Upgrade lens or body??

[Neil S.]

And any photographer worth his salt doesn't rely on FPS. Is it a nice bonus for some people? Yes. I think the only time I'd absolutely need 8-10 FPS is if I was doing a stop motion video. Then I'd also need about $15,000 in lighting equipment to keep up with it.

The buffer will also fill up much quicker on the 5D mk II, because of the larger file sizes and the fact that it only has one image processor.

This is huge when shooting sports.

Also you didnt mention the 5D mk II's AF system. I am pretty sure it can't keep up with the one on the 7D.

The 7D also has a new and improved metering system that only it and the 60D share. This isnt really related to sports, although it does mean it has better metering overall.

Did you know all of this?

The 7D is a better sports camera. Period.

Please don't try and argue this with me, because you will lose.

Its no different than how the D3s is a better sports camera compared to the D3x.

Neil

 

[Buckster]

And any photographer worth his salt doesn't rely on FPS. Is it a nice bonus for some people? Yes. I think the only time I'd absolutely need 8-10 FPS is if I was doing a stop motion video. Then I'd also need about $15,000 in lighting equipment to keep up with it.

The buffer will also fill up much quicker on the 5D mk II, because of the larger file sizes and the fact that it only has one image processor.

This is huge when shooting sports.

Also you didnt mention the 5D mk II's AF system. I am pretty sure it can't keep up with the one on the 7D.

The 7D also has a new and improved metering system that only it and the 60D share. This isnt really related to sports, although it does mean it has better metering overall.

Did you know all of this?

The 7D is a better sports camera. Period.

Please don't try and argue this with me, because you will lose.

Its no different than how the D3s is a better sports camera compared to the D3x.

Neil

That would all be relevant if the OP's stated interest in an upgrade was to get a good sports camera with a fast frame rate. Too bad that's not what he said his goal for upgrading is. In fact, he never mentioned shooting sports one time, and the threads he's started over time don't seem to show that interest either.

Of course, even if he had, somehow the whole sports-shooting photography world got by before the 7D came along, unbelievable as that sounds.

Maybe we should be looking for what camera body works best for astronomy, since he didn't specifically ask for that either?

 

[cfusionpm]

^In addition to bringing the 7D into the discussion, the OP also gave a budget of $1400. If you can find me a 5DmkII for $1400, I'll gladly buy one myself! Now, I can't speak for everyone else, but my first post in this thread pretty much advised against it, and opted to suggest the cheaper new 60D.

Though, pissing match aside, a used original 5DmkI would probably suit the OP's needs best.

 

[Buckster]

^In addition to bringing the 7D into the discussion, the OP also gave a budget of $1400. If you can find me a 5DmkII for $1400, I'll gladly buy one myself! Now, I can't speak for everyone else, but my first post in this thread pretty much advised against it, and opted to suggest the cheaper new 60D.

Though, pissing match aside, a used original 5DmkI would probably suit the OP's needs best.

Truly, I made the comment that anyone who could save up enough to cover the cost of a 7D could save up a few hundred more to get something better, and perhaps that was somewhat presumptuous - maybe they just can't do that, for whatever reason. Even when I was young and had very little money coming in, I was always able to put a little aside till I could afford what I wanted, so I can't honestly say I understand not being able to do that, but maybe that's just me.

He does make his request in terms of what to get "first" or "next" or "later", so one can infer that he expects to see more money for gear over time, thus the thought that saving a bit longer is a reasonable and viable option on my part.

Nonetheless, if the goal is to spend $1400 right now in pursuit of better IQ because it's burning a hole in his pocket so bad that it's become more important to spend immediately than to save a bit more and perhaps spend more wisely, I personally think better glass is the way to go. It will work on a better body later (assuming more money is acquired over time to buy one), holds it's value, and gets him better IQ on whatever body he's shooting immediately.

But that's just my take on it. YMMV

 

[Derrel]

The OP said his budget was $1400, and was thinking about the 70-200 f/4....so I suggested he buy a premium, L-series Canon lens,and not a BODY. Where are all those people who continually scream, "buy glass first, buy glass first!"? Are they all being drowned out by the Canon 7D Fan Club Mouseketeers?

A 70-200mm f/4 L series lens will last probably twenty-five years or more in amateur usage. A 7D will be an outdated piece of junk in less than half that time, able to be bought off of eBay for $100 or so. Get a clue you three Mouseketeers...

 

[Mbnmac]

Wow, just... wow.

Do some of you guys even read what you're typing?

At no point was the 7D 'attacked' before the fanboys jumped to defend it, it was merely pointed out that it's not worth the upgrade compared to the glass, but if that's what you wanted, the 5D is only another $700, so what, 2 months more to save?


But, you know, welcome to the internet I guess.

As usual, I'll just add that the glass will always be a better long term investment than a body, and if you don't find the body actually limiting, glass is the way to go.

 

[Village Idiot]

And any photographer worth his salt doesn't rely on FPS. Is it a nice bonus for some people? Yes. I think the only time I'd absolutely need 8-10 FPS is if I was doing a stop motion video. Then I'd also need about $15,000 in lighting equipment to keep up with it.

The buffer will also fill up much quicker on the 5D mk II, because of the larger file sizes and the fact that it only has one image processor.

This is huge when shooting sports.

Also you didnt mention the 5D mk II's AF system. I am pretty sure it can't keep up with the one on the 7D.

The 7D also has a new and improved metering system that only it and the 60D share. This isnt really related to sports, although it does mean it has better metering overall.

Did you know all of this?

The 7D is a better sports camera. Period.

Please don't try and argue this with me, because you will lose.

Its no different than how the D3s is a better sports camera compared to the D3x.

Neil

That's nice.

The one advantage I'd give to the 7D as a sports camera is reach. Anyone with talent does not need FPS.

The Focusing system works fast enough on my 5D MKII. It's no worse than the 30D I used to own and I shot sports with that. I did a concert this year where one of the first two songs was lit by nothing but strobes. Terrible lighting for any camera and way worse than having to shoot sports. My 5D MKII never missed a beat and never once had to wait for photos to clear from the buffer.

Have you ever tried to shoot an event like that with a 5D MKII? If not, you wouldn't understand exactly how capable the camera is and how worthless you're trying to make it out to be compared to the 7D.

If you try and argue this with me, I'll laugh at you, annoy your, and make you want to pull your hair out in frustration. I know I'm right. The 7D is not superior to the 5D MKII period (your own words). In the right hands the 5D MKII has superior features like resolution and ISO performance that would be a bigger advantage, than a crutch like FPS, to an experienced photographer.

 

[Neil S.]

That's nice.

The one advantage I'd give to the 7D as a sports camera is reach. Anyone with talent does not need FPS.

The Focusing system works fast enough on my 5D MKII. It's no worse than the 30D I used to own and I shot sports with that. I did a concert this year where one of the first two songs was lit by nothing but strobes. Terrible lighting for any camera and way worse than having to shoot sports. My 5D MKII never missed a beat and never once had to wait for photos to clear from the buffer.

Have you ever tried to shoot an event like that with a 5D MKII? If not, you wouldn't understand exactly how capable the camera is and how worthless you're trying to make it out to be compared to the 7D.

If you try and argue this with me, I'll laugh at you, annoy your, and make you want to pull your hair out in frustration. I know I'm right. The 7D is not superior to the 5D MKII period (your own words). In the right hands the 5D MKII has superior features like resolution and ISO performance that would be a bigger advantage, than a crutch like FPS, to an experienced photographer.

First of all no I will not argue with you that the 7D is better for low light. I am not that stupid guy. Also thats not what I was even talking about.

You are changing the subject and taking my statements out of context repeatedly here.

Second I said it was better for sports (not overall), which you so conveniently left out when you said "The 7D is not superior to the 5D MKII period (your own words). "

Basically you are twisting my words all around here to suit your very weak argument.

To be honest I dont even feel you are arguing about sports shooting here, which is what I was talking about in the first place. Did you truly not realize what I was saying, or are you just twisting words around trying to create a problem?

FPS a crutch? This has got to be one of the most ignorant and useless statements I have ever seen here. Its up there with the "X camera sucks" statements in my opinion.

So if FPS is a crutch then a camera like the Hasselblad H4D-60 should be up to the task of shooting sports right?

I mean after all its just about resolution and Iso performance like you said right? The Hasse has got both in spades.

After all it shoots at a blazing 1.4 seconds per capture. I am sure that pro sports shooters would think this was more than enough though...

Back to the 7D and the 5D mk II:

EOS 7D - dpreview.com:
Canon EOS 7D Review: 30. Conclusion: Digital Photography Review

"In some respects the 7D is even a better camera than the EOS 5D Mark II and a viable alternative for all those who do not want or need a camera with a full-frame sensor. Its eight frames per second continuous shooting speed and highly flexible AF system might even make it a consideration for credit-crunch battered sports photographers on a budget."

EOS 5D mk II - dpreview.com:
Canon EOS 5D Mark II Review: 40. Conclusion: Digital Photography Review

"So while the 5D Mark II would never be mistaken as a camera aimed at sports or action photographers (thanks to its rather pedestrian AF performance and overall shooting performance), it balances resolution and high ISO performance very well. And let's not forget its party trick of being able to shoot 1080p HD video with full manual control of exposure (following the release of firmware version 1.10)."

You know what though, I am sure that you are right and the professional reviews(and myself) are wrong on this.

You are probably right that FPS is just a crutch too, since you know so much. It is useless and they should just make all cameras shoot no more than 1 FPS max.

I concede to your superior knowledge and experience on this one lol.

Please stop this for your own good, because you will just continue to make yourself look bad here.

I warned you by the way...

 

[Village Idiot]

That's nice.

The one advantage I'd give to the 7D as a sports camera is reach. Anyone with talent does not need FPS.

The Focusing system works fast enough on my 5D MKII. It's no worse than the 30D I used to own and I shot sports with that. I did a concert this year where one of the first two songs was lit by nothing but strobes. Terrible lighting for any camera and way worse than having to shoot sports. My 5D MKII never missed a beat and never once had to wait for photos to clear from the buffer.

Have you ever tried to shoot an event like that with a 5D MKII? If not, you wouldn't understand exactly how capable the camera is and how worthless you're trying to make it out to be compared to the 7D.

If you try and argue this with me, I'll laugh at you, annoy your, and make you want to pull your hair out in frustration. I know I'm right. The 7D is not superior to the 5D MKII period (your own words). In the right hands the 5D MKII has superior features like resolution and ISO performance that would be a bigger advantage, than a crutch like FPS, to an experienced photographer.

First of all no I will not argue with you that the 7D is better for low light. I am not that stupid guy. Also thats not what I was even talking about.

You are changing the subject and taking my statements out of context repeatedly here.

Second I said it was better for sports (not overall), which you so conveniently left out when you said "The 7D is not superior to the 5D MKII period (your own words). "

Basically you are twisting my words all around here to suit your very weak argument.

To be honest I dont even feel you are arguing about sports shooting here, which is what I was talking about in the first place. Did you truly not realize what I was saying, or are you just twisting words around trying to create a problem?

FPS a crutch? This has got to be one of the most ignorant and useless statements I have ever seen here. Its up there with the "X camera sucks" statements in my opinion.

So if FPS is a crutch then a camera like the Hasselblad H4D-60 should be up to the task of shooting sports right?

I mean after all its just about resolution and Iso performance like you said right? The Hasse has got both in spades.

After all it shoots at a blazing 1.4 seconds per capture. I am sure that pro sports shooters would think this was more than enough though...

Back to the 7D and the 5D mk II:

EOS 7D - dpreview.com:
Canon EOS 7D Review: 30. Conclusion: Digital Photography Review

"In some respects the 7D is even a better camera than the EOS 5D Mark II and a viable alternative for all those who do not want or need a camera with a full-frame sensor. Its eight frames per second continuous shooting speed and highly flexible AF system might even make it a consideration for credit-crunch battered sports photographers on a budget."

EOS 5D mk II - dpreview.com:
Canon EOS 5D Mark II Review: 40. Conclusion: Digital Photography Review

"So while the 5D Mark II would never be mistaken as a camera aimed at sports or action photographers (thanks to its rather pedestrian AF performance and overall shooting performance), it balances resolution and high ISO performance very well. And let's not forget its party trick of being able to shoot 1080p HD video with full manual control of exposure (following the release of firmware version 1.10)."

You know what though, I am sure that you are right and the professional reviews(and myself) are wrong on this.

You are probably right that FPS is just a crutch too, since you know so much. It is useless and they should just make all cameras shoot no more than 1 FPS max.

I concede to your superior knowledge and experience on this one lol.

Please stop this for your own good, because you will just continue to make yourself look bad here.

I warned you by the way...

You warned me about what? That's you're arrogant and you think you know everything? Another Derrel on our hands?

Plain and simple. I can go out and shoot sports with my 5D MKII and get pictures just as good, if not better than yours on a 7D. It's about timing. I take my time and get the shot when it's there, I don't spray and pray. I was shooting for my school's football team when I was in college. That was with a Minolta HTsi film camera. At 7fps, my buffer of 24 shots would have been filled in a little over 3 seconds. I took my time and made it last. I didn't need your 7D for that.

And if you've never had a 5D MKII in your hand with a 70-200 f/2.8L IS lens, then you can't label the AF as crap. It may not be as fast at a 7D or have all the cross point focus points, but it's by no means the dog that reviewers try and make it out to be. If it was, it would be impossible for me to get some of the shots I do at concerts.

So I'm looking really bad for not depending on a pray and spray method and having actual experience with the camera that you're saying is not up to the task?

 

[Neil S.]

You warned me about what? That's you're arrogant and you think you know everything? Another Derrel on our hands?

Plain and simple. I can go out and shoot sports with my 5D MKII and get pictures just as good, if not better than yours on a 7D. It's about timing. I take my time and get the shot when it's there, I don't spray and pray. I was shooting for my school's football team when I was in college. That was with a Minolta HTsi film camera. At 7fps, my buffer of 24 shots would have been filled in a little over 3 seconds. I took my time and made it last. I didn't need your 7D for that.

And if you've never had a 5D MKII in your hand with a 70-200 f/2.8L IS lens, then you can't label the AF as crap. It may not be as fast at a 7D or have all the cross point focus points, but it's by no means the dog that reviewers try and make it out to be. If it was, it would be impossible for me to get some of the shots I do at concerts.

So I'm looking really bad for not depending on a pray and spray method and having actual experience with the camera that you're saying is not up to the task?

So basically...

Almost my entire above post was facts and references with just a little bit of my opinion.

Almost this entire post here is your simply your opinion with almost no facts or references to support it.

Got it. :thumbup:

By the way you didn’t address countless points that I made showing why FPS is important, and why the 7D is a better sports body.

Also I didnt say that the 5D mk II "is not up to the task".

What I said was that the 7D is a better sports body overall compared to the 5D mk II.

Why do you keep doing that lol? You sure do love to twist words around to suit your absurd arguments dont you?

Since you mentioned it though, I challenge you to find me a pro sports photographer anywhere on the net that uses a 5D mk II. Do that and then maybe I will keep discussing this with you.

Until then this is becoming a major waste of my time.

 

[Village Idiot]

You warned me about what? That's you're arrogant and you think you know everything? Another Derrel on our hands?

Plain and simple. I can go out and shoot sports with my 5D MKII and get pictures just as good, if not better than yours on a 7D. It's about timing. I take my time and get the shot when it's there, I don't spray and pray. I was shooting for my school's football team when I was in college. That was with a Minolta HTsi film camera. At 7fps, my buffer of 24 shots would have been filled in a little over 3 seconds. I took my time and made it last. I didn't need your 7D for that.

And if you've never had a 5D MKII in your hand with a 70-200 f/2.8L IS lens, then you can't label the AF as crap. It may not be as fast at a 7D or have all the cross point focus points, but it's by no means the dog that reviewers try and make it out to be. If it was, it would be impossible for me to get some of the shots I do at concerts.

So I'm looking really bad for not depending on a pray and spray method and having actual experience with the camera that you're saying is not up to the task?

So basically...

Almost my entire above post was facts and references with just a little bit of my opinion.

Almost this entire post here is your simply your opinion with almost no facts or references to support it.

Got it. :thumbup:

By the way you didn’t address countless points that I made showing why FPS is important, and why the 7D is a better sports body.

Also I didnt say that the 5D mk II "is not up to the task".

What I said was that the 7D is a better sports body overall compared to the 5D mk II.

Why do you keep doing that lol? You sure do love to twist words around to suit your absurd arguments dont you?

Since you mentioned it though, I challenge you to find me a pro sports photographer anywhere on the net that uses a 5D mk II. Do that and then maybe I will keep discussing this with you.

Until then this is becoming a major waste of my time.

A 5D MKII is a FF digital camera...hmmm...ff...like 35mm film...and 35mm film cameras were never used to shoot sports...and 8FPS was so important to those photographers...hmmmm....looks like some one is trying to make excuses that they need a camera with certain abilities to make up for their lack of skills.

 

[prodigy2k7]

That's nice.

The one advantage I'd give to the 7D as a sports camera is reach. Anyone with talent does not need FPS.

The Focusing system works fast enough on my 5D MKII. It's no worse than the 30D I used to own and I shot sports with that. I did a concert this year where one of the first two songs was lit by nothing but strobes. Terrible lighting for any camera and way worse than having to shoot sports. My 5D MKII never missed a beat and never once had to wait for photos to clear from the buffer.

Have you ever tried to shoot an event like that with a 5D MKII? If not, you wouldn't understand exactly how capable the camera is and how worthless you're trying to make it out to be compared to the 7D.

If you try and argue this with me, I'll laugh at you, annoy your, and make you want to pull your hair out in frustration. I know I'm right. The 7D is not superior to the 5D MKII period (your own words). In the right hands the 5D MKII has superior features like resolution and ISO performance that would be a bigger advantage, than a crutch like FPS, to an experienced photographer.

First of all no I will not argue with you that the 7D is better for low light. I am not that stupid guy. Also thats not what I was even talking about.

You are changing the subject and taking my statements out of context repeatedly here.

Second I said it was better for sports (not overall), which you so conveniently left out when you said "The 7D is not superior to the 5D MKII period (your own words). "

Basically you are twisting my words all around here to suit your very weak argument.

To be honest I dont even feel you are arguing about sports shooting here, which is what I was talking about in the first place. Did you truly not realize what I was saying, or are you just twisting words around trying to create a problem?

FPS a crutch? This has got to be one of the most ignorant and useless statements I have ever seen here. Its up there with the "X camera sucks" statements in my opinion.

So if FPS is a crutch then a camera like the Hasselblad H4D-60 should be up to the task of shooting sports right?

I mean after all its just about resolution and Iso performance like you said right? The Hasse has got both in spades.

After all it shoots at a blazing 1.4 seconds per capture. I am sure that pro sports shooters would think this was more than enough though...

Back to the 7D and the 5D mk II:

EOS 7D - dpreview.com:
Canon EOS 7D Review: 30. Conclusion: Digital Photography Review

"In some respects the 7D is even a better camera than the EOS 5D Mark II and a viable alternative for all those who do not want or need a camera with a full-frame sensor. Its eight frames per second continuous shooting speed and highly flexible AF system might even make it a consideration for credit-crunch battered sports photographers on a budget."

EOS 5D mk II - dpreview.com:
Canon EOS 5D Mark II Review: 40. Conclusion: Digital Photography Review

"So while the 5D Mark II would never be mistaken as a camera aimed at sports or action photographers (thanks to its rather pedestrian AF performance and overall shooting performance), it balances resolution and high ISO performance very well. And let's not forget its party trick of being able to shoot 1080p HD video with full manual control of exposure (following the release of firmware version 1.10)."

You know what though, I am sure that you are right and the professional reviews(and myself) are wrong on this.

You are probably right that FPS is just a crutch too, since you know so much. It is useless and they should just make all cameras shoot no more than 1 FPS max.

I concede to your superior knowledge and experience on this one lol.

Please stop this for your own good, because you will just continue to make yourself look bad here.

I warned you by the way...

You warned me about what? That's you're arrogant and you think you know everything? Another Derrel on our hands?

Plain and simple. I can go out and shoot sports with my 5D MKII and get pictures just as good, if not better than yours on a 7D. It's about timing. I take my time and get the shot when it's there, I don't spray and pray. I was shooting for my school's football team when I was in college. That was with a Minolta HTsi film camera. At 7fps, my buffer of 24 shots would have been filled in a little over 3 seconds. I took my time and made it last. I didn't need your 7D for that.

And if you've never had a 5D MKII in your hand with a 70-200 f/2.8L IS lens, then you can't label the AF as crap. It may not be as fast at a 7D or have all the cross point focus points, but it's by no means the dog that reviewers try and make it out to be. If it was, it would be impossible for me to get some of the shots I do at concerts.

So I'm looking really bad for not depending on a pray and spray method and having actual experience with the camera that you're saying is not up to the task?

ahahahaha:thumbup:

 

[Neil S.]

A 5D MKII is a FF digital camera...hmmm...ff...like 35mm film...and 35mm film cameras were never used to shoot sports...and 8FPS was so important to those photographers...hmmmm....looks like some one is trying to make excuses that they need a camera with certain abilities to make up for their lack of skills.

Ahahahahahaha!

Are you mad lol? You are really losing your cool here.

Remember I warned you. :lmao:

You have resorted to making ridiculous statements (like the above) in a desperate attempt to keep arguing a flawed position.

This can only go straight down the toilet from here. Not like it hasn’t already though.

I am done discussing this with you.

Good day Sir...

 

[prodigy2k7]

You warned me about what? That's you're arrogant and you think you know everything? Another Derrel on our hands?

Plain and simple. I can go out and shoot sports with my 5D MKII and get pictures just as good, if not better than yours on a 7D. It's about timing. I take my time and get the shot when it's there, I don't spray and pray. I was shooting for my school's football team when I was in college. That was with a Minolta HTsi film camera. At 7fps, my buffer of 24 shots would have been filled in a little over 3 seconds. I took my time and made it last. I didn't need your 7D for that.

And if you've never had a 5D MKII in your hand with a 70-200 f/2.8L IS lens, then you can't label the AF as crap. It may not be as fast at a 7D or have all the cross point focus points, but it's by no means the dog that reviewers try and make it out to be. If it was, it would be impossible for me to get some of the shots I do at concerts.

So I'm looking really bad for not depending on a pray and spray method and having actual experience with the camera that you're saying is not up to the task?

So basically...

Almost my entire above post was facts and references with just a little bit of my opinion.

Almost this entire post here is your simply your opinion with almost no facts or references to support it.

Got it. :thumbup:

By the way you didn’t address countless points that I made showing why FPS is important, and why the 7D is a better sports body.

Also I didnt say that the 5D mk II "is not up to the task".

What I said was that the 7D is a better sports body overall compared to the 5D mk II.

Why do you keep doing that lol? You sure do love to twist words around to suit your absurd arguments dont you?

Since you mentioned it though, I challenge you to find me a pro sports photographer anywhere on the net that uses a 5D mk II. Do that and then maybe I will keep discussing this with you.

Until then this is becoming a major waste of my time.

A 5D MKII is a FF digital camera...hmmm...ff...like 35mm film...and 35mm film cameras were never used to shoot sports...and 8FPS was so important to those photographers...hmmmm....looks like some one is trying to make excuses that they need a camera with certain abilities to make up for their lack of skills.

8FPS isnt "important" in getting the right shot, it just helps in not missing the shot when you try and get it. Are you saying you get your shots right on every damn time? FF is nice and all but the light gathering ability isn't always required. Sometimes the crop bodies help with filling the subject in the frame.

 

[Village Idiot]

A 5D MKII is a FF digital camera...hmmm...ff...like 35mm film...and 35mm film cameras were never used to shoot sports...and 8FPS was so important to those photographers...hmmmm....looks like some one is trying to make excuses that they need a camera with certain abilities to make up for their lack of skills.

Ahahahahahaha!

Are you mad lol? You are really losing your cool here.

Remember I warned you. :lmao:

You have resorted to making ridiculous statements (like the above) in a desperate attempt to keep arguing a flawed position.

This can only go straight down the toilet from here. Not like it hasn’t already though.

I am done discussing this with you.

Good day Sir...

Losing my cool? Not at all, sir. I just don't see how you're so blind as to see that people have been getting those shots with cameras that didn't have the 7D's AF and FPS. The XXD series was considered a good sports camera and they have about the same AF as in a 5D MKII, iirc.

You're refusing to admit that pray and spray is a tactic that a real photographer wouldn't use. You're done discussing this because you don't have anything else to say besides you depend on FPS over skill?

So basically...

Almost my entire above post was facts and references with just a little bit of my opinion.

Almost this entire post here is your simply your opinion with almost no facts or references to support it.

Got it. :thumbup:

By the way you didn’t address countless points that I made showing why FPS is important, and why the 7D is a better sports body.

Also I didnt say that the 5D mk II "is not up to the task".

What I said was that the 7D is a better sports body overall compared to the 5D mk II.

Why do you keep doing that lol? You sure do love to twist words around to suit your absurd arguments dont you?

Since you mentioned it though, I challenge you to find me a pro sports photographer anywhere on the net that uses a 5D mk II. Do that and then maybe I will keep discussing this with you.

Until then this is becoming a major waste of my time.

A 5D MKII is a FF digital camera...hmmm...ff...like 35mm film...and 35mm film cameras were never used to shoot sports...and 8FPS was so important to those photographers...hmmmm....looks like some one is trying to make excuses that they need a camera with certain abilities to make up for their lack of skills.

8FPS isnt "important" in getting the right shot, it just helps in not missing the shot when you try and get it. Are you saying you get your shots right on every damn time? FF is nice and all but the light gathering ability isn't always required. Sometimes the crop bodies help with filling the subject in the frame.

Not every damn time, but after using cameras with at least 5 FPS, I find it much easier to watch what's going on and taking the photo at that critical time rather than holding down the camera button and hoping that the focusing can keep up with the FPS to catch an acceptable photo out of the 10-20 that were just taken.

Like in my flaming guitar shoot. I got the photo as the guitar smashed into the ground and you can see the air from the impact pushing the flames out along the ground. Or like when shooting skateboard photos and timing it just right. Or when shooting portraits that require timing.

I guess not being able to afford a set of lights that will shoot consistantly at 4+ FPS kind of forces you to have good timing.