February & March are Announcement Months for Canon [CR2]

[jrista]

A pro aimed EOS M would be nice.

A 7D2 is way overdue.

And the BIG MP camera will be here soon.

Let's see some innovation canon.

The 7D2 is way over due only because of it's iso noise issue. It has more than enough MP and features.
If Canon can nail their iso noise issue and bring their shadow noise up to Nikon/Sony standards then it'll have been worth the wait. I just hope it's not another nominal upgrade.

I'm not sure if a big MP camera will shift boxes as much as the current 5DIII and 1DX are. It'll be nice to try one, but 46mp? Really? Like who really NEEDs this IQ?

Your directly equating megapixels and IQ. Megapixels != IQ. If Canon does not fix their read noise, it won't matter if the camera has 46.1mp, the IQ will still have the same limitations as all other Canon cameras. And there ARE people who need that kind of RESOLUTION.

Landscape photographers in particular, who have a tendency to print huge, can always use more megapixels. Sadly, Landscape photographers also consume dynamic range like it was candy, so if Canon's 46.1mp camera doesn't have competitive DR, the better options for landscape photographers would still be the D800. I seriously hope Canon resolves their DR issues with the new 46mp sensor.

[c.d.embrey]

Like it or not, mirrorless is the future. For one BIG reason, cost. An EVF cost less money for the camera companies to produce.

No, it doesn't.  EVFs of good quality are actually quite expensive.  RED sells their Bomb EVF for $3,200:

http://www.red.com/store/products/red-pro-evf

I've tested top-of-the-line consumer EVFs like those in the Sonys against the lowest-end OVFs from cameras like the Canon D1000 and the D1000 won easily in every way.  To get an EVF that's even close to the quality and performance of the 7D or 5D, you're looking at upwards of a thousand dollars in manufacturing cost for the optics and microdisplay, and that's to say nothing of the dramatically larger battery you'll need to feed that energy-hungry system, and the dual processing pipelines you'll need to prevent processing time from causing viewfinder blackout.

Stop living in the past. Time and technology just keep on truckin'. Moore's Law is still in effect and working well.

BTW, the reason that motion picture equipment is so costly is simple ... they don't make much of it. If Sony made severl million Red Rockets the cost would go waaay down (ever hear of economy of scale ) Look at this way, if Canon made the 4Ti at Rrd Rocket volume, it would cost in the multi-thousands of dollars.

[insanitybeard]

The 7D noise is certainly the most important to me.
But here's a question - If you have the big MP full frame, why would you need a 7D replacement?

Because maybe not everybody can afford the 'big MP full frame'?

[c.d.embrey]

I'm always looking for smaller/lighter, so I'd be interestd in seeing an EOS-M with an EVF and improved auto-focus.

I'd be happier with a more NEX like grip. Canon has an excellent grip on their DSLRs, so they do know how to do it. Also it would differentiate the purse camera from the pro camera.

No interest in zoomz, just an 85mm f/1.8 (=135mm FF) in M-mount and maybe a 15mm f/2 (=24mm FF). Along with the 22mm f/2 (=35mm FF), it would all the lenses I'd need. YMMV.

[EOBeav]

There's nothing in there I'm ready to sell a kidney for yet, but we'll see come November.

[c.d.embrey]

But here's a question - If you have the big MP full frame, why would you need a 7D replacement?

Because for some people bigger doesn't = better. Not everyone wants/needs a Full Frame camera. Me. I'd wouldn't take a 1D X as a gift, 'cause it doesn't fit my shooting style. I've used a 5D3, but once again, it doesn't fit my shooting style. YMMV.

[Lee Jay]

Like it or not, mirrorless is the future. For one BIG reason, cost. An EVF cost less money for the camera companies to produce.

No, it doesn't.  EVFs of good quality are actually quite expensive.  RED sells their Bomb EVF for $3,200:

http://www.red.com/store/products/red-pro-evf

I've tested top-of-the-line consumer EVFs like those in the Sonys against the lowest-end OVFs from cameras like the Canon D1000 and the D1000 won easily in every way.  To get an EVF that's even close to the quality and performance of the 7D or 5D, you're looking at upwards of a thousand dollars in manufacturing cost for the optics and microdisplay, and that's to say nothing of the dramatically larger battery you'll need to feed that energy-hungry system, and the dual processing pipelines you'll need to prevent processing time from causing viewfinder blackout.

Stop living in the past. Time and technology just keep on truckin'. Moore's Law is still in effect and working well.

And it doesn't apply to either optics or light.  In fact, I'd wager you don't even know what Moore's law does apply to since 99% of the people that quote it don't.  When I worked at Intel, we used to make fun of the talking heads that quoted in public a law they obviously didn't understand.

[Lee Jay]

The 7D noise is certainly the most important to me.
But here's a question - If you have the big MP full frame, why would you need a 7D replacement?

Frame rate, size, file size, cost, and possibly "reach" (resolving power).  A 24MP 1.6-crop camera is equivalent to a 61.4MP full-frame camera.  Even if they release a 46MP full-frame, that's the same pixel size as the current 18MP 1.6-crop sensors.

[jrista]

Like it or not, mirrorless is the future. For one BIG reason, cost. An EVF cost less money for the camera companies to produce.

No, it doesn't.  EVFs of good quality are actually quite expensive.  RED sells their Bomb EVF for $3,200:

http://www.red.com/store/products/red-pro-evf

I've tested top-of-the-line consumer EVFs like those in the Sonys against the lowest-end OVFs from cameras like the Canon D1000 and the D1000 won easily in every way.  To get an EVF that's even close to the quality and performance of the 7D or 5D, you're looking at upwards of a thousand dollars in manufacturing cost for the optics and microdisplay, and that's to say nothing of the dramatically larger battery you'll need to feed that energy-hungry system, and the dual processing pipelines you'll need to prevent processing time from causing viewfinder blackout.

Stop living in the past. Time and technology just keep on truckin'. Moore's Law is still in effect and working well.

BTW, the reason that motion picture equipment is so costly is simple ... they don't make much of it. If Sony made severl million Red Rockets the cost would go waaay down (ever hear of economy of scale ) Look at this way, if Canon made the 4Ti at Rrd Rocket volume, it would cost in the multi-thousands of dollars.

EVF's will never be as good as OVF's, at least, not in the next couple decades at least. With an optical viewfinder you get immediate, true real-time update of your scene, and you don't have any limitations on dynamic range. With an EVF, there will always be some lag, and dynamic range is limited to the bit depth of the screen (which in the case of even expensive EVF's right now, is only a few stops.)

I'll delay going to an electronic viewfinder as long as humanly possible. In my opinion, broadly moving to mirrorless and EVF is taking a huge step back from the quality and accuracy of an optical viewfinder. If I have the choice, I'll never do it. Ever. It's not about "living in the past"...EVF's just have limitations, always will even if they are minimized, and I don't want those limitations.

[Lee Jay]

If Sony made severl million Red Rockets the cost would go waaay down (ever hear of economy of scale ) Look at this way, if Canon made the 4Ti at Rrd Rocket volume, it would cost in the multi-thousands of dollars.

By the way, you might want to look up what a Red Rocket is, since you don't seem to be referencing the right piece of equipment.

[neuroanatomist]

A studio camera does not need an integrated grip.

A vertical grip isn't needed in the studio because portraits are never shot with camera held vertically.  The term 'portrait orientation' (vs. landscape orientation) came into common usage for no reason, whatsoever.  Right.

[Lee Jay]

The 7D noise is certainly the most important to me.
But here's a question - If you have the big MP full frame, why would you need a 7D replacement?

Frame rate, size, file size, cost, and possibly "reach" (resolving power).  A 24MP 1.6-crop camera is equivalent to a 61.4MP full-frame camera.  Even if they release a 46MP full-frame, that's the same pixel size as the current 18MP 1.6-crop sensors.

That was my assumption - that the larger sensor has the same pixel density - which makes the "reach" the same. If the APS-C is using smaller pixels then we're probably back to the same noise, etc. differences.  There may or may not be a difference in the frame rate, depending on how the data are passed. I certainly wouldn't choose an APS-C over a FF for the file size. Yes, the cost will probably be higher but I don't know how much of the cost difference b/w the 7D and the 5D II, for instance, is due to the sensor rather than other features.

No way there's going to be an under $2,000 46MP full-frame camera that can do 10fps, but there's a decent chance of an under $2,000 20+MP APS-c camera that can do 10fps or close to it.

[LetTheRightLensIn]

I don't really need more DR either (well, it's very rare that I do), but I would like cleaner images in the DR I currently have.  Going all the way to the noise floor doesn't yield the cleanest images, while pushing the noise floor down would achieve much cleaner images in the area from the current noise floor up.

[LetTheRightLensIn]

If Canon really can come up with a pixel design and readout electronics that dramatically reduces read noise, won't that leave the new 5DIII owners out in the cold?  Could the 5DIII get a big price drop and a replacement (sensor only) be released soon?  Could Canon offer a sensor-only upgrade for them?

I would not worry about that.

Haven't you heard? Most people who bought the 5D III claim that "they don't need more DR", and that "more DR is only for people who can't expose correctly."

I don't really need more DR either (well, it's very rare that I do), but I would like cleaner images in the DR I currently have.  Going all the way to the noise floor doesn't yield the cleanest images, while pushing the noise floor down would achieve much cleaner images in the area from the current noise floor up.

But that kinda means that you do want more DR. Getting cleaner results when pushing shadows = more DR. And I'm guessing you want Canon to get rid of their trademarked banding too.

Nothing odd about that. It has been on my wishlist for 5 years now.

Yes, to get those cleaner images, I'd get more low-ISO DR for free.  But there's really only one time I've wanted more base-ISO DR and in that particular case, I needed about 20 more stops, not a measly 2 stops more.

But this means you actually DO want more DR since the limit of where you start not liking the noise is too high for you. I don't get your point at all.

[LetTheRightLensIn]

I have no clue but what advantage would a Digic5+ or dual Digic 5's have in a 7D2? Would they help in the noise area over the dual D4's?

I'm trying to think what trickle down or even up tech might be helping the 7D2. (5D3/6D/T4i)

No they have nothing to do with the RAW image quality at all.