No 7D Mark II in 2013? [CR2]

[Dantana]

I can only speak for myself on this, but I have a mixed reaction to this bit of "news."

On the one hand, it would have been nice to see the 7DII live and in action. I am hoping to upgrade in the not too distant future and I am curious about this camera. I am leaning to full frame though, 6D or 5DIII. I'm interested to see if some great leap forward would keep me in crop.

On the other hand, it will be nice to see what Canon comes up with given the extra development time, once the 7DII actually comes out. Maybe it will be a big step forward.

For me, the timing of my upgrade has much less to do with when Canon puts out a new body, and much more to do with when I can afford to upgrade. I have a feeling I'd be quite happy with a 7D, 6D, or 5DIII right now. I just can't spend the money right now (especially on full frame since I'd also be looking for a new zoom).

Until, I have the funds saved up, I'll be toting around my XSi and trying to get the most out of it that I can.

[johnhenry]

I dont think the 7D MII has enough new game to bring it up to the point where it is a serious upgrade.

I went from a 40D with 10M pixel to a 7D with 18.1M. But it only really translates to a gain of around 30% more resolution in each direction. The high frame rate really sold me on it.

For the next crop sensor camera to really get me, it would have to be a serious increase in pixel count, to say over 28M while keeping a high frame rate

[xps]

Canon clawed their way to the top over about 30-40 years. They weren't always the leader they are today. They did so by running a smart business. Sales figures would indicate they still know what they are doing. Do people buy other brands? Of course they do. It's not in our best interests for any company to have a monopoly share of the market. Every time Nikon introduces a new product, I'm very happy because it means Canon must compete.

+1

And when Nikon introduces the D400, maybe Canon will compete with an marvellous 7D2. (Die Hoffnung stirbt zuletzt....)

[Krob78]

Quote from: SiliconVoid on May 06, 2013, 09:00:28 PM

I will offer two pieces of wisdom to the 'photographers' out there in the form of advice and a bit of reality:
1) It does not matter who you are or who you think you are, you are not even a fraction as capable as the camera you already hold in your hand..

Strange but unless my camera is being held in my hands, it's totally incapable.. it's worthless...  It is at least as incapable without my hands and my eye as I am without it... Except of course I could pick up a paint brush or a pencil or a crayon and make a rendition of what I'm looking at, my camera can't do anything at all without me... Or without my HOP... It can't even wake itself up in the morning...

So indeed, it doesn't really matter who I am or who I think I am, my camera isn't even a fraction of as capable as I am unless it's in my hands and pressed closely to my Human Optical Processor ready to do my bidding at my beck and call... with the criteria I determine is needed or required... 

Sounds an awful lot like those people that say to many of us quite often, "That's a great picture, you must have a good camera"   I respond yes, I do indeed, however I took good pictures before I had a good camera as well!  It's useless without me behind it.  It just sits there motionless waiting for me to tell it what to do... Without my constant looking and adjusting and pressing of buttons, it just sits there like a lazy dog in my bag...

It has it all indeed, it's not however capable of doing anything other than collecting dust without me...

All the best! 

[xps]

I'll be somewhat disappointed if the 7DII isn't available in 2013, but if a 100-400 II is available in 2013, it makes the decision easier on which to buy when!

Although, I did find a use case this weekend for a second body with a shorter lens. Actually, it wasn't so much the focal length as the minimum focus distance. Had a couple of tree frogs right alongside the trail. I wanted to get closer, but couldn't!

Would be good for me too. The lens price will be a little bit lower, when I will buy the 7D2.

[ewg963]

....on edge of seat...is the 14-24mm L zoom on that 2013 list? huh...huh...huh....

The 14-24mm L?? Now that's a piece of glass I'm salivating for!!!

[9VIII]

In a sense I'm glad that the 7D2 isn't coming out until next year. This way I'll get a good full summer of shooting with my six month old rebel. Once the 7D2 does come out it'll actually feel like an upgrade instead of just seeming like the Rebel was a mistake.


Sorry to beat the dead horse again, but there definitely are situations where equipment is absolutely necessary over talent.

If you want to get pictures of crystal structures in metal, the Nifty Fifty just won't cut it. No matter how talented you are, you'll need an electron scanning microscope. I know that's an extreme example, but it also applies to Macro in general. You cannot begin until you have the right equipment.
Telephoto is similar, some subjects just do not let you get close. Now, maybe there's a little more room for talent (sneakiness) to make up for focal length, but the principle is the same. Better lenses, better cameras, better pictures.
Wildlife and Macro are two situations where you will take every bit of detail your camera can possibly spit out. You'll wring it and squeeze it for all it's worth.
For most stuff I'm sure that what we have now is amazing, but if someone says that improving IQ makes their pictures better, if that aspect of a picture is something they enjoy, can you actually disagree with that? Basically you have to come to the point of invalidating someone's personal opinion in order to say that an improvement in equipment doesn't make better pictures.

[jrista]

Quote from: SiliconVoid on May 06, 2013, 09:00:28 PM

I will offer two pieces of wisdom to the 'photographers' out there in the form of advice and a bit of reality:
1) It does not matter who you are or who you think you are, you are not even a fraction as capable as the camera you already hold in your hand..

Strange but unless my camera is being held in my hands, it's totally incapable.. it's worthless...  It is at least as incapable without my hands and my eye as I am without it... Except of course I could pick up a paint brush or a pencil or a crayon and make a rendition of what I'm looking at, my camera can't do anything at all without me... Or without my HOP... It can't even wake itself up in the morning...

So indeed, it doesn't really matter who I am or who I think I am, my camera isn't even a fraction of as capable as I am unless it's in my hands and pressed closely to my Human Optical Processor ready to do my bidding at my beck and call... with the criteria I determine is needed or required... 

Sounds an awful lot like those people that say to many of us quite often, "That's a great picture, you must have a good camera"   I respond yes, I do indeed, however I took good pictures before I had a good camera as well!  It's useless without me behind it.  It just sits there motionless waiting for me to tell it what to do... Without my constant looking and adjusting and pressing of buttons, it just sits there like a lazy dog in my bag...

It has it all indeed, it's not however capable of doing anything other than collecting dust without me...

All the best! 

+1 

[expatinasia]

Quote from: SiliconVoid on May 06, 2013, 09:00:28 PM

I will offer two pieces of wisdom to the 'photographers' out there in the form of advice and a bit of reality:
1) It does not matter who you are or who you think you are, you are not even a fraction as capable as the camera you already hold in your hand..

Strange but unless my camera is being held in my hands, it's totally incapable.. it's worthless...  It is at least as incapable without my hands and my eye as I am without it... Except of course I could pick up a paint brush or a pencil or a crayon and make a rendition of what I'm looking at, my camera can't do anything at all without me... Or without my HOP... It can't even wake itself up in the morning...

So indeed, it doesn't really matter who I am or who I think I am, my camera isn't even a fraction of as capable as I am unless it's in my hands and pressed closely to my Human Optical Processor ready to do my bidding at my beck and call... with the criteria I determine is needed or required... 

Sounds an awful lot like those people that say to many of us quite often, "That's a great picture, you must have a good camera"   I respond yes, I do indeed, however I took good pictures before I had a good camera as well!  It's useless without me behind it.  It just sits there motionless waiting for me to tell it what to do... Without my constant looking and adjusting and pressing of buttons, it just sits there like a lazy dog in my bag...

It has it all indeed, it's not however capable of doing anything other than collecting dust without me...

All the best! 

Well said, Krob78.

[GMCPhotographics]

Quote from: SiliconVoid on May 06, 2013, 09:00:28 PM

I will offer two pieces of wisdom to the 'photographers' out there in the form of advice and a bit of reality:
1) It does not matter who you are or who you think you are, you are not even a fraction as capable as the camera you already hold in your hand..

Sounds an awful lot like those people that say to many of us quite often, "That's a great picture, you must have a good camera"   I respond yes, I do indeed, however I took good pictures before I had a good camera as well!  It's useless without me behind it.  It just sits there motionless waiting for me to tell it what to do... Without my constant looking and adjusting and pressing of buttons, it just sits there like a lazy dog in my bag...

Give a cheap violin to a violin master and they will still make beautiful sounds with it. Give a Stradivarious to a begginer and the reverse will happen. It's not the camera but the photographer's skill and talent...
I see so many invested photographers these days with all the pro kit and not a clue how to use it.

[meli]

Give a cheap violin to a violin master and they will still make beautiful sounds with it. Give a Stradivarious to a begginer and the reverse will happen. It's not the camera but the photographer's skill and talent...
I see so many invested photographers these days with all the pro kit and not a clue how to use it.

Its one thing to know how to use a tool, its another what you do with it.

[neuroanatomist]

Give a cheap violin to a violin master and they will still make beautiful sounds with it. Give a Stradivarious to a begginer and the reverse will happen. It's not the camera but the photographer's skill and talent...

Give the cheap violin to the beginner and the output won't get worse. Give the Stradivarius to the master and the sounds will get significantly more beautiful.

Why is it so hard for people to grasp that while skill is the most important factor, the tools do matter.

[Don Haines]

Give a cheap violin to a violin master and they will still make beautiful sounds with it. Give a Stradivarious to a begginer and the reverse will happen. It's not the camera but the photographer's skill and talent...
I see so many invested photographers these days with all the pro kit and not a clue how to use it.

Birds in flight.

Yes, there is a lot of skill and practice involved. Patience is very highly needed. It may also involve sitting in a blind and the use of food to attract your subject.... but the camera/lens matters too. A faster focusing lens means a greater probability that a fast moving object is in focus. Same thing for a higher quality AF system. Higher burst rates increase the probability of capturing that special instant that changes it from a good picture to a great picture. A good camera does not guarantee a good picture in challenging conditions, but it does increase the probability.

And by the way, give a Stradivarius to a beginner and as they learn the sounds will get better and better. Perhaps they will be inspired by a great tool to go further than they would have without it. Perhaps if they were stuck with a poor tool they would give up in disgust and frustration.

[noisejammer]

Of course tools matter... but there's also a level at which they stop being the limiting factor for the people who buy them...

History lesson - Olympus produced four significant SLR's between 1970 and the end of production in 2002. Sure, a couple of cosmetic upgrades appeared and new firmware was developed to expand the compatibility with newer components, but there were essentially four pro-models over 32 years.

Now we expect a camera to be obsolete after two years? Who came up with that idea? (I'm guessing it was Canon...)

Could it be that we've been trained to expect a newer-better-gooder camera every year or so? To my mind, all this stopped with the 7D which achieved a pass mark in every box. From personal experience, it isn't perfect but it was a huge jump over my 40D. Transitioning to a 1D4 was something of a let-down.

Before complaining about another year with the same toy, it could be worthwhile considering "What do I need in a camera that the 7D doesn't offer?" If it turns out that you want 1DX performance at an APS-C price... Well sorry mate, you're SOL ... maybe you can come back in a decade.

[neuroanatomist]

History lesson - Olympus produced four significant SLR's between 1970 and the end of production in 2002. Sure, a couple of cosmetic upgrades appeared and new firmware was developed to expand the compatibility with newer components, but there were essentially four pro-models over 32 years.

Well, yeah - but when a brand new 'sensor' was developed by Fuji or Kodak with higher ISO or better color fidelity, you didn't need to buy a new camera, you just popped in a new roll.