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

[neuroanatomist]

True enough, but is the improvement worth the cost of buying a new camera, or paying more for the higher specs?

You can make those decisions for yourself, but not for anyone else.

 

[unfocused]

True enough, but is the improvement worth the cost of buying a new camera, or paying more for the higher specs?

You can make those decisions for yourself, but not for anyone else.

It seems a little strange to me that people argue there are too many choices when we have absolutely no idea what choices Canon is planning to offer.

 

[Velo Steve]

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
...

First reaction: YES! There are always features I want to max out and others that don't matter to me.

Second reaction: Can I tolerate reboots and compatibility issues in a camera? NO!

I like the concept, though.

 

[mb66energy]

an SL-2 sized DSLR with 7D III functionality would be of interest. very compact but full performance. all muscle, no fat. best sensor available, best DIGIC, best AF available, fully functional EOS UI and an LP-E6 battery for sufficient juice (yes, it will fit).

[...]

Very close to my thoughts after 2 days with SL-2: Make a SL-2x "Pro" variant with a few more direct controls and give it a late aluminium age PD AF - not the stone aged 9 pt AF and a larger battery.. The only problem I see is to (1) make the motor for the same fps small enough and (2) put the same AF sensor array of a hypothetical 7D iii into the same body. The rest would be possible from what I see.

But: I am very happy with the SL-2 and my 13 year old EF-S 60 macro for what it is and what I had to pay for it. Despite of its plastic body and reduce set of controls it is a valuable tool to take photos with gorgous IQ.

 

[docsmith]

This is all odd. Starting with the title. Shake up implies a significant disruption. This is Canon adding a model.

I would have titled this something like "Consumers Win! Canon adding Third Higher End Cropped Sensor DSLR"

Along those lines, I recently bought a 80D for my wife. I was debating between the 77D and 80D. We went to Best Buy and both of us vastly preferred the ergonomics of the 80D. Differences between models can be subtle, but ultimately mean a great deal in terms of the end users experience whether it be a few extra fps or a better grip.

So, bring on the different models, bring on different options so I can better pick which one is best for me!

 

[ritholtz]

an SL-2 sized DSLR with 7D III functionality would be of interest. very compact but full performance. all muscle, no fat. best sensor available, best DIGIC, best AF available, fully functional EOS UI and an LP-E6 battery for sufficient juice (yes, it will fit).

basically a mini john cooper works. just like the car industry took nearly a century to find out that many people prefer small cars but still want full performance ... camera industry still has not understood this. those "innovative" canikons still want you to buy humgonguos bricks if you want full functionality, performance and control. this fundamentalky wrong approach is the main reason why smartphones have been eating most of camera makers cake. people got sick and tired of their sorry, underpowered "compact camera" offerings and sorry, underpowered "rebels" and bulky, heavy and absurdly overpriced mirrorslapper bricks.

I am also in the same boat. Want to get more features in SL2 size. Like small car and more features. I actually want to go back to 80d for suppose to be good video IQ and other features. Compared SL2 with other offerings in store. There is a big difference in size between SL2 and 80d. SL2 view finder is decent when compared to 80d. Of course basic rebels (T6) have better button design then SL2. May be Canon is going this direction. Fully loaded SL2 can take on mirrorless.

 

[entoman]

It's quite possible, and IMHO a good idea, that Canon shelves plans for a 7DMkii.

The D500 has effectively stolen the APS sports DSLR market from them, so in order to compete, Canon's next offering would have to be a major jump, not an incremental one. They need much faster burst speeds, much better continuous drive AF subject tracking, a bigger brighter viewfinder, significantly improved dynamic range and far better high ISO noise performance. What's more, they need to get this into the stores right now, because you can bet your life that Nikon have an even better successor to the D500 in an advanced state of development.

The ONLY way to really grab sales in the APS sports/wildlife camera field is to produce a mirrorless that accepts EF primes and sports zooms natively, and has a body largely based around 7DMkii/5DMkiv ergonomics and size. That would enasble photographers to switch easily between Canon DSLRs and Canon mirrorless without a lengthy "adaptation" period.

Mirrorless is definitely the way forward for sports cameras, as proven by the amazingly capable Sony a9. A large bodied sports mirrorless would offer all the normal mirrorless benefits of very fast burst speeds, no mirror blackout, no vibration, silent shutter, less mechanical parts to fail, live histogram in the EVF, and would also have room for larger longer lasting batteries.

Better for Canon to shelve the 7DMKiii and concentrate on producing a real Sony/Nikon beater, in the form of an APS mirrorless competitor to the Sony a9, in a 7DMkii body style.

 

[ScottyP]

What I'd think someone should be interested in would be a low-light performer. We've seen every other specialization get a model. We've seen high megapixel specialist models. We've seen high frame rate models. We've seen rugged models. We've seen small form factor models. We've seen cheap models. We've even seen an astro photography version if I remember right. Why not release a model with just 16-18 mp, but with a good processor, and not tax the processor with high frame rate so it can do something with noise instead. See what can be done if you really set out to make one that gives high IQ in low light.

Problem may be that some crop buyers are the newcomers to photography, and would not see a low-MP camera as being as good as one with higher MP, and may not fully understand how big a deal low light performance is.

Maybe they should make a dedicated full frame low light camera and see what they could do.

 

[haggie]

The "shakeup" could also be a combined set of differentiating features.

The 7D is mainly used as an action camera for stills photographers: that is what it is made for and how it is marketed by Canon. The wish for a new cropped camera by Canon that is (once again) class leading in image quality and general performance has been expressed often enough, also on this forum.

Hardly any serious use as a video camera is involved by action photographers. But often when the subject of a 7D Mk III comes up, there are some that argue that a camera like the 7D Mk III should nevertheless also get top-of-class video features. After all, there are many serious video shooters in the APS-C arena as well, and in high numbers too (including but not restricted to vloggers).


Could it be that the 7D Mk III will be 'revolutionary' in the way that Canon incorporates a big leap in DR and Noise performance, added with a big increase in AF-performance? Thus, Canon could make the 7D Mk III the "cropped action camera to beat" for years to come.

Then the 90D could be practically a normal 'evolutionary' update to the 80D.
Or not ..... perhaps the 90D would get an EVF instead of the present OVF would be a next step in Canon's EVF cameras. That could make sense after the M50.
On the other hand that would mean the end of the camera range xxD as we know it (including the name '90D'). I am not sure how Canon estimates sales of such an EVF camera as compared to the succesful xxD series cameras (with OVF, that is). But again, it could be a bold next step for a next EVF body by Canon. It would certainly get much attention as the xxD has features that have proven attractive to large numbers of buyers, and therefor it has the potential to establish canon a a major playerin the EVF camewra business.

And the third new "camera in between" could be a 7D Mk III 'light".
With 'light' I means a little less performace in the stills department (like less fps, less AF-performance and less tuning, possibly a little less sensor performance like DR and Noise) but with steep video features, e.g. really good 4K video and some interfacing for microphone, head set and output for post processing.

 

[The Fat Fish]

<p>The source mentios that the shake-up is likely that the EOS 80D/EOS 7D Mark II duo will be split into 3 cameras with the EOS 7D Mark III being the top camera in the APS-C lineup annd two more cameras below it, one being an EOS 90D and a camera between the two.</p>

Please not this segmentation rubbish again. The APS-C line already has too many models creating more and more reasons for Canon to hold back features. Remember when you had three lines for APS-C and three for FF and the choice was clear? I'm really trying to stick with Canon but they are making it very difficult these past few years.

 

[Orangutan]

The D500 has effectively stolen the APS sports DSLR market from them, so in order to compete,

How do you figure? Here's the Amazon rankings as of a few minutes ago:

D500 #68 in Camera & Photo > DSLR Cameras
7DMkII #23 in Camera & Photo > DSLR Cameras

You can certainly argue that Amazon is not representative of global sales, but this is probably as good as it gets without internal sales numbers. The much older Canon is far ahead of the D500 in sales rankings, so it's a false statement (see below) to say that the Canon is not competitive.

Regarding "competitive:" I'd guess that your use of the word "competitive" means competing for your purchase. When manufacturers think of the word, they're thinking of overall sales/profits. I don't at all intend to disparage the D500 -- by all accounts it's a really nice body, and I can see how it would be "competitive" for photographers with certain needs. However, Canon will look at the overall sales numbers and see that the 7D2 is very competitive against the D500, and they'll ask themselves how they can do that again. Similarly, Nikon will look at those sales numbers and ask themselves "we made this great camera that's getting eaten alive by the 7D2, what the hell do we have to do to be competitive."

In the end, you should buy what works for you, but you can't forecast what manufacturers will produce based on your particular interests or values.

 

[neuroanatomist]

Please not this segmentation rubbish again. The APS-C line already has too many models creating more and more reasons for Canon to hold back features. Remember when you had three lines for APS-C and three for FF and the choice was clear? I'm really trying to stick with Canon but they are making it very difficult these past few years.

More choices = bad? I suppose some people get paralyzed by indecision when presented with too many choices.

Especially if the options are extraordinarily complex, like having six APS-C camera choices. Mind. Blown.

 

[dak723]

Faster fps and more mp may be better, but I'm wondering how much practical difference there is in 20-30% bumps in fps or mp.

If your employer offered you a 20-30% raise, would you turn it down because you question the practicality of the difference?

And why would a 30% increase in fps be comparable to a 30% increase in income? A 30% increase in fps gives you 9 images per second rather than 7. Better, sure? But how much better?

I think you've just made his point: more is always better unless there's a specific cost to the increased FPS. For BIF, sports, etc. it can improve the chance of getting the shot you wanted (e.g. wing position). Is it a lot of difference? No, but what's the drawback? A much higher frame rate can affect the choice of sensor tech used; but, other than that, more is better.

The drawback of more fps is more noise and less DR.

 

[Orangutan]

Faster fps and more mp may be better, but I'm wondering how much practical difference there is in 20-30% bumps in fps or mp.

If your employer offered you a 20-30% raise, would you turn it down because you question the practicality of the difference?

And why would a 30% increase in fps be comparable to a 30% increase in income? A 30% increase in fps gives you 9 images per second rather than 7. Better, sure? But how much better?

I think you've just made his point: more is always better unless there's a specific cost to the increased FPS. For BIF, sports, etc. it can improve the chance of getting the shot you wanted (e.g. wing position). Is it a lot of difference? No, but what's the drawback? A much higher frame rate can affect the choice of sensor tech used; but, other than that, more is better.

The drawback of more fps is more noise and less DR.

Not necessarily. If you put a 5D4 into slow continuous or single, it does not suddenly lose noise and gain DR compared to high-speed continuous.

 

[CanoKnight]

The much older Canon is far ahead of the D500 in sales rankings, so it's a false statement (see below) to say that the Canon is not competitive.

That is not an accurate way to judge popularity. There are simply more people invested in a Canon system than Nikon and the only option available to them to upgrade is the 7D2. How many of these are grudgingly upgrading to a 7D2 while wishing they could get a d500 instead ? A better indicator of popularity would be the number of buyers buying a 7d2 vs d500 who are not already invested in either. I don't think that would be a big number because the 7d2 and d500 are not starter cameras. But still, that number would be a lot more telling than total sales of 7d2 vs d500.

 

[neuroanatomist]

The much older Canon is far ahead of the D500 in sales rankings, so it's a false statement (see below) to say that the Canon is not competitive.

That is not an accurate way to judge popularity.

Total sales are the most accurate way to judge popularity. If you were going to argue that Amazon US isn't representative of the global high-end APS-C market, that could be debated. .

 

[Orangutan]

The much older Canon is far ahead of the D500 in sales rankings, so it's a false statement (see below) to say that the Canon is not competitive.

That is not an accurate way to judge popularity.

It's the only one we have.

There are simply more people invested in a Canon system than Nikon and the only option available to them...How many of these are grudgingly upgrading to a 7D2 while wishing they could get a d500 instead ?

Good question, but we have no way to know. We have only sales numbers. If you want me to believe something else, you'll need to present some kind of evidence.

A better indicator of popularity would be the number of buyers buying a 7d2 vs d500 who are not already invested in either.

I'm not sure that would be helpful: someone with no investment in either is likely somewhat new to photography. A better measure would be a graph of switching brands vs. $$ invested in current brand. Good luck to us getting any useful data, other than raw sales.

 

[Don Haines]

The much older Canon is far ahead of the D500 in sales rankings, so it's a false statement (see below) to say that the Canon is not competitive.

That is not an accurate way to judge popularity.

It's the only one we have.

There are simply more people invested in a Canon system than Nikon and the only option available to them...How many of these are grudgingly upgrading to a 7D2 while wishing they could get a d500 instead ?

Good question, but we have no way to know. We have only sales numbers. If you want me to believe something else, you'll need to present some kind of evidence.

A better indicator of popularity would be the number of buyers buying a 7d2 vs d500 who are not already invested in either.

I'm not sure that would be helpful: someone with no investment in either is likely somewhat new to photography. A better measure would be a graph of switching brands vs. $$ invested in current brand. Good luck to us getting any useful data, other than raw sales.

Also, when any new camera comes out, there is a spike in sales and for a period, that camera is number one in sales. Then, the sales slowly decline over the life of the camera.... this gives us the interesting pattern where the older model has higher total sales, but the newer model has higher recent sales....

Since none of these cameras have the exact same feature set, there will always be a degree of apples-to-oranges in any comparison.

Ultimately, it comes down to long term averages of individual decisions, and the effect of any one model, no matter how good or bad, does not have much of an impact.

 

[slclick]

Raise your hand if you yourself (no, not a spouse or whomever) would buy one of these proposed (and rumored) models. Yeah, that's what I thought. A bunch of guys on the internet complaining about things that aren't even up their alley.

 

[Orangutan]

Raise your hand if you yourself (no, not a spouse or whomever) would buy one of these proposed (and rumored) models. Yeah, that's what I thought. A bunch of guys on the internet complaining about things that aren't even up their alley.

I've been saving/planning for a 7D3 if the price and features are reasonable.