Phil Askey's Mark II review is online

[Pekka]

http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/canoneos1dmkii/

[roanjohn]

OOOHhhhh!~!!!! Thanks!!!!

Got some reading to do.

RO1

[msnow]

Thanks Pekka. I'm learning more about my camera through Phil's review than what I got from the manual or use. For example...I didn't know the rubber doors (PC Terminal, USB, firewire) could be rotated 90 degrees for access. I was taking them completely off...what a dummy I am. Fun reading.

[CyberDyneSystems]

Interesting... he says right up front in the itroductory sentence that the MkIi is slower than the advertised 8.5fps... and yet we keep hearing about owners who insist it is in fact a good deal faster?

Now I AM going to have to do a timing run!

[defordphoto]

In my 25-frame sequence of that boat crash the first frame is: Date/Time: 2004:06:08 11:21:25

The last (25th frame) is:
Date/Time: 2004:06:08 11:21:28

25 frames / 3 seconds comes to 8.333 FPS.

Just about what Phil claims. The camera, however, only times to the closest second. And hmmmm...8.5 or 8.3. Is it really THAT big a deal? Let's not start measurebating this please. That old 10D focus crap still gives me forum-nightmares. :)

[CyberDyneSystems]

...I want to give you nightmares though... :wink: :twisted:

[CyberDyneSystems]

If my MkII won't shoot at 8.5 but is Crippled by a MERE 8.3 FPS than I am going to demand my money back!!!!!




:lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol:


//maybe it's not the camera? Maybe it's we don't know how to use it correctly to get the faster frame rate?


lol,. this could get ugly :)

[blackviolet]

In my 25-frame sequence...
...25 frames / 3 seconds comes to 8.333 FPS.

was that raw, or jpg? if it was raw, then the buffer had been filled and then some... so it wasn't so bad.

and if not, i wonder if the date/time stamp is affixed immediately upon taking the picture hmmmm?? or maybe the .1666 fps difference was due to solar flare/micrometeorites/sticky muffler bearing/negative ionic flow/etc. - anything but the camera or user error :wink:

[dtrayers]

If my MkII won't shoot at 8.5 but is Crippled by a MERE 8.3 FPS than I am going to demand my money back!!!!!

CDS,

Send it to me, and I'll load some firmware that makes it a 10D, and I'll send it back. It'll even change the serial number! Oh yeah, I'll need the battery too. :wink: :wink: :lol: :lol:

[CoolToolGuy]

So take pictures of a digital clock that shows hundredths of a second. Take the full 40 shots of the buffer, and check the start time and end time after 20 or 30 shots. That should make it easy enough. :wink:

Have Fun,

[defordphoto]

CDS: Never fear. I always have nightmares of you. No extra effort needed. ;)

blackviolet: That was large JPEG 8.

And I could care less whether it's 8.35, 8.33, or 8.5. It's freaking fast. And yes CTG, shooting a 40-frame sequence of a digital clock/timer would cure this conversation in a few seconds. Great idea!

I ain't doing it. ;)

[timmyquest]

Send me the body, i'll do it.

[Mills]

Thanks! This is going to cost me some sleep tonight.

[MarkH]

In my 25-frame sequence of that boat crash the first frame is: Date/Time: 2004:06:08 11:21:25

The last (25th frame) is:
Date/Time: 2004:06:08 11:21:28

25 frames / 3 seconds comes to 8.333 FPS.

Just about what Phil claims. The camera, however, only times to the closest second. And hmmmm...8.5 or 8.3. Is it really THAT big a deal? Let's not start measurebating this please. That old 10D focus crap still gives me forum-nightmares. :)

Wouldn't the last frame be 24 frames later? Also with your times being only accurate to the nearest second surely the first shot could have been at 25.49 seconds and the last one at 27.51 seconds (over 11fps). Or maybe first frame at 24.51 and last at 28.49 (Only around 6 fps).

For an accurate test you need good light on a stopwatch that has hundredths of a second, take a burst and each frame should be within 12 hundredths of the previous one.

If someone could lend me a MkII I would be happy to perform some tests.

[IanD]

If my MkII won't shoot at 8.5 but is Crippled by a MERE 8.3 FPS than I am going to demand my money back!!
CDS,
see the following site www.hacksrus.ru.com
Seems some dude in Russia has a hack that will give you 38.5 fps but it requires a 1 Terabyte card. :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol:

*edit* if I could only spell........... :oops: :oops: :oops:

[defordphoto]

In my 25-frame sequence of that boat crash the first frame is: Date/Time: 2004:06:08 11:21:25

The last (25th frame) is:
Date/Time: 2004:06:08 11:21:28

25 frames / 3 seconds comes to 8.333 FPS.

Just about what Phil claims. The camera, however, only times to the closest second. And hmmmm...8.5 or 8.3. Is it really THAT big a deal? Let's not start measurebating this please. That old 10D focus crap still gives me forum-nightmares. :)

Wouldn't the last frame be 24 frames later? Also with your times being only accurate to the nearest second surely the first shot could have been at 25.49 seconds and the last one at 27.51 seconds (over 11fps). Or maybe first frame at 24.51 and last at 28.49 (Only around 6 fps).

For an accurate test you need good light on a stopwatch that has hundredths of a second, take a burst and each frame should be within 12 hundredths of the previous one.

If someone could lend me a MkII I would be happy to perform some tests.

Mark: I/we have already addressed the fact that my test is not accurate:

Just about what Phil claims. The camera, however, only times to the closest second.

And we already discussed the stopwatch method:

So take pictures of a digital clock that shows hundredths of a second.

And Timmy already requested (anyone's) MKII:

Send me the body, i'll do it.

Did you have anything else? ;)