FPS, how important is it to the average user?

marcdsgn · 02-03-2008, 03:51 PM

Originally posted by Lowell Goudge

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

hehe. Of course, this is off-topic, but since its a bit of a pet-peeve with me, I'll indulge: Assuming the appeal for 4x4s is the same on most continents as it is here in Oz, I suspect the truth is that the majority of 4x4 owners buy their vehicles because of the perceived possibility of going offroad on the weekends, while many never, or rarely, do. In this case, the hiring of a 4x4 for that vary occassional weekend would make far more sense than shelling out huge bucks for an oversized gas-guzzling metro-commuter. I live in a rural area, where the majority of families would presumably have more need for a 4x4 that city-based families, yet the majority of vehicles our here are either sedans or utilities (the equivalent of a pick-up). There are of course many 4x4s, but it seems the majority are driven by tourists or migrants from metro areas.

Anyway... back to the normal program....

*isteve · 02-03-2008, 04:26 PM

Originally posted by procyon

An object moving at the escape velocity of earth (11,2 km/s, basically a rocket) would move 2,8 meters during 1/4000 second.
I suspect a howitzer round is significantly slower

Yep - muzzle velocity of and M16 is of the order of 850 m/s so in 1/4000 of a second it would only have travelled 20cms (less than a foot). Howitzers are somewhat slower.

The SR71 could fly faster than that. In fact it could outpace a few SAMs as well. At high speed cruise it would cover about 1200 m/s!!!!

**Lowell Goudge** · 02-03-2008, 04:42 PM

Originally posted by marcdsgn

hehe. Of course, this is off-topic, but since its a bit of a pet-peeve with me, I'll indulge: Assuming the appeal for 4x4s is the same on most continents as it is here in Oz, I suspect the truth is that the majority of 4x4 owners buy their vehicles because of the perceived possibility of going offroad on the weekends, while many never, or rarely, do. In this case, the hiring of a 4x4 for that vary occassional weekend would make far more sense than shelling out huge bucks for an oversized gas-guzzling metro-commuter. I live in a rural area, where the majority of families would presumably have more need for a 4x4 that city-based families, yet the majority of vehicles our here are either sedans or utilities (the equivalent of a pick-up). There are of course many 4x4s, but it seems the majority are driven by tourists or migrants from metro areas.

Anyway... back to the normal program....

I couldn't agree more with most, but just explain to my 2 kayaks that they can't go with me on weekends.

BTW, my 4 runner gets better city mileage than my wife's Jetta VR6, and in Canada, like in the land of OZ where gallons are a little bigger than in the US. it gets almost 20 MPH combined city highway. Not quite a guzzler.

**Lowell Goudge** · 02-03-2008, 04:46 PM

Originally posted by Andrew Faires

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.

I guess the real issue is, are you, and the few how really need (or think they need, the performance willing to pay for it all yourselves, or are you expecting those who don't want something to absorb your cost. You can;'t have it both ways. you cant have it only the 20% of the time you need it either, you have to pay for it 100% of the time.

Similar Threads
Thread	Thread Starter	Forum	Replies	Last Post
K-7 and below average dynamic range	harleynitelite	Troubleshooting and Beginner Help	9	01-18-2010 01:05 AM
Nature Not your average seagull - M400 F5.6	goddo31	Post Your Photos!	11	11-12-2009 05:47 AM
The average DSLR owner	ftpaddict	General Talk	52	05-28-2008 03:13 AM
Average price for A* 85mm f1.4?	nils	Pentax SLR Lens Discussion	4	04-15-2007 07:11 AM
P-TTL VS TTL.... what is the difference to the average user?	slip	Pentax DSLR Discussion	16	01-17-2007 12:22 PM

02-03-2008, 03:51 PM	#61
marcdsgn Senior Member Join Date: Dec 2007 Location: Queensland Photos: Gallery Posts: 265	Originally posted by Lowell Goudge 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 hehe. Of course, this is off-topic, but since its a bit of a pet-peeve with me, I'll indulge: Assuming the appeal for 4x4s is the same on most continents as it is here in Oz, I suspect the truth is that the majority of 4x4 owners buy their vehicles because of the perceived possibility of going offroad on the weekends, while many never, or rarely, do. In this case, the hiring of a 4x4 for that vary occassional weekend would make far more sense than shelling out huge bucks for an oversized gas-guzzling metro-commuter. I live in a rural area, where the majority of families would presumably have more need for a 4x4 that city-based families, yet the majority of vehicles our here are either sedans or utilities (the equivalent of a pick-up). There are of course many 4x4s, but it seems the majority are driven by tourists or migrants from metro areas. Anyway... back to the normal program....

02-03-2008, 04:26 PM	#62
*isteve Veteran Member Join Date: Nov 2006 Location: London, England Posts: 1,187	Originally posted by procyon An object moving at the escape velocity of earth (11,2 km/s, basically a rocket) would move 2,8 meters during 1/4000 second. I suspect a howitzer round is significantly slower Yep - muzzle velocity of and M16 is of the order of 850 m/s so in 1/4000 of a second it would only have travelled 20cms (less than a foot). Howitzers are somewhat slower. The SR71 could fly faster than that. In fact it could outpace a few SAMs as well. At high speed cruise it would cover about 1200 m/s!!!!

02-03-2008, 04:42 PM	#63
Lowell Goudge Site Supporter Join Date: Jan 2007 Location: Toronto Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 17,891	Originally posted by marcdsgn hehe. Of course, this is off-topic, but since its a bit of a pet-peeve with me, I'll indulge: Assuming the appeal for 4x4s is the same on most continents as it is here in Oz, I suspect the truth is that the majority of 4x4 owners buy their vehicles because of the perceived possibility of going offroad on the weekends, while many never, or rarely, do. In this case, the hiring of a 4x4 for that vary occassional weekend would make far more sense than shelling out huge bucks for an oversized gas-guzzling metro-commuter. I live in a rural area, where the majority of families would presumably have more need for a 4x4 that city-based families, yet the majority of vehicles our here are either sedans or utilities (the equivalent of a pick-up). There are of course many 4x4s, but it seems the majority are driven by tourists or migrants from metro areas. Anyway... back to the normal program.... I couldn't agree more with most, but just explain to my 2 kayaks that they can't go with me on weekends. BTW, my 4 runner gets better city mileage than my wife's Jetta VR6, and in Canada, like in the land of OZ where gallons are a little bigger than in the US. it gets almost 20 MPH combined city highway. Not quite a guzzler.

02-03-2008, 04:46 PM	#64
Lowell Goudge Site Supporter Join Date: Jan 2007 Location: Toronto Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 17,891	Originally posted by Andrew Faires 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. I guess the real issue is, are you, and the few how really need (or think they need, the performance willing to pay for it all yourselves, or are you expecting those who don't want something to absorb your cost. You can;'t have it both ways. you cant have it only the 20% of the time you need it either, you have to pay for it 100% of the time.