[Big G]

I'm with Digitalis on this, this FPS whinning is getting boring to listen to as it's always used as a crutch to have a dig at the K20D and less-so the K-7.

My opinion is as follows:

If 5 fps isn't cutting it for you, you need a different camera. Additionally, if you're seriously telling me 6 fps is going to change your life over 5 fps, you need to take a look at your photography skills. Can you post some photos showing what benefit the 6 fps over the 5 fps has, then I will entertain this complete BS.

The K20D retails at around £600 here in the UK, it 'only' has 3 fps. If I need 6 fps and upwards, you're looking at (for example) the Nikon D300, the Canon 1D MK3 or the Nikon D3 which cost £1100, £2700 and £3200 respectively with 6 fps, 10 fps and 9 fps respectively. The K20D is a fraction of those prices, so what do you expect?

I was at a mock tudor event a few months ago to photograph a jousting competition - I was there with my K20D and manual focus 80-200mm amongst guys with 50Ds and 1D MK3s. One shot, one picture in focus at the point the shields clashed. The BBC published my shot that week.

Oh and for what it's worth, the Canon 5D mk2 - an absolutely superb camera for many reasons - is 'only' 3.9 fps at £2000. However, whenever the Canon fanboys address this they say "but it's not meant to be a machine gun camera! it's not what it's designed for". Well, guess what - neither is the K20D.

[Lowell Goudge]

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

unless the subject motion is at right angles to the camera then focus is changing with motion and everything is out of focus.

With respect to this and other comments, why not look at the 30FPS HD vidio the K 7 can do? Again, for motion studies it will be better than still photos.

with this I will stop, there is no point going in circles

[falconeye]

That's surprising news to me. I've shot crop dusters @ 1/2000th and stopped the prop. You mean a race car wheel's spinning faster than a cropduster prop?

A 19" wheel at 250 km/h (e.g., R8+autobahn) spins at 2748 RPM.

Within 1/8000s, the car (or wheel edge when panning) travels 2° or 0.87cm or 1/3".

But you'll get a rolling shutter effect because within 1/180s, the wheel turns by 90°.

[pingflood]

The K20D retails at around £600 here in the UK, it 'only' has 3 fps. If I need 6 fps and upwards, you're looking at (for example) the Nikon D300, the Canon 1D MK3 or the Nikon D3 which cost £1100, £2700 and £3200 respectively with 6 fps, 10 fps and 9 fps respectively. The K20D is a fraction of those prices, so what do you expect?

You don't need a 1D MkIII for 6+ fps, a 40D or 50D will do just fine. And a 40D is not far from a K20D price wise.

[Lowell Goudge]

A 19" wheel at 250 km/h (e.g., R8+autobahn) spins at 2748 RPM.

Within 1/8000s, the car (or wheel edge when panning) travels 2° or 0.87cm or 1/3".

But you'll get a rolling shutter effect because within 1/180s, the wheel turns by 90°.

you are assuming the traversing time of the shutter is 1/180 of a second. Note that this is not the case because the flash sync is at 1/180 and there needs to be some time allowed for the full duration flash to fill the frame. I tried to get this info from pentax once but could not get a definitive answer on the newer cameras. Note however they quoted a run time of 12.5mS for the KX which gave 4 mS of full open time for the flash at 1/60.

I think that for newer cameras a run time of 3-4 mS would be realistic to achieve 1/180 sync speed. and still allow the flash some time to operate with a full open frame.

[Rondec]

I guess it depends on what you are shooting. If you want fast FPS, definitely look outside of the DSLRs at the Casio Amazon.com: Casio Exilim EX-FH20 9.1 MP Digital Camera with 20x Optical Zoom and 3-Inch LCD (Black): Electronics. It should be adaquate to capture slow motion action.

I am not convinced that the K7 will ever come down to the same prices as the K20. It seems to me that it is a better built camera that costs more to make. Pentax will not sell them at a loss, so unless you are waiting until some used ones hit the market, you may wait awhile.

[Big G]

You don't need a 1D MkIII for 6+ fps, a 40D or 50D will do just fine. And a 40D is not far from a K20D price wise.

Ok, sorry I should have said for a reasonable improvement over 6 fps. 6.3 is still pretty much 6 fps in my opinion .

The 40D is only 10 mp, and i'd rather have the increased resolution for my large canvas prints.

[falconeye]

you are assuming the traversing time of the shutter is 1/180 of a second.

You are right. But, let's just shoot a racing wheel and find out

[Lowell Goudge]

You are right. But, let's just shoot a racing wheel and find out

I have long thought about doing a test for this, not only for the issue about freezing action but with respect to flash duration.

For the same reason I have long thought about measuring the actual flash duration of my AF540FGZ against the duration of the AF500FTZ. I have an idea that because the AF500FTZ is designed to work with the PZ-1 and the 1/250 sync speed, it has a shorter full power duration. I also get the perception that when taking shots with my *istD those done with the AF500FTZ are sharper, but I am drifting off topic

[Digitalis]

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).

I own a 1DS MKIII and yes, a 50mm f/1.8 will cause FPS to drag, but if you use something like at 85mm f/1.8 which has a ultra fast ring USM motor - things speed up. However, when you use Constant AF with a subject moving in irregular patterns things get more complicated. and the AF will drag thus slowing down the FPS.

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.

yes they probably could, but they all did superbly with what they had didn't they?...Personally I consider differences of 1-2 FPS to be inconsequential. people who make issues of trivial things like this I brand as a special species of troll: the white paper troll.... they glorify the features that look better on white paper no matter how small a difference they actually make in actual usage. They are not to be confused with measurebators who will try to measure some trivial difference between Apple and Orange and declare the apple the winner by virtue of their own biases...just look at the holy war that is still burning between the Konica Hexar RF and the Leica Rangefinder camp. fundamentally speaking the only difference between a Hexar RF and a leica M7 is 0.03mm at the film gate.

[Big G]

I brand as a special species of troll: the white paper troll.... they glorify the features that look better on white paper no matter how small a difference they actually make in actual usage.

Very well put .

[dandog]

hmmmm......no comment

[Gooshin]

Baseball cards have existed for a long time

photographed by cameras probably incapable of anything faster than a single shutter at a time

if you "need" 6.5 FPS to shoot baseball, you suck as a photographer, end of story.

if you "want" 6.5 fps to shoot baseball, then buy a camera that suits your needs, pentax has never been a rapid shooter, why do people still hang on to some glimmer of hope that it will provide for them?

4 pages later this is the only "example" being discussed, and by only a single person.

i rest my case, your "ignorant proletarian"

/thread

[palmor]

deja vous

[Lowell Goudge]

...Personally I consider differences of 1-2 FPS to be inconsequential. people who make issues of trivial things like this I brand as a special species of troll: the white paper troll.... they glorify the features that look better on white paper no matter how small a difference they actually make in actual usage.

don't look now but I found a photo of one