I don't get why internet experts think that the 7D mk II needs to be FF. It is preposterous, as FF and crop are two totally different tools, and crop is a better tool for nearly everything.
The 7D mk II will be a APS-C camera, the FF 7D 2, if you will is called the 1DX.
Sorry, but I completely disagree with the highlighted bit. Crop and FF both have their place, and there is no way crop is a better tool for "nearly everything". For that matter, it's debatable whether crop is better for even a slim majority of things. FF does better in almost every circumstance. It is larger, so gathers more total light. Usually has bigger pixels. Usually has more pixels. Allows thinner DOF with lenses of any given aperture. Allows for truly ultra wide field of view, much wider than anything available on APS-C (i.e. 8mm fisheye is only a true 180 degrees on FF...on APS-C, that true fisheye view is...cropped!), allows you to get closer with any lens when filling the frame (ideal for portraiture and macro photography, especially macro w/ extension), etc. etc.
The one primary case where crop is better is when you need reach and spatial resolution. Crop "gets you closer" when using longer lenses. That will remain true so long as crop sensors have smaller pixels than FF sensors. Someday, however, it is entirely possible that a larger sensor will come along with pixels just as small as crop, with just as high a frame rate. When that happens, the one true advantage of crop will evaporate, and there will be no reason to use it. The FF image would simply need to be...cropped.
Agreed. IMO, the main thing at which a crop sensor is better is being in a more affordable camera body.
Aye. There is that too! That is probably the single most important factor for crop...reach would be secondary, although still very important. (Heh, I rarely take cost into account...only time I really have is the 1D X...so I usually don't care about cost.)
and portability.... I must confess to being tempted by the M for portability.....
I think that would be mirrorless vs. DSLR argument. My 7D is roughly the same size as my 5D III. Slightly thinner, slightly taller. Overall they weigh about the same, feel about the same, work mostly the same, the major differences are the AF system, frame rate, and frame size. I wouldn't say the 7D is more portable than the 5D III, though.
The lenses are more portable... Or, could be, if canon would actually make anything beyond 18-xmm zooms... Mirrorless is seriously catching up here...
And as far an 7D lacking IQ, the answer is exposure to the right. With good exposure practices, the 7D performs quite well at 3200... At 6400, things get sketchy, b ut are rescuable with care. Compared to the 5D MK III the 7D will surely look bad, but it is merely showing its age.
And, I love 7D color! I almost never change it, and I always use AWB. I may occassionally tweak shadow color, or selectively saturate a color, but overall, it does great!