Canon EOS Mark ii Shutter Speed

The Warden

I am being told that if I set the Mark ii (2) megapixel range down to 10mp (or thereabouts) that I will get a much higher fps rate than the listed 3.8 (or whatever it rates at exactly).

My point of interest is whether to purchase the Mark iii (3) because of the higher fps speed I want for shooting basketball games.

I love the concept of the video feature on the Mark ii and the smaller frame size (for weight concerns), but can't get past the fps issue.

Cost is not an issue, but if the Mark ii (2)does indeed match or exceed the Mark iii (3) fps at a lower megapixel setting, I would love to hear opinions if I should still go with the Mark iii, or take advantage of the price difference (and the lighter weight and video feature which I like).

Thank you very much for your opinions!

chris84

The Warden wrote:

I am being told that if I set the Mark ii (2) megapixel range down to 10mp (or thereabouts) that I will get a much higher fps rate than the listed 3.8 (or whatever it rates at exactly).

My point of interest is whether to purchase the Mark iii (3) because of the higher fps speed I want for shooting basketball games.

I love the concept of the video feature on the Mark ii and the smaller frame size (for weight concerns), but can't get past the fps issue.

Cost is not an issue, but if the Mark ii (2)does indeed match or exceed the Mark iii (3) fps at a lower megapixel setting, I would love to hear opinions if I should still go with the Mark iii, or take advantage of the price difference (and the lighter weight and video feature which I like).

Thank you very much for your opinions!

I believe you are refering to a Nikon feature that allows faster FPS depending on the chosen image resolution. As far as I know it doesn't work that way with the Canon system. Sorry-

The Warden

Yes, this is exactly what I am referring to. I was told this, but needed some verification. Thank you for that. If I may ask your opinion again, if fps, and low light shooting (horrible basketball gyms) is a primary concern for me, do you like the 1D Mark iii, giving up the smaller weight, video, and price for the 5D ii ??

Thanks,

chris84

The Warden wrote:

Yes, this is exactly what I am referring to. I was told this, but needed some verification. Thank you for that. If I may ask your opinion again, if fps, and low light shooting (horrible basketball gyms) is a primary concern for me, do you like the 1D Mark iii, giving up the smaller weight, video, and price for the 5D ii ??

Thanks,

The 5D2 is a great low light camera, but is generally slow for fast action sports. A 1D is the best way to go if you have the budget. If not, consider the 50D @ 6.5 FPS or the new 7D @ 8 FPS.