I feel like there has been too much made of this FPS talk. Disclaimer, frame rate is lost on me a bit as most of the time my style photography doesn't require it (and I very very rarely have done spray and prey). However, with all that said this 20 FPS (with all the asterisks and caveats) seems to be hooking too many on pure specmanship alone.
How many frames per second does one need to accomplish their task? I'd argue that you hit diminishing rates of return very quickly beyond 10. Even in the very demanding sports or wildlife photography, how many here would accept the excuse for a missed (or not hitting the) shot from one who claimed they just didn't have enough fps when they were shooting with a camera capable of 10?
Go from 5 fps to 10 fps and that is a huge difference. But after that it's just icing on the cake. What is the 1D at now? 12 or 14 (depending on shooting config) and if you can't capture your shot is it really the camera at point?
Again, once you hit 10+ fps rates, the important parts become, the focus tracking ability, blackout and ability to follow the subject, etc.
For sports and wildlife, more the better. Even 2 fps increment helps. 12 to 14 is better in real world. In next version on 1d it may go up to 16 and that will be even better.
I AGREE !!!
Even TWO MORE FRAMES per second is a big deal.
In the image below I took 24 photos in rapid succession but ONLY ONE IMAGE had just the right focus, perfect animal positioning and rushing water look I wanted in this type of Rugged Wild West Coast of British Columbia, Canada imagery.
I wish the weather was better (it's almost ALWAYS stormy and grey!) but this image tells the story of just how rugged the Pacific Northwest Coast of North America can be. Only because of HIGH FRAME SPEED, can I capture this type of image easily!
So the more frames per second I have the better!
(p.s. It really did look that weird overall blue tone colour...it was like a blue mist all around me!)