Canon EOS 7D Mark II in 2014 [CR2]

[unfocused]

Timing could also depend on what Nikon is going to be doing with the D400.

I don't believe a word from anyone who says that Canon is waiting for Nikon to see what they do with the D400...

Yes, R&D takes time, but the historical fact is that both Nikon and Canon tend to announce major products in tandem. Canon usually follows Nikon by anywhere from a few weeks to a few months. That is not a coincidence. They are competitors and one is not going to allow the other to release a new product that goes unchallenged.

These companies have been competing for nearly a century. They know each other very well and you can be sure each has a pretty good idea of what the other is capable of and likely to produce with each cycle. Besides, the universe of options is really pretty limited: resolution, maximum ISO, frame rate, dynamic range, video features, bells and whistles.

Canon isn't going to completely redesign the 7DII sensor in a matter of weeks based on what Nikon does, but they certainly could adjust other features once they know what their major competitor is doing.

 

[Paramike]

I got a question please guys.

Most photographers I know don't put much stock into the number of megapixels, often citing printing size as the sole benefit.

Is this true? Is there really nothing else to megapixels other than printing size?

The ability to crop is (or can be) a biggie. When I am shooting fast moving sports I often give myself a little extra margin in camera knowing that I can crop it later.

Indeed! And with wildlife, small birds, particularly, cropping gets the shot if you don't have a long enough lens.

This is often said, but rarely backup with proof, mainly because it isn't actually true.

Here is a same generation crop sensor at 100% and a cropped ff sensor upscaled to the same pixel number. Whilst there is a fraction more detail in the 7D image this was a bench test under ideal conditions; using AF, hand holding, higher iso etc, would all level the field. The 7D crop has over twice the pixels the 1Ds MkIII crop has!

Is there a good reason to own a crop camera? Sure, it might have better AF, it is easier to frame as the subject is magnified more in the viewfinder, the image you see is closer to the image you will get etc etc, but there is a mere fraction of difference in actual image resolution and even that small difference isn't realisable in real world shooting.

Yes, I believe there is! Cost, FPS, preference! I like a camera with a good FPS as I like shooting fast moving subjects. If I were to demand full frame only, then that leaves me very limited to the expensive end of the Canon range, which, for a poor NHS worker like me, is entirely unattainable without selling organs!

Yes, I agree and even listed others, but not one of those has a lick to do with resolution, the most often sited "advantage" to crop cameras.

Sorry, I think I got the wrong end of the stick! It's the problem of being at the end of a 12 hour shift! I entirely agree with your points too

 

[Arkarch]

Whatever 7D Mark II comes out, I would like to be a back-up and good foil to my Full-Frame, presently the 5D Mark III.

For me - that would be the APS-C 1.6x factor to lengthen my lenses; higher frame rate for those situations; and decent video when I want to run both at a shoot - one video, one still. APS-H doesnt do it for me; neither does an average fps or video mode. I got the full frame so MP is not as important, especially if I switch up to the high MP 5DM4/3D in 2014 for my primary.

As to Nikon announcements, they may have a few different designs in development. I suppose they could wait for Nikon as they normally do and then use that as a factor in final design determination. But yep, whatever they have is probably already in field test somewhere.

As for timing - when does one unload a 7D Mark I ? Obviously the 70D in September will impact the resale market. An announcement would have similar impact. But I need a backup body; I cannot sell my current 7D Mark I too early.

 

[Daniel Flather]

I'm curious about the 2 "pro" bodies - one of will be the high megapixel camera but the other will be?.....

APS-H

 

[dstppy]

I'm curious about the 2 "pro" bodies - one of will be the high megapixel camera but the other will be?.....

APS-H

That'd be nice . . . let's hope it's not cinema . . .

 

[meli]

They can crank out rebel after rebel after rebel because for key components they're just drawing from their existing parts bin and forking software projects, with minor tweaks so development and QA efforts are minimal, and offer a huge return for minimal investment. For the XD line (and the XXD) it's a different matter, since those models usually get the sensors, software, and other bleeding-edge components first. That's also why the xD and xxD models cost so much initially - the first unit to roll off the assembly line cost tens to hundreds of millions of dollars to product - the second about half as much, and so on until R&D is fully amortized, enabling Canon (and Nikon) to lower the price, as the sales morph from recovering losses to earning profits. See: amortization.

You're either oversimplyfing or you dont know what you're talking about;
First off there aren't really any "bleeding edge components" in XD or XXD lines, at least not "edgier" than a touch screen or that 70d sensor etc, yes usually tech trickles down the line but given the yearly cycle of XXXD series its bound to introduce "edgy" stuff on its own.

second, this:

It's one thing to add a gimmicky articulated screen to a low-end camera body using screens from your parts bin and make a new plastic mold, and tweak sensor designs you borrowed from pro and semi-pro cameras and get the product out in a month or three, and quite another to develop a whole new hardware and software architecture (as well as a fab process, metal casting molds and precision machining tooling with a tolerance of a few microns for a mass-produced product) from the ground up.

I dont really know where to start with this one.., it contains some truth in that yes developing a whole new hardware and software architecture is more time consuming than incorporating an articulated screen but then again it never happens to develop a new hardware and software architecture for a product such as XD; there also tech tricles down from the FF models, and what new there is isnt enough to warrant the "whole new" title. Plus last i remember IM tooling is about the same as mag tooling plus its actually absurd claiming a tolerance of a few microns for a mass-produced product, where on earth you saw something on a dslr chassis requiring more than die casting tolerances for mag alloy?

 

[Ricku]

I'm curious about the 2 "pro" bodies - one of will be the high megapixel camera but the other will be?.....

One of them will be the high MP body. Hopefully it will be 5D-size.

Resolution: 35 - 40 MP with a huge bump in DR, no banding, clean shadows.
FPS: Whatever.
AF: Whatever.
High ISO: Whatever.

 

[jrista]

I got a question please guys.

Most photographers I know don't put much stock into the number of megapixels, often citing printing size as the sole benefit.

Is this true? Is there really nothing else to megapixels other than printing size?

The ability to crop is (or can be) a biggie. When I am shooting fast moving sports I often give myself a little extra margin in camera knowing that I can crop it later.

Indeed! And with wildlife, small birds, particularly, cropping gets the shot if you don't have a long enough lens.

This is often said, but rarely backup with proof, mainly because it isn't actually true.

Here is a same generation crop sensor at 100% and a cropped ff sensor upscaled to the same pixel number. Whilst there is a fraction more detail in the 7D image this was a bench test under ideal conditions; using AF, hand holding, higher iso etc, would all level the field. The 7D crop has over twice the pixels the 1Ds MkIII crop has!

Is there a good reason to own a crop camera? Sure, it might have better AF, it is easier to frame as the subject is magnified more in the viewfinder, the image you see is closer to the image you will get etc etc, but there is a mere fraction of difference in actual image resolution and even that small difference isn't realisable in real world shooting.

This argument is flawed on two fronts. First, the same things you claim detract from any benefit the 7D has also apply to the 1D IV. Camera shake, for example can diminish IQ well below the potential for either camera.

Second, and more important...final image resolution is the result a blend of each factor that detracts from initial resolution. Since final image resolution is a convolution of camera shake, AF missfocus, lens aberrations and diffraction AND sensor resolution...the 7D would still come out on top even WITH all of those things affecting IQ. Assuming the same amount of camera shake, AF missfocus, and lens resolution...the only difference between the two then is sensor resolution...and the 7D wins.

 

[x-vision]

But I wouldn't be surprised if the 7D2 will have a 16-18 MP sensor. To be honest, I would even prefer a 16 MP 7D2 over a higher res one if this means better high ISO IQ, not to mention speed. After all, the 1Dx and the Nikon D4 are 18 and 16 MP, respectively, and none of their owners complain about this despite being both FF cameras, since both are geared for speed and highest IQ and those are the reasons for purchasing them, apart from build quality.

My thoughts exactly!

The 7D series is positioned as a sports body. So no 24mp sensor on the 7DII, that's for sure.

Lowering the resolution to 16mp might be too bold and controversial, so Canon might stick to 18mp after all.

Overall, though, Canon will most likely work to make the 7DII ISO better - and that, of course, rules out resolution increases.
For more resolution (plus good ISO), Canon offers FF cameras.

 

[x-vision]

Timing could also depend on what Nikon is going to be doing with the D400.

I don't believe a word from anyone who says that Canon is waiting for Nikon to see what they do with the D400.

+1000

Canon's announcement dates are likely driven by their sales plans/schedules.

For this holiday shopping season, they will have the brand new 70D on sale - plus
a (slightly?) discounted 6D and a (heavily?) discounted 7D.

They are not announcing a 7DII this year simply because they don't seem to need it.

 

[RGomezPhotos]

I also believe that in addition to the big MP camera coming out in 2014, the other Pro camera will be an updated 1DX. You simply can't have the flagship on two year-old tech. Even when that tech is so freakin' awesome. But it won't be released until later in 2014. The current 1DX just isn't old enough. However, I'm already seeing decent price drops on it so release date could be off. Price reductions are going to happen due to lower demand. So I'll still say later in 2014.

We fashion/hi-rez folks haven't seen a true Pro camera upgrade since the 1DS Mark III. And it's going on 6 years. The 5D MKII and MKIII have been really good for fashion. But still not a TRUE pro camera (big MP, dual - CF slots, user-replaceable focus screen, superior tonal-range and resolution, pro-size body). The 1DX is AMAZING. But it really is a sports camera. Hell, if Canon were to put the new sensor with double the MP in the 1DX and tweak it a nudge for better tonal range... That MIGHT suffice. But it would obviously be the bastard-brother of the line. So I don't think Canon will go that route. It has to squash the D800 to justify the obvious price increase. And dominate for the next three to four years in this segment.

I don't think a 5D MKIV will come out in 2014. Definitely 2015 and probably early in that year. The demographic which uses that camera just doesn't need an upgrade in 2013. They got the AF they wanted, an SD slot for backup or WiFI, better weather sealing, more FPS. Yes, it can be better. But they can wait for the improvements. The improved AF in Live View in the new sensor would be their big feature. If they want better video, they can buy a 70D.

I mentioned a while back that 2014 will be a banner year for Canon. It's certainly looking that way.

 

[Don Haines]

I got a question please guys.

Most photographers I know don't put much stock into the number of megapixels, often citing printing size as the sole benefit.

Is this true? Is there really nothing else to megapixels other than printing size?

The ability to crop is (or can be) a biggie. When I am shooting fast moving sports I often give myself a little extra margin in camera knowing that I can crop it later.

Indeed! And with wildlife, small birds, particularly, cropping gets the shot if you don't have a long enough lens.

This is often said, but rarely backup with proof, mainly because it isn't actually true.

Here is a same generation crop sensor at 100% and a cropped ff sensor upscaled to the same pixel number. Whilst there is a fraction more detail in the 7D image this was a bench test under ideal conditions; using AF, hand holding, higher iso etc, would all level the field. The 7D crop has over twice the pixels the 1Ds MkIII crop has!

Is there a good reason to own a crop camera? Sure, it might have better AF, it is easier to frame as the subject is magnified more in the viewfinder, the image you see is closer to the image you will get etc etc, but there is a mere fraction of difference in actual image resolution and even that small difference isn't realisable in real world shooting.

This argument is flawed on two fronts. First, the same things you claim detract from any benefit the 7D has also apply to the 1D IV. Camera shake, for example can diminish IQ well below the potential for either camera.

Second, and more important...final image resolution is the result a blend of each factor that detracts from initial resolution. Since final image resolution is a convolution of camera shake, AF missfocus, lens aberrations and diffraction AND sensor resolution...the 7D would still come out on top even WITH all of those things affecting IQ. Assuming the same amount of camera shake, AF missfocus, and lens resolution...the only difference between the two then is sensor resolution...and the 7D wins.

HEY!

This is an emotional issue! How dare you bring common sense and facts into it!

 

[Don Haines]

I'm curious about the 2 "pro" bodies - one of will be the high megapixel camera but the other will be?.....

And we travel to the distant past, six years ago.... A DSLR had 8 to 10 megapixels.... And then high megapixel cameras came out...15, 18, even 20Mpixels.... And for several years all DSLRs were high-megapixel cameras and we began to think of 18-20 or 22 as normal. What if from 2014 on that ALL new Canon DSLR's will be high megapixel cameras..... With high megapixel now meaning 35-45, and that will become the new normal... The 70D shows Canon can put 40 onto a sensor now...

My first digital camera was 320x200
The next one jumped to 640x400...... A whopping 4 times increase to .25 megapixels!
Next came 1600x1200.... An 8 times increase to 1.9 megapixels
Then I got an 8 megapixel camera, another 4 times increase....
Then I got a 18 megapixel camera, another 2 times increase....

It is about time 40 megapixels became the new normal for DSLR's..... Progress marches on....

 

[pedro]

it's only a rumor. but still, probably 3D and dare i say 5D4? i would bet my money on one thing and that is that 70D is the last Canon's DSLR which uses Digic5 processor. 7DII and others definitely on Digic6, which is said to further help with noise control up to 6400 ISO.

Not sure about a 5DIV. The last product cycle up to the 5D3 was 3.6 years. What could be a good reason to release an upgrade after two years? Well, if Canon present something real game changing, why not. Or could they get back to an 1DIVish body despite of the 1Dx? Intresting times ahead.

 

[kevl]

It is about time 40 megapixels became the new normal for DSLR's..... Progress marches on....

I don't know any pros who want a 40MP camera as their primary body. It may be nice for specific jobs but it will simply cost me money in harddrive space, and backup costs, for my Wedding and Portrait business model. The largest prints I normally sell are 24x36. My 5D3 eats up enough space as it is. A friend of mine shoots sports professionally with a 1D MkIIn with 8.2MP and he has no issues.

If I need to make large prints I enlarge the image in Photoshop, and this just got even better with Photoshop CC. For most businesses we don't need, or even want, a large MP camera.

I'd like to have it for play time, but I'm a long way away from ever paying the price of a pro body to get large MP to play with.

Anyway, I'd LIKE to have 40MP for cropping freedom... I just wouldn't want to have to pay for the harddrive space.

 

[kevl]

Not sure about a 5DIV. The last product cycle up to the 5D3 was 3.6 years. What could be a good reason to release an upgrade after two years?

Yeah, I can't see them replacing the 5D3 so soon. It is hugely popular, and extremely competent and will remain so. Replacing it too early will simply devalue the line. I also don't see them replacing the 1Dx next year.

We'll see a 3D high mp camera and a cinema camera.. at least that's my expectation.

 

[privatebydesign]

I got a question please guys.

Most photographers I know don't put much stock into the number of megapixels, often citing printing size as the sole benefit.

Is this true? Is there really nothing else to megapixels other than printing size?

The ability to crop is (or can be) a biggie. When I am shooting fast moving sports I often give myself a little extra margin in camera knowing that I can crop it later.

Indeed! And with wildlife, small birds, particularly, cropping gets the shot if you don't have a long enough lens.

This is often said, but rarely backup with proof, mainly because it isn't actually true.

Here is a same generation crop sensor at 100% and a cropped ff sensor upscaled to the same pixel number. Whilst there is a fraction more detail in the 7D image this was a bench test under ideal conditions; using AF, hand holding, higher iso etc, would all level the field. The 7D crop has over twice the pixels the 1Ds MkIII crop has!

Is there a good reason to own a crop camera? Sure, it might have better AF, it is easier to frame as the subject is magnified more in the viewfinder, the image you see is closer to the image you will get etc etc, but there is a mere fraction of difference in actual image resolution and even that small difference isn't realisable in real world shooting.

This argument is flawed on two fronts. First, the same things you claim detract from any benefit the 7D has also apply to the 1D IV. Camera shake, for example can diminish IQ well below the potential for either camera.

Second, and more important...final image resolution is the result a blend of each factor that detracts from initial resolution. Since final image resolution is a convolution of camera shake, AF missfocus, lens aberrations and diffraction AND sensor resolution...the 7D would still come out on top even WITH all of those things affecting IQ. Assuming the same amount of camera shake, AF missfocus, and lens resolution...the only difference between the two then is sensor resolution...and the 7D wins.

First, I am not presenting an argument, I am presenting empirical results of a test.

Second, I used a FF 1Ds MkIII not an APS-H 1D MkIV.

Third, I agree the 7D "wins", though I don't agree with the oversimplified knee jerk rhetoric. I even pointed out in my initial post that the 7D does have more resolution, just nowhere near as much as anybody would guess or expect, most people are pretty emphatic that the far denser sensor of the 7D would trounce the less than half the pixel numbers of the FF, but it just is not so. The 18MP of the 7D equate well to the 36MP of the D800, we all know, as a system, the 5D MkIII at 24MP and the 24-70 f2.8 MkII resolves more, as bench tested, than the D800 and Nikon 24-70 f2.8, 18MP to 15MP.

I know and understand image resolution is a result of system resolution, I just pointed out, with images, the system resolution of an 18MP crop camera is not very much different from a crop from a 21MP FF camera. Again, that is not an argument, it is an empirical observation.

 

[Lee Jay]

And another year goes by without me giving Canon any of my money.

 

[fengshui]

I was thinking about the new Dual Pixel AF that Canon's introducing in the 70D with respect to the 7D2. If they can really do AF directly on the sensor, is there anything stopping them from going past 10fps? On past cameras, the limiting factor on fps was the flapping of the mirror to reflect sufficient light to the AF sensor. With on-CCD AF, could they only move the mirror as necessary for the photographer to track? I could see a system where the camera takes 2-3 shots per mirror flip, allowing for fps in the 20+ range. Am I missing something?

 

[Don Haines]

It is about time 40 megapixels became the new normal for DSLR's..... Progress marches on....

I don't know any pros who want a 40MP camera as their primary body. It may be nice for specific jobs but it will simply cost me money in harddrive space, and backup costs, for my Wedding and Portrait business model. The largest prints I normally sell are 24x36. My 5D3 eats up enough space as it is. A friend of mine shoots sports professionally with a 1D MkIIn with 8.2MP and he has no issues.

If I need to make large prints I enlarge the image in Photoshop, and this just got even better with Photoshop CC. For most businesses we don't need, or even want, a large MP camera.

I'd like to have it for play time, but I'm a long way away from ever paying the price of a pro body to get large MP to play with.

Anyway, I'd LIKE to have 40MP for cropping freedom... I just wouldn't want to have to pay for the harddrive space.

Hard drives..... Time marches on there too....

First hard drive I bought for work was $10,000 for a 10 megabyte drive.... Last week I bought 24 4terrabyte drives at $250 each.... That's 100 terabytes for $6000..... Quite a drop in price per byte.... This is 7 orders of magnitude... That's like buying a mansion in 1980 for $1,000,000.00 and in 2013 buying a better mansion for $0.06