examples as they are all single shots. Any bursts would be pure luck to capture those shots as each image would be 1/3 sec between...a long time for action.

[stewart_photo]

...(snip) First - clarification - 4x4 does not mean SUV. (snip)...

If one wants to draw fine distinctions, perhaps. However, most commonly relate SUV's with some form of off-road 4x4 performance, even if not always accurately. Regardless, the SUV mentioned in my earlier response was indeed a 4x4. And, after looking back over the messages, that is apparently also the case with every other SUV owner (past or present) responding in this thread.

As for your other analogies, I think most unbiased readers will get the point without them - not everyone needs a higher frame rate but some might want that for the potential it occasionally offers.

stewart