7D Mark II on Cameraegg

[pj1974]

.....

Look at a 60D...it can handle 1920x1080 no problems.... it can read the sensor 60 times per second no problems...

To go to 2K video at 60 frames per second you will need twice the computing power (easy) and probably 1.8X the storage speed (easy with a good card)

To go to 4K video at 30 frames per second you need 4X the computing power (easy) and probably 3.5X the storage speed (could be done with a fast compact flash card, SD is out)

To go to 4K video at 60 frames per second you need 8X the computing power (easy with dual Digic5+ or dual Digic6) and around 7X the storage speed. SD and compact flash are both out.... it will have to be cFast or something else...

You could reduce storage requirements by compressing it more heavily, but if you do, there goes quality.... and if you do not have quality, why bother with 4K video in the first place?

If the 7D2 supports 4K video, odds are very high that it will take a cFast and an SD card for storage...

Don, I really like so many of your posts here, they are clearly worded, well formatted & thoughtfully written. The above is one great example.

I have seen 4K (in a specialist store, on top end equipment), and it's great... particularly if the screen is large. I do think 4K will be something more mainstream- ie wealthier households in the west will be having it more commonly in the next 5 years or so (but it will probably be somewhat of a delayed take-up).

What I do wonder, is where is Canon (& other manufacturers) seeing (or 'making') the bottleneck? If the above is true, and 4K has historically been unachievable due to card write speed? CFast sounds like a possibility (as does USB3) for Canon's next 'higher end' / XD (ie single digit series) of cameras... eg 7DmkII, or 5DmkIV, or ID___

I have a 7D, and enjoy it immensely, but I only use video very rarely. I prefer taking / making still photography to videos myself, though I appreciate good video that others take/make.

If Canon will come out with clean, great 60fps 4K video, I do expect it will probably be on their 1DC or dedicated video body range, and then 'trickle down' to the 'normal' DSLR range.

Let's see what the future holds... in the meantime, enjoy your photography / videography!

Paul

 

[Don Haines]

.....

Look at a 60D...it can handle 1920x1080 no problems.... it can read the sensor 60 times per second no problems...

To go to 2K video at 60 frames per second you will need twice the computing power (easy) and probably 1.8X the storage speed (easy with a good card)

To go to 4K video at 30 frames per second you need 4X the computing power (easy) and probably 3.5X the storage speed (could be done with a fast compact flash card, SD is out)

To go to 4K video at 60 frames per second you need 8X the computing power (easy with dual Digic5+ or dual Digic6) and around 7X the storage speed. SD and compact flash are both out.... it will have to be cFast or something else...

You could reduce storage requirements by compressing it more heavily, but if you do, there goes quality.... and if you do not have quality, why bother with 4K video in the first place?

If the 7D2 supports 4K video, odds are very high that it will take a cFast and an SD card for storage...

Don, I really like so many of your posts here, they are clearly worded, well formatted & thoughtfully written. The above is one great example.

I have seen 4K (in a specialist store, on top end equipment), and it's great... particularly if the screen is large. I do think 4K will be something more mainstream- ie wealthier households in the west will be having it more commonly in the next 5 years or so (but it will probably be somewhat of a delayed take-up).

What I do wonder, is where is Canon (& other manufacturers) seeing (or 'making') the bottleneck? If the above is true, and 4K has historically been unachievable due to card write speed? CFast sounds like a possibility (as does USB3) for Canon's next 'higher end' / XD (ie single digit series) of cameras... eg 7DmkII, or 5DmkIV, or ID___

I have a 7D, and enjoy it immensely, but I only use video very rarely. I prefer taking / making still photography to videos myself, though I appreciate good video that others take/make.

If Canon will come out with clean, great 60fps 4K video, I do expect it will probably be on their 1DC or dedicated video body range, and then 'trickle down' to the 'normal' DSLR range.

Let's see what the future holds... in the meantime, enjoy your photography / videography!

Paul

Thank you for the kind words... I try to use logic, but some many subjects are very emotionally charged....

As I've said before, I shoot with a 60D. The first time I shot with a borrowed 7D I knew that I bought the wrong camera and have been waiting (somewhat impatiently) for the 7D2 to come out. I did not feel like the 7D was enough of an upgrade to warrant my getting it, despite the fact that it is what I should have bought in the first place...

For example, video is an emotionally charged topic. Personally, I seldom use it, but would have thought long and hard about getting a camera without it. There are many who feel that Canon should just make "pure" cameras and leave video out... but at what cost? Yes, it does take away some R+D resources from stills and yes, it does increase the complexity of cameras, but what happens if Canon leaves it out? The great buying masses would go elsewhere because rightly or wrongly, they think they need the feature, and without it Canon's sales would plummet, economies of scale would be lost, there would be far less R+D money, and the company would implode.... a small price to pay (actually it's savings) for features I could live without, but in reality, I find nice to have.

 

[jdramirez]

Thank you for the kind words... I try to use logic, but some many subjects are very emotionally charged....

As I've said before, I shoot with a 60D. The first time I shot with a borrowed 7D I knew that I bought the wrong camera and have been waiting (somewhat impatiently) for the 7D2 to come out. I did not feel like the 7D was enough of an upgrade to warrant my getting it, despite the fact that it is what I should have bought in the first place...

For example, video is an emotionally charged topic. Personally, I seldom use it, but would have thought long and hard about getting a camera without it. There are many who feel that Canon should just make "pure" cameras and leave video out... but at what cost? Yes, it does take away some R+D resources from stills and yes, it does increase the complexity of cameras, but what happens if Canon leaves it out? The great buying masses would go elsewhere because rightly or wrongly, they think they need the feature, and without it Canon's sales would plummet, economies of scale would be lost, there would be far less R+D money, and the company would implode.... a small price to pay (actually it's savings) for features I could live without, but in reality, I find nice to have.

I upgraded from my xs to the 60D primarily because of it's video function. I didn't want to buy a video camera that cost $300 when I could have sold the xs and used that 300 towards the 60D.

Video, especially now that very few of us put the video on dvd's/blu-rays/physical media, is just easier to capture and upload. I liked the editing... but that has fallen to the wayside now.

For me... I can't have a single body in my house (only body in my house) that doesn't have video... because I do need it... not a ton... but I do need it to capture my 5 month old and my 125 month old. So if Canon were to drop video entirely... I would probably have to jump ship in 5 years when I out grow my mkiii... I know it isn't likely that they will drop it... but it is what it is.

 

[AvTvM]

...
I upgraded from my xs to the 60D primarily because of it's video function. I didn't want to buy a video camera that cost $300 ...
...
For me... I can't have a single body in my house (only body in my house) that doesn't have video... because I do need it... not a ton... but I do need it to capture my 5 month old and my 125 month old. So if Canon were to drop video entirely... I would probably have to jump ship in 5 years when I out grow my mkiii... I know it isn't likely that they will drop it... but it is what it is.

This is exactly why I would like all DSLRs to come in a "basic" stills-only version without video capturing capability [hardware disabled, easy to do]. And for those who really want or "need" steills and video in one single device, should be offered a video-enabled version of those cameras ... of course at a surcharge. Maybe 10% more, maybe 20% more or any other reasonable number, that would still make "one dual-use camera" a better deal than "two single-use cameras" (or rather camera systems).

For every other product on earth the principle is clear: more features and/or more convenience = higher price.
We can order cars in a basic, "no frills version" or "fully loaded". "2 wheel drive" or "all-wheel drive". Stronger engine, more "extras" ... no problem. But ... not for free.
You want it ... you select it ... you pay for it ... you get it.

Only video-users clamor for their extra video-capability and single-device convenience in EVERY camera ... and they DEMAND it "FOR FREE".

Now, as that demands shifts to ever more advanced video capturing (4k, 8k, 60fps, 120fps, 1000fps?) ... it gets very evident, that video capability in DSLRs does NOT come for free, but does cause rather significant extra cost: extra R&D effort, more CPU-power, stronger hardware, larger and faster storage media, additional firmware and software ... all of this has to be designed, developed, tested, manufactured, implemented and serviced. It requires extra capital and extra labor from (highly skilled) humans, who certainly do not work "for free". But the extra feature only wanted by a minority of buyers should be "free of charge", "all inclusive". Paid for by the majority of stills idiots, who neither need nor want video capability in their stills cameras, but are not given a choice. Unlike cars, we only get our cameras "fully video loaded", and have to swallow the price for it.

This is the single reason, why the topic of "video-capable DSLRs" is "emotional". Because the way (all) camera makers are currently dealing with the market demand for "dual-use cameras" is very UNFAIR towards those wanting cameras that are fully optimized towards one single use scenario, that DSLRs were really designed for: capturing still images.

The argument will be less pronounced when the shift to mirrorless cameras has happended, since these cameras are video-enabled by their very design [for viewfinder&backscreen image] without mechanical mirrors blocking the lightpath. Nevertheless, implementing video CAPTURE and video OUTPUT causes extra cost and is an extra feature and extra convenience. It should therfore come as a choice for those who want or need it AND ARE WILLING TO PAY at least a modest surcharge for it.

 

[jdramirez]

...
I upgraded from my xs to the 60D primarily because of it's video function. I didn't want to buy a video camera that cost $300 ...
...
For me... I can't have a single body in my house (only body in my house) that doesn't have video... because I do need it... not a ton... but I do need it to capture my 5 month old and my 125 month old. So if Canon were to drop video entirely... I would probably have to jump ship in 5 years when I out grow my mkiii... I know it isn't likely that they will drop it... but it is what it is.

This is exactly why I would like all DSLRs to come in a "basic" stills-only version without video capturing capability [hardware disabled, easy to do]. And for those who really want or "need" steills and video in one single device, should be offered a video-enabled version of those cameras ... of course at a surcharge. Maybe 10% more, maybe 20% more or any other reasonable number, that would still make "one dual-use camera" a better deal than "two single-use cameras" (or rather camera systems).

For every other product on earth the principle is clear: more features and/or more convenience = higher price.
We can order cars in a basic, "no frills version" or "fully loaded". "2 wheel drive" or "all-wheel drive". Stronger engine, more "extras" ... no problem. But ... not for free.
You want it ... you select it ... you pay for it ... you get it.

Only video-users clamor for their extra video-capability and single-device convenience in EVERY camera ... and they DEMAND it "FOR FREE".

Now, as that demands shifts to ever more advanced video capturing (4k, 8k, 60fps, 120fps, 1000fps?) ... it gets very evident, that video capability in DSLRs does NOT come for free, but does cause rather significant extra cost: extra R&D effort, more CPU-power, stronger hardware, larger and faster storage media, additional firmware and software ... all of this has to be designed, developed, tested, manufactured, implemented and serviced. It requires extra capital and extra labor from (highly skilled) humans, who certainly do not work "for free". But the extra feature only wanted by a minority of buyers should be "free of charge", "all inclusive". Paid for by the majority of stills idiots, who neither need nor want video capability in their stills cameras, but are not given a choice. Unlike cars, we only get our cameras "fully video loaded", and have to swallow the price for it.

This is the single reason, why the topic of "video-capable DSLRs" is "emotional". Because the way (all) camera makers are currently dealing with the market demand for "dual-use cameras" is very UNFAIR towards those wanting cameras that are fully optimized towards one single use scenario, that DSLRs were really designed for: capturing still images.

The argument will be less pronounced when the shift to mirrorless cameras has happended, since these cameras are video-enabled by their very design [for viewfinder&backscreen image] without mechanical mirrors blocking the lightpath. Nevertheless, implementing video CAPTURE and video OUTPUT causes extra cost and is an extra feature and extra convenience. It should therfore come as a choice for those who want or need it AND ARE WILLING TO PAY at least a modest surcharge for it.

I feel as though I've had this conversation before. Video is software... so it doesn't really cost much to implement into a body with sufficient capabilities. So you create a body capable of capturing 8 fps at 18mp... and the video capabilities are already built in.

Now... if the manufacturers HAVE to improve the specs to acheive high end video... then there's an argument... but having a stills only camera v. (not the other cameras in the lineup) the competition will severely hurt the stills only market.

If Canon was the only one making cameras... sure... but they aren't. Sony will include it... nikon, etc... and if the price is the same and offers what many would consider a significant upgrade of capability, then the stills only will lose.

I don't think you can make a camera that doesn't provide some level of video. When I got my XS (I was stupid) and didn't realize it didn't do video. My old fuji 3mp camera did crappy video... so I was surprised my new slr didn't. I made do... but if I had known that the nikon d3000 did video and it was the same price as the XS kit I got... then I probably would be at nikon rumors right now.

We need a poll... but not of the people at canon rumors... but of just everyday soccer mom types who drive the entry level market. And

 

[Don Haines]

For every other product on earth the principle is clear: more features and/or more convenience = higher price.

Yet I am writing this response on a wifi enabled touchscreen tablet which has more computing power than NASA mission control had when they sent Apollo to the moon in 1969, yet for some strange reason costs less....

 

[jrista]

...
I upgraded from my xs to the 60D primarily because of it's video function. I didn't want to buy a video camera that cost $300 ...
...
For me... I can't have a single body in my house (only body in my house) that doesn't have video... because I do need it... not a ton... but I do need it to capture my 5 month old and my 125 month old. So if Canon were to drop video entirely... I would probably have to jump ship in 5 years when I out grow my mkiii... I know it isn't likely that they will drop it... but it is what it is.

This is exactly why I would like all DSLRs to come in a "basic" stills-only version without video capturing capability [hardware disabled, easy to do]. And for those who really want or "need" steills and video in one single device, should be offered a video-enabled version of those cameras ... of course at a surcharge. Maybe 10% more, maybe 20% more or any other reasonable number, that would still make "one dual-use camera" a better deal than "two single-use cameras" (or rather camera systems).

For every other product on earth the principle is clear: more features and/or more convenience = higher price.
We can order cars in a basic, "no frills version" or "fully loaded". "2 wheel drive" or "all-wheel drive". Stronger engine, more "extras" ... no problem. But ... not for free.
You want it ... you select it ... you pay for it ... you get it.

Only video-users clamor for their extra video-capability and single-device convenience in EVERY camera ... and they DEMAND it "FOR FREE".

Now, as that demands shifts to ever more advanced video capturing (4k, 8k, 60fps, 120fps, 1000fps?) ... it gets very evident, that video capability in DSLRs does NOT come for free, but does cause rather significant extra cost: extra R&D effort, more CPU-power, stronger hardware, larger and faster storage media, additional firmware and software ... all of this has to be designed, developed, tested, manufactured, implemented and serviced. It requires extra capital and extra labor from (highly skilled) humans, who certainly do not work "for free". But the extra feature only wanted by a minority of buyers should be "free of charge", "all inclusive". Paid for by the majority of stills idiots, who neither need nor want video capability in their stills cameras, but are not given a choice. Unlike cars, we only get our cameras "fully video loaded", and have to swallow the price for it.

This is the single reason, why the topic of "video-capable DSLRs" is "emotional". Because the way (all) camera makers are currently dealing with the market demand for "dual-use cameras" is very UNFAIR towards those wanting cameras that are fully optimized towards one single use scenario, that DSLRs were really designed for: capturing still images.

The argument will be less pronounced when the shift to mirrorless cameras has happended, since these cameras are video-enabled by their very design [for viewfinder&backscreen image] without mechanical mirrors blocking the lightpath. Nevertheless, implementing video CAPTURE and video OUTPUT causes extra cost and is an extra feature and extra convenience. It should therfore come as a choice for those who want or need it AND ARE WILLING TO PAY at least a modest surcharge for it.

I feel as though I've had this conversation before. Video is software... so it doesn't really cost much to implement into a body with sufficient capabilities. So you create a body capable of capturing 8 fps at 18mp... and the video capabilities are already built in.

Now... if the manufacturers HAVE to improve the specs to acheive high end video... then there's an argument... but having a stills only camera v. (not the other cameras in the lineup) the competition will severely hurt the stills only market.

If Canon was the only one making cameras... sure... but they aren't. Sony will include it... nikon, etc... and if the price is the same and offers what many would consider a significant upgrade of capability, then the stills only will lose.

I don't think you can make a camera that doesn't provide some level of video. When I got my XS (I was stupid) and didn't realize it didn't do video. My old fuji 3mp camera did crappy video... so I was surprised my new slr didn't. I made do... but if I had known that the nikon d3000 did video and it was the same price as the XS kit I got... then I probably would be at nikon rumors right now.

We need a poll... but not of the people at canon rumors... but of just everyday soccer mom types who drive the entry level market. And

Hmm, I think your vastly oversimplifying the hardware requirements of video. Sure, it is POSSIBLE to do video as a "software only" thing. I do not believe that is actually how it is done these days, though. First off, if video was purely software based, there is a limit at how fast modern high resolution sensors can be read out. This limit is on the FRONT END of the image processing pipeline...there is only so much bandwidth in a DIGIC5+ chip, for example...and we know that in say the 1D X, the total bandwidth is 500mb/s (250mb/s per DIGIC5+). That bandwidth ONLY allows for 14fps readout at full resolution.

SO, given that we can read the full sensor out at 14fps, that clearly indicates that something else is going on, at the hardware level during readout, to support 30fps and 60fps readout rates. There are a few options here. First is line skipping, or even row and column skipping, where only certain pixels of each row and/or column are read out. This reduces the time necessary to perform a read, therefor supporting faster readout. Line skipping results in pretty terrible quality, especially on the aliasing/moire front...this is what the D800 does, and moire is pretty terrible on the D800.

The more effective approach to supporting a high speed readout without losing quality is some kind of hardware-level pixel binning. By blending pixel data together at the point of readout, you reduce the data throughput from sensor to DSP, potentially considerably if you bin say an 18mp sensor down to the 2mp necessary for 1080p video. This is what Canon does...they bin the pixel readout, and perform some form of 4:x:y pulldown and processing.

Regardless of whether line skipping or binning is employed, the HARDWARE has to support it. It isn't a purely firmware based process. Video requires hardware changes to be effective and efficient. So there IS a drag on R&D, and that does ultimately impact the number and quality of the improvements for stills photography.

 

[mkabi]

...
I upgraded from my xs to the 60D primarily because of it's video function. I didn't want to buy a video camera that cost $300 ...
...
For me... I can't have a single body in my house (only body in my house) that doesn't have video... because I do need it... not a ton... but I do need it to capture my 5 month old and my 125 month old. So if Canon were to drop video entirely... I would probably have to jump ship in 5 years when I out grow my mkiii... I know it isn't likely that they will drop it... but it is what it is.

This is exactly why I would like all DSLRs to come in a "basic" stills-only version without video capturing capability [hardware disabled, easy to do]. And for those who really want or "need" steills and video in one single device, should be offered a video-enabled version of those cameras ... of course at a surcharge. Maybe 10% more, maybe 20% more or any other reasonable number, that would still make "one dual-use camera" a better deal than "two single-use cameras" (or rather camera systems).

For every other product on earth the principle is clear: more features and/or more convenience = higher price.
We can order cars in a basic, "no frills version" or "fully loaded". "2 wheel drive" or "all-wheel drive". Stronger engine, more "extras" ... no problem. But ... not for free.
You want it ... you select it ... you pay for it ... you get it.

Only video-users clamor for their extra video-capability and single-device convenience in EVERY camera ... and they DEMAND it "FOR FREE".

Now, as that demands shifts to ever more advanced video capturing (4k, 8k, 60fps, 120fps, 1000fps?) ... it gets very evident, that video capability in DSLRs does NOT come for free, but does cause rather significant extra cost: extra R&D effort, more CPU-power, stronger hardware, larger and faster storage media, additional firmware and software ... all of this has to be designed, developed, tested, manufactured, implemented and serviced. It requires extra capital and extra labor from (highly skilled) humans, who certainly do not work "for free". But the extra feature only wanted by a minority of buyers should be "free of charge", "all inclusive". Paid for by the majority of stills idiots, who neither need nor want video capability in their stills cameras, but are not given a choice. Unlike cars, we only get our cameras "fully video loaded", and have to swallow the price for it.

This is the single reason, why the topic of "video-capable DSLRs" is "emotional". Because the way (all) camera makers are currently dealing with the market demand for "dual-use cameras" is very UNFAIR towards those wanting cameras that are fully optimized towards one single use scenario, that DSLRs were really designed for: capturing still images.

The argument will be less pronounced when the shift to mirrorless cameras has happended, since these cameras are video-enabled by their very design [for viewfinder&backscreen image] without mechanical mirrors blocking the lightpath. Nevertheless, implementing video CAPTURE and video OUTPUT causes extra cost and is an extra feature and extra convenience. It should therfore come as a choice for those who want or need it AND ARE WILLING TO PAY at least a modest surcharge for it.

I feel as though I've had this conversation before. Video is software... so it doesn't really cost much to implement into a body with sufficient capabilities. So you create a body capable of capturing 8 fps at 18mp... and the video capabilities are already built in.

Now... if the manufacturers HAVE to improve the specs to acheive high end video... then there's an argument... but having a stills only camera v. (not the other cameras in the lineup) the competition will severely hurt the stills only market.

If Canon was the only one making cameras... sure... but they aren't. Sony will include it... nikon, etc... and if the price is the same and offers what many would consider a significant upgrade of capability, then the stills only will lose.

I don't think you can make a camera that doesn't provide some level of video. When I got my XS (I was stupid) and didn't realize it didn't do video. My old fuji 3mp camera did crappy video... so I was surprised my new slr didn't. I made do... but if I had known that the nikon d3000 did video and it was the same price as the XS kit I got... then I probably would be at nikon rumors right now.

We need a poll... but not of the people at canon rumors... but of just everyday soccer mom types who drive the entry level market. And

Hmm, I think your vastly oversimplifying the hardware requirements of video. Sure, it is POSSIBLE to do video as a "software only" thing. I do not believe that is actually how it is done these days, though. First off, if video was purely software based, there is a limit at how fast modern high resolution sensors can be read out. This limit is on the FRONT END of the image processing pipeline...there is only so much bandwidth in a DIGIC5+ chip, for example...and we know that in say the 1D X, the total bandwidth is 500mb/s (250mb/s per DIGIC5+). That bandwidth ONLY allows for 14fps readout at full resolution.

SO, given that we can read the full sensor out at 14fps, that clearly indicates that something else is going on, at the hardware level during readout, to support 30fps and 60fps readout rates. There are a few options here. First is line skipping, or even row and column skipping, where only certain pixels of each row and/or column are read out. This reduces the time necessary to perform a read, therefor supporting faster readout. Line skipping results in pretty terrible quality, especially on the aliasing/moire front...this is what the D800 does, and moire is pretty terrible on the D800.

The more effective approach to supporting a high speed readout without losing quality is some kind of hardware-level pixel binning. By blending pixel data together at the point of readout, you reduce the data throughput from sensor to DSP, potentially considerably if you bin say an 18mp sensor down to the 2mp necessary for 1080p video. This is what Canon does...they bin the pixel readout, and perform some form of 4:x:y pulldown and processing.

Regardless of whether line skipping or binning is employed, the HARDWARE has to support it. It isn't a purely firmware based process. Video requires hardware changes to be effective and efficient. So there IS a drag on R&D, and that does ultimately impact the number and quality of the improvements for stills photography.

@ Jrista - I think jdramirez is comparing 1DX vs. 1DC.
If there is a difference in terms of hardware, please tell us.

@ Everyone else who doesn't want video in their DSLR - Canon also makes printers... you're saying that it adds towards R&D, which ultimately affects stills photographers? I'm sure they have dedicated R&D for printers, as there are dedicated R&D for video and R&D for stills. Most, if not all, of their canon camcorders including the Vixia line have the ability to take pictures/stills, I'm not complaining that its making Vixia camcorders expensive and money out of my pocket for a stills function that I would never use on a camcorder.

@ AvTvM - you're right in some respects, but remember that some functions of a car trickles down. I mean, power windows, A/C, etc... soon becomes basic functions. If it doesn't then the car company loses to the other company that does offer it as a basic function.

There are other companies that make DSLR without video...
Look beyond Nikon and Canon... Look at Hasselblad, Leica, PhaseOne, Mamiya... what makes their cameras more expensive? It can't be video cause thats not even included.

 

[AvTvM]

well, here we are talking about a possible EOS 7D successor, whatever it may be called.

A semi/pro DSLR capable of handling quite demanding use cases of "photographing fast moving subjects" ... from sports to wildlife of all sorts to birds of all sizes and in flight to planes in the air at airshows or in war zones and the like. Used by people who typically are not "entry level n00bs" but enthusiasts who know, whether they want or don't wanT/need video capabilities in that 7D successor.

If Canon would take the test and offer a well-specced stills-only 7D II @ e.g. 1999 and a video-enabled version 7D IIc priced anywhere between 2,299 to 2,599 depending on level of video capture offered ... I would expect 90% would be sold without video.

While it is not video as the differentiator, I see it very similar to the Nikon D800 vs. D800E offerings. A hell of a lot more regular D800 are sold than D800E, since only people really wanting and valueing the additional capability [more resolution at possible risk of moire in some situations] will pay up for the more expensive model.
The example sucks a bit since the D800E is so much more expensive than the D800 for only very little extra ... but I bet it would be pretty much the same, even if the pricing difference was only 100 bucks.

There should be no video-freeriding in stills-cameras / DSLRs. It is just not fair.

 

[jdramirez]

well, here we are talking about a possible EOS 7D successor, whatever it may be called.

A semi/pro DSLR capable of handling quite demanding use cases of "photographing fast moving subjects" ... from sports to wildlife of all sorts to birds of all sizes and in flight to planes in the air at airshows or in war zones and the like. Used by people who typically are not "entry level n00bs" but enthusiasts who know, whether they want or don't wanT/need video capabilities in that 7D successor.

If Canon would take the test and offer a well-specced stills-only 7D II @ e.g. 1999 and a video-enabled version 7D IIc priced anywhere between 2,299 to 2,599 depending on level of video capture offered ... I would expect 90% would be sold without video.

While it is not video as the differentiator, I see it very similar to the Nikon D800 vs. D800E offerings. A hell of a lot more regular D800 are sold than D800E, since only people really wanting and valueing the additional capability [more resolution at possible risk of moire in some situations] will pay up for the more expensive model.
The example sucks a bit since the D800E is so much more expensive than the D800 for only very little extra ... but I bet it would be pretty much the same, even if the pricing difference was only 100 bucks.

There should be no video-freeriding in stills-cameras / DSLRs. It is just not fair.

When the 1c, or whatever it is called, came out, I remember there being a video about some guys using it to shoot a wedding and the used the 4k video and extracted files from the video. They referred to it as capturing micro expressions.

So the line between video and stills is blurring.

 

[unfocused]

If Canon would take the test and offer a well-specced stills-only 7D II @ e.g. 1999 and a video-enabled version 7D IIc priced anywhere between 2,299 to 2,599 depending on level of video capture offered ... I would expect 90% would be sold without video...There should be no video-freeriding in stills-cameras / DSLRs. It is just not fair.

Here we go again. How many times must this idea be debunked?

In what alternate universe do you live where a video camera (which all DSLRs are) would cost $600 less if video capture were disabled?

Try this experiment. Go into any new car dealership, pick out any car or truck that comes with electric windows and ask them to give you a price quote on an identically equipped vehicle with crank windows. Whatever the percentage price difference is (and it could well cost more) is likely to be the most you might save (probably zero or a higher price) if you disabled video capture.

As DSLRs improve, the needs of video and stills capture may begin to diverge and at that point there may be reasons why a stills only camera should be available, but cost is never going to be a factor.

 

[mkabi]

AvTvM as usual, you're not convinced yet.

Ok, this is for all the people that are not convinced that video is a basic function, nor do I believe that it affects R&D for the stills side and it doesn't affect IQ.

Lets compare Canon's current product line in terms of DSLRs.

SL1 -> t5i/700D -> 70D -> 6D -> 5D Mark iii -> 1DX -> 1DC

I've listed the above as per price and functionality, from least to greatest.
SL1 all the way to 1DX... zero difference in terms of video, its still 1080p with the same frame rates.
You can argue that the the 70D has some live-view AF crap during video... But still the price hasn't shifted the 70D from being so much more expensive than the 6D. In fact, how much of a price difference is it between the 60D and the 70D when the 60D first came out, plus or minus inflation?

Note the IQ is also slowly getting better between the SL1 (lets neglect the 700D) to the 70D to 6D to 5DIII to 1DX, while keeping the video at 1080p. Is the video a basic function now? Video function on the cameras are not any different between SL1 all the way to 1DX, the price is... what accounts for that price increase? I don't think its video.

The only difference between 1DX and 1DC is for the 4K video, and look at the $5000 price difference between them. Not worth the extra $5000 in my opinion, but some will argue about that. Nonetheless, the R&D that you think going to video isn't affecting the stills people, because the stills people are not paying $5000 extra.

As I've said earlier, the GoPro Hero 3/3+ black edition supports 4K, 2.7K, 1440p 1080/60p...
and a guy at www.back-bone.ca has made it possible to interchange lens on the GoPro...
And, guess what, it doesn't cost $5000 extra. If I was so into IQ and compactness, I would go for it, but I'm comfortable with the size and quality of the 7D. In fact, with GoPro + the mod, plus all the C-mount lenses I can get off of ebay, its still a whole lot cheaper than the 7D plus all my current lenses. But again, I'm more comfortable with the 7D.

If you buy a car and they are offering it fully loaded for free, knowing that you will never use the Navigation system, will you say no? Price is going to be the same fully loaded or not.

 

[Don Haines]

Ok... let's say Canon decides to make a 7DS for stills, and a 7DV which shoots stills and Video.

Sales of the 7DV will be 50 or more times that of the 7DS. There are VERY VERY VERY few people who want a stills only camera.... a few people on this forum are not representative of the masses which have embraced a stills camera that can shoot video.

Since there will be so few of the 7DS, it's price will be considerably higher than the 7DV, yet it will not shoot better pictures as it will have the same sensor, the same AF system, etc etc etc.... Yes, the processing may be optimized for shooting stills, but the burst rate WILL STILL BE LIMITED BY THE SHUTTER MECHANISM AND THE SPEED OF THE MEMORY CARDS!!!!!

So the consumer will be faced with the choice of buying a stills and video camera, or to buy a far more expensive stills only camera that has no better performance.... What do you think will be the result?

This is not going to happen.....

 

[jdramirez]

is it the same people having this conversation over and over again... or are the rolls the same but the actors different.

Deja vu all over again.

 

[mkabi]

Is it too early to say that I told you so???

 

[xps]

Talking to professional sale staff from 2 CP shops:
They believe that the 7D2 will be a well sold product ( if the sensor at least will be a little bit better than the 7D´s in ISOs). Because of the F8 feature and the improved AF system. The ability to use e.g. an 100-400 with an 1.4 extender is highly wanted by sports/wildlife... photographers. And paired with an new AF system (double cross, AF @ f8, ... fast,... accurate) this will satisfy the needs of a lot of photographers.

In their opinion, the f8 feature & better AF will be the major reason why someone buys the 7D2, mainly not an improved sensor.