[blwnhr]

Working within the constraints of the medium is half the challenge and half the fun.

I've worked within the contraints of my K10D, and *istDL before it, and have come to the following conclusion. With the advent of digital photography there are a lot more 'photographers' around, particularly at the types of sporting events I cover. This makes getting that shot that the magazines, newspapers etc. require is made that much more critical.

I do what I do for the love of it. I have no aspirations of making a full time living from it, but if I get more, better shots and can sell more of these it will pay for more gear and mean I can afford to travel and attend more events.

I don't just stand on the side of the track and machine-gun off shots and then sift through and cull the crap. I know the shot I'm aiming for and work to compose that. I am young and have good reactions, but still I use continuous shutter to ensure I get the exact image I want, should I be a bit tardy in my shutter finger. If I am shooting a true 6FPS this means the chances of getting this winning shot are considerably higher.

When it comes to publications there is a lot greater push towards good graphic design in the last few years. One aspect of this is using a sequence of stills as part of an article. If you have this sequence then once again you are more likely to sell.

A case in point; I was at a track just before Christmas, there was an accident right in front of me, I was in the perfect place to capture the action. I rattled off shots as quick as the K10D would take them, because of the limits of the K10D AF system and the resulting limit in FPS, around half of the 25 shots were out-of-focus, most irreparably so. Add to this the drop in frame rate because the camera couldn’t focus and all of a sudden I’ve lost a sequence.

I’m not trying to start a war here, just explaining it from the point of view of someone who does use this technology.

Finally, I think one of the key statements on that page (with the poll) is this:

Featured Comment by Ann: "Until 2005, I used a manual focus, manual advance Olympus OM-10. It was fine, and I never worried about burst rate or autofocus speed. I just never shot the kind of subjects that required a camera to have those attributes. When I got my D70 in 2005, I found that autofocus and the 3 fps frame rate made it easier to shoot in a more photojournalistic mode, so the subjects I shot expanded because the camera allowed me to do more. When I got the D300 a couple of months ago, the even faster response time and 6 fps allowed me to do even more with sports, kids, and birds in flight, so the types of photography I do now expanded into those areas.

"The bottom line is that each of the features on the camera is a tool in my photographic toolkit. I didn't buy any of my cameras because of their speed, but the speed is a tool that I didn't have before, and it allows me to do the kind of work that I couldn't do before."

Couldn't have said it better myself.

[marcdsgn]

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.

[Arpe]

I try to use good timing, naturally, but, good grief, even I get it wrong sometimes, no really. What I like to do for action shots is try and time the photo so the focus and composition and action are right, then continue to hold the finger down for a while longer, in case something better comes along at that point of action. Thus a higher fps would be cool, as if something else does happen I'm more likely to get it. It's impossible to time the look on people's faces, especially when playing sport, so the higher rate also helps get a goodun' in that regard.

Basically it comes down to a higher fps is better than a slower fps. I think some of the opposition even give you the choice - radical! And as the images were already so great from the K10D then maybe some effort in the fps matter wouldn't have gone astray.

[Mallee Boy]

I think its very important to those who need it. I don't need it, so to me its a bit like "keeping up with the Jones's"...you read about it, hear about it and can easily convince yourself that you want that feature/function....but do you really need it? For now the answer is no.
Cheers
Grant

[distudio]

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.

Or the ones that buy the 4WD and/or the camera capable of xFPS because they do enjoy going off road 4 weeks of the year or shooting subjects that would benefit from high FPS capabilities. I'd like the option of higher FPS but I don't need it, better AF tracking is a greater priority for me and is an issue that appears to deserve genuine criticism.

[stewart_photo]

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

Why do people, now apparently world-wide, insist on pointing to SUV drivers in a derogatory manner. I'm one of those who once routinely drove an SUV, most of the time with myself alone in the vehicle. And, not surprisingly, there were no mountains or similar terrain in the area. So I guess all that puts me in with "those individuals" mentioned above.

Of course, I could easily argue it was my vehicle, my money, and therefore my business alone. However, I'll go futher here to point out this particular SUV, and other previously, was used several times a month to haul various Coast Guard boats to remote locations (lakes, rivers, etc) to search for and recover lost or missing swimmers and boaters. Interestingly, unlike other drivers (still today), none of those recovered in the many incidents over the years ever complained about that SUV.

Was my use of this SUV an exception? Since I've never followed other SUV drivers around to see how they used their vehicles, I don't know. However, I do know that what they drive is generally none of my business (not my place to judge).

stewart

[Mallee Boy]

Hi Stewart,
I used to be one of those in the other non-suv camp. I had 4WD's on the farm and used to dislike driving them on the road because of the rough ride. However....once having ridden in a couple of more modern versions, Ford Explorer, Toyota 'Cruiser etc I was convinced.

Now I drive a Nissan Murano for its ride comfort, AWD capability, ride height and ease of getting in and out of the thing. I came to this conclusion after two days test driving all sorts of vehicles and having trouble getting in and out of a lot of modern cars.

Of course the Murano now gives me the flexibility to head off down any track in search of that next shot. (for those who have wondered what this has to do with photog)
Cheers
Grant

[stewart_photo]

Like you, Grant, I still tend to purchase larger vehicles both for their convenience and comfort. I don't drive an SUV anymore (too big for the streets here), but do drive a larger BMW 4-door sedan for those very reasons.

By the way, when I was younger, it used to bother me to see older people driving around in big cars. At the time, I thought they were trying to show off how much money they have or whatever. However, now that I'm a bit older and occasionally find it more difficult (and following a prolonged leg injury two years ago, actually painful) to climb in and out of smaller cars, I now understand why older people tend to select larger vehicles.

So, while you and I are probably not yet old enough to actually require larger vehicles, I can easily see a time when that will be the only option. At the same time, I no longer see larger vehicles and high gas prices as a source of humor. Instead, I wonder what will happen to the older people in our society when they can no longer afford to drive.

stewart

[lithos]

Have you seen the photo of a projectile just after it left the barrel of the 155mm howitzer? Now try to time that!! I reckon with 20fps I'd have a good chance of capturing it in one of the frames and 1500x1000 resolution still shows up pretty good on my monitor.

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...

*looks at freshly-opened can*

OH, DEAR LORD! WHAT HAVE I DONE?

[procyon]

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

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

[krs]

I do occassionaly action/sports, but 3FPS seems adequate for me...

[EvilPentaxUser]

plain SD card, I can do about 3 FPS a sandisk extreme2 about 4 FPS and a sandisk extreme 3 about as fast as it saves it takes another shot. but I am using a K100D and it works at taking more pictures with the extreme 3 card better. camera still is taking max speed and taking pictures.

[George Lama]

I would certainly want the opportunity to experiment with faster FPS. At 1.6 MP it would be nothing more than that, experiment, but I think it would be interesting nonetheless.

On a practical side, I'm planning on shooting local races this summer and would love to capture the cars and motorcycles as they cross the finish line. Let's face it - you have one chance to catch the right shot, and no manner of timing is going to guarantee "the shot" will be the one you capture. After all, it's not just the camera, it's you, your eye, your brain, and your finger!

Now if Pentax relents and includes a variable or selectable fps which in turn yields better Mpixels, then I'm going have some fun this summer. Maybe 3 @ 14mp, 5 @ 10mp, 8 @ 6 MP, etc.

Of course there are all kinds of engineering concerns here as to the buffer write speed versus fps, but hey, if you can do both extremes, at least give us something in between with at least 6 MP!

[robgo2]

You seem to be focusing your arguments on the basis of "need" alone, Rob. Why would you not consider "want" a legitimate reason for seeking a higher continuous frame rate? There are lots of things in life I don't absolutely need, but certainly some of them are things I might want.

stewart

Stewart,

When I refer to someone needing something, I mean that he might actually have occasion to use it. And if he wants something that he will never use, then it is to satisfy some emotional need to possess things for their own sake. People are certainly free to behave in this manner, and a large percentage of us do, but I wouldn't recommend it as a general principle for making purchasing decisions, unless you have more money than you really need and you want to dispose of it.

Rob

[Kguru]

-- Deleted --