I think jrista's whole point was essentially that at THIS level of the Canon spectrum, cool features should play second fiddle to fundamentals. And I agree. If Canon is trying to make a paramount pro-level crop, keep pricing reasonable, and focus most consciously on the things that matter most to the target market they're after on the broadest scale possible....then they (and we) should be clamouring for solid and unmatched fundamentals. Maybe some analogies were misaligned but I appreciate his take on this. I've been Canon since I was five years old holding dad's A1. I still have it.
The 70D fills the upscale consumer market. The enthusiasts and the crossover videographers. Feature rich with touch and wifi.
The 7DX is for a more discerning palate looking for solid build (1DXish) in a crop that can handle harsh conditions if need be and deliver 1DXish AF and FPS. If engineering such a beast negates the use of touch and wifi, so be it. I agree that I do not believe Canon would cut such features without serious reason. One of which may be price considering everything else they wish to accomplish.
I can live fine without either. I won't miss them. I know how to toggle a canon menu well enough. So do most of the pros who would be considering this grade of machine.
In the end, all this is little more than enjoyable conjecture and academia. We don't and won't know anything til the proverbial S___ hits the fan next month :-)
Yup, this is it exactly. As I said, I don't care if they do include a touch UI, SO LONG as that does not mean they don't deliver a significantly improved sensor, significantly improved AF system, and also an improved metering system. If the 7D II hits with a consumer-grabbing tough UI, and none of the above...well, I'd perceive that the same way so many other people perceive Canon these days...as being obsessed with video and consumerism, and having lost interest in the true photographer, in solid image quality from top to bottom.
Okay. Time out guys.
Perhaps that was your intent Jon, but using condescending and inflammatory comments obscure that intent:
Comments like this make me think people don't know how to use a DSLR.
Who in the world, ESPECIALLY pros, want to pull the camera away from their face so they can fiddle with a clunky touch screen?
It's sad how smartphone mentality is invading every other area of our lives...
in many cases, a touch screen is the primitive configuration device
Touch screens on professional grade devices designed for use by people who know how to train muscle and procedural memory, and prefer instantaneous access to many features of the camera without the need to look at anything, or remove their eye from the viewfinder...are quite frankly the most confusing "innovation" I can think of.
If you are going to throw bombs, make rash generalizations and denigrate anyone who has a different opinion than you, then please, don't act like the wounded child when people call you on it and demonstrate clearly that you were mistaken.
Honestly, what's wrong with a simple acknowledgement of a mistake. There have been many times on this forum when I've been shown wrong (often by Neuro or Jon) and I've readily admitted it. Shouldn't we all be adult enough to just say: "I should have thought more about it before I went on a rant."
Really, the point of most of us who have been discussing touch screens seems to be one of questioning why a proven, mature piece of technology would be omitted from an upcoming camera body.
Neuro seems to be of the mind that that suggestion calls into question the accuracy of the rumor. I kind of hope he is right.
I have expressed surprise at it, because I can see the value of the option in my photography (particularly when trying to adjust a series of 600 RTs on the fly -- something that I can't do while looking through the viewfinder, but perhaps that's just because I don't have enough "muscle memory" to be able to set A-B:C ratios without being able to see the screen.)
In thinking about it, I simply asked if there might be some engineering reason why it would be excluded, since I can see many disadvantages to leaving this feature off, and frankly, no advantages to not having it.
There has been a good, healthy discussion by many as to whether or not there is any engineering reason for leaving the feature off. That discussion has been both informed and informative. We will know soon enough whether the rumor is true or not.
Almost everyone has said it won't be a deal breaker (unless they shoot video) but it will be one thing that will be on many people's checklist. The suggestion that it is not a legitimate feature to consider, and that anyone who would find it significant is somehow less of a photographer, is incomprehensible to me; and what I take issue with.