when the c100, with its 4k technology came out, there was a video about exporting stills from video. It seemed like too much Damn work... review 24000 frames.
[quote =Marsu42 link=topic=21282.msg404354#msg404354 date=1402582107]
The 7DII will be really fast.
For fast, look at mirrorless system ... old-school dslr tech with a flipping mirror taking a lot of straing @high fps is really a technology from the last century. Good for Canon there are enough old-school photogs around :-p
In 10 years from now, you won't even use the 7d2 as a doorstopper because your mirrorless does 100fps+ full res (or you just crop frames from video), has much more shutter cycles before it breaks and does things like "automatically track the bird with the read feathers across the whole frame".
Without wanting to open up a whole huge new area of debate, I remain unconvinced about this. I'm hardly wedded to old school methods or technology, I only took up serious bird photography a couple of years ago. And I hope your optimism about tracking and suchlike are well-founded, but I don't relish having to wade through hundreds or thousands of frames to find the ones that aren't motion blurred or otherwise unusable. There has to be an upper limit of what is workable per session - more than a few hundred takes too long to sort through in a day or two, especially if the shots are very similar.
Others will know more about this, but I've heard that using very fast exposures per frame leads to unappealing-looking video. But you need short exposure times to get fast-moving subjects like birds in flight without motion blur, if you're extracting frames for stills. Seems an unsatisfying compromise.
But we'll see. The mirrorless camera would need similar ergonomics to DSLRs to work with big lenses anyhow, imho.