Why is the 5D MkII only banging out under 4fps?

I've a question/thought about patience.........
Canon have just dumped the "long-awaited" 5D replacement on the market, and almost simultaneously the 50D.
Now, I love sports photography, or photographing my kids on their sports days at school and my humble 30D can reliably bang out 5fps which is great, but I'd love to go FF to get the lower noise, bigger pixels advantage. But under 4fps on the 5D MkII...? What's going on??? From experience, that's not good enough. So, is anyone else wondering if the "5D MkIII" might up the frames per second issue? We could be talking another three years wait!!! Is anyone else annoyed that Canon has put a not-so-useful video facility onto the 5D MkII, rather than a faster frame rate? And what about the 50D? Well, on paper it looks wonderful, and that rear-screen looks amazing. But, according the "The Digital Picture.com" the density of the pixels is beginning to seriously limit the aperture size. The claim is that smaller than f/7.6 and the 50D's sensor will begin to cause diffraction issues, whereas my 30D is good up to f/10.3 and the old 5D was ok up to f/13.2. Subjects like the moon, require around f/11, give-or-take, so my 30D is still just about 'ok'.
Am I being over-cautious? Does the 50D suffer when you close down the aperture? Anyone tried it out for real? I read that the 50D needs the best lenses (ie 'L') to minimise this potential issue.... Any thoughts anyone? Should I wait, and keep my 30D as a back-up when I can go FF with more than 5fps (like the 50D's 6.3!) or are the 50D's diffaction issues for pixel-peepers only????

You are not alone...

skygod44 wrote in post #6765828
Is anyone else annoyed that Canon has put a not-so-useful video facility onto the 5D MkII, rather than a faster frame rate?

Do you really think the folks at Canon said "well, can add video to this camera, but we're going to have to keep the frame rate under 4 fps..."

For me it's a non-issue, I even leave my 40D in 3 fps mode because I just don't need a camera with a fast frame rate.

I really doubt most who say they can't live w/ out 100 fps really need that much.
What are you shooting that you can't shoot 4 fps? I'd like to see

processor throughput

Then that way you wouldn't have to buy another body to get the faster frame rates silly.

bacchanal wrote in post #6765869
processor throughput

exactly

I think as of right now, there is no other 21MP Full-Frame DSLR that can shoot faster then 5fps. The processor can not handle speeds upwards of that, not yet at least.

bacchanal wrote in post #6765869
processor throughput

Nope! The Sony A900 shoots 5fps with larger files.

It's Canon being tight with features to protect the $8K, no $7K, no $6K 1DsMKIII.

Gene

The Mack wrote in post #6765854
I really doubt most who say they can't live w/ out 100 fps really need that much.
What are you shooting that you can't shoot 4 fps? I'd like to see

I'm after the decent frame rate mostly sports such as rugby and windsurfing where those crazy dudes spin the board/sail through a 360 after launching from a wave! It's amazing to watch, and last year with a 70-300mm I didn't have the reach, but the 5fps got the action. This year, I've got a 100-400L so hope to have the reach...I'll post after the event. And of course, <4fps can capture 'some' of the shots, but the 50D's 6.3fps is much more like it. I think a full 360 takes between 1/2 ~ 3/4 of a second. So the 5D can get maybe 2 or 3 shots, my 30D 3 or 4, and the 50D 4 or 5 frames. You'd be amazed at the difference. The other factor is that these crazy Japanese (that's where I live) run the event in February....so I want to get my shots and get back in the car! Wow, is it cold!!!!
Anyway, thanks for the comments....like everyone, I'm still learning, and have a limited budget!

kini wrote in post #6765955
Nope! The Sony A900 shoots 5fps with larger files.

It's Canon being tight with features to protect the $8K, no $7K, no $6K 1DsMKIII.

Gene

I think sony might be using a different processor than the DigicIV.

kini wrote in post #6765955
Nope! The Sony A900 shoots 5fps with larger files.

It's Canon being tight with features to protect the $8K, no $7K, no $6K 1DsMKIII.

Gene

the 1Ds Mark III also shoots 5FPS. The 5D Mark II shoots 3.9fps, only 1 frame slower then the 1Ds Mark III and A900 per second. If Canon made it 5FPS, which I am sure they could have, it doesn't make a big difference. 4fps and 5fps are both too slow for action. 5D Mark II, 1Ds Mark III, A900, and possibly the upcoming D3X, were not meant to be fast shooting cameras. If you want full frame but higher frame rate, look in to the D700, it shoots at 8fps with the optional vertical grip, but it only does 12.1MP as opposed to 20+MPs on the 1Ds Mark III, 5D Mark II, and A900. Or if you have a nice budget, get the Nikon D3. If you wish to stay with Canon, get the 1D Mark III or wait for the 1D Mark IV

skygod44 wrote in post #6765983
I'm after the decent frame rate mostly sports such as rugby and windsurfing where those crazy dudes spin the board/sail through a 360 after launching from a wave! It's amazing to watch, and last year with a 70-300mm I didn't have the reach, but the 5fps got the action. This year, I've got a 100-400L so hope to have the reach...I'll post after the event. And of course, <4fps can capture 'some' of the shots, but the 50D's 6.3fps is much more like it. I think a full 360 takes between 1/2 ~ 3/4 of a second. So the 5D can get maybe 2 or 3 shots, my 30D 3 or 4, and the 50D 4 or 5 frames. You'd be amazed at the difference. The other factor is that these crazy Japanese (that's where I live) run the event in February....so I want to get my shots and get back in the car! Wow, is it cold!!!!
Anyway, thanks for the comments....like everyone, I'm still learning, and have a limited budget!

don't blame Canon for making the 5D Mark II 3.9fps until you can find someone else who is offering a 21MP Full Frame camera at 8FPS.

bacchanal wrote in post #6765869
processor throughput

exactly

sure they could make it faster, but that requires more memory, and that will cost you. How many people want a fast 21mp camera? Not many. You want fast, get a 40D/50D. You want really fast, get a 1Diii/1Dii.... The 5D is meant to be a slower body that makes a high MP FF camera reasonable in terms of price. It's NOT meant to be a sports body, although it can do it with a skilled user at the helm.

If you want high FPS and FF, go get a D700, but realize it's IQ is less than the 5D's and it's 3 years newer. Yes it's a great camera, but you have to realize canon and nikon have different approaches and make different cameras. Nikon is making FF sports bodies that excel at high ISOs. Canon's making studio FF cameras that are OK at high ISOs because of their sensor size, but aren't the fastest bodies they make. Canon's sports bodies simply aren't full frame.

* I use a 5D for everything, including sports.

brianch wrote in post #6766003
don't blame Canon for making the 5D Mark II 3.9fps until you can find someone else who is offering a 21MP Full Frame camera at 8FPS.

Don't get me wrong....I'd LOVE to buy a 21MP FF camera, but I can't justify it if I lose a feature that I value more than megapixels. I don't tend to print bigger than A3 and at that size my 30D, in RAW, at a 'mere' 8.2 megapixels can produce some great pictures. But at under 4fps, the hit-rate of the MkII makes a significant difference, especially when you're freezing your 'danglies' off!!!!!
:p