- Sep 26, 2021
Agreed, measuring FPS from a fixed focus is an efficient way to standardise the testing, because it's almost impossible to standardise a moving subject for testing purposes.Fixed focus is probably the only way to sensibly measure things. For instance, on my 7D2 I could AF fully and get 10fps. I checked a few times, tracking kingfishers and swif. Why did I check? At the time a well known photographer and maker of flash diffusers was adamant the 7D2 could not achieve 10fps. My testing was wide open with the 100-400II. Had I used a really old EF lens with its Noisy motor then I am sure my frame rate would have dropped. There are so many lenses, lots of setup variables and also different environmental conditions that the spreadsheet to list it all would be huge, as would the time taken to test every combination. So fps has to be measured with as few variables as possible or the user would end up really struggling with the data.
The real point of concern is the discrepancy between real technical specs and the more malleable marketing specs, which usually omit critical information or qualifiers. Usually, camera companies are more discerning and accurate with the numbers when it comes to cameras built for high burst rates, such as the ID nad 7D series, but are a bit more 'creative' with those specifications on lower models that aren't used for specifically that purpose, probably because no general consumer is going to complain too much I guess.