K200D real-world buffer speed

[mtwhite]

I'm thinking of selling off my Canon gear and switching to a K200D/DA limited

kit, mostly for portability reasons. My one concern is the limited buffer of the

K200D. My XT officially has a jpg buffer of 14 shots at 3 fps, but in practice

with a 4GB sandisk ultra 2 I get closer to 30. Can a fast SD card improve the

K200D's buffer in the same way? How many shots at the rated 2.8 fps do you folks

get in the real world with fast cards?

[mountainvisions]

Probably...the K10D actually gets about 12-13 shots with a fast card in RAW.

 

BTW, why not track down a K10D, it's not that much bigger or heavier, it's better sealed, has a bigger buffer (unlimited jpeg at a legit 3fps).

 

The K200D sounded like a great camera to me, till I compared the weight of the K10D to the K200D, basically it's not a night and day difference, however, once the K10D is gone the K200D will be more appealing which is why I am sure Pentax was glad to get rid of it at $500 a few months ago after rebates.

[ricardo_tomasi]

Oh, those extra 200g and few inches more surely make a difference. Do you shoot in burst a lot? The K100D with lithium AAs weighs almost 100g less than the K200D without batteries - just adding to the confusion :)

[ashley_b1]

Personally I don't use lithiums with my k100d because (a) it is expensive compared to rechargeables (b) it is not very environmentally friendly.

 

With that in mind, the k200d plus rechargeable AAs weighs about 730g I believe, whereas the k10d weighs in at around 800g with its battery... not a huge difference, as Justin says. If you do use lithiums it weighs 690g, about 100g less than the k10d.

 

I'm interested to hear whether the k200d buffer can be stretched a little. I'd be even more interested to know whether it is more responsive than the k100d in generating image previews and moving through menus etc. I find the k100d a little sluggish and would prefer a snappier interface. Not a big deal most of the time though.

[ashley_b1]

ps. I should add that if I am going on a backpacking trip where recharging might be a problem, then I do switch to lithiums

[michael_kuhne]

I have read only very good reports by those having bought a K200D. I understand about wanting a compact size. I went with the K100D Super plus Limiteds for that reason.

[mountainvisions]

Ashley,

 

Those NiMH aren't that friendly.

 

Why?

 

I see WAAAAYYYY to often people reporting bad NiMH cells. Even NiMH proponents usually comment on the bad cell issue.

 

So if you have to replace 1/4 of your NiMH cells how friendly is that. Plus, unless you are recharging using solar power you are using energy off the grid, and I know some people think electric is green, but usually it comes from oil or (gasp) coal, at least in the US.

 

A casual shooter will only use about 4-6 sets of AA batteries in a year. Thats about 4000-6000 images.

 

Aside from that the AF is faster, the batteries don't give false dead readings, Lithiums give consistent voltage to the very end of the battery, flash recylce times are faster....And two of the biggest issues for me, they weigh less, and they work in brutal cold.

[ashley_b1]

"So if you have to replace 1/4 of your NiMH cells how friendly is that."

 

I use Sanyo eneloops... I have about 16 batteries for various devices and have never had to replace any of them. In fact, the only rechargeable AA of any type that has failed completely did so after about 3 years of daily use. Perhaps low quality NiMHs could be a problem, but the ones I use are not and I've never heard anyone else complain about them being flakey (and I have a friend who uses them *a lot* for strobist purposes).

 

"Plus, unless you are recharging using solar power you are using energy off the grid"

 

Well firstly I am on 100% green power (available here in Australia for about $300 a year extra). But even if you're not, think of the energy/transport/waste required to create a new lithium battery. Obviously I haven't done any calculations but I would be astounded if the environmental cost of a new battery was not significantly more than recharging an existing battery.

 

Just as importantly, your rechargeable AA should last for hundreds of recharges before you need to throw it away. In Australia your 4-6 sets of lithiums per year will cost about A$100. My set of eneloops will cost me about $7 if the cost is spread over three years. Cheap and more environmentally friendly... especially if you put the savings into switching to green power.

 

I appreciate the weight savings, the ability to work in the cold, and the additional shots you get before needing to change batteries... but I reserve them for backpacking trips where I am unlikely to be able to recharge.

[mcmanamey]

Back to the buffer question:

 

We've been using regular ol' SanDisk SD cards in the K10. And w/ RAW, could fill a

buffer pretty quick at the 2.8fps. That is, I think matt got 12 shots in (raw) before he

had to wait for the buffer to clear.

 

THEN we just got a couple SanDisk Extreme III's (the fastest SanDisk). WOW. I think

he got 21. I'm phasing out our slow cards as fast as the Extreme III's come up on

sale. But I'm still only using 2G cards cause the jump to 4G is so dang expensive.

 

In short, yes, I would expect the faster card to help you out, since it'll pull the info from

the camera's buffer much faster.

[mountainvisions]

You forgot the autofocus speed...but congrats on being green in australia...at least someone is doing something help reduce our global warming rate. Not like it matters down there, just move to higher ground.

 

I'd think energy and transport to create a lithium is pretty close to that of an enloop, and I could search the forum threads on batteries to find countless examples of "bad batteries" from the experts on the subject. Even using my nimh/enloops in lower drain equipment, I get maybe 1 year out of a set. 3 years seems a bit ambitious. I use them to power my portable HD and recharge my PDA and such. The 5volts (1.25X4) is perfect for USB powered devices.

 

I thought enloops might have solved the AA battery issue for the ist D but since I was barely getting 300 shots, it was useless. They are fine for flashes since they do seem to recycle nearly as well as lithiums but they don't handle the demands of a camera very well with only 5volts total. Way too much babying required to get the most out of them, perhaps you have access to better batteries and chargers down there. And since the only "green" power option we have is to hook a solar panel up or build a windmill charging is far from green.

 

 

Maria McManamey [Frequent poster] , May 05, 2008; 01:57 a.m.

"THEN we just got a couple SanDisk Extreme III's (the fastest SanDisk). WOW. I think he got 21"

 

Now Maria are you claiming you are shooting 21 shots at 3fps (the K10D actually shoots at 3.1fps according to specs). If you are Godfrey needs to attack you guys because when I claimed to get 12 from the 150X Transcends he told me it wasn't possible (he said 11 was the best the camera could do, and he had video to prove it).

 

Anyway, I did get at least 12 at full frame rate from the Extreme III SDHC (4GB) but 21 seems a bit high. If thats accurate though, then my guess is the SDHC write closer to the minimum rate than the maximum rate.. And your non SDHC are writing closer to the maximum.

 

Can you do a test to verify this...cause if you are getting 21 shots, I'm ordering some 2GB extreme IIIs. That would put the K10D buffer (well virtual buffer) above that of the D200!!!

[danielleetaylor]

<P><i>You forgot the autofocus speed...but congrats on being green in australia...at least someone is doing something help reduce our global warming rate.</i></P>

<P></P>

<P>FYI, the Earth cooled by about 0.65C in 2007 after seeing zero warming for 9 years. The expectation right now is for continued cooling to 2015, and possibly out to 2030.</p>

<p></p>

<p>So at the moment we don't have a global warming rate.</P>

[mountainvisions]

Hmm, your data vastly confilcts with NASAs data. It also conflicts with any other data I've seen.

 

I'm fully aware that local climate change (hence our virtually snowless winters, and a decline of days of snow cover by about 10 over the last 3 decades) isn't indicative of global change, but I'd love to see where you got your data from.

 

Thus far the only people claiming there isn't ANY warming, are energy companies. Overwhelmingly the science says we are warming. The area most scientist disagree is WHY...NOT IF.

 

I'd love to believe the warmer, snowless winters and basically 1000 mile shift in climate are just a local and passing phenomenon but the data shows me that my observations are more in line with reality than yours.

[danielleetaylor]

Justin -

 

Recent data from HadCRUT (surface), NASA GISS (surface), UAH (satellite), and RSS (satellite) are all plotted and compared here:

 

http://wattsupwiththat.wordpress.com/2008/02/27/a-look-at-temperature-anomalies-for-all-4-global-metrics/

 

HadCRUT, UAH, and RSS all show virtually no warming for 1999-2007. Temperatures were above the century average, but not really going up. GISS shows some warming up until 2007. But all four recorded the major drop 2007-2008. There's no question at all that the Earth cooled dramatically in 2007.

 

Incidentally, there's a stink right now in the climate circle about the many adjustments NASA has been making to their data set. The other three major studies seem to be in close agreement, but recent NASA adjustments to their published data have made GISS an outlier and people are wondering what the adjustments were and what the reasoning was behind them. Never the less, GISS shows the 2007 drop.

 

The northern hemisphere had a wicked winter in general last year, with record Arctic ice recovery and record lows/snow levels in many areas.

 

Initially it was pinned on La Nina, but it's looking more and more like a PDO shift due to reduced solar activity, hence the projections of a continued cooling trend. How this is interpreted depends, naturally, on the world view of the person interpreting it. Most of the people who believe human CO2 is a major climate driver are saying that this is a natural cycle masking the overall trend. Critics are saying this is more proof that the sun and natural cycles are the primary climate drivers, and CO2 is insignificant.

 

Me personally? I've been looking at graphs of 20th century temperature, solar, and PDO cycles, and they are in too close of agreement to ignore. The 20th century saw two warm PDOs and one cold one, which would make it appear as if the 20th century warmed overall. But if the 21st century is setup to have two cold PDOs and one warm one, then it will appear to cool by comparison. I honestly feel there's a good chance that what we believe is CO2 forced warming is in fact an artifact of the small window of time during which we've actually been able to monitor temperatures directly.

 

I could be wrong on that, the next 20-30 years will be telling. But the physics of CO2 forced warming never added up for me any way. Without some rather large presumed positive feedbacks in the climate models, CO2 doesn't alter temperatures by more than a small fraction of a degree. It's just not that good of an IR trap on its own.