A Shake-up Coming to the APS-C DSLR Lineup? [CR2]

[Bobbo]

Here we go again. The old retail upscaling trick.
Welcome the 7D3 - £2000

 

[jolyonralph]

How about a 7Dsr, 50 MP on a APS-C sensor?

I suspect 50mpx would be too much. it would need a 2.6um pixel pitch so say goodbye to good low iso performance at full resolution! Still, that's still bigger than the 1.9um pitch on the 150mpx APS-H sensor they've built.

But, I'd love to be wrong. 50mpx on APS-C would certainly be different. It'd also translate to a 126 megapixel FF sensor for the next 5DSR

 

[crashpc]

jonyonralph: what do you believe would be best compromise in resolution for APS-C cameras supposed to be resolution beasts? I think 39,3Mpx is interesting number (8k wide, 3:2 ratio).
Seeing the uptick from 18 to 24Mpx myself, It would be nice jump. 50 would still be welcome.
But I believe we´re not seeing any of that. One day, they´ll throw 32Mpx at us, and that´s it.

 

[zim]

Maybe

90D 24mpx sensor

7D Mark III 24mpx sensor

7Dr (same as 7D Mark III but 30 mpx sensor and no low pass filter)

What fps's would you put on those?
A 7Dr sounds juicy but please not at to much expense of fps, 8 would be minimum for me.

The notion of an additional model number suggests to me moving the top of the line 7D up a level and I find that exciting

 

[amorse]

Possibility of a video-centric body in between the 90D and 7DIII with 4K low/no crop, and flippy screen? Maybe a low-resolution body which could provide a near-full sensor readout and reasonable low light performance?

That might not cannibalize the other lines through having a smaller sensor than the Cinema line, less stills resolution than a stills focused camera, less durability than 5D/7D lines with a flippy screen, while appeasing the vocal group that want 4K?

That sounds like it could meet the perceived demand for video DSLRs without bleeding out any other line.

 

[warc1]

I don't get this from a business perspective. New models have huge development costs that limits the number you can introduce over time. With the mature, shrinking camera market, adding to your product breadth seems more likely to splinter your customer base rather than adding to it. Alternatively, you could spend that same money for existing model updates that decreases life cycle times. That too doesn't really add to your customer base, but it does increase turnover which increases revenue. For example, the 5D Mark III/IV, 5DSR and 7DII all appear to be on 4-5 year product cycles. Reduce that to 3 years and you have a significant opportunity to increase sales over time.

 

[unfocused]

A perfect video-purposed camera will have lower resolution/pixel density, because that's how you get less noise and better low light performance. It should have an electronic viewfinder, because you can't see the display screen in the sun (and monitors with shades are often not appropriate). Factors like drive speed (fps) and autofocus modes don't matter much. Instead, in the consumer-ish market, you're looking for features like dual pixel autofocus, subject tracking, and facial recognition.

A perfect wildlife camera for enthusiast types will have higher resolution, because we're forever too short on reach and are forced to crop. We want optical viewfinders, because they don't have refresh issues, autofocus modes and precision are very important, more fps is always welcome, and things like subject tracking don't matter at all. Plus, we're looking at how big the buffer is and how quick it can empty out, something that video people don't care about, because what they want is the ability to constantly write data at a speed fast enough for whatever resolution they're recording.

As usual, that's well-reasoned. But I don't quite agree.

First, I don't think we are talking perfect anything. Perfect is the realm of Canon Cinema and the 1D line, not the APS-C line. So, in my mind it's all about the compromises.

Since video cameras generally shoot at lower shutter speeds than stills cameras (double the frame rate) and since random noise can be less apparent on video (it moves around from frame to frame) I think a case can be made that a video camera can sustain higher pixel density than a stills camera.

Note that I'm only saying "a case can be made" and I'm sure some video folks will disagree. But, I'm just saying that the 1/60 of a second for video allows for a lot more light to hit those pixels than the 1/800 and above needed for birds and moving wildlife. Plus, with video, you are much less likely to be using a 400mm plus lens, which drives up the shutter speed needed for stills photography.

You may be correct about an EVF, but any video DSLR is a compromise and this is a rumored DSLR, not a rumored mirrorless with an EVF.

On the other hand, a wildlife camera needs to have the highest possible ISO performance because most birds and mammals are active during the lowest-lit parts of the day. Yes, reach is important, but if the image is noisy that will only get worse as you crop. And, as I mentioned above, those high shutter speeds are needed with those long lenses.

I'm not sure what you mean by "things like subject tracking don't matter at all." Subject tracking matters a whole lot if you want to shoot a bird in flight.

So, while I respect your opinion, I'd have to say that from my perspective, I tend to reach the opposite conclusion.

 

[unfocused]

I don't get this from a business perspective. New models have huge development costs that limits the number you can introduce over time...

True, but I would argue that the development cost of the 5Ds was probably minimal, since it reused an existing body design and basically uses an upscaled version of a sensor that was already being produced for the 70D and which was to be used for the 7DII.

We don't know what this mystery camera is, but if Canon followed the same pattern and used a 90D or a 7DIII body, the development costs might not be that great.

 

[photonius]

if they really want to shake up things make it like a computer made to order web site:

a) choose from three body sizes
SL1/sl2, xxxD (pentamirror), xx/xD pentamirror

b) options
- shutter (with some restrictions due to body size)
- sensor resolution
- processor (digital 7, 8...)
- RAM
- articulated screen
- top lcd (not sl1/sl2)
- 9 p AF, or 48 Af
- micro adjust
.... etc....

who's for it?

 

[warc1]

We don't know what this mystery camera is, but if Canon followed the same pattern and used a 90D or a 7DIII body, the development costs might not be that great.

Maybe not the first one, but when a company attempts to create a new market niche, they generally intend to maintain it. That requires ongoing development efforts over time that I would argue could be better spent on more rapid updates of the existing, very comprehensive model lineup.

 

[greger]

I sadly am quickly heading to the I don’t care side. I could end up buying the ??? In between camera if it appears. I don’t want to guess what the specs will be for any new cameras in the lineup. All the rumour tells me is that I have more time to save up for my new camera. Whatever specs Canon decides to go with.

 

[BillB]

I don't get this from a business perspective. New models have huge development costs that limits the number you can introduce over time...

True, but I would argue that the development cost of the 5Ds was probably minimal, since it reused an existing body design and basically uses an upscaled version of a sensor that was already being produced for the 70D and which was to be used for the 7DII.

We don't know what this mystery camera is, but if Canon followed the same pattern and used a 90D or a 7DIII body, the development costs might not be that great.

I would think that the costs associated with the body would be a fairly small part of development costs, compared to the costs of designing the sensor, the AF, the processor, the user interface, and the software to integrate the system. There will be some carryover from previous models, but innovation has its price, especially if you want a bulletproof product.

 

[RayValdez360]

We don't know what this mystery camera is, but if Canon followed the same pattern and used a 90D or a 7DIII body, the development costs might not be that great.

Maybe not the first one, but when a company attempts to create a new market niche, they generally intend to maintain it. That requires ongoing development efforts over time that I would argue could be better spent on more rapid updates of the existing, very comprehensive model lineup.

if you flood the market people will more likely see your brand and choose your brand your profit may not be the greatest but people will buy into you for a long period of time. Canon as enough money to do this apparently. i am learning this right now with my business. i did a lot of work for a lot of people now I am getting a lot new people hitting me up often because my name is more familiar and my work is better than others out here working.

 

[BillB]

I know that the rumor said DSLRs , but I am not sure that rules out a mirrorless design in the mix somewhere, especially if 3 new models are going to replace two DSLR's.

 

[jolyonralph]

What fps's would you put on those?
A 7Dr sounds juicy but please not at to much expense of fps, 8 would be minimum for me.

Obviously the lower resolution version would have a faster frame rate than the higher resolution one.

I'd think more likely to be 8-9fps for the 24mpx version and 6-7 fps for the higher resolution version

 

[dak723]

exactly what the market wants ... even more marginally different mirrorslappers.

Yes, that does seem to be exactly what the market wants. The real market...not the 'millions and millions of people' in your imagination.

Went to best buy. All the Canons, Nikons, Sonys on display. Far more Canons on display. More choices seems to mean far more likely to find the features and price point that shoppers want. May seem to be too many models, but it seems to be working.

 

[slclick]

Funny how so many folks complain about choices of bodies which they will never use. The more the merrier...that is unless you're anti choice.

 

[Ozarker]

APS-C lineup. Could one of these be a mirrorless with an EF EF-S mount?

I believe you are right.

 

[bf]

I don't get this approach of product map.
It seems canon wants to act like a car company and these models are different options of each platform that its dealership has configured.

 

[AuroraChaserDoug]

I don't get this approach of product map.
It seems canon wants to act like a car company and these models are different options of each platform that its dealership has configured.

I'm curious about the broader strategy as Canon develops its mirrorless camera lineup. I think we will see a broader product map that appears to be scattershot like a "No Hunting" sign in Montana. But the product map lines will converge as the life cycle of those product lines end, including the entire APS-C line as we know it. And while this is obvious, it's good to know that I can go out and buy any lens for my kit this year and know that it won't be orphaned next Spring by Canon at Photokina or some other major event.