Originally posted by Adam Sports photographers love high FPS, because they can just cut loose and increase their chances of freezing the action at the right time (compared to trying to time the shot). Certainly newer cameras shouldn't have slower framerates than older ones, right? Hence the constant "specs race".
Originally posted by derekkite These specs enable you to get shots you couldn't get previously, or reliably get those shots. Not everyone needs that capability and yes some people will take hundreds of shots unnecessarily. Shot discipline is something to learn.
Yes, I agree. For sports or wildlife, high FPS helps. For example ice skating dance spinning, there is no way you can get the right capture without burst mode and in that case 8 or 10 FPS helps a lot. That being said, while I find it useful to be able to shot a burst of 10 frames, I don't find having a buffer of 200 frames (=D500) as useful as I also don't want to have my SD cards full of rubbish shots and I don't like to spend the time to figure out a few relevant frames lost in 1000 frames. So, for me, the K-3 specifications are good enough. What's just lacking a bit for the K-3 are the lenses to match the camera AF performance, although the sensor of the K-3 potentially deliver better IQ (...vs sensor of the 7DII). I don't know if that's only me, but I find that there is no single camera specification that just make perfect sense. K-3 ok , but no fast AF and fast AF lenses to go with it. 7DII great cam and lenses, but sensor sucks. D7200 , great AF and lenses, but 6 FPS. D500, great AF, FPS and lenses, but this large buffer is luxury and camera is expensive for an apsc sized sensor, Sony mirroless 10 FPS ok, but with what lenses and can AF tacking follow at 10 FPS?