[RiceHigh]

1. Actual shooting rate/frequency is only at 2.87 frames per second (well below and much worse than the claimed Spec. of 3.5 fps);

2. A maximum of 10 frames can be shot up to in a chain (doubled and better than the official Spec. which is 5 only);

3. The system time lag (shutter lag) is measured to be 114 ms or 0.114 second (the best figure I have ever seen for an entry level Pentax DSLR - not bad for an entry level DSLR indeed).

I would comment that it just sounds to be smoother for both mirror up and down actions which are now having a lighter touch or simply gentler (for what it was recorded and as it seems to be - the actual noise level cannot be judged exactly, though). Well, well done, Pentax! (I still would say for that part, but the lower fps is yet something which I do not wish to see..)

For measurement data source, background and measurement method etc., see:-

RiceHigh's Pentax Blog: Yet Another New K-m Preview

---

Last edited by RiceHigh; 10-16-2008 at 10:05 AM. Reason: To correct an error.

[AndrewG NY]

Thanks for the heads-up. Perhaps the shooting rate could be affected by the particular SD card in use or some other optional jpeg processing feature being enabled/disabled.

[Jonson PL]

I was wondering how you got hands on a K-m, but see that you’re simply translating and taking the figures from DC Watch.
Still for us non-Japanese speakers, it is nice to get an idea about what the DC Watch articles are all about.

I would guess that actual users would prefer the better frame buffer. Maybe the final product will have the 3.5 fps; still for an entry-level cam, this should not be the most important aspect.


“Anyway, I have already measured the overall system lag time of the 5D MkII to be 105 ms which is indeed 27 ms longer than the original 5D”

So the MKII is doing poorer than the MI ?!? I think you should make a website on how disappointing this must be, how Canon couldn’t even go beyond what a fairly old (for a digital) camera could do.
I'll even hand in a headline : "Buy the MarkII and get slower system lag time, than the original MarkI"


Edit :
You write :
"I own several Pentax film and DSLR bodies, along with an original Pentax lens collection of F, F*, FA, FA*, FA Limited, FAJ, DA, DFA lenses, from 16 to 300mm."

How many different Pentax DSLR's do you have ?

[Aegon]

Won't it depend on what output mode you are using and the speed of your SD card?

JPG might be quicker than RAW. Small images might be quicker than large.

I'm not saying that I know, I'm just saying that there are some unknowns involved here. At least there are unknowns with the OP's restatement.

Thanks for the report RH, if I ever need more than one frame at a time, I'll probably have reason to be upset at Pentax. At the moment my only complaint is Pentax's failure to provide future firmware support for the older models. But every camera company does that so I would have the same problem with a C or N, more so, lack of old glass and even lack of mount continuity and compatibility would be an issue.

One important thing you have to remember RH, the K2000/M is an entry level camera, FPS is not a high priority for the majority of photographers, especially those upgrading from a P&S.

It's also going to be damn good value compared to the others.

[felix68]

1. Actual shooting rate/frequency is only at 2.87 frames per second (well below and much worse than the claimed Spec. of 3.5 fps

Rice,

In your blog you state that the frame rate quoted is measurebated from a sound file that was posted on the Japaneese site. Do you have any idea what the camera settings were when that file was generated? If the camera was set to autofocus, slow shutter speed, etc., your measurements are completely invalid.
The only way to measure true FPS is to set the camera on manual focus, with a high shutter speed in manual mode with a fast memory card. For all you know, the lens cap could have been on the camera that you are quoting FPS numbers on...

[Class A]

1. Actual shooting rate/frequency is only at 2.87 frames per second (well below and much worse than the claimed Spec. of 3.5 fps);

2. A maximum of 10 frames can be shot up to in a chain (doubled and better than the official Spec. which is 5 only);

I think your posting should include the fact that you have "measurebated the following actual performance figures of the K-m:-" "From the two sound files" as you state on your blog.

That helps to put these figures into perspective.

[RiceHigh]

In your blog you state that the frame rate quoted is measurebated from a sound file that was posted on the Japaneese site. Do you have any idea what the camera settings were when that file was generated? If the camera was set to autofocus, slow shutter speed, etc., your measurements are completely invalid.

As seen in the wav files, there is no AF carried out by the camera in between frames nor the shutter opening time is anything significant or it is simply negligible to the frame rate and timing. Well, actually the sound files do tell all these also, no problem here.

[RiceHigh]

Won't it depend on what output mode you are using and the speed of your SD card?

JPG might be quicker than RAW. Small images might be quicker than large.

I'm not saying that I know, I'm just saying that there are some unknowns involved here. At least there are unknowns with the OP's restatement.

In the K-m, there is only two frame rates:

1. Large fine jpeg or RAW at 3.5 fps for 5 shots or 4 shots respectively;

2. Large fine jpeg at 1.1 fps to infinity until card full.

I think when the Impress Watch reviewer did the test and posted the sound files as "Single" and "Continuous", they actually would not use strange and uncommon settings to do the tests.

When the actual frame rate is now at 2.87, it can be very safely to assume that the advance mode is Hi, not Low (which is only at 1.1 fps).

And when the maximum continuous frames that could be shot is now 10. The mode chosen is surely not the Lo mode but just Hi.

The shooting rate should not be dependent of the card speed as it's what all the buffer handles and the buffered images will be written back to the card afterwards. Only the write time from buffer to card will differ but not the continuous shooting rate (as the card is by no means fast enough for the 2.8 or 3.5 fps rate, most card only could handle something at 1.1 fps if it is relied on to write frame by frame continuously without the assistance/storage of internal memory frame buffer, which is of a much higher writing speed.

[séamuis]

more typical bullshit from ricehigh. this is completely invalid from my point of view and a very shoddy test. not that it matters since its usual copy+paste to his blog and then right to here so he can point it back to his blog, nonsense. what are you expecting from an entry level camera anyway ricehigh? its designed to be ... follow me carefully here, entry level.

I'm usually not one to be so rude... but man ricehigh, sometimes I wish you would fall off the proverbial 'end of the earth' so we don't have tobe constantly bombarded with your blog trafficking.

[soccerjoe5]

let's just wait for the real thing, a real hands-on review.

[Spongefingers]

I'm sure that most people who are buying a camera at that price don't really mind if the frame rate is 2.87 or 3.5 fps. If it takes a good picture (without exploding) when you press the button, it should be good enough for most beginners.

[felix68]

As seen in the wav files, there is no AF carried out by the camera in between frames nor the shutter opening time is anything significant or it is simply negligible to the frame rate and timing. Well, actually the sound files do tell all these also, no problem here.

RiceBoy,

There is nothing to be "seen" in the wave files. They are sound files and don't tell you anything about the AF settings on the camera. You are "ass"uming that because you can't hear the AF working, that it is not on. There is also no way for you to know what the shutter speed is set to when these files were created.
Your conclusion, down to the hundredth of a second no less, is completely invalid given the data that you have (or rather don't have). Oh yes, big problem here.
Wait until there are some actual real life testing by qualified reviewers specifically testing frame rate to post links to their work on your blog. You are basing frame rate down to the hundredth of a second on a file that was recorded only to give people an idea of the sound of the camera. Lunacy...

PS - Don't bother to respond to this post as I am adding you to my ignore list. I always thought "Rice" was entertaining but now I think that he is just "High" on crack when he thinks up this dribble.

[dylansalt]

The most important aspect this camera needs to achieve IMHO is excellent precise autofocus, close to near as perfect auto exposure/AWB in Program/Picture Modes,good off camera flash exposure and ready to use Jpegs (out the box so to speak).

If this camera produces the above they will have a winner if not then Pentax loses all the way.

Teens are now wanting to move away from crappy cellphone pics to the new In DSLR image.

So far small form camera size is good - lets hope the other qualities shine.

d

[séamuis]

PS - Don't bother to respond to this post as I am adding you to my ignore list. I always thought "Rice" was entertaining but now I think that he is just "High" on crack when he thinks up this dribble.

you don't have to worry about that, he doesn't respond when someone points out just how flawed his comments are. this is just another post (like all his other) to get people to go to his blog. that's all he wants. its a shame that Adam lets him continue to do this. I understand and respect his policies but there is a reason ricehigh has been banned from so many other photographic forums.