Why Low FPS on K20D & K7?

WalterGA · 08-24-2009, 11:39 AM

Asked question in another thread, but can't find the thread to see if anyone answered it.

Is there something about the Pentax design that limits the fps, other than firmware? Why didn't Pentax go with 6-6.5 fps, a la Canon 40D? Low fps is a bummer for the K20D, an otherwise excellent camera.

**Lowell Goudge** · 08-24-2009, 11:49 AM

FPS relies on hardware design, and by this I mean the complete camera mechanism, shutter mirror etc,.

it is not a simple change, which is why the K20 is at 3FPS. It is a K10D witrh a different sensor primairly.

The K7 is a new body, different shutter and mirror mechanizm, and therefore a higher frame rate was possible

Andi Lo · 08-24-2009, 11:49 AM

From what I've heard the problem is with the shutter. Canon has the R&D money to develop blazing fast shutters on their full frame bodies and the tech trickles down their lower end bodies. Pentax doesn't have that tech yet and probably wont for some time.

pingflood · 08-24-2009, 12:11 PM

I think the fps of the K-7 would be sufficient, IF it was able to maintain it while tracking a moving subject. Being able to blast off 5+ fps is kind of useless otherwise.

WalterGA · 08-24-2009, 12:12 PM

Thanks for the replies. It'll be interesting if Pentax addresses the "problem" in the successor to the K7. I'd prefer a K20 with a 6.5 fps than a K7.

Gooshin · 08-24-2009, 12:22 PM

Originally posted by WalterGA

Thanks for the replies. It'll be interesting if Pentax addresses the "problem" in the successor to the K7. I'd prefer a K20 with a 6.5 fps than a K7.

Please entertain us with scenarios where you yourself have shot 6.5 fps (such a specific number), or have failed to attain a shot due to being limited to shooting 3 FPS.

Pentaxor · 08-24-2009, 12:46 PM

Originally posted by WalterGA

Thanks for the replies. It'll be interesting if Pentax addresses the "problem" in the successor to the K7. I'd prefer a K20 with a 6.5 fps than a K7.

why would you prefer a K20D with a 6.5 fps than a K-7 ?

is this due to fps concern alone? cheaper price?

I admit that the K20D is a great camera. it was the one that influenced me to go Pentax. honestly, I would have gotten myself one if the K-7 wasn't built and annouced just a few months ago. IQ-wise, the K20D is a monster of it's own. but there are features and capabilities that the K-7 have that the K20D doesn't possess. one of the major breakthrough is the lowlight shooting capability and accurate AWB. I've had enough of lowlight hunting, fed up to an extent of missed opportunities due to focus hunting rather than lower fps speed.

but anyway, if you are concerned with fps but don't mind shooting at lower resolutions, the K20D is very capable of that. it got a 20fps burst speed for fun shots. and try this while shooting under lowlight. if you got the result that you were looking for and never missed a shot, then get the K20D. if you're on a tight budget, get a K20D. if you don't have a K20D and have much money to spend, get the K-7. it's simple economics.

again, I missed more valuable shots due to focus hunt in lowlight than having a lower fps speed.

Last edited by Pentaxor; 08-24-2009 at 12:55 PM.

nostatic · 08-24-2009, 12:51 PM

Originally posted by Gooshin

Please entertain us with scenarios where you yourself have shot 6.5 fps (such a specific number), or have failed to attain a shot due to being limited to shooting 3 FPS.

I was shooting pictures of a brick wall while holding a stop watch to compare the numbers to a thread I saw on DPR.

Then my (now-ex) wife threw the focus chart across the room after I'd only taken 571 test shots that evening. I had trouble tracking it as it bounced off the wall...

noblepa · 08-24-2009, 12:57 PM

In this case, I suspect that, like beauty, the problem is in the eye of the beholder.

There are some people who come onto this and other forums and decry the lack of high frame rates on Pentax dslrs. They tend to see this as a major problem for Pentax, that will spell doom for the company if it is not resolved quickly. It is often enough to cause these people to "defect" to Canon or Nikon.

While there are some photographers who truly need high frame rates, my impression is that, even in the skewed demographics of these online forums, those photographers are in a distinct minority. Most of us seldom use the continuous shooting mode at all, and when we do, three frames per second is good enough. I know it is for me.

I suspect that Pentax knows very well what they would need to do to boost the frame rate. As others have said, this almost certainly means redesigning the shutter and/or the mirror box, which are mechanical and therefore expensive to change. Add to that the potentially increased warranty claims that would result, and Pentax has probably made a management decision that the increase in cost is not warranted by the tiny mumber of sales that are lost to Canikon due to having a lower frame rate than their competitors.

Personally, and this is only my humble opinion, the lost sales probably amount to less than five percent of Pentax total dslr sales. It wouldn't surprise me if it was less than one percent. That's a very difficult thing to quantify, and I have no hard data to back up my contention, but I really find it difficult to believe that very many people choose a Nikon or Canon, simply because of the frame rate.

And that's the bottom line, literally. High frame rates won't become a priority to Pentax designers until they perceive that they are losing a lot of sales because of it. Right now, they have higher priority things to address, like improving autofocus performance.

Don't get me wrong. I'm not putting down those who desire higher frame rates. I simply believe that Pentax does not and will not, for the foreseeable future, perceive this as a huge problem.

But then, I could be wrong...

Gooshin · 08-24-2009, 01:13 PM

Originally posted by nostatic

I was shooting pictures of a brick wall while holding a stop watch to compare the numbers to a thread I saw on DPR.

Then my (now-ex) wife threw the focus chart across the room after I'd only taken 571 test shots that evening. I had trouble tracking it as it bounced off the wall...

2:0

you're game it top notch today sir.

**Ash** · 08-24-2009, 01:37 PM

Originally posted by nostatic

I was shooting pictures of a brick wall while holding a stop watch to compare the numbers to a thread I saw on DPR.

Then my (now-ex) wife threw the focus chart across the room after I'd only taken 571 test shots that evening. I had trouble tracking it as it bounced off the wall...

Hilarious.
You don't just get square eyes from watching TV, I see...

imtheguy · 08-24-2009, 01:44 PM

Originally posted by nostatic

I was shooting pictures of a brick wall while holding a stop watch to compare the numbers to a thread I saw on DPR.

Then my (now-ex) wife threw the focus chart across the room after I'd only taken 571 test shots that evening. I had trouble tracking it as it bounced off the wall...

Having been married a long time (up until recently) I can appreciate the hell out of that scenario. Thats a HOOT! You script it excellently such that I really can imagine trying to focus on the flying chart so you dont lose your fps string.

Pentaxor · 08-24-2009, 01:50 PM

Originally posted by noblepa

In this case, I suspect that, like beauty, the problem is in the eye of the beholder.

There are some people who come onto this and other forums and decry the lack of high frame rates on Pentax dslrs. They tend to see this as a major problem for Pentax, that will spell doom for the company if it is not resolved quickly. It is often enough to cause these people to "defect" to Canon or Nikon.

While there are some photographers who truly need high frame rates, my impression is that, even in the skewed demographics of these online forums, those photographers are in a distinct minority. Most of us seldom use the continuous shooting mode at all, and when we do, three frames per second is good enough. I know it is for me.

I suspect that Pentax knows very well what they would need to do to boost the frame rate. As others have said, this almost certainly means redesigning the shutter and/or the mirror box, which are mechanical and therefore expensive to change. Add to that the potentially increased warranty claims that would result, and Pentax has probably made a management decision that the increase in cost is not warranted by the tiny mumber of sales that are lost to Canikon due to having a lower frame rate than their competitors.

Personally, and this is only my humble opinion, the lost sales probably amount to less than five percent of Pentax total dslr sales. It wouldn't surprise me if it was less than one percent. That's a very difficult thing to quantify, and I have no hard data to back up my contention, but I really find it difficult to believe that very many people choose a Nikon or Canon, simply because of the frame rate.

And that's the bottom line, literally. High frame rates won't become a priority to Pentax designers until they perceive that they are losing a lot of sales because of it. Right now, they have higher priority things to address, like improving autofocus performance.

Don't get me wrong. I'm not putting down those who desire higher frame rates. I simply believe that Pentax does not and will not, for the foreseeable future, perceive this as a huge problem.

But then, I could be wrong...

an improved auto-focus performance would be the more logical and relevant issue that needs to be discussed rather than fps. the 5.2 fps is sufficient and efficient enough to capture F1 cars. actually, the 1/8000 sec shutter speed is a big help in capturing fast motion/action photography, including freezing the action of a fast rotating wheels of a racing car . the 1/4000 sec shutter speed on the K20D would leave a bit of a motion blur or prolonged action which I found unwanted.

unless if you are looking for a particular point to point sequence of shots (which I believe the OP has no real use of) , then a higher frame rate "might" be used. having a high fps is virtually useless if you ain't shooting fast action photography on a consistent basis. only a few people need them. I don't see the point of having a 6 or 9 fps camera just to shoot a standing building or a bridge.

too bad my laptop is still under repair. I could had posted some pics of sequence shots of a fast running train. believe me, I only needed 2 of the 5 shots (2nd and 4th) that were produced in that 1 second shooting.

imtheguy · 08-24-2009, 01:57 PM

Originally posted by Gooshin

Please entertain us with scenarios where you yourself have shot 6.5 fps (such a specific number), or have failed to attain a shot due to being limited to shooting 3 FPS.

Where as YOU sir, demand a lot for someone with an incredibly annoying avatar. Oh crap, I didn't mean it! I love animated GIFs. But back to the topic....you asked about the need for high fps.

I spend hours every week frozen in time with the long lens on a big marsh bird getting ready to go for fish. If I time it right, my 3fps will catch some of the best frames before the buffer fills. I have used the 20fps mode and caught the best of the best frames but of course the IQ is good enough to sort out the top ones and make an interesting slo-mo AVI. The really good shots I miss about half of due to fps limitations but have never considered paying for a 7fps cam. The birds are FAST.

Is this the sort of real answer you wanted or can we all just agree that nostatic had a better answer?

GLXLR · 08-24-2009, 02:02 PM

Originally posted by Andi Lo

From what I've heard the problem is with the shutter. Canon has the R&D money to develop blazing fast shutters on their full frame bodies and the tech trickles down their lower end bodies. Pentax doesn't have that tech yet and probably wont for some time.

If they made the body bigger, maybe even 6 or 7 frames could be possible!

08-24-2009, 11:39 AM	#1
WalterGA Senior Member Join Date: May 2009 Location: Atlanta Posts: 110	Why Low FPS on K20D & K7? Asked question in another thread, but can't find the thread to see if anyone answered it. Is there something about the Pentax design that limits the fps, other than firmware? Why didn't Pentax go with 6-6.5 fps, a la Canon 40D? Low fps is a bummer for the K20D, an otherwise excellent camera.

08-24-2009, 11:49 AM	#2
Lowell Goudge Site Supporter Join Date: Jan 2007 Location: Toronto Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 17,888	FPS is haredware not software FPS relies on hardware design, and by this I mean the complete camera mechanism, shutter mirror etc,. it is not a simple change, which is why the K20 is at 3FPS. It is a K10D witrh a different sensor primairly. The K7 is a new body, different shutter and mirror mechanizm, and therefore a higher frame rate was possible

08-24-2009, 12:57 PM	#9
noblepa Veteran Member Join Date: Sep 2007 Location: Bay Village, Ohio USA Posts: 1,142	Problem, what problem? In this case, I suspect that, like beauty, the problem is in the eye of the beholder. There are some people who come onto this and other forums and decry the lack of high frame rates on Pentax dslrs. They tend to see this as a major problem for Pentax, that will spell doom for the company if it is not resolved quickly. It is often enough to cause these people to "defect" to Canon or Nikon. While there are some photographers who truly need high frame rates, my impression is that, even in the skewed demographics of these online forums, those photographers are in a distinct minority. Most of us seldom use the continuous shooting mode at all, and when we do, three frames per second is good enough. I know it is for me. I suspect that Pentax knows very well what they would need to do to boost the frame rate. As others have said, this almost certainly means redesigning the shutter and/or the mirror box, which are mechanical and therefore expensive to change. Add to that the potentially increased warranty claims that would result, and Pentax has probably made a management decision that the increase in cost is not warranted by the tiny mumber of sales that are lost to Canikon due to having a lower frame rate than their competitors. Personally, and this is only my humble opinion, the lost sales probably amount to less than five percent of Pentax total dslr sales. It wouldn't surprise me if it was less than one percent. That's a very difficult thing to quantify, and I have no hard data to back up my contention, but I really find it difficult to believe that very many people choose a Nikon or Canon, simply because of the frame rate. And that's the bottom line, literally. High frame rates won't become a priority to Pentax designers until they perceive that they are losing a lot of sales because of it. Right now, they have higher priority things to address, like improving autofocus performance. Don't get me wrong. I'm not putting down those who desire higher frame rates. I simply believe that Pentax does not and will not, for the foreseeable future, perceive this as a huge problem. But then, I could be wrong...

Similar Threads
Thread	Thread Starter	Forum	Replies	Last Post
Continous High/Low Speed FPS	Reportage	Pentax DSLR Discussion	4	11-18-2009 06:32 PM
K20D + 22 fps + water dropplets	dopeytree	Pentax DSLR Discussion	0	04-24-2009 06:06 AM
How does the K20D achieve 22 FPS?	Lowell Goudge	Pentax DSLR Discussion	7	01-28-2008 02:16 PM
FPS rate petition for new K20D	time-snaps	Pentax News and Rumors	49	01-28-2008 11:22 AM
K20D FPS Rumor	codiac2600	Pentax News and Rumors	13	12-28-2007 07:41 PM

08-24-2009, 11:49 AM	#3
Andi Lo Veteran Member Join Date: Jul 2008 Location: Halifax, Nova Scotia Posts: 2,924	From what I've heard the problem is with the shutter. Canon has the R&D money to develop blazing fast shutters on their full frame bodies and the tech trickles down their lower end bodies. Pentax doesn't have that tech yet and probably wont for some time.

08-24-2009, 12:11 PM	#4
pingflood Veteran Member Join Date: Jun 2008 Location: Borås, Sweden Photos: Gallery Posts: 3,169	I think the fps of the K-7 would be sufficient, IF it was able to maintain it while tracking a moving subject. Being able to blast off 5+ fps is kind of useless otherwise.

08-24-2009, 12:12 PM	#5
WalterGA Senior Member Join Date: May 2009 Location: Atlanta Posts: 110 Original Poster	Thanks for the replies. It'll be interesting if Pentax addresses the "problem" in the successor to the K7. I'd prefer a K20 with a 6.5 fps than a K7.

08-24-2009, 12:22 PM	#6
Gooshin Veteran Member Join Date: Sep 2007 Location: Toronto, the one in Canada. Posts: 5,610	Originally posted by WalterGA Thanks for the replies. It'll be interesting if Pentax addresses the "problem" in the successor to the K7. I'd prefer a K20 with a 6.5 fps than a K7. Please entertain us with scenarios where you yourself have shot 6.5 fps (such a specific number), or have failed to attain a shot due to being limited to shooting 3 FPS.

08-24-2009, 12:46 PM	#7
Pentaxor Veteran Member Join Date: May 2009 Location: Vancouver, B.C. Photos: Gallery Posts: 6,513	Originally posted by WalterGA Thanks for the replies. It'll be interesting if Pentax addresses the "problem" in the successor to the K7. I'd prefer a K20 with a 6.5 fps than a K7. why would you prefer a K20D with a 6.5 fps than a K-7 ? is this due to fps concern alone? cheaper price? I admit that the K20D is a great camera. it was the one that influenced me to go Pentax. honestly, I would have gotten myself one if the K-7 wasn't built and annouced just a few months ago. IQ-wise, the K20D is a monster of it's own. but there are features and capabilities that the K-7 have that the K20D doesn't possess. one of the major breakthrough is the lowlight shooting capability and accurate AWB. I've had enough of lowlight hunting, fed up to an extent of missed opportunities due to focus hunting rather than lower fps speed. but anyway, if you are concerned with fps but don't mind shooting at lower resolutions, the K20D is very capable of that. it got a 20fps burst speed for fun shots. and try this while shooting under lowlight. if you got the result that you were looking for and never missed a shot, then get the K20D. if you're on a tight budget, get a K20D. if you don't have a K20D and have much money to spend, get the K-7. it's simple economics. again, I missed more valuable shots due to focus hunt in lowlight than having a lower fps speed. Last edited by Pentaxor; 08-24-2009 at 12:55 PM.

08-24-2009, 12:51 PM	#8
nostatic Veteran Member Join Date: Feb 2008 Location: socal Photos: Gallery Posts: 1,575	Originally posted by Gooshin Please entertain us with scenarios where you yourself have shot 6.5 fps (such a specific number), or have failed to attain a shot due to being limited to shooting 3 FPS. I was shooting pictures of a brick wall while holding a stop watch to compare the numbers to a thread I saw on DPR. Then my (now-ex) wife threw the focus chart across the room after I'd only taken 571 test shots that evening. I had trouble tracking it as it bounced off the wall...

08-24-2009, 01:13 PM	#10
Gooshin Veteran Member Join Date: Sep 2007 Location: Toronto, the one in Canada. Posts: 5,610	Originally posted by nostatic I was shooting pictures of a brick wall while holding a stop watch to compare the numbers to a thread I saw on DPR. Then my (now-ex) wife threw the focus chart across the room after I'd only taken 571 test shots that evening. I had trouble tracking it as it bounced off the wall... 2:0 you're game it top notch today sir.

08-24-2009, 01:37 PM	#11
Ash Loyal Site Supporter Join Date: Mar 2007 Location: Toowoomba, Queensland Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 23,920	Originally posted by nostatic I was shooting pictures of a brick wall while holding a stop watch to compare the numbers to a thread I saw on DPR. Then my (now-ex) wife threw the focus chart across the room after I'd only taken 571 test shots that evening. I had trouble tracking it as it bounced off the wall... Hilarious. You don't just get square eyes from watching TV, I see...

08-24-2009, 01:44 PM	#12
imtheguy Site Supporter Join Date: Mar 2009 Location: Virginia Beach Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 2,950	Originally posted by nostatic I was shooting pictures of a brick wall while holding a stop watch to compare the numbers to a thread I saw on DPR. Then my (now-ex) wife threw the focus chart across the room after I'd only taken 571 test shots that evening. I had trouble tracking it as it bounced off the wall... Having been married a long time (up until recently) I can appreciate the hell out of that scenario. Thats a HOOT! You script it excellently such that I really can imagine trying to focus on the flying chart so you dont lose your fps string.

08-24-2009, 01:50 PM	#13
Pentaxor Veteran Member Join Date: May 2009 Location: Vancouver, B.C. Photos: Gallery Posts: 6,513	Originally posted by noblepa In this case, I suspect that, like beauty, the problem is in the eye of the beholder. There are some people who come onto this and other forums and decry the lack of high frame rates on Pentax dslrs. They tend to see this as a major problem for Pentax, that will spell doom for the company if it is not resolved quickly. It is often enough to cause these people to "defect" to Canon or Nikon. While there are some photographers who truly need high frame rates, my impression is that, even in the skewed demographics of these online forums, those photographers are in a distinct minority. Most of us seldom use the continuous shooting mode at all, and when we do, three frames per second is good enough. I know it is for me. I suspect that Pentax knows very well what they would need to do to boost the frame rate. As others have said, this almost certainly means redesigning the shutter and/or the mirror box, which are mechanical and therefore expensive to change. Add to that the potentially increased warranty claims that would result, and Pentax has probably made a management decision that the increase in cost is not warranted by the tiny mumber of sales that are lost to Canikon due to having a lower frame rate than their competitors. Personally, and this is only my humble opinion, the lost sales probably amount to less than five percent of Pentax total dslr sales. It wouldn't surprise me if it was less than one percent. That's a very difficult thing to quantify, and I have no hard data to back up my contention, but I really find it difficult to believe that very many people choose a Nikon or Canon, simply because of the frame rate. And that's the bottom line, literally. High frame rates won't become a priority to Pentax designers until they perceive that they are losing a lot of sales because of it. Right now, they have higher priority things to address, like improving autofocus performance. Don't get me wrong. I'm not putting down those who desire higher frame rates. I simply believe that Pentax does not and will not, for the foreseeable future, perceive this as a huge problem. But then, I could be wrong... an improved auto-focus performance would be the more logical and relevant issue that needs to be discussed rather than fps. the 5.2 fps is sufficient and efficient enough to capture F1 cars. actually, the 1/8000 sec shutter speed is a big help in capturing fast motion/action photography, including freezing the action of a fast rotating wheels of a racing car . the 1/4000 sec shutter speed on the K20D would leave a bit of a motion blur or prolonged action which I found unwanted. unless if you are looking for a particular point to point sequence of shots (which I believe the OP has no real use of) , then a higher frame rate "might" be used. having a high fps is virtually useless if you ain't shooting fast action photography on a consistent basis. only a few people need them. I don't see the point of having a 6 or 9 fps camera just to shoot a standing building or a bridge. too bad my laptop is still under repair. I could had posted some pics of sequence shots of a fast running train. believe me, I only needed 2 of the 5 shots (2nd and 4th) that were produced in that 1 second shooting.

08-24-2009, 01:57 PM	#14
imtheguy Site Supporter Join Date: Mar 2009 Location: Virginia Beach Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 2,950	Originally posted by Gooshin Please entertain us with scenarios where you yourself have shot 6.5 fps (such a specific number), or have failed to attain a shot due to being limited to shooting 3 FPS. Where as YOU sir, demand a lot for someone with an incredibly annoying avatar. Oh crap, I didn't mean it! I love animated GIFs. But back to the topic....you asked about the need for high fps. I spend hours every week frozen in time with the long lens on a big marsh bird getting ready to go for fish. If I time it right, my 3fps will catch some of the best frames before the buffer fills. I have used the 20fps mode and caught the best of the best frames but of course the IQ is good enough to sort out the top ones and make an interesting slo-mo AVI. The really good shots I miss about half of due to fps limitations but have never considered paying for a 7fps cam. The birds are FAST. Is this the sort of real answer you wanted or can we all just agree that nostatic had a better answer?

08-24-2009, 02:02 PM	#15
GLXLR Veteran Member Join Date: Feb 2009 Location: Sugar Land, TX Photos: Gallery Posts: 684	Originally posted by Andi Lo From what I've heard the problem is with the shutter. Canon has the R&D money to develop blazing fast shutters on their full frame bodies and the tech trickles down their lower end bodies. Pentax doesn't have that tech yet and probably wont for some time. If they made the body bigger, maybe even 6 or 7 frames could be possible!