Rumors > EOS Bodies

Body forecast..?

(1/3) > >>

dspry:
I had planned to buy the 7D next month until seeing some February rumours a few weeks ago regarding the 5D MkIII, saying it was basically going to be a Full Frame 7D, an amalgamation of Canon's recent successful bodies. I thought to myself, I'll buy the 550D now and sell it later. It's a lot cheaper than the 7D and I can shoot while I save for the full frame MkIII mid-2011. Also I imagine the 550D will be fairly stable as far as resale goes as people seem to buy it solely for the video. Today was when I realised the rumours I was reading were from February and now see that Canon's plans are to make a medium format sensor (is that what it would be called?) that shoots raw video. I assume this camera will cost significantly more than $3000.

My question now is - is there a unanimous agreement on the future of DSLRs from Canon. I understand that these are all rumours but I am new to it - it seems like the '3D' has been rumoured for over a year now. I'd rather buy the 7D if there's no FF-7D type thing coming out. It seems strange to me that there'd be such a huge price gap in their product base, but it also seems to me that they're rebuilding their body catalogue. Again, I'm new.. so..

Would it be a safe time to buy a 7D? The 7D is $1550 for me right now which I think is a good price. Will the 5D MkII come below $2000?

Cheers
David

kubelik:
you're thinking about a lot of stuff dspry... let me try to help out at least a bit here:

regarding unanimous agreement on the future of DSLRs from Canon -- nearly none.  lots of speculation but nobody here has actually seen Canon's road map, and if they did they'd be under some serious NDA so they wouldn't be able to say anything anyway. 

the 3D -- has been rumored like, forever.  personally, I put zero weight on any rumor claiming Canon is about to drop the 3D (or even developing the 3D)

5D Mark III being a 5D Mark II crossed with a 7D -- that's called the 1D Mark IV.  I highly doubt Canon would release a camera with the exact same specs as the 1D Mark IV in a smaller form factor for less money.  even the 1DIV doesn't actually have a FF sensor, so a FF 7D is unlikely to show up until Canon releases a 1D Mark V.  if you're just talking about autofocus capability, not FPS, I actually do think it's quite likely a 5D Mark III will have the 7D's new autofocus setup

safe time to buy a 7D -- I think so.  I still view the 7D as the best APS-C cam on the market, and as such, it will carry its value far better than the 550D will.  I think $1550 is a good price for what is a really great camera.  if you think it's a little on the high side, consider the 60D which most early adopters seem to be reviewing very, very favorably

will the 5D Mark III come below $2000 -- unless it's a FF rebel (god let's hope not) I find this extremely unlikely.  the 5D Mark II still sells priced at $2499 or so, and unless the 5D Mark III is actually worse than the Mark II, there's no reason for Canon to undersell themselves so drastically

unfocused:
I totally agree with Kubelik. Well, at least almost totally. No significant differences.

This is a rumors site. You won't find any unanimous agreement on anything here. And, even if you did, it would just be a convergence of speculation.

If you want the top APS-C camera on the market, buy the 7D. Alternatively, as Kubelik said the early reviews from people who are actually buying the 60D are very good, so that's a less expensive alternative, that will get you many of the most important features of the 7D.

This is just my opinion, but I think there is far too much emphasis on full frame vs. crop sensors. Are you interested in a full frame camera because you actually need a full frame camera, or because it sounds like a good idea?

There are people who buy the full frame cameras because they need them for their work. There are others who buy them because they already have a large investment in lenses designed for full frame cameras (wide angle lenses in particular). There are those who buy the full frame because they can afford it and it matters to them for any of a number of non-commercial and maybe even non-photographic purposes.

Both Canon and Nikon, as well as all the third-party lens makers are heavily invested in the crop sensor format. The quality is great right now and it will only get better. Unless you have a business reason that requires a full frame camera, I would advise saving the extra $950 and investing in lenses.

neuroanatomist:

--- Quote from: dspry on September 29, 2010, 07:18:24 AM ---My question now is - is there a unanimous agreement on the future of DSLRs from Canon.

--- End quote ---

Yes, absolutely there is unanimous agreement on the future of dSLRs from Canon.  Canon will release new ones.

Beyond that certainty, you're on your own.  :P

If you look at CR from last year and early this year, there was a fair bit of buzz that Canon would update the 100-400mm, since it's a hugely popular lens that was released in 1998 and needed better IS and weather sealing.  But then, if you look at POTN from 2004, there was a lot of buzz that Canon would be updating the 100-400mm since it was a hugely popular lens that was released in 1998 and needed better IS and weather sealing.  Get the idea?

The 7D is an excellent camera - if you need one now, get it!  The 5DII is also an excellent camera, but personally I am disappointed that it uses an elderly AF system (unchanged from the original 5D) and I also think that's one feature that will see an improvement in the 5DIII.  Still, the 5DIII will not have anywhere near the frame rate of the 7D.

As kubelik stated, if you need fast fps and top-notch AF, that's the 1D series (1.3x crop sensors, 10 fps).  If you need top-notch AF and full frame, that's the 1Ds series.  So even at the highest end of the lineup, it's a choice between sensor size and speed.

Edwin Herdman:

--- Quote from: neuroanatomist on September 29, 2010, 02:56:41 PM ---If you look at CR from last year and early this year, there was a fair bit of buzz that Canon would update the 100-400mm, since it's a hugely popular lens that was released in 1998 and needed better IS and weather sealing.  But then, if you look at POTN from 2004, there was a lot of buzz that Canon would be updating the 100-400mm since it was a hugely popular lens that was released in 1998 and needed better IS and weather sealing.  Get the idea?
--- End quote ---
What I take away from that is they looked at their different buying demographics, and seem to have decided that hobbyists who didn't mind the 100-400's lower-tier (compared to die-hard pros who can lug around primes) sharpness and features, but needed that focal length at that price point, would jump at a new, slightly shorter focal length (shorter range as well), lighter, less expensive lens to mate with the APS-C sensors that have come out since then.  The fact that former film shooters who started saying "gee, my 100-400 is just too dang long on these digital bodies" weren't a major demographic moving in droves to 70-300s before doesn't seem to have been a factor.  Apparently Canon judged 400mm would have added too much weight, and / or it would have been less critical than 300mm (which they noted appears like a 480mm lens image anyway).

The story recently has been of the retooling of product lines.  Thus the 60D is not a 50D successor (frankly, a 50D successor with just upgraded main points, but no new features, would have been thrashed fairly soundly, as even the 60D was - its downgrades are few and mostly minor).

I see the big picture as there being a big segment of the market - the lower-cost professional camera around $2500 - being served by a two year old camera in a segment that moves fairly quickly.  As we've all said before - yes it's full-frame, but it also doesn't have the most professional feature set.  Autofocus is a big example.  The 5D Mark II's AF system was apparently more or less kept over from the original 5D, so it's quite old.  The metering is pre-iFCL, so less accurate than the 7D in all likelihood.

The recent trend of prices seems to be up, though there's no reason to suspect this is an iron rule.  Nikon and Sony are still out there, and other players are joining up, so Canon cannot unilaterally jack up prices unless their cameras are really far ahead of the competition on special features (thankfully the articulating screen wasn't considered one, as the 60D is cheaper in 2010 dollars than the 50D was in 2008 dollars).  The 60D appears to be the shaky pillar of Canon's pricing, as all the D7000 talk has shown, so it'll be interesting to see which way the pricing of the next model goes.

The 5D Mark II is also in a totally different segment, however.  With the introduction of the 60D and the 7D before it, there's a good reason to suspect they may try to move the 5D's placement one way or another.  (Probably up, if anything.)  But then the full-frame aspect makes it unique compared to the others, still.  The 7D was for people who need 5D-like features in a APS-C-priced body, and for Canon to sell a premium APS-C camera (milk those crop sensors, it only makes sense).  That probably takes away some buyers who previously would have looked only at the 5D Mark II.  The 5D Mark II will have to re-justify its price point, aside from the full-frame-at-any-cost crowd (which I would enjoy joining).

It's also kind of interesting to note that there isn't any cheap 1.3x crop camera.  I suspect they decided the 1.3x sensors weren't so much cheaper than full frame to warrant more production of them, but the crop factor usually ought to help out one of the target audiences, sports and news shooters.

Navigation

[0] Message Index

[#] Next page

Go to full version