POLL. How useful is the K-5 Low speed continuous 1.6fps

Error
  • You need to be logged in to vote on this poll

wadna

Link Posted 13/07/2012 - 07:23
I started a thread link on the ultra slow (1.6fps) Low speed continuous shooting of the K-5. I was using a K-7 where Low speed was 3fps which I found ideal for Street, general photography & some sport. I find 1.6fps too slow to be useful. How do you feel?

wadna

Link Posted 18/07/2012 - 07:20
A quick test shooting in RAW reveals the K-5 barely manages 1.4fps.

MattMatic

Link Posted 18/07/2012 - 09:29
(see my comment on your other thread regarding RAW and data rates)
http://www.mattmatic.co.uk
(For gallery, tips and links)

wadna

Link Posted 18/07/2012 - 11:02
Class 10 SanDisk. My K-7 could do 3fps with no dramas on Low speed & 5fps on High speed - AF permitting. There is little difference between K-7 & K-5 file sizes.

Frogherder

Link Posted 18/07/2012 - 11:08
I've only ever used continuous by mistake when I didn't turn the little switch all the way back. I thought my camera was faulty and took me ages to realise my mistake.

Nearest I get is interval shooting, which I have actively tried a few times.

regards
Bernard

wvbarnes

Link Posted 18/07/2012 - 11:13
This is a 7 frames per second up to 30 frames camera. What would we need more for?

I agree, the write speed of SDHC is the main restricting factor on all these cameras. Many class 10 cards advertise 30 mb/s but that's download to PC speed and not write which they often keep quiet about!

35mm size sensor cameras often have high speed compact flash for storage (they need it). This might explain the difference
Last Edited by wvbarnes on 18/07/2012 - 11:14

wadna

Link Posted 18/07/2012 - 11:34
"I've only ever used continuous by mistake when I didn't turn the little switch all the way back"
I think you're confusing continuous shooting with continuous auto focus Bernard.

Regards,
Ian.

Mike-P

Link Posted 18/07/2012 - 11:37
wvbarnes wrote:
This is a 7 frames per second up to 30 frames camera. What would we need more for?

Do people actually read these threads before commenting?

We are talking about the K-5 LOW continuous rate being too slow, not the high rate needing to be faster.
. My Flickr

wadna

Link Posted 18/07/2012 - 11:40
"This is a 7 frames per second up to 30 frames camera. What would we need more for?"
Who asked for more Bill? The subject is the abysmally slow Low Speed shooting of the K-5 (1.4fps using RAW). My K-7 did 3fps using RAW. That's a much more useful speed.

"35mm size sensor cameras often have high speed compact flash for storage (they need it). This might explain the difference"
Both the K-7 & K-5 have APS-C sensors. The K-5 Low Speed shooting is set to 1.6fps using jpg whereas the K-7 was set to 3fps using jpg.

Regards,
Ian.
Last Edited by wadna on 18/07/2012 - 11:45

wadna

Link Posted 18/07/2012 - 11:42
Mike-P wrote:
wvbarnes wrote:
This is a 7 frames per second up to 30 frames camera. What would we need more for?

Do people actually read these threads before commenting?

We are talking about the K-5 LOW continuous rate being too slow, not the high rate needing to be faster.

"Do people actually read these threads before commenting?"

Apparently not Mike!

Regards,
Ian.
Last Edited by wadna on 18/07/2012 - 11:45

Blythman

Link Posted 18/07/2012 - 11:48
I've only ever used continuous Hi. Just wish I could get 7 fps (RAW)
Alan


PPG
Flickr

wadna

Link Posted 18/07/2012 - 12:12
"I've only ever used continuous Hi. Just wish I could get 7 fps (RAW)"

I haven't tried measuring the High speed rate but it's too fast for general shooting (Street etc.). Should be great for sport but I gather you can't achieve that rate. I know it seems awfully fast when I use Hi speed for Street.

Regards,
Ian.

wvbarnes

Link Posted 18/07/2012 - 12:30
I was referring to 30 frames being a lot before the buffer fills. I was aware the low speed was continuous. No need for people to get narky!

johnriley

Link Posted 18/07/2012 - 12:32
Why does it make any difference wadna? I'm not yet clear why you would want a slower frame rate of around 3fps. I've no doubt there is a reason, but nobody has actually said more than "under some circumstances" so far. What circumstances and why?

It would be helpful to know.

There is another argument that fast frame rates of any kind merely allow us to randomly completely miss the essential moment anyway. Practice means the single shot can be more effective if timed correctly.

I'm not saying I personally subscribe to any of these theories, but I was just wondering.
Best regards, John

wadna

Link Posted 18/07/2012 - 12:41
"I was referring to 30 frames being a lot before the buffer fills."

But that wasn't the subject & you didn't explain yourself................. & the comment still seems totally irrelevant. However you're right; 30 frames at 7fps is a lot, perhaps not up to pro camera levels but plenty for most of us.

Regards,
Ian.
Add a Comment
You must be registered or logged-in to comment.