Any news on the 7dMk2 now that CES is done

[Jackson_Bill]

It is interesting to reflect on the evolution of things....

snip...

A mirrorless 7D2 would not supprise me..... and if it works better than a 7D, who cares if it has a mirror or not..... unless you really like mirror shake in your pictures...

As a far-sighted old guy, I found the EVF on my old Sony to be annoying - taking glasses off and putting them back on again.

[jrista]

That would royally piss me off. I don't want a mirrorless 7D II...I want a standard DSLR 7D II. I LOVE my optical viewfinder and the 7D...I just want better IQ, not some radical format change. I hope to God that Canon doesn't fuck up the 7D by making its successor mirrorless...what a disaster!!!

Wow seriously dude?  Chill out.  It's astounding that people think that they individually know more than an entire multi-billion dollar corporation.  And how do you know they don't have some amazing new technology that will give you the most amazing viewfinder you've ever seen?  Wait until it comes out and then try it out, then come back and complain if you don't like it.  But to write it off purely based on speculation is idiotic.

I've seen some pretty good EVFs on higher end digital video cameras. Those puppies can cost a couple grand, just for the EVF. There are apparently even better ones, such as the $4k-5k ones that come on the top-end Red cams. They are still not as good as an optical viewfinder...limited dynamic range, visible pixels (especially when your eye is an inch or so from the screen), etc. It will be very difficult for any EVF to ever be as good as an optical viewfinder, for a multitude of reasons. I am very strongly against EVFs as a general replacement for standard pentaprism viewfinders, it is WAY too early in the game for that. Maybe at some point when the technology has been perfected, offers considerably dynamic range, and reaches around 500DPI such that the visual acuity of someone with 20/10 vision can't see any pixels...then they might be ready to replace OVFs en-masse.

It  really would tick me off to no end if Canon started replacing their standard DSLR lines (1D, 5D, 7D, etc.) with mirrorless versions that use EVF's. I like my DSLRs as they are, they have reached a pinnacle of ergonomic, viewfinder, and AF/AF drive capabilities. The only real area for solid improvement to the Canon DSLR, IMO, is the image sensor. I'd take a 7D with only the 61pt AF and a better image sensor as the 7D Mark II, and I'd be extremely happy.

The moment Canon drops an EVF into an existing DSLR line, I'm gone. Canon demonstrated a great lack of will to produce competitive products with their first mirrorless entrant. The first EOS-M is a joke. The hybrid AF system with PDAF pixels is a slowpoke of a joke. Canon's CDAF is just as much a joke. The lenses are ok, nothing great as of yet. The competition is running circles around Canon when it comes to the mirrorless arena. Trade my 7D in for something with Canon mirrorless technology? HELL NO. I'll switch. Can't say who I'll switch to, but if Canon stuffs their wildly inferior mirrorless technology into an established DSLR line, they lose me.

They are free to create something entirely new as far as I'm concerned. A professional EOS-M line with a larger body, early-generation EVF, their crappy & slow hybrid AF, and all that would be GREAT in a new camera line from Canon. Those who are curious and want to explore early generation mirrorless technology can have at it. I just don't want them to mess with the things that do the job, do it well, and serve my needs superbly (or can, with some minor improvements to a couple components that don't require a radical departure from what currently works). In other words...don't fix what ain't broke with something that is broke.

Is that really too much to ask for?

[rs]

Electronic viewfinders, crude when they first came out, are now almost as good as optical and the time will come when they are better. Remember not so long ago when people said digital will never be as good as film? Times change.

Eventually we will have mirrorless cameras that exceed the limitations set by mechanical mirrors.... and that day is coming soon. We already have 4/3 cameras which exceed the 7D in IQ and getting close for focus. A mirrorless 7D2 would not supprise me..... and if it works better than a 7D, who cares if it has a mirror or not..... unless you really like mirror shake in your pictures...

Excellent points although I still think EVF technology is not there yet in one or two years? possibly but I dont think that likely. Maybe 5 years
The day will probably come where the EVF has its own dedicated processor to make it lag free and insantaneous
of course there are all the other benefits that can be put into an EVF like on screen information and overlays
who knows they could even have RED AF points! (one day)

While the lag can be reduced, it can never have less lag than an OVF. It can also never have more resolution. These factors will always be worse than an OVF, but soon the appreciable difference will disappear. Also, overlays are already getting there on OVFs.

Having said that, there are times when an OVF isn't ideal - such as when you want to see how the sensor sees a high contrast scenes, appreciating the DoF with large aperture lenses, seeing the effect of exposure compensation, or hand held manual focusing with peaking, shooting video etc. So a hybrid setup like Fuji has would give the best of both worlds.

As the technology to make it truly great is some time off, I can't imagine it making it on any high end bodies just yet. And as for EVF only? That's where the EF-M mount comes in. I can't see Canon doing Sony and Pentax's trick of making a body that takes SLR deep flange lenses with no OVF. If they make a 7D mk II, it will have an EVF.

[jrista]

It is interesting to reflect on the evolution of things....

Way back, once upon a time, in the good old days, add cliche here, you just looked through the back of the camera to see the view.... adjusted your aim and focus, put on the camera back, inserted the glass plate, and took the picture.

Then an amazing leap forward in technology happened... the film cannister... no more loading a single glass plate, no more loading your film carrier in a darkroom.... you could take dozens of shots without changing film. The downside of this is that you needed some way of seeing what you were looking at and focusing on because removing the camera back and looking through was no longer an option.... so the viewfinder was invented.

The viewfinder was a piece of glass off to the side of the lens that you looked through to aim the camera.... problem was, you were tasking a guess as to what you were seeing and you had to guess distances to focus... and how did you deal with different lenses..... the viewfinder was scribed with boxes to correspond to different lenses. Something better was needed..

After a few intermediate steps, the photography world settled on moveable mirrors so that you could aim and focus while seeing exactly what the film would see through the lens... and the SLR camera was born.

When we started to go digital we had to relearn these lessons. The earliest digital cameras just had a glass windor to see what you were pointed at and minimal focusing ability, and then we relearned how to use a mirror to see through the lens and the DSLR was born. Eventually super low-res displays appeared on the backs of cameras.... and this is a big thing.... you no longer need a mirror and all the mechanicals to control it in order to see what the sensor sees. From this point the days of the mirror are limited.

Remember what the reason for the mirror was.... to see what the sensor sees. There are lots of mechanical parts and control systems to manage this mechanical function.... if it can be done better electronicaly then it should be done that way. You will save money and increase reliability.

The original reason for the mirror was to see what the sensor sees. Today, it is also a crucial component of the highly advanced, high speed, highly effective AF systems. Without the mirror, you don't have a dedicated PDAF sensor. The secondary mirror behind the primary mirror is responsible for redirecting light to the AF unit. Drop that, and your stuck with FP-PDAF, and even for the BEST of that, it is still very inferior to what a dedicated AF unit can offer these days.

Sure, things progress, but EVF's and FP-PDAF have not progressed far enough to be adequate replacements for what current, existing DSLR lines have to offer. Stuff those things into a brand new line of camera, and let those who are interested in exploring use that...but replacing the tried and true that does the job well is inane. The 7D line should be kept as a standard DSLR with mirror box and all. That's my point. I'm not against progress...just against messing with established products that work.

Resolution of displays on the backs of cameras can now exceed the resolving power of the human eye. Optical viewfinders are now no longer critical to the opertion of a camera.... they are downgraded into being a nice thing to have. Electronic viewfinders, crude when they first came out, are now almost as good as optical and the time will come when they are better. Remember not so long ago when people said digital will never be as good as film? Times change.

That is the 3.2" LCD screen, which is normally viewed at a distance many times greater than a viewfinder. LCD screens on the backs of cameras have also surpassed the visual acuity of someone with 20/20 vision...but someone like myself with 20/10 vision can still see the pixels of the LCD screen on the back of most cameras. Canon's newest are slightly better, but pixels are still visible. Visual acuity improves as you get closer, so the DPI of the large backside LCD screens is no where near high enough for a pixelation-free EVF. You would need to be pushing 500dpi before an EVF was good enough for a person with 20/10 vision to enjoy it without seeing pixels.

Eventually we will have mirrorless cameras that exceed the limitations set by mechanical mirrors.... and that day is coming soon. We already have 4/3 cameras which exceed the 7D in IQ and getting close for focus. A mirrorless 7D2 would not supprise me..... and if it works better than a 7D, who cares if it has a mirror or not..... unless you really like mirror shake in your pictures...

Possibly. There are some things you can do with optics that you will never be able to do with electronic devices. Dynamic range, for one, is effectively unlimited with optics (i.e. a pentaprism). The rate of refresh is effectively unlimited with optics. Both of those things would be limited with an electronic viewfinder. At some point in the future, and I'm not talking a year or two down the road but five to ten years down the road...EVF's will probably become good enough for most people, and their limitations will be mitigated enough that they won't matter much. But that day is way off, especially given the lack of quality or capability with the current EOS-M, which has piss-poor performance compared to every other competitor's offering. Canon shouldn't be stuffing their inferior mirrorless technology into their established DSLR lines yet. Stuff it all into something new and separate, let the experimenters spend their money and experiment, but leave the established DSLR's alone, and only improve them where they really need to be improved.

[Don Haines]

When I go back to my 350D - or when I go 'even further back' to my Fuji digital P&S, I think "wow, how did I ever use those tiny, limited view-finders?" [and use the tiny 1.5" rear display??]  But I did, and still have thousands of great photos, real keepers with each!

I know the feeling... Here's one taken in 1996 with an Apple Quicktake... 320 x 240 pixels at 8 bit color depth...no focusing, no iso settings, no screen on back.... just point and hope for the best. By 2001 we were up to lcd displays on the back, 1.3Megapixels, and you could set ISO, shutter speed, white balance...very crude by todays standards but even with those limitations got the second picture... and this the image with no editing. It will be interesting to see what the future holds

[jrista]

A move to mirrorless with an EVF would end my use of the 7D line forever. A move to mirrorless with EVF's on all Canon cameras would end my use of Canon...forever.

DEATH TO THE EVF!!!

Oh I am sure Canon has heard all this during that FD to EF switch...and they did it anyways.

Circa ~1987 Jrista's forerunners said... "If they make my current FD lenses obsolete with new EF mount bodies...I'll ..I'll... never forgive them... I will...I will... arhmmm... grunt... move to Nikon!!! *Huff* *Puff*... I mean it this time..."

Canon knows you will get over it... whimper a bit, lick your wounds, and buy the mirrorless line and what's more...praise the same thing you spited as the best thing ever in a year from the switch.

There is no shame in sucking it up and moving on.

It took a long time for people to get over it, and the only reason they did is there were other offerings paired with the EF mount that made the switch worthwhile: AF. EVFs are a radically premature technology for use in professional-grade DSLRs. It some point they will probably become worth the pain of switching...but that time is WAY OFF. Its too early for Canon DSLR's to become mirrorless with EVFs.

[RS2021]

EVFs are a radically premature technology for use in professional-grade DSLRs. It some point they will probably become worth the pain of switching...but that time is WAY OFF. Its too early for Canon DSLR's to become mirrorless with EVFs.

Yes....It is a "radical" premature technology...it is a subversion!!! Reds under our beds!!!
Oh the humanity!!!  Think of the children!!! The poor children!!! 

[Don Haines]

Maybe at some point when the technology has been perfected, offers considerably dynamic range, and reaches around 500DPI such that the visual acuity of someone with 20/10 vision can't see any pixels...then they might be ready to replace OVFs en-masse.

ok... but i am typing this on an ipad with a 264ppi density, the Galaxy X IV phone is 440, 500 isn't too far in the future.... oh no! Wait a minute! Sony has a 1200ppi EVF.... the future may be closer than you expect....

[rs]

Maybe at some point when the technology has been perfected, offers considerably dynamic range, and reaches around 500DPI such that the visual acuity of someone with 20/10 vision can't see any pixels...then they might be ready to replace OVFs en-masse.

ok... but i am typing this on an ipad with a 264ppi density, the Galaxy X IV phone is 440, 500 isn't too far in the future

You need a much higher PPI than 500. These displays are tiny. Epson have just announced a sub one megapixel display (1024x768, only one quarter of the pixels found on a retina iPad display) to equal Sonys top of the line OLED viewfinder. It's diagonal measurement is 0.48 inch. That 2666 PPI. We need much more than that to make it lifelike.

[kubelik]

ok... but i am typing this on an ipad with a 264ppi density, the Galaxy X IV phone is 440, 500 isn't too far in the future.... oh no! Wait a minute! Sony has a 1200ppi EVF.... the future may be closer than you expect....

I agree with jrista about EVF's been a long way away from being truly good, but I also agree with your point that technology grows quickly, and it certainly will get there, probably sooner than the decade that jrista predicts.

the thing that made me cringe, though, is the thought that ... Intel is still expecting people to buy into its "ultrabook" system, where you get a 14" monitor and only a 1366x768 display. it's totally pathetic and not at all a surprise as to why people aren't buying into the system.

[Don Haines]

I agree with jrista about EVF's been a long way away from being truly good, but I also agree with your point that technology grows quickly, and it certainly will get there, probably sooner than the decade that jrista predicts.

One of my co-workers brought in an Olympus E-M5...we played comparison between it and a 7D. The EVF on it is comparable to the 7D, it takes better quality pictures in poor light, about the same in good light, and I really can't tell the difference in AF speed or accuracy. I was amazed that this camera was so good. It's hard to deny the existance of something you are holding in your hands... this wasn't just an EOS-M killer, it was a Rebel killer too, and if it wasn't for the way better user interface on the 7D and Canon Lglass, it would have topped the entire APS-C lineup.

[kubelik]

I agree with jrista about EVF's been a long way away from being truly good, but I also agree with your point that technology grows quickly, and it certainly will get there, probably sooner than the decade that jrista predicts.

One of my co-workers brought in an Olympus E-M5...we played comparison between it and a 7D. The EVF on it is comparable to the 7D, it takes better quality pictures in poor light, about the same in good light, and I really can't tell the difference in AF speed or accuracy. I was amazed that this camera was so good. It's hard to deny the existance of something you are holding in your hands... this wasn't just an EOS-M killer, it was a Rebel killer too, and if it wasn't for the way better user interface on the 7D and Canon Lglass, it would have topped the entire APS-C lineup.

interesting, I'll have to check out the E-M5's EVF. I have recently looked at the hotshoe EVF for Olympus and was not at all impressed by the size, pixel density, visual quality, or the refresh rate.

[pj1974]

When I go back to my 350D - or when I go 'even further back' to my Fuji digital P&S, I think "wow, how did I ever use those tiny, limited view-finders?" [and use the tiny 1.5" rear display??]  But I did, and still have thousands of great photos, real keepers with each!

I know the feeling... Here's one taken in 1996 with an Apple Quicktake... 320 x 240 pixels at 8 bit color depth...no focusing, no iso settings, no screen on back.... just point and hope for the best. By 2001 we were up to lcd displays on the back, 1.3Megapixels, and you could set ISO, shutter speed, white balance...very crude by todays standards but even with those limitations got the second picture... and this the image with no editing. It will be interesting to see what the future holds

Thanks Don for your quote & reply!

I really like the 2nd image you captured and shared, Don - the colours and composition really work well for me(though it seems its a huge 2MP image - ie 1600x1200 pixels, or did you upsize from the camera output?  What a lovely feeling of cruising along on the mirrored water!

My first use of digital camera was in the late 90's - there was a camera (I think 760,000 pixels in total). Then in 1999 another updated one at work, a Kodak 1.3 MP.  By 2000 I had my own Fuji P&S (3MP) which was much improved on the work's Kodak... and things have only got better from there!   

So, when I show people people some of my early digital photos- often people say "Wow, that is great... how many megapixels?!" and I say 1.3MP, or I have downsized a 3MP to a 1MP file, and I say "just 1"... and so begins my explanation that MP isn't everything.... really it isn't.... 

The above was a bit of a digression from the OP, but in one sense it proves, technology has done great things regarding digital imagine in just half a generation or so!  I expect that there will be great mirrorless cameras, very capable and much along the same specs as our current DSLRs soon.  How soon... well, I won't commit to a date, but definitely before many people expect it!   

Paul

[Don Haines]

I really like the 2nd image you captured and shared, Don - the colours and composition really work well for me(though it seems its a huge 2MP image - ie 1600x1200 pixels, or did you upsize from the camera output?  What a lovely feeling of cruising along on the mirrored water!

I mis-spoke... It was 2.1 megapixels, my brand new high res Olympus camera. The image is untouched.... No editing. To me, that image was when I decided the time for film (at least for me) had passed

[Aglet]

..I can't see Canon doing Sony and Pentax's trick of making a body that takes SLR deep flange lenses with no OVF. If they make a 7D mk II, it will have an EVF.

speaking of which, I've been playing with that Pentax duck of a camera, the K-01.
It's image quality, even for a 12b raw file, exceeds the 7D I had by quite a margin because of the much better noise characteristics.
It's kind of fun to use if you're not in a hurry as it focuses as slow as an old PnS cam, which it essentially is, with interchangeable full-size lenses.

Fuji's made some very fast focusing new cameras so it's not impossible for Canon and others to do so as well.  Get rid of that mirror and you suddenly have a very high frame rate possible too.

It'll be interesing to see what tricks make it into the 7d2 but if it ends up as a mirrorless, it better not be a step backward in ANY way or there will be howls of derision around the world.
I'd say that odds are good a 7D2 will remain an SLR with a nice big OVF.