Probably has more to do with the Canon 6d reaching the 1500.00 dollar price mark (and sometimes lower). If the 7d mark ii comes in over that it, it becomes maybe a niche commodity that doesn't sell all that well. I think the market looks at full frame as the complete item. The biggest reason for crop was affordability and if it loses that it could be phased out.
My taughts exactly. I beleive that both Nikon (D400) and Canon (7DMk ii) are realising that these models wouldn't sell as much anymore as they could have 3/4 years ago.
Nah. The 6D is absolutely NO alternative for the 7D. The frame size has nothing to do with the purpose of the 7D, so the price point of the 6D has no bearing on whether we will see a 7D II or not. Canon has also shown little interest in directly competing model for model with their competitors...the 7D has long held a fairly unique position in the DSLR world, and not even the D300S was ever really comparable. There is a huge amount of pent up anticipation for the 7D II, and I honestly can't imagine Canon ignoring that.
The true full-frame counterpart of the 7D is the 1D X, not the 6D...so trying to draw parallels between the two is almost laughable.
Gotta agree here, with the one exception that the 5d3 would be meshed in the middle there (The true full-frame counterpart of the 7D is the 1D X, and ato a lesser extent the 5d3 - not the 6D)
this one is difficult for me because I really have no use for such a camera. I owned and rocked the 7d for 2 years before upgrading to full frame - and the work I'm doing really doesn't scream for more range or fps - which is the major attraction of the 7d line...
the odd thing though from a marketing perspective is who is the end buyer of a 7d? I see all this talk here about it primarily from bird shooter who have these giant expensive lenses. Is there really that much $$$ to be made with bird photography, or are we talking about a consumer segment with lots of disposable income ----if both canon and nikon have determined the target group to be the latter, then yeah I can see them phasing that out - If your spending $4000 + on long lenses for a hobby, then well, you can afford a 1dx.
The missing piece to this is the other side of the market. I look at myself and the reasons I bought the 7d as opposed to a 5d2 - I knew the IQ was better on the 5d2, but the price was pretty high in comparison (when i was looking the 7d with lens was at $1800, and the 5d2 was at $2700 body only). I was on a very tight budget and knew that the only lens I had prior to the purchase was EF-S - so to really jump to the 5d2 it meant shelling out closer to $3400 (more with taxes).
BUT --- Canon has found a way around that now --- wow if i had a potential 6d as an option back then, yeah, would have been all over it.
So what is the target market for a 7d2? If canon determines its hobbyists with deep pockets then yeah, kill that line. what is the 7d line best for --- sports, action, birding --- if you don't need the advanced servo tracking, if you shoot landscapes and portraits - then the only reason to go with a 7d2 as opposed to a FF option is price - and the 6d is quite a bargain if your starting with photography and looking for that bump (
especially if the 7d2 is going to be closer to 2K).
iIf Canon is in fact reconsidering the 7d2 - then it's all about the target market for such a camera --- well that and competition and as many have pointed out --- it seems like nikon is making the same decision - why bother with a pro crop for sports and bird shooters when the bulk of that market segment has more disposable income than most working pros do....