Frame and Burst Rate

The new K20D (I've requested a sample to test) has a shot-to-shot rate of 3 FPS. This has brought it under clangorous criticism on some forum boards, from people who were "waiting" for "improvement" in this area.

I sometimes wonder what these people are shooting. I've had a rich 35-year history as a committed amateur photographer with intermittent stints as a professional, and I don't think I've ever wanted or needed a "motor drive." I used my first "serious" camera, a Contax 139Q, with a motor winder that enabled a blistering almost-2 FPS (I think the real speed was 1.8 FPS), but even then all I really cared about was that the camera was automatically ready for the next shot. That was just a luxury, however (or laziness)—old-fashioned thumb-wind was fine. I do think I'd occasionally be frustrated by a digital camera that shot 1 FPS, but I can't imagine ever being dissatisfied with 3 FPS.

Where do you stand?

Opinion Polls & Market Research

_________________________

Mike

Postscript: Two more stories come to mind in this context. The first is a memory from a lecture class in optics I audited at the University of Maryland in the early '80s. Two friends had brought their cameras to class—metal 35mm SLRs with large motor-drive attachments—and as we were waiting around for the class to start, they were dry-firing their cameras by turns to see whose camera sounded faster. Another guy in the class, a few rows away from the first two, fished around in his knapsack and extracted an SLR with an even bigger motor-drive, which he dry-fired in turn. His was audibly fastest. No one said anything, but the understanding was clear: he had won.

The other was a story I heard once about an ill-informed interviewer asking Richard Avedon, who was shooting 8x10 at the time, if he had a motorized camera. Avedon, referring to the lackey who inserted and removed his film holders and pulled his dark slides for him, replied, "I have a motorized assistant."

Featured Comment by Jeffrey Glass: "Well, my most recent camera purchase was a circa 1951 Rolleicord V. I think it has a burst rate of about 3 to 7 fpm."

Featured Comment by Ann: "Until 2005, I used a manual focus, manual advance Olympus OM-10. It was fine, and I never worried about burst rate or autofocus speed. I just never shot the kind of subjects that required a camera to have those attributes. When I got my D70 in 2005, I found that autofocus and the 3 fps frame rate made it easier to shoot in a more photojournalistic mode, so the subjects I shot expanded because the camera allowed me to do more. When I got the D300 a couple of months ago, the even faster response time and 6 fps allowed me to do even more with sports, kids, and birds in flight, so the types of photography I do now expanded into those areas.

"The bottom line is that each of the features on the camera is a tool in my photographic toolkit. I didn't buy any of my cameras because of their speed, but the speed is a tool that I didn't have before, and it allows me to do the kind of work that I couldn't do before."

Comments

[Roger Botting]

Speed is addictive. At first my Nikon FE-2 shooting at 3.5 frames per second seemed fast. Faster than I could ever need, or afford! Then the D100 seemed just as fast but was annoying when the buffer filled. The D200 was great at 4 fps. Now the D300 at 6fps. Now I'm waiting for the subject, not the camera!
But most of the shots are now deleted almost immediately upon first seeing. Maybe I will get the battery pack that makes the camera even faster so I can delete even more photos!
Then again, maybe I should take the 4x5 down from the shelf and slow down the taking of photos to be deleted.

[Mike Hamilton]

I think that many people who complain about the slow frame rate are simply trying to keep up with the Joneses. Canon & Nikon all have cameras that shoot at higher rates, so therefore Pentax needs it too. Pentax has never had a camera that shot faster than 3 FPS. Why are users expecting it now?

[Jérôme Muffat-Méridol]

The thing is... When you need a sequence, you're generally after something that is happening in a very short lapse of time, something you don't trust your reflexes to catch.

Now, a precision of a third of a second is perfectly within reflex range... You have more chances grabbing the moment with a single shot than with a 1/3s cycle.

Inversely, if you're after an actual sequence (ie the moment doesn't matter as much as having shots at regular times), I'd also go as far as saying that 3fps isn't all that much information (unless you're documenting the walk cycle, and then again...).

[Martin Doonan]

2 reasons I use bursts - sports (mainly cycling for me) where I want to get in a bunch of shots in a short space. My Canon EOS 20D is about right at 5fps but I'd like a bigger burst (max 6 RAW is a bit small to be ready for the next shot).
Second is handheld brackets. I use a technique pretty much the same as Uwe Steinmuller's high-speed HDR. This I find really useful in highly variable and mixed light to ensure I get a good exposure (without worrying endlessly about exposure values), or several for blending. Faster the better - less chance of camera motion bewteen shots.

Overall I think 5fps is about right but I wouldn't accept anything slower.

[Adam Zolkover]

The FPS argument has always confused me. 99% of the time, I've felt no need to shoot more than 1 frame at a time. And when I have felt the need, 3 frames per second has been more than enough. I've shot dance and sports in single frame mode (with manual focus lenses no less) and never had any problem getting the shot. I understand someone not trusting their reflexes, but eventually enough is enough. Eventually, it's the machine doing the work of the artist's eye, and where does that leave the artist?

[Robert Roaldi]

Like you, I don't know what the big deal is, but I have never shot sports. Maybe the guys on the sidelines of football games just shoot and shoot and hope to catch some magic moment. I can see that. If you're depending on that for a living, then every little edge helps, I would guess.

I had a Canon Elan for while and never used the continuous burst mode, or whatever the name is. I bought myself a 2nd hand Oly E-1 recently to shoot automobile rallying in the woods, mostly. I thought some moisture and dust sealing would be good. I tried the burst mode on it just to see if it worked, my first time ever. Maybe it will be useful, I don't know, I am going to an event in 2 weeks up north in the Quebec snow and aim to try it out. The limiting aspect of this feature for me is not the fps or buffer size, but the fact that to change modes I have to have my reading glasses handy and that's annoying. I'll try to train my fingers at home the night before so that I can do it blind. But I have shot car races, for my own pleasure, with manual focus Pentaxes and I never missed a shot I wanted because of a camera deficiency.

I miss flicking the lever with my thumb.

[Robert Roaldi]

I just read Martin's comment about burst exposure bracketing. Makes sense, that.

[psu]

I bought a D200 last year not so much for the 5fps but for the overall boost in responsiveness compared to a D70. Faster focus, a better viewfinder and shorter cycle times all play into this. Even if you are not using the 5fps continuous, the camera feels like it comes "back to you" faster after taking a shot.

That said, in retrospect I think I would have rather had the D80's smaller size and the D70's faster flash sync. Oh well.

There was one time when 5fps came in handy. I was able to do a hand-held 5 frame bracket and use a bit of Photoshop to make up for not knowing how to use ND grad filters:

http://www.flickr.com/photos/79904144@N00/535351471/

[Dennis]

I read a post on dpreview suggesting that frame rate is the only thing keeping Pentax from being a "major player". (As a former Minolta, now Sony user, I have to recognize that a couple decades worth of building market share presents a challenge that requires more than a high frame rate :)

Each time I've bought a new camera, on the first day I have it, I put it into continuous mode, hold down the shutter just to see what it sounds like. Then I put it back in single shot mode and leave it there. I'll occasionally shoot a number of frames nearly back to back, but each one requiring a press of the shutter release at the moment I want it.

[Jan Luursema]

I voted for the second option.
Fast fps is nice to have, but not essential. And by fast I mean 8 fps. 5 fps is marginal, 3 (like I have now) is too slow to be of any use.

In my usage there are two situations where fast fps would be useful.
The first is when you're not exactly sure when the right moment will be. It might be the first frame in a burst, but it could also be the second frame (the third will be too late).
The second situation is when you're shooting in low light and shoot two frames to get one sharp frame, the second. The first might not be sharp because of the movement of pressing the shutter, often the second frame will be sharper. But really you need more than 3 fps for this to work I feel.

[davew]

Reading a few gripe threads on DPReview, I thought most people are more frustrated with auto focus speed than FPS performance.

I believe they were shooting motorsports; as usual, I found these excellent shots linked to the same forum:
http://www.flickr.com/photos/lazar/497625646/in/photostream/, cycling, skiing, and freestyle motorcross......

[Pavel]

Every time I've done the machine gun approach, I've ended up with a long sequence of mediocre shots that invariably all get deleted upon reviewing. On the other hand, all my best action shots (e.g. fashion/catwalk, motorsport, candids) have been well-timed single exposures. So I've come to the conclusion that high FPS do not matter much to me, as long as the shutter lag is short and the camera buffer does not prevent me from taking another shot. I suspect that a higher-rate body such as 8 or 10 FPS might be better as fewer interesting moments would fall in-between the fixed interval exposures. If your intention is to produce time-lapse type imagery then by all means, a high FPS body will come handy. Otherwise - I am quite happy with my K10D, thanks very much.

[mcananeya]

I think Mike Hamilton hit the nail on the head. Even if dSLRs have come down a lot in price, and even if they are far more capable than earlier cameras, the cost of a camera is still serious money to most people. This is especially true since people tend to get the best camera they can afford, not the cheapest camera that suits their needs. So regardless of whether a camera costs $500, $1,500 or $5,000, it's a lot of money to the buyer. And people always want to feel like they are getting the most for their money. If Nikon and Canon cameras have 5 or 6 fps, then the Pentax must, too, even if the buyer will never use it.

BTW, high fps occasionally come in useful for portraits (especially group portraits). People tend to relax their forced, fake smiles after the first picture, since they don't expect another picture to be taken in quick succession. This means the 2nd or 3rd frame in a burst has a better chance of being more natural. It also gives you a variety of expressions without taxing your subject's patience.

But ultimately Roger is right. For most people, a high frame rate just results in more pictures to delete. If people really need a high frame rate, more power to them. They will buy what they need. But it would really be a shame if other people didn't buy the K20D (or any other camera) based on frame rate alone.

Best,
Adam

[Troy McCullough]

I think if I were a sports photographer -- which I'm not -- a fast burst rate would be absolutely crucial. As it stands, I do use the 5fps burst rate on my Nikon D200 on occasion, but it's usually a rare occasion. It's nice to know I have it if I need it, but as camera features go, I think I'd trade it for a higher flash-sync speed or built-in image stabilization.

[Laurent de Lageneste]

For real high fps addicts, the K20D has also a 20fps mode for up to 115frames... only it is at 1.6MP resolution ;-)

Could be cool for water drops or golf swings...

[Bob]

My daughter used to ride and jump horses, i.e., hunter/jumper. My first DSLR, which I continue to use, is a Canon EOS 1D, which features an 8 fps "motor drive."

My daughter's trainer was ecstatic the first time I gave her a CD of images I captured during a lesson. I had turned on the motor drive and shot sequences of 3 to 5 frames showing the approach, jump, and landing. The trainer could see in the stills important details not readily visible in videos. When shooting a lesson of six riders, which I did about once a quarter, I typically shot 600 to 800 frames during one hour.

However, when shooting them in a competition I never turned on the motor drive. The photos I like best show the horse and rider rising from the ground or having just left the ground, usually taken from the side or somewhat in front of the jump. Attempting to capture that peak moment using the motor drive generally fails, while, with practice, a single shot capture produces an acceptable result most of the time.

From an equipment point of view, for shooting the equestrian events, minimal shutter lag was much more important than fps.

Bob

[Dierk Haasis]

To take up Pavel's comment and turn the screw a little more:

If only women could plop out babies as fast as I can impregnate ...

Like every tool, super fast "winding" will only help your photos if you know what you are doing in the first place. Professionalism - in the wider sense - is all about knowing the limitations of your gear and how to make the best use of it. Most hobbyists and probably many amateurs will use their gear to about 30%, pros go to 90%.* This holds true in any profession, may it be photography, motorcycling or writing [features of MS Word anybody?].

*These numbers are a) highly inaccurate, b) not directly connected to the number of features used by any user, c) pulled out of my hat like any good statistics should be.

[Greg Smith]

Many is the bird whose wing-flap rate coincides perfectly with the 3 fps of my Canon 400D, resulting in a string of shots where their wings are in exactly the same position as the shots before and after; very frustrating. I don't need 10 fps, but I sure lust after 5+ fps. Buffer size is of equal importance, I believe. I remember my 300D buffer size of 3 shots, zowie! One second of continuous fire and I'm up against the buffer..less than inspiring, more like left wanting.

[Chris Buchanan]

I make pictures of whitewater kayaking, a sport where all the action may occur within a few seconds. Often you can't see exactly when the subject will enter the frame you would like and it is essential to use continuous mode to bracket the subjects arrival in the photo. I use an E500 and isn't so much the FPS rate that holds me back as the buffer size. When I look at upgrading this camera the size of the buffer will be an important criteria for myself.

[Matthew Allen]

I'm still using the lowly Pentax *ist DL and I usually find its 2.8fps to be perfectly sufficient. What it lacks however is a decent buffer and to me this is a much more important feature.

Jan Luursema mentioned a technique above that I have found very useful: taking two consecutive frames in burst mode and discarding the first one. I disagree with him about the speed required though, as I find 2.8fps works well for this.

I should note that even though I don't often take bursts, my camera is set permanently to burst mode since there's no disadvantage to doing this. I can single frames when I want to (I suppose this wouldn't be possible with a very fast camera) and bursts if need be.

--Matthew

[Matthew Robertson]

With my recent E-3 purchase, I joined the exalted ranks of the 5FPS club. Then I found the control to turn it back to 3FPS, and I was much happier.

[Ben Marks]

I never thought I needed this feature until I had children. Their days are an almost infinite collection of "don't blink or you'll miss it" moments. I think 3FPS is plenty, personally. Dunno what I'd do with 6 FPS. Buy more hard-drives, I suppose.

Ben Marks

[Charlie H]

As Davew mentioned, most of the kvetching is about slow auto focus. For stationary targets the 3fps is fine, but the Pentax can barley manage 1 fps for things in motion. Not a big deal to me becuase I have discovered that my reflexes are so fast that I am routinely able to catch my subjects in mid blink.

ch

[Bill Mitchell]

I thought that's what Camcorders were for.

[Martin]

As Bob wrote: "… minimal shutter lag is much more important than fps."
That's the point.

The frame rate of a Canon 5D may be OK, but a 1D is much more responive, even in single frame mode. I use the 1D mostly in low burst mode, even when I'm shooting cars. At a rate of +8fps there is nearly no difference between two or three shots.

I belive, that technical a short shutter lag and high frame rate goes hand in hand.

[Felix]

Actually I am always missing out on winding my film manually on newer cameras...

[Jeremy Moore]

I used to shoot a lot of sports including Division I college sports in the US and this came up every once in a while. Most of the time this would come up from someone saying that to catch the high-point in a scene I must have "a really fast camera!" but then I'd have to explain to them that catching the best moment has nothing to do with speed. I would try to shoot sports at at least 1/350th of a second which would even freeze most digits (i.e. fingers) in the scene and I was shooting with a Nikon D2H at the time which has a burst rate of 8fps. So when the action occurred (and was usually over in a second) I could only capture 8 frames out of a possible 350 since I am shooting at 1/350th of a second (and usually 1/500th so 8 out of 500!). Anytime I relied on my motordrive I racked up mediocre images for my efforts, but if I studied the game and the plays then I made my most amazing shots. In these instances I would shoot a burst of around 4 frames and the 1st one would be the best.

[Matt]

I don't really need 10fps, but I do like a camera that responds that fast. The fastest cameras also tend to have the smallest shutter lag and shortest mirror blackout, the exception being the Leica, which suffers from neither problem. I do like my Leica, and never need a motor with it. Paying attention and getting the right moment has always done better for me than bursting away.

[AlexH]

Yes, I do like fast fps performance. However, 3 fps *is* fast in my book.

I applaud Pentax for investing money in (from my point of view) much more critical areas of R&D, such as image quality - including dynamic range and high ISO performance. (More silent shutter and focus corrections for individual lenses aside.)

Sometimes I get a bit psyched when people confuse "needs" with (often unsubstantiated) *wants*: http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/readflat.asp?forum=1036&thread=26488110

Sure, more fps wouldn't hurt "anybody*. But a higher price would.

As an aside: Bigger, badder anything might also be a valid argument to question Pentax' decision to put 14.6 million pixels on the new sensor. Proper image quality assumed at up to ISO 3200, I must say that due to the possibility of more extensive cropping, my DA 21mm Limited just became a bit more versatile...

[David]

I voted for the 28mm!!!

[Damien]

It is true that 3fps is too slow to help with framing a fast-moving subject : chances are every frame in the burst will be off. I find I have much better accuracy if I just position the camera and wait for the subject to come into the estimated field of view, not looking through the viewfinder so as to have my full peripheral vision.

On the other hand, sorting through countless 20-frame bursts would take all the fun and enjoyment out of photography for me.

[Jón Ragnarsson]

Wow, I just noticed that I didn't even think about the K20D 3fps specs. I was just impressed with the rest. (Basically a K10D with new sensor). However, I did care about my E-3 5fps, probably because I need to justify to my self that it is ok to spend $1800 on a DSLR. :)

[Adam Richardson]

The dialog around this on the forums reminds me of the Monty Python "Four Yorkshiremen" sketch where each man tries to one-up the other on how horrible their childhood was. "You were lucky! We lived for three months in a paper bag in a septic tank...." and so on. (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Xe1a1wHxTyo)

I wonder if there is a generational thing going on here - people who grew up with manual film cameras (my first was a Pentax ME-Super in high school) think *luxury!* to even not have to wind it, whereas younger photographers take it for granted that things are motorized and faster is better.

I'm actually looking forward to the K20D's speed, as I have an older *istDS and it does less than 2. But even so, I rarely need to shoot that fast. Back when I was using my Canon T90 that could do almost 5fps with film, I can't even remember if I ever used it. I can see that some people obviously benefit from it, but it's not for me so much.

[David A. Goldfarb]

I only shoot bursts for flight sequences, when I'm doing bird photography. Here's a four-frame composite from such a sequence--

http://www.echonyc.com/~goldfarb/photo/osp.jpg

I use a Canon "New" F-1 and a 5 fps motor drive. For a while I tried a smaller and lighter 3 fps power winder (4 AA batteries as opposed to the motor drive's 12 AAs), but it didn't react as quickly in single-frame mode, so I sold it and went back to the faster motor drive.

[Ken White]

I don’t think frame rate is a very important spec for my personal camera. Those shooters who do require high frame rates should consider cameras that fit their needs. At least that would seem to be the pragmatic approach to acquiring the right tool for a particular job.

A few weeks ago I decided to retire my trusty Canon 10D camera with a current generation DSLR. I don’t aspire to be a professional wedding hack or high school glamour shootist. I do occasionally dream of selling a few images to help support my habit but being a fulltime photographer is not my goal.

My personal projects involve documenting the people and environment of West Texas and the Texas Hill Country. I also enjoy photographing many local events near my home in San Antonio. The Pentax K20D with weather sealing, in-body IS and 14mp resolution seems like an excellent candidate to replace my antiquated 10D.

To my surprise I found that just mentioning the name Pentax on my usual hangout elicited some extremely sharp reactions. The Pentax shooters were defending their choice of equipment at every turn and the Canon shooters were certain they were the true lords of digital photography. Everyone was busy puffing about being a ‘Pro’ at this or that with greater needs and more insight than any ‘average’ shooter could possibly comprehend. In short, there were way too many weenies pretending to be full course meals.

Until I can read some reviews of the K20D for myself I’ll just have to limp along with my inadequate ancient technology. All I know for sure is that my next camera will be a reduced frame DSLR from Canon. Nikon, Olympus or Pentax. As several people have pointed out here on TOP recently reduced frame DSLRs are all destined for the scrap heap in about a week or ten days, so maybe I should just wait until next year to upgrade.

[Kevin White]

FPS is like MP; the more you have, the better. The more anything the better. The more smaller, the more bigger, the more faster, the more interior room, the more fries for the dollar, the more calories, the more less calories.

Somewhere in our brain, seeing a bigger number for a similar price just equals "better".

[JC Ridder]

Before fast frame rates became available I didn't lust after them at all. Even when shooting film I do not care for fast FPS just like Mike mentioned the fact that the film gets automatically wound for the next shot.

However now with 8GB card and being able to shoot over 500 raws, having all kinds of bracketing services available I have come to appreciate fast FPS camers and upon choosing the 40D this was one of my criteria for I do actually use my 4 FPS on average quite frequently..... more important in conjunction with this however I find the RAW buffer size, no use having 6 fps if you have a buffer size of 9 Raws....

With respect to bracketing and Raws people might say that you don't need to bracket anything in RAW, I disagree, I choose to think that shooting an image near to perfect will enhance the final result.

[John]

I shot sports in college in the early 80's with manual focus film cameras some of which had motors and some did not. The motors help in that I didn't have to think about winding the film (focusing the camera and concentrating on the action was plenty), but never at getting the peak action.

The first and almost only time I shot a burst that turned out useful was when I photographed the first space shuttle launch. I shot almost a whole roll of film with the shutter down (and a second camera with manual wind firing as fast as I could wind it with my thumb). The shuttle wasn't moving so fast that the 3 fps missed all the action between frames and the whole thing was pretty much over anyway after the 10 seconds or so I held the shutter down.

The one case I have found bursts useful is when I'm moving and the subject is not. I find that a short burst is often helpful when I'm trying to handhold the camera using too slow a shutter speed. Some shots in the burst will be sharper than others and the camera firing when it wants to instead of when I tell it to actually seems to help. I don't miss the peak action like I would if the subject was moving, but if I'm lucky, I miss my peak action! FPS doesn't matter very much for this.

[Gordon Buck]

Higher speeds are very useful for hand-held HDR composites.

[Josh Hawkins]

Don't get me wrong, I love my cameras that shoot 8fps, and I need it for my sports work (I'm a photojournalist). Outside of sports and rare other assignments, it just means I shoot more of the same which I then have to edit. For most of my work, and for the work I like, my main body does 3fps. It doesn't matter how many "moments" I have, it only matters that I have the "right" moment.

[Tim Hunt]

I agree with all the other posts that say it's better to understand the game or species so you know where the game (or animal) is going - rather than just blast away senselessly.

However, I do think digital has changed the game. Now that you can take a burst without having to develop them all (or change the film every 5 secs), it is very useful to leave the camera set on continuous. Although, habit means I often take 1 or 2 shots, when I do take more it's often better - because you often get more choice.

I do agree that fast camera responses esp. autofocus and read/write speed are more important than FPS. 10 FPS is no good if half are out of focus. SInce my F5, 5 FPS has always been fast enough for me. In theory 3 fps is fine , but the truth is just that a camera with 3 fps probably doesn't read/write that quickly or focus that quickly.

[Damon Schreiber]

Back when I got my Nikon F70 in 1995, I was kind of excited at its 3.7fps motor drive, but in practice, I was afraid of wasting film so I rarely (perhaps never) took advantage.

Now that wasting frames is 'free' in the digital age, I've tried a few bursts and have concluded that I was right not to waste film back when it cost money.

Okay I exaggerate just a touch. Obviously there's a time and a place for high-speed shooting, and 3 fps on my K10D has been useful on occasion, and while 5fps might also be nice on rare occasions, I'd never base a purchasing decision on it.

[Adam Richardson]

Following up on Kevin White's comment about "more is better", that is often the perception of people at the buying stage, but less so once in ongoing use.

James Surowiecki wrote about this in the New Yorker:
http://www.newyorker.com/talk/financial/2007/05/28/070528ta_talk_surowiecki

However, there is usually a trade-off, in this case more fps requires bigger motors and more robust (heavier) mechanisms to handle the speed. I'm willing to bet that if Pentax did bump the speed to 5fps a lot of people would complain about how big and heavy the camera had become, because it was known for producing small and light DSLRs...

If image quality were all that truly mattered, we'd all be lugging around 8x10 view cameras on large wood tripods and getting 3 frames per hour...

[Matt Needham]

I had little use for anything but single shot until I started messing with HDR. Now I occasionally use burst mode to take 3 bracketed shots hand held. 3-5 fps is good enough for me. I never pay attention to that stat when looking at new bodies. On the other hand, I'd kill for a bigger, brighter viewfinder. Why isn't the viewfinder in my $2000+ Canon 5D as big, bright, and clear as the viewfinder in my sub-$200, 20 year old, Nikon FM2n?

[Philip Storry]

Put me in the "sort of use it, but why so many frames per second?" camp.

I've just recently upgraded to the Olympus E-3. And for me, 5fps is something I've used once and found too much. 3fps is about right.

The option of 5fps is nice. But I just have so little use for it. 3fps is far more like it for most of what I shoot - it allows me to get good shots of faster moving wildlife, without filling up my memory cards or wasting too much of my time reviewing photos that are almost indistinguishable from each other. I'd rather get 10 good shots from 100 shots total than have to find 20 good shots amongst 500 because of a higher FPS.

Of course, if I made my living from sports photography, that would change. But I don't, and therefore these high frame rates perplex me - they seem more like corporate urination contests than anything I can use.

Incidentally, I heard from an Olympus representative that they chose 5fps as an upper limit on the E-3 because they'd rather give you 5 shots in focus than 10 of which only 5 were in focus. Their goal was just that simple - fast shooting with every shot focused. And in all but bad light, that's exactly what I've seen when testing the E-3.

When you put that up against those fast shooting Pro cameras, which you KNOW will provide plenty of badly focused shots, I think it's exactly the right tack to take. I trust Pentax have a similar goal of "three per second, each one in perfect focus". If not, why bother shooting at 3fps at all?

[gd]

For me, fast FPS gets used in two ways:
1) 'Frequently, but less-important' for burst-mode bracketing in my everyday, snapshot, memory photography. Bracketing provides the insurance, and a quick FPS merely makes it that much quicker and easier.
2) 'Infrequently, but critical' to capture peak moments in 'chaotic' sequences, such as occur in off-road racing, which I like to (and get to) photograph several times a year.

[Eric]

I think it's a "nice to have" feature, even though it's not really a spec that I consider.

For action/sports, I think the benefit is clear; there's a lot of stuff that can happen and change in fractions of a second. Some are okay trusting their reflexes, but if I was being hired as a sports photographer (for example), I'd want that FPS.

Exposure bracketing is probably the only thing I personally use it for - it's definitely a plus as it helps to minimize ghosting artifacts when merging to HDR.

If you're not doing one of the above though, you tend to wind up with a lot of photos that are nearly identical

[JAM]

Back in the days when using my Canon film cameras, I always had an auto winder on them. I rarely needed speed, but liked having it advance to the next frame quickly.

Why?

I'm LEFT EYED, and always had to take the camera from my face to wind the film advance lever. An auto winder allowed me to keep my eye to the viewfinder.

I now have been using my first dSLR for a couple of years, a Nikon D70s.

Why Nikon?

Canon has that big dial right on the center back of their cameras, and for a left eyed person, each adjustment of that command dial is like trying to pick my nose.

Nikons control layout allows me to keep my eye to the viewfinder and work the controls without moving a finger in my own face.

If I were right eyed, I very well might have bought Canon, but that rear command dial was a deal killer for a left eyed man.

[eric mac]

The rapidwinder on my M-6 gives the camera a little better balance, but it is sure hard to get any speed on a vertical shot. I can get 1.5 fps on a good day.

Unless you are a sports or paparazzi photographer the FPS thing is just another bigger (fill in the blank) contest.

[Gregory Kujoth]

Although I understand the skepticism for the need for speeds faster than 3 fps for many situations, I personally feel 3 fps is a tad too slow. It's not that I need a full sequence of 5 frames but in certain settings (e.g. the kids' soccer games, groups portraits-especially of a bunch of kids), the extra responsiveness of ~5 fps is appreciated for that one frame when everyone is looking my way or not blinking, etc.

I used both a Canon A2 (5 fps) and an Elan IIe (2.5 or 3 fps, I don't recall exactly) in my film days and the Elan did feel too slow at times.

Now, I don't need 10 fps and not every camera I own has to be fast but I do always have at least one camera that will get me to 5 fps (currently, that's my 20D).