What is the deal with using the joystick for AF point selection anyway? I hardly ever use it on the 5D4, for me it's much faster using the two wheels with thumb and index finger for horizontal and vertical shift of the AF point instead ...
Many of us prefer to reserve those for manual Tv and Av adjustment on the fly.
Dual card slots in an "80D Mark II" so to speak is a hint towards a 7D2 replacement type of camera. The 90D may be really the 7D Mark II replacement and have all the bells and whistles of the 7D2 and then some.
The 80D already has dual card slots. That's not a 7D2 "only" feature at present.
That makes sense, from the viewpoint of what canon offers. But if the sales of the 7D Mk II is declining faster than Canon likes to see, I think there are more factors.
About a year ago I was heavily attacked by the usual members of this forum when I wrote about my observation that many people with a 7D or 7D Mk II that I spoke to, both in my home country and abroad, were thinking about switching to the D500. These facts apparently were not very welcome. I do not know about the people I spoke once when abroad, but I know since then 3 of my friends have sold their 7D / 7D Mk II and bought the Nikon D500.
That has given me the opportunity over the last 1 1/2 year to do a fait bit of comparisons (I wrote a bit about that in other posts I made), and the D500 is undeniably better than the 7D Mk II in 2 areas:
(1) AF-performance with erratically moving subjects and also with subjects that have less contrast (in particular in less than ideal lighing conditions);
(2) sensor performance where noticeably the Dynamic Range of the D500 allows post-processing where for instance skies that are bleak in the 7D Mk II still have realistic colors and saturation and also for instance the underside of wings or fuselage of aircraft show details with the D500 where the 7D Mk II does not (or you must push so hard that the Noise becomes too high).
What I mean to say is: there may also be other reasons that the sales of the 7D Mk II may not be what they were.
And there is one more thing with regards to sales of the 7D Mk II. A few months ago a representative of Canon was asked about the 7D Mk III in relation to competing the D500, and his answer was that Canon was perfectly happy with competing the D500 on price. That for me was an indication that Canon might not come up with a 7D Mk III at all. And I thought this for the same reasons that you mention: costs developing, building and maintaining a new high-end action camera are huge. With the end of the DSLR approaching it is not in Canon's business interest to take big risks there.
Again, the main reason sales of the 7D Mark II are currently so low is that it has been five years since it was rolled out. If Canon had introduced a 7D Mark III with nothing more than the 80D sensor in an otherwise 7D Mark II body in 2018, they would be selling boatloads of them right now. A LOT of 7D Mark II users have been waiting for a couple of years for the next model so they can upgrade.
Up until about a year ago, both Canon and Nikon were saying the exact opposite for years, that mirrorless was a fad, that mirrorless cameras were toys which couldn't compete with "pro-grade" DSLRs, that the weight advantages were offset by lenses anyway, both companies were committed to DSLRs for decades to come, etc. Funny how quickly it all changed.
With the
near total disappearance of the true "pro" sports/action/reportage photographer (it's much worse now than it was in 2015 when that article was published), which has been Canon's core high end market since the EOS system was rolled out in 1987, there's not much need for true "pro-grade" sports/action/reportage cameras. What is driving the high end market now is what most wealthy "semi-pro" and "enthusiast" shooters with lots of money to spend want:
cameras and lenses that are spec sheet champions.
Unless they have caught up and/or surpassed Sony's current sensor with this new design. They've known for a while their iterations of the same basic sensor was lacking in speed capabilities, and have been delayed (compared with the last decade) in releasing a new sensor design. I suspect they had hoped this was ready a year ago to put in the R. There has been at least a year fap in releasing new sensor base designs, the R and RP were just repackaged tweaked designs. 32 seems like a very large jump, buy it's all relative. It's only a 25% bump. The 18 to 24 bump that happened between 7dmkii and the 80d was the same percentage.
The 7D Mark II is 20.2 MP (just like the FF 1D X Mark II with proportionally larger photosites). The original 7D was 18 MP (Just like the FF 1D X with proportionally larger photosites).
Well, again, it depends on the sales Canon has for the current models. If the 7 is selling well, that’s one thing, but if the 80 is selling well, then it’s another. We know that APS-C sales across the board are dropping faster then the high end models. This is for all manufacturers, but Canon’s sales last quarter were worse, mostly, apparently, because of fast dropping APS-C sales.
It’s difficult. Higher end FF cameras are doing fairly well, but not APS-C. It’s very possible that Canon is also losing some DSLR APS-C sales to the R and even the M lines.
I don’t know what to recommend, because I don’t have the data. None of us here do. We just talk about what we would want them to do, which is very different from what they should do. Other than a lucky guess, perhaps.
Again, maybe the main reason the 80D is selling better than the 7DII is because one came out in 2014 and many shooters have been waiting for the last couple of years to buy its overdue replacement while the other came out in 2016 and those more interested in an 80D type camera are just now putting on the brakes waiting to see what is going to happen next?
It's 4x the area, but only 2x the amount of lines. If there's a limited amount of lines per second that can be read from the sensor, which seems to be the case for Canon, 4k60 would mean 1080p120.
But each line is also twice as wide, in terms of pixels. That's 4X the number of pixels that must be processed.
5DIV has dual digic, the second one is used for metering and tracking ....
The 7D Mark II has dual DiG!C 6 processors for image processing
plus another metering/tracking processor for iTR.
I'm not sure what you're trying to say here.
Noise at ISO200 is nothing to do with the lens. All sensors struggle with very strong reds, such as newly-opened poppies.
All Mark II superteles were designed for 100MP+ sensors
All Mark II Super telephotos were designed for 100MP+
Full Frame sensors, which is approximately the same pixel density as 40 MP on an APS-C 1.6X crop sensor.
Indeed: check the specs.
-Check the number of AF-points: the D500 has 153, the 7D Mk II has 65.
-Check the number of cross-type AF points: the D500 has 99, the 7D Mk II has 65.
-Check the number of f/8 AF-points: the D500 yes, the 7D Mk II no.
Because specs often do not tell the whole story (compare Sony specs to Canon specs and then how some of them actually perform), it is relevant to know how the AF system actually performs.
And then the better specs of the D500 are confirmed to give better AF performace in real life.
The AF system of the D500 is quite generally desctibed to be more advanced, more precise and more customizable than that of the (much older) 7D Mk II.
This is particularly the case for fast moving subjects.
And this is even more the case where the lighting is low or otherwise not ideal and/or where the subject has low contrast.
- Check and see how many of those 153 "AF points" on the D500 are actual, user selectable, AF points instead of "virtual" AF assist points. (Hint: it's 55)
- Check and see how many of those 99 "Cross type AF points" on the D500 are actual, user selectable, AF points instead of "virtual" AF assist points. (Hint: it's 35)
- Check the 7D Mark II again. The center AF point plus the surrounding 4/8 when used as "AF Assist points" for the center AF point are rated to f/8.
There's no denying the D500 has a great AF system that does outperform the 7D Mark II AF system in some ways, but there is no need to exaggerate that difference.