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

jacobsen1 wrote in post #6766051
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.

yep this is very true. Nikon and Canon tend to produce their products above and below each other, never beside each other. It is not always fair to compare any two products from the two manufacturers because each have their benefits and disadvantages, if Nikon and Canon placed semi-pro cameras right beside each other their would be flame wars all over the internet, I think it would cause some major fatalities and injuries including but not reserved too, strokes, heart attacks braindamage, internal bleeding, nasauea, vomiting, crotch pains, insanity, and many other mental related diseases.

skygod44 wrote in post #6766073
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

so let me ask you this, why do you need full frame? If your need for full frame does not outweigh the need for a faster camera with fast AF, then the 5D and 1Ds Mark III are not for you. Look in to a D300, D700, 1D Mark III or even a 40D!

skygod44 wrote in post #6766073
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.

you do realize the 5Dii captures 30fps right?

printable to 4x6 EASILY, maybe more.

and I second the need for FF. I've been "stuck" with a cropper for 2 months from selling my 5D until my mark II gets here. The only real reason I have for FF is my 24L. I LOVE that lens and there's NOTHING similar on a cropper. No fast primes exist past 20mm and that's only 32mm....

jacobsen1

"It's NOT meant to be a sports body, although it can do it with a skilled user at the helm. "

Are you having a dig there??? Cheeky!!!!!!

And I hear you about the Nikons, but I think a divorce would be on the cards if I had TWO camera systems!!!

So, in a nutshell, what you're saying is that once we're suckered by Canon's marketing (and here in Japan, it's HUGE!) we have to make do with going either FF, very expensive, Pro-level, do-it-all (1D MkIII). Or, FF semi-pro, can 'maybe' do-it-all (5DMkII). Or pro-sumer, can do it all, but maybe with sensor issues (50D)?

I've never used more than 3fps in my wedding shoots; the 5D is aimed at portrait/wedding/lands​cape photographers, not sports shooters.

yes that's a bit of a dig because I honestly feel you don't need FPS unless you're doing sequence work (where you use ALL the frames you take). But beyond that, the 1DIII isn't FF, it's a 1.3 crop. The 1DsmIII is FF, but it's only 5fps. 3.9 -vs- 5 fps isn't going to save the shot like spraying 10fps will. Yes it's faster, but not worlds faster.

and again, the 5Dii does take 1920x1080 images at 30fps... That's 2mp and easy 4x6s and maybe even 8x10s.... something to consider. I screen capped some of the videos that are out to see how it looks. It's not terrible. Nothing I'd sell but certainly something I'll play with.

canuck88 wrote in post #6766162
I've never used more than 3fps in my wedding shoots; the 5D is aimed at portrait/wedding/lands​cape photographers, not sports shooters.

At last....an answer! Thank you so much! I was wondering when someone would tell me what they use their camera for, rather than defending it's functions, or lack thereof.

So, Canon really are aiming at more 'scenic' photographs with the 5D MkII.

My friend who loves sports photography and pre-ordered a 5D MkII is gonna be soooo pissed!

Think I'll wait until I can afford a 1D MkIII - or whatever they come out with next!

Byeeee!

peace out

jacobsen1 wrote in post #6766188
yes that's a bit of a dig because I honestly feel you don't need FPS unless you're doing sequence work (where you use ALL the frames you take). But beyond that, the 1DIII isn't FF, it's a 1.3 crop. The 1DsmIII is FF, but it's only 5fps. 3.9 -vs- 5 fps isn't going to save the shot like spraying 10fps will. Yes it's faster, but not worlds faster.

and again, the 5Dii does take 1920x1080 images at 30fps... That's 2mp and easy 4x6s and maybe even 8x10s.... something to consider. I screen capped some of the videos that are out to see how it looks. It's not terrible. Nothing I'd sell but certainly something I'll play with.

I should add that I do do some sequence work - thus the fps is really great for me. This year's Kyushu Electric Rugby team now have my A3s on display at the offices here in Kyushu, Japan. Some of the players' faces before/after they're tackled are priceless!

Oh and I hear you about the 1.3 crop on the 1D MkIII, but if pixel density is an issue, surely 'less' of a crop is better, even if FF is too expensive/too slow.

Cheers anyway...

skygod44 wrote in post #6766247
I should add that I do do some sequence work - thus the fps is really great for me. This year's Kyushu Electric Rugby team now have my A3s on display at the offices here in Kyushu, Japan. Some of the players' faces before/after they're tackled are priceless!

Oh and I hear you about the 1.3 crop on the 1D MkIII, but if pixel density is an issue, surely 'less' of a crop is better, even if FF is too expensive/too slow.

Cheers anyway...

I think you would be happy with the 1D Mark III. You don't need full frame. Noone really needs it. The 1D Mark III offers more then what most people need.

brianch wrote in post #6766290
Noone really needs it.

I need it!

FPS is a tool, a tool that is often over abused. I cannot stand the guys on the sideline next to me ripping off 10 FPS and then looking around to see if anyone noticed.

My keeper rate has increased as well as my photographic ability by simply waiting for the moment and then pushing the button for one maybe two frames.

Who the hell wants to process 400 frames from a shoot when on a deadline when 50 or 60 frames would suffice?

timnosenzo wrote in post #6766308
I need it!

so do i =D

rabidcow wrote in post #6766314
FPS is a tool, a tool that is often over abused. I cannot stand the guys on the sideline next to me ripping off 10 FPS and then looking around to see if anyone noticed.

My keeper rate has increased as well as my photographic ability by simply waiting for the moment and then pushing the button for one maybe two frames.

Who the hell wants to process 400 frames from a shoot when on a deadline when 50 or 60 frames would suffice?

i remember watching a guy firing away his 40D at 6.5fps at a tree.

brianch wrote in post #6766321
i remember watching a guy firing away his 40D at 6.5fps at a tree.

That's hilarious!!!!