Now we see through a glass, darkly...
- Apr 5, 2016
I think that might be confusing absence of data with a finding. Theres very different sample sizes.
If you take a look at the 60D or 70D with larger samples, you see a much closer match in overall patterns to the 7D2, with the majority of failures at 10-35k, and a fair chance of some very good numbers afterwards. Still not a completely fair comparison given lots of caveats (user base, age rates, selection bias etc) but interesting.
Using that data I have a 44% chance of getting 250k-500k with a 70D and a 58% chance with a 7D2. I mean sure its measurable, but they're both pretty awesome in my view.
So again, when there is more than anecdotal evidence from a sample size of one (yourself) that shows the one you don't like is better at something than the one you do, you say it's not that significant and they're almost the same. On the other hand, if the one you like seems to you to do something a little better when you use it, that's a qualitative difference. Got it.
There's a pretty significant difference between a chance something will happen 44% of the time and something will happen 58% of the time. Just ask any actuarialist. Vegas sports books make a killing out of the 4% difference between 48% and 52%.
Even with the 60D/70D, the 50% line is around 250K.
For the 7D Mark II the 50% line is between 500K-1M.
That's a big difference.
That does not mean the 60D/70D/80D are garbage. They're very good cameras that are more robust than lesser models in the Rebel line.
But in terms of durability, the 7D Mark II is in an entirely different class than the x0D series. At the time Roger Cicala tore one down in 2014, he said it was the most weather resistant camera he had come across. That would include the 1D X. That would include the 5D Mark III. That would include the 70D and 60D. He's published teardowns on all of them before he did the 7D Mark II.