After 10 days we have 29 reponses & of those 14, roughly half, never use continuous.

Of the remaining 15 who use continuous:-
roughly two thirds (10) think 1.6fps is too slow to be useful
nearly one third (4) use it but find it's too slow
and one loves it.

So of the 15 using continuous 14 think it's useless or unsatisfactory.

There's a message there for Pentax. Perhaps a firmware upgrade could fix the problem. Anyone listening at Pentax?..............

I'm considering selling my brand new K-5.

"Like Ian, I just leave the camera in high speed continuous mode anyway - which can be bit of a shock for anyone who borrows my camera without realising!"

It also involves a lot of deleting!

"The fact that 55% of us never use continuous shooting is also rather interesting"

I was interested in that too Kris.

I finally started using continuous shooting sport then a friend who shoots weddings convinced me to try leaving the camera on continuous all the time. You never know when you will want to hold the button down until the moment is upon you.

Like you I was brought up on a diet of expensive film & a naturally conservative nature so even using continuous with a digital camera was an anathema. It took a long time to break that mind set.

"Variable frame rates up to the maximum ought to be simply a matter of programming"

If that is the case why hasn't a manufacturer offered that? Beats me. Perhaps it's not so simple.

Regards,
Ian.

I note to date just 1 person has clicked "1.6fps I love it" but unfortunately they didn't tell us why they love it. I'm curious why they love it so I'm keen to hear their reason.

Regards,
Ian.

The buffer is limiting but it's a thought John.

Regards,
Ian.

I have no idea John. But it had occurred to me to investigate that.

Regards,
Ian.

EDIT. From the Pentax Oz web site:

"Continuous FPS
- Continuous Hi: Approx 6.0 FPS (30 JPG, 8 RAW)
- Continuous Lo: Approx 3.0 FPS (unlimited JPG, 10 RAW)"

The K30 buffer is a bit small.

"it would seem variable speed would be a good feature then, satisfying all users. "

That would make me happy.

The 1.6fps Lo speed is the one thing I really hate about the K-5. I know it's got a better sensor & IQ than the K-7 but I really miss the 3fps. I was going to sell the K-7 but now I'm not so sure.......... I might even sell the K-5.

Regards,
Ian.

"4fps would more or less do the same job, 2 would be a bit on the slow side." My feelings exactly Mike.

Regards,
Ian.

"I've got that Ian, I'm just trying to find out why 3fps is better than 1.6fps or 7fps, specifically that is. One example of a situation would be helpful."

I found 3fps on my K-7 ideal for 90+% of my shooting. Fast enough to catch the action but not overkill. 5fps was better for peak of action sports shots but 3 was pretty good & didn't require so much image deleting.

7fps should be better for peak of action but for normal use it's overkill. 1.6fps on the other hand lets the moment fly past uncaught. Even with Street that moment can be lost as I find myself waiting for the next frame to be captured. Sigh.

You ask for an example John. My reply is experience tells me this. You would never what had been missed at 1.6fps because it won't be there.

Regards,
Ian.

"I'm not yet clear why you would want a slower frame rate of around 3fps."

We're talking about the Lo Speed rate of 1.6fps on the K-5 being too slow John. The K-7 Lo speed was 3fps - a much more useful speed.

Regards,
Ian.