Canon EOS 7D Mark II in 2014 [CR2]

[jrista]

3. As I've said for YEARS: APS-H is dead. Please don't keep resurrecting it. : APS-H is now an unnecessary 'half way house' between APS-C and FF. The 6D particularly demonstrates that. Leave it to RIP, please!
- APS-C for budget sensor, on camera flash, 'reach' (ie pixel density for certain applications - eg birding, some sports), and to make use of the wonderful array of EF-S lenses (many of which are L class in terms of image quality.
- FF for more depth of field (DOF) control and per pixel sharpness, lower noise, and possibly in the (near) future, an overall much higher resolution photo - already competing with Medium Format.

You can proclaim whatever you want as much as you want. However, that won't change the fact that many of us, myself included, liked the APS-H format! Unlike you, many of us prefer to think of it as a useful half-way house between APS-C and FF. Not everyone wants FF for everything. Don't forget that there is a specific value to a cropped sensor: reach! When reach is one of the most significant factors, yet you want a balance between the often too small/too noisy pixels of APS-C, and the lack of reach of FF...well, APS-H once offered an ideal alternative that offered excellent IQ, superior IQ even, for a middle-ground price point (at least as far as professional-grade equipment goes).

I don't believe that APS-H should be brought back in the 7D II. On the contrary, I like the 7D line's positioning as the professional-grade APS-C part. I would, however, very much like to see something in the $3500-$4000 range bring back the APS-H sensor. Preferably in a 180nm part with something around 4µm pixels, and all the fancy bells ans whistles of the 5D III. The 3D?

Sorry, but I have no interest in letting APS-H rest in peace. I want the zombie back!!! MUHAHAHAHAHAAA!

 

[pj1974]

1. I have a marketing degree and background, and agree with kimvette that Canon & Nikon (& Sony) do not 'release a DLSR camera' to match what the competition has put out a month or two before. Research & Development and then prototype and production for specific significant new technology changes (and incorporating this into any new body) takes huge lengths of time (often years).

My background is electronics and I work in a R/D centre. most of the projects that I have worked on are in the 3 to 5 year timeframe. I can assure you that putting out a camera in a month is laughable. It would take that long to get the boxes made and print the manuals.

Canon will be working on the next model before the previous one gets to market and will have a study group defining the model after that. They will already be working on the 80D, the 7D3, the 6D2, the 5D4 and 1D? are probably in prototype and they are working on the 5D5 and 1D??

Hi Don

Thanks for posting, also with your experience.

I take it you wrote that to confirm that we agree?! Because we do..... (just wasn't sure if you misunderstood what I posted).

I also agree - that Canon will already have been working on that list of 'future' cameras: 6DmkII, 80D, 7DmkIII, 5DmkIV

PJ 8)

 

[pj1974]

3. As I've said for YEARS: APS-H is dead. Please don't keep resurrecting it. : APS-H is now an unnecessary 'half way house' between APS-C and FF. The 6D particularly demonstrates that. Leave it to RIP, please!
- APS-C for budget sensor, on camera flash, 'reach' (ie pixel density for certain applications - eg birding, some sports), and to make use of the wonderful array of EF-S lenses (many of which are L class in terms of image quality.
- FF for more depth of field (DOF) control and per pixel sharpness, lower noise, and possibly in the (near) future, an overall much higher resolution photo - already competing with Medium Format.

You can proclaim whatever you want as much as you want. However, that won't change the fact that many of us, myself included, liked the APS-H format! Unlike you, many of us prefer to think of it as a useful half-way house between APS-C and FF. Not everyone wants FF for everything. Don't forget that there is a specific value to a cropped sensor: reach! When reach is one of the most significant factors, yet you want a balance between the often too small/too noisy pixels of APS-C, and the lack of reach of FF...well, APS-H once offered an ideal alternative that offered excellent IQ, superior IQ even, for a middle-ground price point (at least as far as professional-grade equipment goes).

I don't believe that APS-H should be brought back in the 7D II. On the contrary, I like the 7D line's positioning as the professional-grade APS-C part. I would, however, very much like to see something in the $3500-$4000 range bring back the APS-H sensor. Preferably in a 180nm part with something around 4µm pixels, and all the fancy bells ans whistles of the 5D III. The 3D?

Sorry, but I have no interest in letting APS-H rest in peace. I want the zombie back!!! MUHAHAHAHAHAAA!

Ha ha... you want the zombie back... oh dear... some people have watched too many scary movies... and it's transforming DSLR bodies to 'the walking dead' bodies!!

I appreciate many of your posts on CR, jrista... including what you've written earlier in this thread about 7D resolution compared to an older and lower MP 1D.

So while I believe the APS-H is long in the ground - buried... and only to be resurrected via 'zombie power' - I can sympathise & understand that for some photographers, APS-H is their preferred blend / mix.

Having 1 body to cover what you want (or closely what you want) is often more practical than having bodies (2 or more) of both APS-C and FF.

APS-C is what works best for me currently. Maybe one day APS-C will die.... I'll aim to have enough 'bodies' in my 'cool room' to create enough Frankensteins ... to 'live' for a long time into the future... lol ;D

Paul

 

[expatinasia]

I would not be surprised to see Canon test the elasticity of past product cycles to discover just how frequently they can update their different models. There is such hunger these days for the latest tech, the newest this and the newest that, that Canon would be silly not to.

I am looking forward to learning about the 7D Mark II, it should be a very exciting camera, but I am also curious as to what they have planned with their flagship pro camera(s).

 

[pedro]

<p>We’re also told that 2 new “pro” bodies will arrive in 2014, and that doesn’t include the EOS 7D Mark II, which will be a pro specced APS-C camera.</p>
<p><strong><span style=\"color: #ff0000;\">c</span>r</strong></p>
[/html]

Both FF.
1. One @ extreme high MP(35-40) for landscape and studio shooters
2. The second is extreme low MP (12-18). Use able ISO @ 25000, similiar to current 5D III @ 6400ISO

Everybody HAPPY, Canon gets even more sales and US economy will raise 100%. THE END ;D

I'd be willing to save up for such a beast. But wait, isn't there a similar body out there? Or at least an attempt to it? 1Dx comes close to your rumored specs in your second point. But then, it is way off track budgetwise for me. Anyway, the 5D line will improve as well. My 5D3 is fantastic at ISO 25.600 well exposed: Example from a wedding last saturday. I wasn't the official photographer. Just a happy bystander, taking some candids around midnight... 8)


Z96A5058bBWKlein by Peter Hauri, on Flickr


Z96A5058bKLEIN by Peter Hauri, on Flickr

 

[Marsu42]

I think moving beyond the sensor that will appear in the next Rebel, an EOS M camera and the EOS 70D is a good idea.

I'd disagree - the 7d1 shows that it doesn't need a better sensor to make a camera that is way above the internal competition, and Canon could charge a big premium just for better af & fw features like now (and that's the reason I've got a 60d ).

We’re also told that 2 new “pro” bodies will arrive in 2014, and that doesn’t include the EOS 7D Mark II

So it's the high-mp eos and a 5d4 with a new sensor? 2014 would be the earliest date I'd expect a 5d3 replacement to arrive because Canon wouldn't want to annoy their premium customers, but on the other hand any new sensor tech is bound to make it to ff soon because Nikon currently has an edge here in most specs.

 

[expatinasia]

We’re also told that 2 new “pro” bodies will arrive in 2014, and that doesn’t include the EOS 7D Mark II

So it's the high-mp eos and a 5d4 with a new sensor? 2014 would be the earliest date I'd expect a 5d3 replacement to arrive because Canon wouldn't want to annoy their premium customers, but on the other hand any new sensor tech is bound to make it to ff soon because Nikon currently has an edge here in most specs.

Is the 5D pro? Canon officially classifies it as prosumer, and while a lot of pros do use it, I am not sure if it fits into that category.

Two new pro bodies could be the high MP 1D camera and a new pro level cinema body.

 

[nicku]

I personally prefer the 20.2 MP sensor vs 24.1... the noise problem can be managed more easy in a smaller pixel density sensor.

I believe the biggest difference between 7Dmk2 and 70D will be the body construction, AF, fps, IQ, and other features, that can justify the price difference.

 

[Don Haines]

1. I have a marketing degree and background, and agree with kimvette that Canon & Nikon (& Sony) do not 'release a DLSR camera' to match what the competition has put out a month or two before. Research & Development and then prototype and production for specific significant new technology changes (and incorporating this into any new body) takes huge lengths of time (often years).

My background is electronics and I work in a R/D centre. most of the projects that I have worked on are in the 3 to 5 year timeframe. I can assure you that putting out a camera in a month is laughable. It would take that long to get the boxes made and print the manuals.

Canon will be working on the next model before the previous one gets to market and will have a study group defining the model after that. They will already be working on the 80D, the 7D3, the 6D2, the 5D4 and 1D? are probably in prototype and they are working on the 5D5 and 1D??

Hi Don

Thanks for posting, also with your experience.

I take it you wrote that to confirm that we agree?! Because we do..... (just wasn't sure if you misunderstood what I posted).

I also agree - that Canon will already have been working on that list of 'future' cameras: 6DmkII, 80D, 7DmkIII, 5DmkIV

PJ 8)

I definitly agree.... with the entire post.

 

[privatebydesign]

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.

Maybe I'm oversimplifying the original question--"the benefit of megapixels", but all things being equal, more = more. The rest of this is arguing that all things aren't equal, which is obviously true most of the time. A 16MP 1Dx just might take a better picture than Nokia's 41 Mp cell phone camera cropped to 16. All megapickles are not created equal, but that does not negate the fact that more of "the same" MPs means more freedom for cropping. If you don't believe me, shoot an image in RAW, then the same image in sRaw, crop a chunk out and see how they look.

It depends how simplistic, or theoretical, you want to get. As usual I just presented some empirical results, that whilst not entirely defying common wisdom and repeated posting history, certainly do throw a spanner in the works of the narrow minded thinking that "more equals more". If you don't believe me conduct a series of tests of same generation crop and ff sensors, like I did. Sure more does equal more, but nothing like everybody expects it to and the test I posted was set up to maximise any and every advantage the 7D might have. Because of these tests I concluded that a 7D was of no use to me whatsoever, even in focal length limited situations.

Again, there are very good reasons to own a crop camera, but thinking you are getting "longer lenses, more reach, greater cropability, etc etc" doesn't actually amount to anything when empirically tested, and maybe that is where I am falling down here, I bothered to actually do the tests rather than rely on common thought, internet chatter and theoretical pontificating.

And if we really want to confuse the issue...... 5D2 vs 60D, both using 70-200 lens, in good daylight... The 60D resolves more detail on distant objects. 60D vs SX-50 in good daylight.... The SX-50 resolves more detail. Now we try the comparison in poor light and high ISO and the 5D2 out resolves the 60D and the 60D out resolves the SX-50. There is no easy answer here, it depends on conditions.

Exactly, and I posted in your SX-50 thread and have linked to it several times. I found, when I actually used an 18mp crop camera and a same generation 21mp ff camera, the 18mp camera realised no noticeable resolution increase despite common wisdom and over twice the pixels in focal length limited situations. Lots of people argue with that, but never present actual images backing up their opinions.

Like I have always said, at 100% and ideal conditions the 7D does have more resolution than a cropped 5D MkII/1Ds MkIII, I found, in actual use, those tiny difference disappeared in real world images. I have yet to be shown a single set of contradictory images.

So if anybody has a set of hand held, AF'd, >400iso, wide open aperture, focal length limited images from a 7D and a 5D MkII/1Ds MkIII, please, post them, I'd be interested to see how much different than my results yours are.

 

[schill]

1. I have a marketing degree and background, and agree with kimvette that Canon & Nikon (& Sony) do not 'release a DLSR camera' to match what the competition has put out a month or two before. Research & Development and then prototype and production for specific significant new technology changes (and incorporating this into any new body) takes huge lengths of time (often years).

My background is electronics and I work in a R/D centre. most of the projects that I have worked on are in the 3 to 5 year timeframe. I can assure you that putting out a camera in a month is laughable. It would take that long to get the boxes made and print the manuals.

Canon will be working on the next model before the previous one gets to market and will have a study group defining the model after that. They will already be working on the 80D, the 7D3, the 6D2, the 5D4 and 1D? are probably in prototype and they are working on the 5D5 and 1D??

I figure the last minute stuff they might do is not in the hardware but in the firmware. And it may be putting in limitations, not adding features. Say Canon has created a 7DII that has 14 fps. Before Canon announces the camera, Nikon announces a comparable camera that has 10 fps. Canon can now change the firmware to support only 12 fps, still top Nikon, and save some performance for an easy update (new body or new firmware) later if they need it.

Obviously, changing firmware can go either way, but simple things like reducing fps or buffer size are very easy - much easier than improving them if you've already created the "best" firmware you can write at the time. I used fps in the example because the numbers are easy to work with and the change could be minimal.

And this works if you switch "Canon" and "Nikon" above or change them to any other manufacturer. You can make your product as good as it needs to be to compete but not better.

Of course, I am looking forward to what Canon has come up with for the 7DII although I'm still very happy with my 7D (preordered when they announced it (I wanted 8 fps ) and just passed 100k images).

 

[Don Haines]

1. I have a marketing degree and background, and agree with kimvette that Canon & Nikon (& Sony) do not 'release a DLSR camera' to match what the competition has put out a month or two before. Research & Development and then prototype and production for specific significant new technology changes (and incorporating this into any new body) takes huge lengths of time (often years).

My background is electronics and I work in a R/D centre. most of the projects that I have worked on are in the 3 to 5 year timeframe. I can assure you that putting out a camera in a month is laughable. It would take that long to get the boxes made and print the manuals.

Canon will be working on the next model before the previous one gets to market and will have a study group defining the model after that. They will already be working on the 80D, the 7D3, the 6D2, the 5D4 and 1D? are probably in prototype and they are working on the 5D5 and 1D??

I figure the last minute stuff they might do is not in the hardware but in the firmware. And it may be putting in limitations, not adding features. Say Canon has created a 7DII that has 14 fps. Before Canon announces the camera, Nikon announces a comparable camera that has 10 fps. Canon can now change the firmware to support only 12 fps, still top Nikon, and save some performance for an easy update (new body or new firmware) later if they need it.

Obviously, changing firmware can go either way, but simple things like reducing fps or buffer size are very easy - much easier than improving them if you've already created the "best" firmware you can write at the time. I used fps in the example because the numbers are easy to work with and the change could be minimal.

And this works if you switch "Canon" and "Nikon" above or change them to any other manufacturer. You can make your product as good as it needs to be to compete but not better.

Of course, I am looking forward to what Canon has come up with for the 7DII although I'm still very happy with my 7D (preordered when they announced it (I wanted 8 fps ) and just passed 100k images).

Even if it was as simple as changing one variable in one line of code in the firmware, they could not do it in a month,
even if everything else was ready to "pull the trigger"

Nikon releases product....
Canon executives discuss Nikon release.....
Decision is made to change from 14 to 12 frames per second....
30 seconds later, line of code is changed....
manual is edited.... order goes out to print new ones
box graphics are edited, order goes out to print new ones
new boxes and manuals are printed and arrive back at factory.
cameras and manuals are packed into new boxes....
stock is shipped worldwide.....
product is released.....

No way could that be done in a month....

 

[AprilForever]

We’re also told that 2 new “pro” bodies will arrive in 2014, and that doesn’t include the EOS 7D Mark II

So it's the high-mp eos and a 5d4 with a new sensor? 2014 would be the earliest date I'd expect a 5d3 replacement to arrive because Canon wouldn't want to annoy their premium customers, but on the other hand any new sensor tech is bound to make it to ff soon because Nikon currently has an edge here in most specs.

Is the 5D pro? Canon officially classifies it as prosumer, and while a lot of pros do use it, I am not sure if it fits into that category.

Two new pro bodies could be the high MP 1D camera and a new pro level cinema body.

The 7D MK I was pretty pro. The 7D MK II hopefully will be more pro. I think that the sensor should have at least a 2 stop ISO improvement, and there should be better sealing, a MUCH improved grip, and also a third wheel for ISO.

 

[expatinasia]

We’re also told that 2 new “pro” bodies will arrive in 2014, and that doesn’t include the EOS 7D Mark II

So it's the high-mp eos and a 5d4 with a new sensor? 2014 would be the earliest date I'd expect a 5d3 replacement to arrive because Canon wouldn't want to annoy their premium customers, but on the other hand any new sensor tech is bound to make it to ff soon because Nikon currently has an edge here in most specs.

Is the 5D pro? Canon officially classifies it as prosumer, and while a lot of pros do use it, I am not sure if it fits into that category.

Two new pro bodies could be the high MP 1D camera and a new pro level cinema body.

The 7D MK I was pretty pro. The 7D MK II hopefully will be more pro. I think that the sensor should have at least a 2 stop ISO improvement, and there should be better sealing, a MUCH improved grip, and also a third wheel for ISO.

Pretty pro?! It is/was a decent camera with good fps, and other features. It never really competed with the 1 series, and the only ever time you would see one on a field/pitch was perhaps, and only perhaps, as a 2nd back up body. Nothing wrong with that.

If they did make a true Pro 7D Mark II H or C in a 1D X body with all the FPS, perhaps even improved this and that etc. I will buy one without a doubt. But I doubt it would be cheap, in fact I would say US$3-4K. But my money would be on a watered down version of the 1D X, only question is how much water to use?

 

[schill]

1. I have a marketing degree and background, and agree with kimvette that Canon & Nikon (& Sony) do not 'release a DLSR camera' to match what the competition has put out a month or two before. Research & Development and then prototype and production for specific significant new technology changes (and incorporating this into any new body) takes huge lengths of time (often years).

My background is electronics and I work in a R/D centre. most of the projects that I have worked on are in the 3 to 5 year timeframe. I can assure you that putting out a camera in a month is laughable. It would take that long to get the boxes made and print the manuals.

Canon will be working on the next model before the previous one gets to market and will have a study group defining the model after that. They will already be working on the 80D, the 7D3, the 6D2, the 5D4 and 1D? are probably in prototype and they are working on the 5D5 and 1D??

I figure the last minute stuff they might do is not in the hardware but in the firmware. And it may be putting in limitations, not adding features. Say Canon has created a 7DII that has 14 fps. Before Canon announces the camera, Nikon announces a comparable camera that has 10 fps. Canon can now change the firmware to support only 12 fps, still top Nikon, and save some performance for an easy update (new body or new firmware) later if they need it.

Obviously, changing firmware can go either way, but simple things like reducing fps or buffer size are very easy - much easier than improving them if you've already created the "best" firmware you can write at the time. I used fps in the example because the numbers are easy to work with and the change could be minimal.

And this works if you switch "Canon" and "Nikon" above or change them to any other manufacturer. You can make your product as good as it needs to be to compete but not better.

Of course, I am looking forward to what Canon has come up with for the 7DII although I'm still very happy with my 7D (preordered when they announced it (I wanted 8 fps ) and just passed 100k images).

Even if it was as simple as changing one variable in one line of code in the firmware, they could not do it in a month,
even if everything else was ready to "pull the trigger"

Nikon releases product....
Canon executives discuss Nikon release.....
Decision is made to change from 14 to 12 frames per second....
30 seconds later, line of code is changed....
manual is edited.... order goes out to print new ones
box graphics are edited, order goes out to print new ones
new boxes and manuals are printed and arrive back at factory.
cameras and manuals are packed into new boxes....
stock is shipped worldwide.....
product is released.....

No way could that be done in a month....

I agree. I never said it could be done in a month.

Anyway, I was thinking "last minute before they commit to the final design/configuration [1]" and not "last minute before I walk into B&H and pick one up."

[1] after which they would print manuals/boxes, etc.

 

[kaihp]

I figure the last minute stuff they might do is not in the hardware but in the firmware. And it may be putting in limitations, not adding features. Say Canon has created a 7DII that has 14 fps. Before Canon announces the camera, Nikon announces a comparable camera that has 10 fps. Canon can now change the firmware to support only 12 fps, still top Nikon, and save some performance for an easy update (new body or new firmware) later if they need it.

Obviously, changing firmware can go either way, but simple things like reducing fps or buffer size are very easy - much easier than improving them if you've already created the "best" firmware you can write at the time. I used fps in the example because the numbers are easy to work with and the change could be minimal.

And this works if you switch "Canon" and "Nikon" above or change them to any other manufacturer. You can make your product as good as it needs to be to compete but not better.

Of course, I am looking forward to what Canon has come up with for the 7DII although I'm still very happy with my 7D (preordered when they announced it (I wanted 8 fps ) and just passed 100k images).

Even if it was as simple as changing one variable in one line of code in the firmware, they could not do it in a month,
even if everything else was ready to "pull the trigger"

Nikon releases product....
Canon executives discuss Nikon release.....
Decision is made to change from 14 to 12 frames per second....
30 seconds later, line of code is changed....
manual is edited.... order goes out to print new ones
box graphics are edited, order goes out to print new ones
new boxes and manuals are printed and arrive back at factory.
cameras and manuals are packed into new boxes....
stock is shipped worldwide.....
product is released.....

No way could that be done in a month....

I agree with Don here, but that may be because I have a similar background of Electronics. I designed integrated circuits for 16 years.

V&V will very quickly also take more than a month. Software is quite tricky and sometimes "dead simple things" just trip up stuff. But I work in the medical device industry (hearing aids), and there V&V is required.

As for doing plastic injection molding, design can take 3-9 months, then tooling is designed (the big metal box that contains the cavity that makes the actual part), tooling manufacture and then V&V on the samples - did the snaps turn out OK, are the dimensions within spec, is Marketing happy. It all takes time. Lots of time.

 

[schill]

I figure the last minute stuff they might do is not in the hardware but in the firmware. And it may be putting in limitations, not adding features. Say Canon has created a 7DII that has 14 fps. Before Canon announces the camera, Nikon announces a comparable camera that has 10 fps. Canon can now change the firmware to support only 12 fps, still top Nikon, and save some performance for an easy update (new body or new firmware) later if they need it.

Obviously, changing firmware can go either way, but simple things like reducing fps or buffer size are very easy - much easier than improving them if you've already created the "best" firmware you can write at the time. I used fps in the example because the numbers are easy to work with and the change could be minimal.

And this works if you switch "Canon" and "Nikon" above or change them to any other manufacturer. You can make your product as good as it needs to be to compete but not better.

Of course, I am looking forward to what Canon has come up with for the 7DII although I'm still very happy with my 7D (preordered when they announced it (I wanted 8 fps ) and just passed 100k images).

Even if it was as simple as changing one variable in one line of code in the firmware, they could not do it in a month,
even if everything else was ready to "pull the trigger"

Nikon releases product....
Canon executives discuss Nikon release.....
Decision is made to change from 14 to 12 frames per second....
30 seconds later, line of code is changed....
manual is edited.... order goes out to print new ones
box graphics are edited, order goes out to print new ones
new boxes and manuals are printed and arrive back at factory.
cameras and manuals are packed into new boxes....
stock is shipped worldwide.....
product is released.....

No way could that be done in a month....

I agree with Don here, but that may be because I have a similar background of Electronics. I designed integrated circuits for 16 years.

V&V will very quickly also take more than a month. Software is quite tricky and sometimes "dead simple things" just trip up stuff. But I work in the medical device industry (hearing aids), and there V&V is required.

As for doing plastic injection molding, design can take 3-9 months, then tooling is designed (the big metal box that contains the cavity that makes the actual part), tooling manufacture and then V&V on the samples - did the snaps turn out OK, are the dimensions within spec, is Marketing happy. It all takes time. Lots of time.

I think people are missing my point. All I was saying is that there are some things that can be changed much closer to the release of the product than others. I never said anything about changing hardware (electronic or otherwise).

I don't believe reducing the fps of the camera will typically require retooling the molds (increasing it, maybe, but not reducing it).

If they have any freedom in modifying the design when they get close to release (again, before printing manuals, boxes, etc.) it is in the firmware. And I still believe it is easier to dial back some functionality (like fps) than it is to improve it.

I do not have a problem with management saying "reduce the fps from 14 to 12 and get it tested in the next month while we print the manuals and boxes." That may not be ideal, but I can certainly see it happening.

In fact, I will not be surprised if they already built some of this into the coding and testing process, just to give them the flexibility to change closer to the "last minute."

And since we are specifying backgrounds, while I have never developed firmware for a commercial product, I have been involved professionally in software development for 18+ years, as a hobby for a lot longer, and I've written plenty of low-level code and firmware for microcontrollers as a hobby (while nothing close to a camera's firmware, I know the effects small changes can have).

[Edit] And regarding manuals, with the move to PDF manuals instead of printed ones, who's to say that the manual can't be changed the night before I walk into B&H to buy my camera. They have the potential to update them whenever they want - that can easily be extended to controlling the initial release of the manual until they want to, even if they've already shipped the product.

Companies have been moving away from print manuals and just including CDs with PDFs. Now, some are starting to include only a quick-start sheet or PDF on CD. To get the full manual you need to download it.

There's less and less of a need to include a print manual in the box.

Also, as far as printing boxes goes, does Canon include that much of a description of the camera features on the box? I don't have a clue what's on my 7D box (and I don't keep it with me at all times ). I don't remember the EOS-M box having too much written on it. These are not boxes that are typically sitting on retail shelves for potential buyers to pick up and read. They don't have all of the information that other retail products have. I don't think I've ever seen store where I could walk in and pick up a 7D box and start reading it - you usually don't see the boxes at all. The only place I might expect this would be Costco, maybe, for some cameras. But Canon definitely doesn't design boxes that are screaming out the features of the contents to consumers.

You could probably change something like fps even after the boxes were printed and nobody would know the difference. You just couldn't change a 7D mkII to a 3D without reprinting - I'd be wary of buying a camera in a box with a sticker over the camera name.

 

[JohanCruyff]

3. As I've said for YEARS: APS-H is dead. Please don't keep resurrecting it. : APS-H is now an unnecessary 'half way house' between APS-C and FF. The 6D particularly demonstrates that. Leave it to RIP, please!
- APS-C for budget sensor, on camera flash, 'reach' (ie pixel density for certain applications - eg birding, some sports), and to make use of the wonderful array of EF-S lenses (many of which are L class in terms of image quality.
- FF for more depth of field (DOF) control and per pixel sharpness, lower noise, and possibly in the (near) future, an overall much higher resolution photo - already competing with Medium Format.

Maybe you're right, APS-H is an unnecessary compromise between FF and APS-C.
If you're right, we can consider G15 is an unnecessary compromise between standard point&shoot cameras and EOS M.
And maybe APS-C sensor is an unnecessary compromise between P&Ss and FF.
And maybe P&Ss are unnecessary compromises between smartphones and FF.
And ...


Well, I think that a few compromises deserve to survive.

 

[schill]

...
I think people are missing my point. All I was saying is that there are some things that can be changed much closer to the release of the product than others. I never said anything about changing hardware (electronic or otherwise).

Like what, exactly?

If they have any freedom in modifying the design when they get close to release (again, before printing manuals, boxes, etc.) it is in the firmware. And I still believe it is easier to dial back some functionality (like fps) than it is to improve it.

I'm pretty sure that all of the primary features are agreed upon and nailed down well in advance.

About the only thing that I could see them adding "late" would be "more high ISO" that is really noisy.

If someone thought that adding in a 14fps mode to top the 12fps mode with a few months left until announce and did so, I'm pretty sure they'd be kicked out the door.

Consider that it was 3 years from the release of the 7D in 2009 to firmware version 2.0 in 2012.

There are lots of people that think they know what it means to write software and/or build electronics hardware. Few indeed that understand what it takes to deliver such a product that is of a high enough quality standard to command the price of DSLRs.

If you actually read my post, my example was dropping down from 14 to 12 fps - not increasing it. And if you think it "might" be possible to add "more high ISO" why "might" it not be possible to reduce fps from 14 to 12?

The whole point of my post, which I think is completely lost by now, was that if anything can be done at "the last minute" - and I did not define when that was - it is to remove or reduce features that are enabled/controlled in the firmware as opposed to in hardware. It is typically (although not always) easier to remove functionality rather than add it. In fact, you can leave functionality in place and just remove the menu option that turns it on and off in some cases.

In other words, while at some point the hardware design may be fixed you can still change the firmware to adapt at least to some extent to the market. If Canon decides after seeing Nikon's latest release that the 7DII is better than it needs to be, they could reduce functionality. It is easier to say "we don't need 14fps, drop it down to 12" than it is to say "we need to up the 12fps to 14." By the way, I also never said that I think this actually happens.

 

[unfocused]

While it is unrealistic to suggest that Canon (or Nikon) can completely and quickly revise a product based on what their competitor does, it is also unrealistic to suggest that the companies don't react and respond to each others' releases.

As I stated before, these two companies have been competing for nearly a century. They know their competitors' businesses inside and out. They are not sitting around waiting for the press release announcing a new product. Honestly, the development cycle is kind of irrelevant. It doesn't matter if it takes six months or six years to develop a product. The critical factor is how long it takes for the competition to find out what the other company is doing.

Let's say Nikon decides to put a new sensor in the D400. The development time isn't the critical factor here, it is the lag time between when Nikon makes decisions and when Canon finds out what those decisions are. For argument's sake, let's say that on average there is a one-month lag time. Doesn't matter if the development time is six years, Canon's intelligence is on a one-month lag time and that's the operative number.

Of course, this is a gross oversimplification. Some decisions may be known within minutes of the company making them. Some may not be known until the product is unveiled. Some are just common sense things that even people here on Canon Rumors can figure out (Pretty much everyone with a brain knew the 5DIII would have better autofocus than the 5DII).

You can be sure that both Nikon and Canon have people whose sole responsibility is to know what the other company is doing at all times. This isn't necessarily nefarious or underhanded. These are publicly traded companies with divisions around the world. Much of the information is readily available to anyone who takes the time to look for it and knows what they are looking for.

Additionally, they both serve the same market and so their market research is likely to run parallel to one another. There is a reason why the D4 and 1D-X are basically twins – their customers are drawn from the same pool of professional photographers.

None of us knows exactly how much consideration of the competitor's product goes into the final release decision, but to suggest that they act independently of one another is a bit naive.