Buy 70D or wait and see what the 7D replacement holds?

[Mt Spokane Photography]

he 7D MK Initially sold for close to
$2,000, I'd expect a similar price from the MK II.

The 70D has already dropped a lot from its initial price, so its a good deal right now.  Once the early adopters get their 7D MK II, then the price will slowly drop as well.  Its always the same with new models, be they cameras or cars.

[beckstoy]

I've been wanting to upgrade my camera body for about two years now... I'm still shooting with my old-ass XTi (yeah, yeah, I know) but it's not been a huge deal since I don't try to make any money off my photography. It's just a hobby, although I do shoot events and stuff for my family and friends sometimes (for no charge, just for fun).

Anyway, so I was all set to buy the 70D but then I read the last few posts on this site about the 7D replacement coming soon and I'm wondering if I should wait and see what that will have. My budget is $1,200, and while I'd like to have a new camera for the summer I really don't *need* one until early fall when I'm taking a big trip.

I know nobody here is a soothsayer, but I am really wrestling with what to do. Do I go ahead and get the 70D? At $1,000 it's well within my budget. Or do I wait until August (if that's when they're expected to announce) and see what the 7D replacement will have?

My concern with waiting is that it will be more than what I want to spend, and unless it's just really super awesome and way better than the 70D I can't see myself going above my budget. So I will have spent three months without a 70D just to go ahead and get the 70D anyway. But I'm also concerned that if they announce in August, it might not come out until later in the fall—after the trip I am really wanting a new camera for.

My concern with buying a 70D now is that the 7D replacement will be announced and it might be within, or around, my budget, and I'll regret getting the 70D instead of waiting for a presumably better camera. Or do people have an idea of what the replacement would likely sell for?

I saw the 6D (FF) with a 24-105 f4 lens for 1899 posted today.  If I were you, I'd consider grabbing that 6D and selling that lens (unless you don't have it) to just about get to your 1200 target.  I'd take that 6D over the 7DM2 any day.  Once you go FF, you'll never go back.  =)

[Harry Muff]

If your budget makes you lean towards the 70D and not a 5D3, then I'd suggest you can't afford a 7D2.




70D it is, unless you want to save up some more pennies.

[TrabimanUK]

If your budget makes you lean towards the 70D and not a 5D3, then I'd suggest you can't afford a 7D2.




70D it is, unless you want to save up some more pennies.

I agree.  The 7D2 is likely to be somewhere between the cost of a 70D and a 5DIII, and that somewhere is likely be more towards the price of a 5DIII than the 70D, even at the 70D release price.

[fragilesi]

I think indeed the 7D2 will be above your budget (and mine). I guess it to be between 1800 en 2200 Dollar (or Euro...). While it might be significantly better for video, I doubt it to be spectacularly better for stills. So I'd say: wait for official announcement and then buy a used 70D from an upgrader.

I have a hard time believing that they would price it $500 higher than the 6D.  The 7Dmk2 will probably offer some advantages in terms of FPS and AF, but the 6D will still inherently wipe the floor with it where image quality is concerned.  Based on that, a price range of $1500-$1700 seems more likely to me.

It will be higher than the 6D.  I agree that how much is in question of course.  And I'd love to have a FF camera but the 6D could never replace my 70D.  It's all about the different needs of different types of photography.  If I can't track that speeding tern and lock onto it then some subjective differences in image "quality" no matter how great they may be become a complete irrelevance.  It simply doesn't matter how well that blurry shape is rendered by the sensor.   Just as the guy photographing a wedding inside doesn't give a damn about how his camera can lock so quickly on to a target if all he gets is a noisy mess to give his clients.

So for the people who the 7d mk II is aimed at those FPS / AF advantages plus the reach are going to be worth paying a premium for.  The "quality" of their images will be better via a different route. 

[dgatwood]

So for the people who the 7d mk II is aimed at those FPS / AF advantages plus the reach are going to be worth paying a premium for.  The "quality" of their images will be better via a different route.

True, but the same is true for the wedding pros wanting good low-light performance, which a crop body can't deliver.  When one product is clearly better than another, you expect it to have a higher price.  When two devices have clear trade-offs, where different purchasers will prefer one over the other, you expect them to have similar prices.

I realize Canon has a tendency to overprice their product launches, with the understanding that prices will fall by 25% within the first year, and maybe that makes sense if their design is flawed, resulting in poor yield for the first few months of production, but otherwise it makes little sense.  The market has spoken, and has determined that the current 7D is worth about $1300.  A new model should be priced in that neighborhood.  Otherwise, sales will suffer.  $1500 seems like a sane markup.  $2200 would mean that they won't sell any of them.

There's simply nothing they could add to a 7Dmk2 that would make it worth more than a matched pair of 70Ds with one lens.  The 70D is too good.  It's so good that they had to remove the 60D and 70D from CPS to avoid completely cannibalizing the market for the 7D.  And the 7Dmk2, sensor-wise, will just bring it up to par with the 70D.  I doubt it will have much better FPS than the 70D, and the 70D's AF is already very, very good, so it's going to be hard to justify a huge premium there, too.  And the 70D comes in at about a grand....

Honestly, it will be hard to justify $1500 for most people.  $2200 is right out.

[unfocused]

So for the people who the 7d mk II is aimed at those FPS / AF advantages plus the reach are going to be worth paying a premium for.  The "quality" of their images will be better via a different route.

True, but the same is true for the wedding pros wanting good low-light performance, which a crop body can't deliver.  When one product is clearly better than another, you expect it to have a higher price.  When two devices have clear trade-offs, where different purchasers will prefer one over the other, you expect them to have similar prices.

I think you are missing fragilesi's point.

If I can't track that speeding tern and lock onto it then some subjective differences in image "quality" no matter how great they may be become a complete irrelevance.

I agree with fragilesi. I think the market will determine the value based on the demand for the particular features of the 7DII. I also think it is that market differentiation that will drive the features of the 7DII.

That's why I would not be at all surprised to see the 7DII as a 24mp, high frames per second, weathersealed, state-of-the-art autofocusing up to f8, camera that will have birders and sports shooters lining up to buy it. It's also why I expect that that it will not be a great low-light, high ISO performer – that's what full frame is for.

If it's optimized for nature and sports shooters, Canon can demand a price premium over the 6D because they won't be in competition with one another.

Now, there are, of course, some limits to the pricing, but I wouldn't be surprised to see the initial price close to $2,000.

[greger]

Get the 70D now and don't worry about the 7D ll when it comes out. In the spring of 2010 the 7D cost $2,200.00 Cdn
Body only. I bought mine late July 2012 just before the firmware 2.0 was released for $1,549.00 Cdn Body only. If you save money put it towards a 100-400 vs ll when it comes out. A guy I know has the 70D and 100-400 vs l and takes great pics of birds with this combo using a Better Beamer on his flash. The 7D ll may blow the 70D away when it comes out. But that's just another rumour. Buy the 70D now and you will know it pretty well before your trip.   

[hemanthforcanonrumors]

It would be more than enough if the smaller sensor of 7D Mk2 can generate noise free images upto ISO 6400 and generating usable images upto ISO 12800.. I have seen wildlife photographer's hardly using any ISO beyond 12800 in demanding low light situations. Of course 7D Mk II cannot be matched to a 5D3 on ISO performance and crazy high ISO's. For instance, I should be able to take a good crisp and a sharp picture of a small bird sitting somewhere far at 6 pm in the evening when the light is fading.. That should solve most of the photographer's problem. You have both the reach and an accurate AF with some decent ISO capability and a fast frame may be b/w 8 to 10 fps.  what more is needed !!

[wickidwombat]

It would be more than enough if the smaller sensor of 7D Mk2 can generate noise free images upto ISO 6400 and generating usable images upto ISO 12800.. I have seen wildlife photographer's hardly using any ISO beyond 12800 in demanding low light situations. Of course 7D Mk II cannot be matched to a 5D3 on ISO performance and crazy high ISO's. For instance, I should be able to take a good crisp and a sharp picture of a small bird sitting somewhere far at 6 pm in the evening when the light is fading.. That should solve most of the photographer's problem. You have both the reach and an accurate AF with some decent ISO capability and a fast frame may be b/w 8 to 10 fps.  what more is needed !!

since no full frame camera from anyone currently does noise free at 6400 i think the 7D2 will fall WAYYYYY sort of this pipe dream too

[fragilesi]

So for the people who the 7d mk II is aimed at those FPS / AF advantages plus the reach are going to be worth paying a premium for.  The "quality" of their images will be better via a different route.

True, but the same is true for the wedding pros wanting good low-light performance, which a crop body can't deliver.  When one product is clearly better than another, you expect it to have a higher price.  When two devices have clear trade-offs, where different purchasers will prefer one over the other, you expect them to have similar prices.

I think you are missing fragilesi's point.

If I can't track that speeding tern and lock onto it then some subjective differences in image "quality" no matter how great they may be become a complete irrelevance.

I agree with fragilesi. I think the market will determine the value based on the demand for the particular features of the 7DII. I also think it is that market differentiation that will drive the features of the 7DII.

That's why I would not be at all surprised to see the 7DII as a 24mp, high frames per second, weathersealed, state-of-the-art autofocusing up to f8, camera that will have birders and sports shooters lining up to buy it. It's also why I expect that that it will not be a great low-light, high ISO performer – that's what full frame is for.

If it's optimized for nature and sports shooters, Canon can demand a price premium over the 6D because they won't be in competition with one another.

Now, there are, of course, some limits to the pricing, but I wouldn't be surprised to see the initial price close to $2,000.

That's it! It's not simply about which camera is "better" than the other it's about what each camera gives to its target market relative to similar models in the range.  For me it's a moot point as I have my 70d I'm happy with it and I certainly won't have the money for the 7d mkII for a looong time.  But if I did have more cash to put towards cameras I suspect I'd jump on it like a flash!

[gsealy]

It seems to me that the 7D's role is as a solidly engineered and impenetrable beast.  It's for the rugged, outdoor situations and for guys that want to shoot the heck out of it.  It's a 1D little brother. I watched the DigitalRev video where they threw it down steps, encased it in ice, set it on fire, and it still worked!  Very impressive. But that kind of engineering is a part of the price.

I would expect the new 7D version to incorporate Canon's dual pixel focusing technology and shoot more FPS than the current version (I expect 10+ FPS).  It will probably have 25-30 megapixels.  It would be great if it had clean HDMI out, which IMO, should be a standard feature now. It will have a high shutter count life.

The 7DII will probably be a heck of a camera.  But the 70D is a heck of camera too, it just doesn't have the rugged build that the 7D has. 

I think it gets down to the kind of work a person intends to do.  People who are outside making a living shooting in all kinds of weather (cold to hot, sun or rain, wind and dust) should get the 7D. Otherwise, the 70D is a very good choice. 

[mackguyver]

If you've waited this long, a few more months probably won't kill you.  I'd bet that the 7DII, assuming it's announced, will be close to $2k MSRP given that the 7D was $1699 when it was launched.  The demand, if it's a great camera, will be massive.  It will probably be a very long time before the price comes down assuming you can even get one if you don't pre-order it. 

As for the resell, only the 5D & 1D series hold their value - the others lose money very quickly in terms of resale and you're usually lucky to get more than half of what you paid, even if it's in excellent condition.

[megmo]

Get the 70D now and don't worry about the 7D ll when it comes out. In the spring of 2010 the 7D cost $2,200.00 Cdn
Body only. I bought mine late July 2012 just before the firmware 2.0 was released for $1,549.00 Cdn Body only. If you save money put it towards a 100-400 vs ll when it comes out. A guy I know has the 70D and 100-400 vs l and takes great pics of birds with this combo using a Better Beamer on his flash. The 7D ll may blow the 70D away when it comes out. But that's just another rumour. Buy the 70D now and you will know it pretty well before your trip.

Sweet, that's exactly what I did. I ordered the 70D and will continue to save for a better lens (right now I have the Canon 60mm macro and the Sigma 28-70 f/2. to take with me on my trip. Thanks!

[megmo]

Thanks y'all for a very helpful discussion.

I ended up buying the 70D on Amazon (body only) and got it for $999 (well, $890 since I had some Amazon points to blow). For the money, I think it'll be a great camera for what I do and hopefully last me at least 8 years like my old trusty Rebel XTi did.

I'm also going to continue to save up for a better lens. I'm not sure if I'm ready to move up to an L series, but right now I'm mainly using a Sigma 28-70 f/2.8 and a Canon 60mm macro. Which are good (especially the macro) but I'd love to get a lens with a big wow-factor eventually.

Anyway, thanks again for all of the help!