[BigMackCam]

ever been to a performance of 4'33"?

I have, but I was sitting too far back from the orchestra... I couldn't hear a thing...

[Alex645]

I referred a talented and motivated high school senior to shoot her first wedding last weekend. She has a Nikon D7000 (16MP). I told her to be safe, take a second DSLR with her, just in case, so she brought her even older Nikon D70 (6MP).

During the wedding, something in her primary camera's flash circuitry became overtaxed and it would stop working (both internal and external flash). When she texted me in a panic trying to fix it, I told her just switch over to her D70 for a while until her D7000 recovered and could continue working.

Ideally no one should be interchanging between a 16Mp and a 6MP sensor, but that got her through the job and the couple were happy with the experience and the results. Of course, she was probably paid peanuts, but that fit the budget and expectations of the couple.

So whether it's for redundancy or buffering or (dare I say it) appearances (that must be the pro photographer because they are slinging two DSLRs) having a second camera is a wise move. (I often will shoot with two bodies so I don't have to physically switch between two primes.) Of course if she could afford two identical flagships, that would be better, but then she'd probably price herself out of this particular event that benefitted the newlyweds and herself 'learning on the job'.

[BigMackCam]

I'm not hating on Pentax, I'm hoping this thread is useful for someone one day, having two cameras has many benefits and this week I found out it can also be very handy with buffering issues.

Personally, I didn't read your original post or subsequent responses as hating on Pentax With respect, though, I do think that the technique you're applying would expose limitations in the majority of higher-resolution cameras, not to mention that it's brutal on the camera in terms of shutter life.

Clearly, there are numerous techniques for getting a whole bunch of "keeper" shots in any given situation with pretty much any camera, regardless of performance (this subject comes up regularly with birds-in-flight and sports photography, for example). In this case, you've chosen to use a very specific and personal technique, and you expect your equipment to support that (you've every right to, of course). Because of this, choice of equipment becomes paramount.

If there's a useful take-away from this thread, I think it's wider-reaching than the K-1. We can either (a) apply techniques that work within the capabilities of our gear, or (b) buy gear that supports our chosen techniques (i.e. works exactly how we want it to). The danger with option (b), though - in my opinion - is that we may become overly dependent on equipment over technique.

I think this has been a useful thread, Bruce

[beachgardener]

(b) buy gear that supports our chosen techniques

that is it, all amazing cameras in their own right, but, neither the K-1 or KP (not used them) but they don't say fast pace, burst to me. The KP might have 7 fps but specs. not much buffer or clear time if memory serves me. The Kp would suit the DA limiteds and slow zooms I'm sure with its clear high iso, general use etc. The K-1 to me sounds like portrait, landscape, studio (I'm sure they can be used for birds etc. where technique plays a role).
This is why I am hanging out for the K-3II replacement, if all goes well it could be an amazing camera with all the current tech. from K-70/1/KP throw in something new and wow shaping up to be a cracker

[BrianR]

I look at other shooters who use a single Nikon and Canon, I wonder if they run into these problems?

I'm sure they do. They have faster options available for more money, but it is inevitable that no matter what equipment people have they will run into moments where they think- 'if only my "Thing X" had "Spec Y" then I could do "Result Z"'. It's comforting to our egos to be able to blame a device for holding us back (I'm not saying you're guilty of this, but I have been many times) and it's always worth carefully reevaluating our uses/needs. I have a basic 3-step plan when I run into perceived equipment limitations:

1) Re-evaluate my end goals. Do I really need to do Result Z? Or am I just saying I do because I think I can't do it with the equipment I have and want an excuse for my failure or a reason to go shopping? Is it actually a worthwhile artistic/creative pursuit?

2) Re-evaluate my execution. I've determined Result Z is wanted/needed, can I do it with something below Spec Y? Does my current equipment have a suitable workaround? Can the meatsack operating the equipment perform more optimally?

3) Re-evaluate my equipment. If I've passed the above steps without a solution, will new Thing X meeting Spec Y actually let me do a new Result Z? If so, time to decide if spending money to do Result Z is worth it to me.


Considering the "Brenzier method", why do you need a huge buffer? I would think you'd need the photos that overlap a living subject to be taken as quickly as possible, but after that, the surrounding scenery is probably not moving very fast and you can take your time. Looking at examples around the web, it seems perfectly doable with a camera of the k1's speed.

[normhead]

I'm not a professional photographer but, Have 2 camera bodies, one APS_c on FF. But I still need a second body. This one has had a hip replaced and has two torn rotator cuffs. Where can I trade it in?

[Kombivan]

There is no comparision as every camera user sets their camera up differently using different amounts of power for different functions. and as fars as buffer goes this is the first time I have hears this expression. I admit I don't have a K-3 but if your relying on the camera batteries to run the onboard flash your looking for trouble get a aa battery pack and pack for some real power. For the flash if using a hot shoe flash alkaline batteries run at 1.5v and nihi run at 1.2v so you might want a pack of energizers for the flash. for a quicker charge I have no idea of the capacity of energizers but I would assume its not the 2550mah you get with the nihi, but the flash recharge would be quicker and therefore less stressful on your flash.

---

Last edited by Kombivan; 12-16-2017 at 09:30 AM.

[UncleVanya]

The test results on the sequential vs. backup mode show only 12 shots before buffer full - if you got 17 that's one more than sequential and count yourself lucky. The point I made was that faster cameras exist but only in lower MP and with significantly more expensive memory systems. The D810 isn't used for that type of work. The K-1 is in fact much more similar to that camera than the fast D5. The crop mode sequential will get you more than 50 shots raw - which I think is very good. You are still dealing with 15mp files - so now while not full frame the comparison to the D5 is closer - the buffer is still smaller than a D5 and the dump rate post buffer full is slower but for the $ it isn't too shabby.

So again I suggest no backup mode, and crop mode when you need a bursty shooting pattern.

[Sandy Hancock]

...ever been to a performance of 4'33"?

That's one piece where the photographer can really do the music justice.

[rawr]

I look at other shooters who use a single Nikon and Canon, I wonder if they run into these problems?

I'm sure they routinely run into all sorts of gear problems.
They may also take lots of bad photos even if their gear works superbly.

In it's favour, one thing Nikon has going for it, in terms of shooting speed and buffer performance, is that it simply has some 20MP or 24MP full-frame cameras in it's line up...

There are also some nice options in Nikon to set your RAW's to 12 or 14 bit, and choose compression options for those RAW's too (lossless/compressed/uncompressed). All of which works to bring the camera buffer headroom up by reducing RAW file sizes.

Pentax could probably apply some of those RAW bit-depth and compression options in firmware if they wanted to boost K-1 buffer performance. A software tweak like that could probably do wonders.

[BruceBanner]

You already got some good comments. I am not a professional, but I shoot Hi-continuous burst sequences all the time, and I have done so since I move to Pentax. Pentax has some of the best buffer in its APS-C cameras like K-7, K-5 and K-3. Clearly a fast SD is required to empty as quickly as possible the camera buffer; simply the card must be faster than the output bus rate of the camera. In practice, an after some rigorous tests with my camera bodies, I selected to shoot JPEG [***] to avoid any buffering issues. With a fast card and no in-camera processing, I have been able to shoot long-sequence (> 30 sec) at 8 fps on my K-3.
I fully acknowledge that you may prefer shooting RAW. However, and as noted earlier by others, Canikon and other brand camera have the same or often worst buffering issue. IMHO, Pentax is one of the better brand with its high-end APS-C camera bodies for high-speed bursts.
My 5 cents...

Yes, I have already created a User Mode intended for 'Brenizer' style shooting, which isn't even bursting, still single shot but it can be 50-100 shots taken averaging 1 per second and you want the shot done in reasonably fast time. I found shooting RAW like this I hit the buffer issue, Jpg its no problem.
It's been a long time since I have edited jpg, will be interesting to see how limiting I find it. I'm better with the camera now than when I was before starting out and really being thankful for the extra editing headspace with RAW files, but perhaps now they are not as necessary? It's indeed something to think about and look into.

I referred a talented and motivated high school senior to shoot her first wedding last weekend. She has a Nikon D7000 (16MP). I told her to be safe, take a second DSLR with her, just in case, so she brought her even older Nikon D70 (6MP).

During the wedding, something in her primary camera's flash circuitry became overtaxed and it would stop working (both internal and external flash). When she texted me in a panic trying to fix it, I told her just switch over to her D70 for a while until her D7000 recovered and could continue working.

Ideally no one should be interchanging between a 16Mp and a 6MP sensor, but that got her through the job and the couple were happy with the experience and the results. Of course, she was probably paid peanuts, but that fit the budget and expectations of the couple.

So whether it's for redundancy or buffering or (dare I say it) appearances (that must be the pro photographer because they are slinging two DSLRs) having a second camera is a wise move. (I often will shoot with two bodies so I don't have to physically switch between two primes.) Of course if she could afford two identical flagships, that would be better, but then she'd probably price herself out of this particular event that benefitted the newlyweds and herself 'learning on the job'.

Good on her! Glad to hear she made it through the event ok.
I first bough the KP with the intention of it being a backup in case on an important job the K-1 died. I wasn't even at the time thinking of actually slinging two at the same time. Then because I shoot primes, slinging two made sense. Going forward I think if I actually stuck a prime zoom on each (24-70 and a 70-200) I doubt I'd swap a lens for the entire day. All this time however I thought people slung two cameras for the focal length primarily but now I think that encountering buffer throttle might in certain situations account for the swap onto a different camera.

Personally, I didn't read your original post or subsequent responses as hating on Pentax With respect, though, I do think that the technique you're applying would expose limitations in the majority of higher-resolution cameras, not to mention that it's brutal on the camera in terms of shutter life.

Clearly, there are numerous techniques for getting a whole bunch of "keeper" shots in any given situation with pretty much any camera, regardless of performance (this subject comes up regularly with birds-in-flight and sports photography, for example). In this case, you've chosen to use a very specific and personal technique, and you expect your equipment to support that (you've every right to, of course). Because of this, choice of equipment becomes paramount.

If there's a useful take-away from this thread, I think it's wider-reaching than the K-1. We can either (a) apply techniques that work within the capabilities of our gear, or (b) buy gear that supports our chosen techniques (i.e. works exactly how we want it to). The danger with option (b), though - in my opinion - is that we may become overly dependent on equipment over technique.

I think this has been a useful thread, Bruce

Ah yes, shutter life, hadn't actually thought about that. Well... like I said, for 2yrs I've been shooting lovely shots and never encountering this issue, it's only under certain intense moments that burst or a lot of shots back to back has occurred for me. And now I have a semi decent work around, use two bodies, or choose crop/Jpg instead for those instances.

I'm sure they do. They have faster options available for more money, but it is inevitable that no matter what equipment people have they will run into moments where they think- 'if only my "Thing X" had "Spec Y" then I could do "Result Z"'. It's comforting to our egos to be able to blame a device for holding us back (I'm not saying you're guilty of this, but I have been many times) and it's always worth carefully reevaluating our uses/needs. I have a basic 3-step plan when I run into perceived equipment limitations:

1) Re-evaluate my end goals. Do I really need to do Result Z? Or am I just saying I do because I think I can't do it with the equipment I have and want an excuse for my failure or a reason to go shopping? Is it actually a worthwhile artistic/creative pursuit?

2) Re-evaluate my execution. I've determined Result Z is wanted/needed, can I do it with something below Spec Y? Does my current equipment have a suitable workaround? Can the meatsack operating the equipment perform more optimally?

3) Re-evaluate my equipment. If I've passed the above steps without a solution, will new Thing X meeting Spec Y actually let me do a new Result Z? If so, time to decide if spending money to do Result Z is worth it to me.


Considering the "Brenzier method", why do you need a huge buffer? I would think you'd need the photos that overlap a living subject to be taken as quickly as possible, but after that, the surrounding scenery is probably not moving very fast and you can take your time. Looking at examples around the web, it seems perfectly doable with a camera of the k1's speed.

I like your 3 steps, I too go through a similar thought process when evaluating tech, I used to do it all the time when I was an audiogeek trying to justify a 9th DAP to add to the collection hehehe.

I've tried a few times now with the Brenizer method, doing exactly as you describe, I still encounter the buffer issue which interrupts the flow of where you're moving and filling in around. Doing the shots jpg however and it gives much more leeway. Perhaps you underestimate just how many pics are needed to be taken for that one shot. This one here I took last week is comprised of 50 shots, and it's not very good or panoramic in nature;



Shooting steadily 1 frame per second or a little faster (RAW) and you hit that buffer, for me it was around 20 shots in I think (I counted). At the end of the day, when using live subjects, you want the shot over with asap, even if they can relax slightly after the initial faster shots taken of them.

I'm not a professional photographer but, Have 2 camera bodies, one APS_c on FF. But I still need a second body. This one has had a hip replaced and has two torn rotator cuffs. Where can I trade it in?

The test results on the sequential vs. backup mode show only 12 shots before buffer full - if you got 17 that's one more than sequential and count yourself lucky. The point I made was that faster cameras exist but only in lower MP and with significantly more expensive memory systems. The D810 isn't used for that type of work. The K-1 is in fact much more similar to that camera than the fast D5. The crop mode sequential will get you more than 50 shots raw - which I think is very good. You are still dealing with 15mp files - so now while not full frame the comparison to the D5 is closer - the buffer is still smaller than a D5 and the dump rate post buffer full is slower but for the $ it isn't too shabby.

So again I suggest no backup mode, and crop mode when you need a bursty shooting pattern.

I've toggled to jpg instead, which I think will be fine. I was a little saddened to see that I can't have one user mode set to sequential and the others backup. I am now considering how overall important it is to shoot in backup mode (which goes back to a thread I started ages ago which went the way this thread has with wildly opposing views on the matter and how likely card failures are etc etc lol).... sigh.

---------- Post added 12-17-17 at 10:47 AM ----------

I'm sure they routinely run into all sorts of gear problems.
They may also take lots of bad photos even if their gear works superbly.

In it's favour, one thing Nikon has going for it, in terms of shooting speed and buffer performance, is that it simply has some 20MP or 24MP full-frame cameras in it's line up...

There are also some nice options in Nikon to set your RAW's to 12 or 14 bit, and choose compression options for those RAW's too (lossless/compressed/uncompressed). All of which works to bring the camera buffer headroom up by reducing RAW file sizes.

Pentax could probably apply some of those RAW bit-depth and compression options in firmware if they wanted to boost K-1 buffer performance. A software tweak like that could probably do wonders.

That is actually interesting to hear, yes... sounds like a nice added option. I'm considering toggling to jpgs, but if I could use smaller compressed RAW files that would probably be better come PP time.

[Digitalis]

That's one piece where the photographer can really do the music justice.

yes, but you have to be using a pretty high end camera to really give the performance some air.

[Kerrowdown]

you might need two bodies...

For work I've always carry at least duplicates of all main key items, bodies, lenses, batteries, memory cards etc, irrespective of camera brand used. I tend to nearly always work the two bodies simultaneously while shooting. .

This has absolutely nothing to do with buffer speeds, but more to do with "failure is not an option on my watch". Otherwise known as a "belt and galluses (braces)" approach.

[BrianR]

Perhaps you underestimate just how many pics are needed to be taken for that one shot.

The goal is to mimic a larger format sensor while using the same lens. How many images you use will determine the size of the sensor you mimic. 2 images or 800, it's a matter of degrees to decide how many is enough. 20 images out of your k1 should get you pretty close to a 4x5" camera*, you can go a little bigger before the buffer hits (or with more overlap for safety) shooting in jpeg. Many of the examples I've seen on the web fall from 20 to 50 images, how much is enough is personal taste.

*in sensor/film size only. You don't have the movements these large format cameras have, nor the instant credibility you'd get for pulling one out (and being proficient with it), along with the instant doubling (or more) of your fees.

[audiobomber]

Remember also some of those faster speed DSLR's are using lower pixels (20mp for example in the D5 Nikon) and XQD compact flash sized cards that are very high performance bus designs.

According to B&H, SD card performance has surpassed CompactFlash:

Traditionally, SD cards were always a few steps behind CompactFlash cards when it came to performance, but since CompactFlash cards haven’t been updated in a while, SD cards have recently passed them with UHS-II cards. UHS-II SD cards offer read speeds up to 312 MB/s, almost twice the speed of UDMA 7 CompactFlash cards. However, because they are so new, not many cameras and card readers support UHS-II cards, and while UHS-II cards are backward compatible, they won’t work at full speed with older card readers. In fact, most high-end DSLR cameras are still unable to write at UHS-II speeds.

The Numbers on Your Memory Card Explained | B&H Explora

The linked page also has a diagram and explanation of the numbers and symbols on SD cards.