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

I don't know if it's technically possible, but maybe Canon could do a 12MP ~7FPS mode. Video is ~2MP @ 30FPS, so they can process reduced resolution at much higher frame rates.

12MP @ 7FPS would compete nicely with the D700.

3.9FPS x 21MP = 81.9 MP/sec processing
6.7FPS x 12MP = 81 MP/sec processing

Pioneer61 wrote in post #6766499
I don't know if it's technically possible, but maybe Canon could do a 12MP ~7FPS mode. Video is ~2MP @ 30FPS, so they can process reduced resolution at much higher frame rates.

12MP @ 7FPS would compete nicely with the D700.

3.9FPS x 21MP = 81.9 MP/sec processing
6.7FPS x 12MP = 81 MP/sec processing

there is also more things to consider than data throughput.

The 5D mirror box (in both mark I and II versions) seems to be of the slow varaiety. In fact, I wouldn't even be surprised if they didn't change that part at all in the mark II. The slow and less responsive movements of the whole mirror/shutter assembly is possibly another limitation on the FPS. It has to move back into position fast enough so that the AF system can continue to track it's target accurately. There is a reason that the 1D mark III has excellent viewfinder blackout times. Even the 40D is pretty darn good in blackout performance. The 5D... well... is not so nimble.

skygod44 wrote in post #6766128
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)?

In a nutshell, yes. Their product hierarchy isn't so much a hierarchy as it is a hodgepodge right now. It's very much pick-your-poison with Canon. Don't forget the 1Ds Mark III too that, now that we've seen for sure what the full-frame premium really is (50D price vs. 5DII price--$1500 difference), is starting to look even more overpriced than it did before. It's a madhouse out there.

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

Pesky trees! So unpredictable!!!!!!

rabidcow wrote in post #6766905
Pesky trees! So unpredictable!!!!!!

m hm.. i looked afterwards.. it was already gone! amazing! just like many things in life.. going really fast makes up for sucking really bad

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

I've seen the same thing. And then they look at you with a silly grin that says they know what they are doing

skygod44 wrote in post #6766377
That's hilarious!!!!

***gold***

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

I've done that - HDR when you've forgotten your tripod!

Works quite well actually...

The 5D isn't for sports so what does it matter? Wait for the new 1D if you need that...

just IMHO

Jbs wrote in post #6767828
The 5D isn't for sports so what does it matter? Wait for the new 1D if you need that...

just IMHO

I guess the problem with that is that Canon just does not make each product as good as it can be at each price point and let the buyers fall where they may. I have a suspicion that the 5D2 frame rate is held back a bit to help distinguish the 1Ds position.

The clearest example of this (going back a bit here) was the old 300D. Canon released it with firmware that deliberately detruned the body from what it could do. This was to preserve the position of the 10D.

I also think it's sad that so much of out community is happy to let Canon pigeonhole these cameras. "Oh, it's not a sports camera". "Oh, that one is for landscapes". May I direct your attention to the Nikon D700. That is a camera that costs about what the 5D2 does and which is not noticeably limited for whatever type of shooting the owner cares to do.

Do we really accept that we are supposed to own a $2700 5D2 to shoot weddings and landscapes and we have to own a $4500 1Dmk3 to shoot sports?

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

The tree was moving I swear!!!


Oh, you weren't there.

It will be interesting to see how many fps the over 20mp Nikon has and the price and how fast Canon responds to that.

JeffreyG wrote in post #6767986
Do we really accept that we are supposed to own a $2700 5D2 to shoot weddings and landscapes and we have to own a $4500 1Dmk3 to shoot sports?

nope, I shoot a mix of everything with whatever body I own.

but yeah, the whole grip with added FPS is a nice trick I wish canon would pick up. That and cropping a FF sensor down to APS-C and boosting the buffer and FPS when you do that as well.....

JeffreyG wrote in post #6767986
I also think it's sad that so much of out community is happy to let Canon pigeonhole these cameras. "Oh, it's not a sports camera". "Oh, that one is for landscapes". May I direct your attention to the Nikon D700. That is a camera that costs about what the 5D2 does and which is not noticeably limited for whatever type of shooting the owner cares to do.

Do we really accept that we are supposed to own a $2700 5D2 to shoot weddings and landscapes and we have to own a $4500 1Dmk3 to shoot sports?

Amen. 5fps is passable, just 5fps...

Wow, we must be spoiled. For year's I did everything using a Canon Elan 7 35mm series. A camera that can only did 4FPS. I even shot sports with it. Heck they advertised it as a sports camera. All 7 AF points.

All I ever wanted was a FF digital version of my Elan series ever since I had my original digital Rebel.

So the 5D2 has 9PT AF and 3.9FPS, close enough. Woo hoo.

I think the Eos-3 even without a BP pack only does a meager 4FPS. Tops out somewhere around 6-7FPS with a booster.

If FPS is the absolute for a user Canon makes the 1D line, else other brands have faster SLRs. Glass resells well always.

If you have to ask why or who needs 10 frames a second, then the answer won't mean anything to you. It was already explained by the surfer above, a full spin takes less than 1 second. Are 10 shots of it worth more to a sports photograper than 2 and a half? If your still saying no, then you have never seen or looked at those 10 frames shot in one second. I don't shoot surfers, but the same applies to shooting eagles in flight. They do some amazing things that 3, 5 or 6.5 frames just don't catch. If your able to catch it, your prints will sell and the 10 cent a dozen images of eagles flying along straight and level won't.