[Lowell Goudge]

Maybe you don't know quite as much about baseball, Lowell, as you obviously do about photography, so please bear with me. You apparently don't understand why a few fps can make a difference. I'm talking about experience, not hypothetical speculation. The point of shooting the batter isn't just to catch the ball at "just the right moment." It's also to catch the batter's form through his entire swing. If you don't understand how a few more fps would be of benefit for that purpose, then we're so far off the same page as to ever agree on some of the subjective values of sports photography. Of course, 10-15 fps would be better for some shots than 3-6.5. However, the discussion was primarily about the paltry 3 that my K20 offers, vs. the 6.5 that a Canon 40D offers, which was my alternative camera choice. Might have gone for the 50D.

There's no doubt in my mind that photography was invented and perfected in Canada; however, we Rebels to your South invented baseball!

As a matter of fact, I didn't start this thread to discuss the subjective opinions of fps, but, rather, to find out the mechanical or firmware reason that Pentax offers such an embarrassing fps.

It is not a question of knowing baseball, I think in that respect the specific sport we are discussing is not relevant. This issue has been discussed with every new body pentax releases, and every time it comes back to the same thing, anticipation and knowledge of the sport is what is necessary to get a single shot, FPS does not cut it, or for motion studies the selected equipment is wrong.

The ability to capture an ultra high speed sequence is only really done in "still" photography by the Casio EV bridge camera, which shoots up to 1000 FPS. THat will show you an entire swing nicely.

As for limitations in the camera itself, you passed right over my other responses, it is not a firmware limitation as much as hardware. Mechanical stress on shutter and mirror to move them faster, the ability to dampen things such as the mirror, or mechanical re-design to leave the mirror up, and aperture closed down in continuous shooting mode etc.

If you want to do high speed motion studies then I think you are using the wrong tool. it is that simple

[Pentaxor]

Come on Walter... paltry? embarrasing?
You speak about fps as if it's a measure of the size of certain parts of human anatomy.

While I understand your point about how important it may be in what you want from your photos, I'm still not convinced 10fps would be enough. Those guys swing the bat mighty fast - what you'd be more inclined to get (just win the lotto) is one of those extra slow-mo capable video cameras. I see them in action during the Australian Open, and man, that gear is just phenomenal. I just don't see a still cam being fast enough to get what you want.

But with a little luck, you can still time your shots to get the quintessential baseball swing shot others want to have as a pin up.

that would be the more logical choice. otherwise, the K20D's 20fps feature would be his best shot. it's way faster than the 6fps that he is hoping for. but if he complains about accurate and in focus shots, it's no longer an fps issue but rather the focusing system.

there's just no sense on letting a 3-5-7-9 fps camera to do a slow-mo video camera's job. again, for point to point sequence shots, you would need more than just a Mark III or D3x camera. maybe he wants to buy that video camera that captured Michael Phelps 1/200 of a second winning touch in Beijing.

[Digitalis]

I hate drama queens, show me a MEANINGFUL,TANGIBLE difference between 5 FPS and 6FPS

how do you think photographers back in the film days dealt with this?. they didn't spray and pray they anticipated the moment of peak action, and captured it. Most film cameras in the mid 1990s weren't half as fast as current DSLR cameras are.

[Pentaxor]

I hate drama queens, show me a MEANINGFUL,TANGIBLE difference between 5 FPS and 6FPS

how do you think photographers back in the film days dealt with this?. they didn't spray and pray they anticipated the moment of peak action, and captured it. Most film cameras in the mid 1990s weren't half as fast as current DSLR cameras are.

back in the early film days, a 2-3 frames would be fast enough. it depends how fast you jiggle your hand within a second. worse part is, you dont have the luxury to waste a lot of films because they cost a lot of moolah.

[David]

You all seem to have missed the most basic reason for different fps re K20D and K7. The Samsung sensor in the K20D is two channel output that multiplexes the red, blue and green outputs bearing in mind the Bayer filter has a twice as many green outputs as red and blue. The K7 Samsung sensor has a four channel output, ie no multiplexing and can therefore deliver a higher fps rate.

To achieve still higher fps rates the sensor/electronics must be capable of delivering the four channel information (R,B,G,G) at a faster rate and of course the shutter mechanism must be able to keep up. Of course you could always buy a digicam

David

[GLXLR]

I hate drama queens, show me a MEANINGFUL,TANGIBLE difference between 5 FPS and 6FPS

how do you think photographers back in the film days dealt with this?. they didn't spray and pray they anticipated the moment of peak action, and captured it. Most film cameras in the mid 1990s weren't half as fast as current DSLR cameras are.

Heh heh. What about 6 to 7? or 8 to 10? or 4 to 5?

D300 to D300s. 1D2 to 1D3. 1Ds2 to 1Ds3.

Yes I do agree with David. They could of put a 4 channel output, but decided that the MAIN selling point of the K20D was the brilliant image quality, ISO- wise and detail wise. Sure the 40D and D300 shoot faster, but they didn't offer the extra megapixels and IQ.

I guess that is where the K-7 comes in. :-D Honestly, Pentax COULD of put a 4 channel output and strengthen the mechanics of the body, but that wasn't the purpose of the K20D.

[Edvinas]

Disclaimer: I am neither defending nor complaining about frame rate and maximal shutter speed here.

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.

Why would you want to stop wheels of racing car? Do you want your picture to become static? In fact it won't be possible to tell if the car is racing or standing still. So, shoot that car when it is standing still. Much easier.

If you want to get good "racing car is racing" picture you will want those weels to be blurred in rotation. And for really good picture you will want to lower your shutter speed to 1/180s area (for very fast cars) and to do some panning.

[Pentaxor]

Disclaimer: I am neither defending nor complaining about frame rate and maximal shutter speed here.



Why would you want to stop wheels of racing car? Do you want your picture to become static? In fact it won't be possible to tell if the car is racing or standing still. So, shoot that car when it is standing still. Much easier.

If you want to get good "racing car is racing" picture you will want those weels to be blurred in rotation. And for really good picture you will want to lower your shutter speed to 1/180s area (for very fast cars) and to do some panning.

I don't do Panning. I'm also telling the OP that there is a difference in motion definition at faster shutter speed, which he thinks that a 1/2000 is no different or won't matter or is sufficient enough to freeze the action, but at what level or stage of freezing?

one thing in particular why shoot at a faster shutter speed is if you want to capture flying particles frozen in action ( not just the wheels). also, have you ever wondered what a blown up glass looks like before getting pulverized upon impact? again, the application and the fact that why there is a 1/8000 shutter speed. that's my purpose, to freeze the action at it's earliest stage, not to show motion which is your purpose.

[Digitalis]

To achieve still higher fps rates the sensor/electronics must be capable of delivering the four channel information (R,B,G,G) at a faster rate and of course the shutter mechanism must be able to keep up

And that AF has to be just as advanced in order to keep up,you can have all the FPS in the world but if nothing is correctly focused it's a waste of money.

[pingflood]

I hate drama queens, show me a MEANINGFUL,TANGIBLE difference between 5 FPS and 6FPS

how do you think photographers back in the film days dealt with this?. they didn't spray and pray they anticipated the moment of peak action, and captured it. Most film cameras in the mid 1990s weren't half as fast as current DSLR cameras are.

Well, there's a tangible difference between 6 FPS shooting at 6 FPS and 5 FPS shooting at 3 FPS which appears to be the case of the K-7.

And people caught action with manual focus gear in the 1970s, your point? Doesn't mean there's no reason to have better tools..

[Digitalis]

people caught action with manual focus gear in the 1970s, your point?

my point is that people managed just fine without all the bells and whistles..catching action was an art...as opposed to what people these days call "luck". Things were kept simpler back in the old days.

"Well, there's a tangible difference between 6 FPS shooting at 6 FPS and 5 FPS shooting at 3 FPS which appears to be the case of the K-7."

- in the K-7's case i'm not going to argue with you. however I will point out that a camera that specifies the ability to shoot at 6 FPS rarely achieves it unless the subject isn't moving much or at all. When there is high speed, unpredictable movement things become dicier in the world of FPS.

[pingflood]

people caught action with manual focus gear in the 1970s, your point?

my point is that people managed just fine without all the bells and whistles..catching action was an art...as opposed to what people these days call "luck". Things were kept simpler back in the old days.

"Well, there's a tangible difference between 6 FPS shooting at 6 FPS and 5 FPS shooting at 3 FPS which appears to be the case of the K-7."

- in the K-7's case i'm not going to argue with you. however I will point out that a camera that specifies the ability to shoot at 6 FPS rarely achieves it unless the subject isn't moving much or at all. When there is high speed, unpredictable movement things become dicier in the world of FPS.

While I haven't counted fps I have not noticed a slowdown when shooting birds in flight with my 50D. It chugs along at what sounds like full speed, though I suppose I could do some testing and see. From what I recall reading though only certain lenses will really drag a 40D/50D down, and they are the ones where the AF and diaphragm operations are sequential (mostly cheaper glass).

And as for the "good old days" -- I guarantee that 90% of those shooters would happily take a high fps fast AF body if they'd had the option. They didn't, so they made do with what they had. Having a well performing DSLR body doesn't make you into a good photographer, but a good photographer can likely get better results using one.

[kittykat46]

Buy a Canon 50D.....problem solved.

[WalterGA]

It is not a question of knowing baseball, I think in that respect the specific sport we are discussing is not relevant. This issue has been discussed with every new body pentax releases, and every time it comes back to the same thing, anticipation and knowledge of the sport is what is necessary to get a single shot, FPS does not cut it, or for motion studies the selected equipment is wrong.

The ability to capture an ultra high speed sequence is only really done in "still" photography by the Casio EV bridge camera, which shoots up to 1000 FPS. THat will show you an entire swing nicely.

As for limitations in the camera itself, you passed right over my other responses, it is not a firmware limitation as much as hardware. Mechanical stress on shutter and mirror to move them faster, the ability to dampen things such as the mirror, or mechanical re-design to leave the mirror up, and aperture closed down in continuous shooting mode etc.

If you want to do high speed motion studies then I think you are using the wrong tool. it is that simple

You make my point...regarding your knowledge of baseball. However, it's apparent that whatever your opinion is, is the "correct" opinion, regardless of the subject. Rest assured that I'll give your opinions the respect that they so richly deserve. As to the ridiculous reference to the Casio @ 1000 fps, that's just more hypothetical bloviating, with apparently, once again, nothing based on your personal experience in photographing batters, golfers, pitchers, etc., etc., ad infinitum.

[WalterGA]

And that AF has to be just as advanced in order to keep up,you can have all the FPS in the world but if nothing is correctly focused it's a waste of money.

More bad information. You let the camera focus in AF, then switch to manual for the burst. Einfach!