Body forecast..?

[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]

My question now is - is there a unanimous agreement on the future of DSLRs from Canon.

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.

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]

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?

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.

 

[dspry]

Thanks for your replies. It was silly to ask for unanimous opinion. Of course the entire forum is dedicated to speculation.

The 7D suits what I want to do best at the moment and is a good price for me. I want to do portraits, concert photography, photojournalistic shooting and video all fairly equally. I am new and while trying not to get ahead of myself, I want to make the best decision for the time at which I'm buying. For this reason I've steered away from the 550D. I've been borrowing a 7D for the last three months and comparatively, the 550Ds lack of top screen & jog wheel in its plastic body turn me off. The 60D is bigger, has manual audio gain control, has the top screen and better control - but I'd prefer to pay the extra $450 for quality, the magnesium body et al. I'd rather buy a nicer body now. If I start to take it quite seriously as I hope to, I don't want to have to upgrade for a while.

A lot of people talk about 'making the upgrade' to a full-frame sensor for the larger coverage and better low-light performance, so I thought if Canon were about to release a bunch of new cameras it might be better to save an extra grand and buy a new FF camera next year. Reading these rumours has given me the impression that Canon are going to release amazing bodies next year, or at least unveil new technology (regarding DIGIC IV, new AF for 5D, further honing of video). Paying $2500 for the 5D Mark 2 now seems precarious if they'll likely modernise it next year, especially if their new products are going to be housing new innovations.

At the same time, I want to start shooting soon! I understand this is a digital market and digital markets move very quickly. Maybe the Canon Rumours are always as anxious and excited. My financial situation is tight as a student so my reach ends at about $2500 (AUD). By the way, aren't the 1D MK3 bodies about $6000?

I don't have any specific reason for not buying the 7D. I was curious to hear your thoughts on buying a cheaper body now for the sake of shooting sooner and in light of a possible new FF body next year that'd be within +$1000 of the 7D (like a 5D MK3, or "3D").

Kubelik: 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

-- I was asking whether the 5D Mark 3 would be around the $3000 mark. If it's simply a more-current 5D MK2 this doesn't seem ridiculous to me, but I'd read the rumours of it becoming a camera with a 25-30mpx resolution that shoots raw video and I suspect this would probably make for a very silly price indeed!

 

[ronderick]

Dspry, here's my 2 cents...

I think it's great (and addictive) to talk all night about camera specs, company strategies, and even future trends. However, I would guess that for the majority of people here, the fun comes with going out in the fields and taking the pictures.

Now, unless you're taking shots of speeding roller coasters after sunset (where ISO and FPS capabilities make a difference), I'd wager that the old 40D works as well as the 1DIV when it comes to typical portrait or landscape shots.

They don't have 102,400 ISO back in 2007, but that didn't prevent photographers from taking great pictures, right?

You already have an advantage over many newcomers, because you've gotten to "know" the 7D for three months already. If you think you can live with the 7D for the next four years, then by all means go for it. IMHO, having something solid you can work with is better than relying on hopes and guesses. The release of a 5D3 in 2011 would not make the 7D any less of a camera.

As a chinese saying goes, "those buying first get to enjoy first; those buying later will not regret what they've bought". The verdict of the 7D is pretty much set, so you know what you'll be getting for your money - you can determine whether it's worth it or not. Of course, since this one will be YOUR camera, you can abuse it and test it to the limits while sharpening your skill along the way. ;D

However, be aware that having a cropped body will affect your lens choice. You'll probably end up with a EF-S lens or two (like the 10-22mm) on the wide end.

PS: You can always sell your old camera/lens and replace it with new ones if needed. As for the four years, that should give you enough time to save up more cash and to consider whether you want to delve further into the world of photography 8)

 

[kubelik]

I'm well in agreement with ronderick's points.

dspry, sounds like you're pretty much in the right track of thinking regarding the (fairly major) choice of selecting a DSLR to purchase.

I'm just going to put out there something I've mentioned before in other posts, regarding the eternal "to buy or to wait" dilemma (sorry everyone who's already heard this one):

deciding whether or not a newer, better camera is going to drop is like deciding whether your favorite stock is about to leap forward or tank. actually, guessing on the camera is probably tougher to nail than guessing on the stock. I often hear people bemoaning their decision to wait on buying a new camera, or a new lens, because they missed lots of shots they could have gotten. I rarely hear people bemoaning their decision to go ahead and buy a new camera or a new lens; seems like they're happily out shooting. if a new product DOES come out, you always have the choice to sell, probably at only a marginal loss, if you're buying good equipment and taking good care of it. more often than not, people find they are actually quite happy with what they've bought, and continue to enjoy their equipment.

at this point in time, there's very little camera equipment on the market that's not great. I have a 5D Mark II, but if you constrained me to my old 30D for an entire vacation I'm sure I would walk away just as happy. not having any body to shoot with for a year ... that's agony

 

[richy]

Expect a 5d3 to debut at 3500 ish, at least thats my guess and drop by about 1200 across its production cycle. Exact amounts may vary. Expect a better FF sensor, dont expect much better AF, Canon arent stupid and fit only a decent AF to stop it hurting 1ds series sales. Seriously, why would they release a camera thats pretty much as good across the board for less than half the price They may be managers but even they arent that dumb. It it a bit funny when people say I want 7d af on a 5d sensor, it exists, it costs about 6500 and its a 1ds3 (or dare i mention a d3s )
Speculating is fun and this site is brilliant and actually useful.
As a working (un)professional I would love to know when they are releasing stuff, even if its not what they are improving, so I can budget in advance. It really irks me that they have to be so secret squirrel about everything. Bottom line is i have to budget for capex a year in advance and use it within that year. They delay a 1ds4 to another fiscal year a lot of pros will be sat there going, well I have 20-30k of capex left now, screw the irs taxing it, hmmm those nikons / hassleblads / mamiyas / leicas look good!
TheRe is a lot of BS about the 5d2 and 7d, the AF on the 5d2 is very useable, the IQ on the 7d is suprisingly good for a crop, amazingly good for an 18mp crop. Once in lightroom with the right usm / profile / nr for both cams independantly applied , hand on heart if it wasnt that I use different focal lengths on each cam I couldn't tell them apart. Metering wise, the 5d2 is right 90% of the time and any errors are usually mine. The 7d is wrong 100% of the time, but mercifully it is predictably wrong, always need +2/3 ec. I am inclined to believe this is canon playing silly buggers with iso and that indicated 640 is infact actually 400 and they hoped it would give better noise results in tests and they could fudge the curves. Having said that noise is easily controlled on the 7d. Its a very capable camera!

 

[unfocused]

The 7d is wrong 100% of the time, but mercifully it is predictably wrong, always need +2/3 ec. I am inclined to believe this is canon playing silly buggers with iso...

Interesting. I would say that my 7D is consistently wrong as well, but instead of being underexposed by 2/3 stop, I find it overexposing by 2/3. I seriously doubt that Canon would bother playing games with their metering intentionally.

I'm inclined to think it is just differences in personal preferences, personal habits and/or metering tolerances. Also, proper exposure is going to vary based on the format and the presentation of the final product. By that I mean that what looks right on a print, may not look right on a screen. And, of course, results will vary from printer to printer and from screen to screen.

There are so many variables in exposure, that I would expect that almost everyone needs to make personal adjustments either in-camera (by setting the exposure compensation) or by adjusting in Camera RAW.

 

[richy]

Quite possibly There was one review site tdp maybe? that found the same issue. Given to some degree exposure is subjective it did occur to me that maybe somebody decided that if they labelled setting X as 640 instead of 400 then the noise would be more acceptable, rather than saying yeah iso 400 is actually a bit naff. Plus bumping the scale would be a way of getting to higher iso's. Sometimes its just fun to poke canon with sticks. It is the first time I've seen such issues found by review sites (although it probably has happened before).

Having the 5d2 which is pretty good with exposure once you understand how any metering system reacts to what you point it at (sand vs tux) its pretty darn accurate.I'm just glad the 7d is consistent. I leave it at +1 virtually all the time and the 5d2 at +1/3 assuming neutral targets.

I wouldn't have thought much of it if there weren't loads of people saying the same, its interesting yours does the opposite! The 7d is still an awesome camera, the AF is so darn quick and accurate. Not sure how much of an impact the icfl or whatever it is has had, I didn't have huge issues with the 5d2 in that respect.

It is interesting that the rumours point to a 5d3 with a unique (not shared with the 1ds4) sensor. I know they did this with the 5d original, but I thought canon was moving towards having as few sensor designs as possible.

 

[kubelik]

I made a comment elsewhere regarding your point but the same holds here:

2 data points doesn't constitute a very definite trend. especially not when there's over 3 years elapsed between each data point.

I'm all for hoping the 5D Mark III is cheap (can you say 'immediate upgrader'? because I'd be one) but there's no hard evidence yet, and I think extrapolating off of historic prices can be wildly inaccurate