Another announcement: Nikon D500!

[RickWagoner]

...
Why shouldn't the 80D now leapfrog the 7D2 again and introduce yet another advance in sensors? e.g. A 24 or 28mp, 4K capable, BSI sensor?
...

Because it would offend all of the little boys and girls that think that because they've got a single-digit Canon DSLR that it must be better than any double or triple digit Canon DSLR.

you're so correct! When the 70D came out all the old timer 7d owners were so butthurt they thrash talked it to no end. Sadly when the 7d2 came out it was just a beefed up 70D on speed with less modern features like touch,tilt screen or wifi at almost double the price. It is not a completely crazy idea to think the 80D will step with much greater feature set than the older 7d2...but it is a guarantee the "Professional" or people who think they need a professional build 7d2 will thrash talk the 80D also...then start dreaming about the 7D3..like what happened before.

 

[ahsanford]

Speaking of the impressive buffer on the D500, has anyone here filled the 7DII buffer when in real use (not for testing purposes). I now I haven't.

Outperforming the 7D2 is not the issue. A 200 shot buffer is Nikon simply taking buffer off the table for reasons not to use this rig. That 'problem' is now solved for action shooters.

It does beg the question, however: if you can actually handle that much data, why stop at 20 MP or 10 fps? Surely, one of those two numbers could be higher if you can move that much data. This camera would sell a lot better at 30 MP x 10 fps x 130 shot buffer or 20 MP x 14 fps x 130 shot buffer.

My math's probably off, but you catch my drift.

- A

 

[Loswr]

It does beg the question, however: if you can actually handle that much data, why stop at 20 MP or 10 fps? Surely, one of those two numbers could be higher if you can move that much data. This camera would sell a lot better at 30 MP x 10 fps x 130 shot buffer or 20 MP x 14 fps x 130 shot buffer.

The fps limitation is hardware - the mirror movements. Sure, it could be engineered to be faster (there are 12 fps FF bodies, and probably that number will go higher with the 1D X II), but at what cost?

 

[Don Haines]

...
Why shouldn't the 80D now leapfrog the 7D2 again and introduce yet another advance in sensors? e.g. A 24 or 28mp, 4K capable, BSI sensor?
...

Because it would offend all of the little boys and girls that think that because they've got a single-digit Canon DSLR that it must be better than any double or triple digit Canon DSLR.

you're so correct! When the 70D came out all the old timer 7d owners were so butthurt they thrash talked it to no end. Sadly when the 7d2 came out it was just a beefed up 70D on speed with less modern features like touch,tilt screen or wifi at almost double the price. It is not a completely crazy idea to think the 80D will step with much greater feature set than the older 7d2...but it is a guarantee the "Professional" or people who think they need a professional build 7d2 will thrash talk the 80D also...then start dreaming about the 7D3..like what happened before.

Probably true for many people....

Myself, I had a 7D at work and a 60D at home. The 60D was getting a bit long in the tooth and was starting to show it's age.... and the 70D came out. Superior in all ways to the 60D! I waited for the 7D2 and got it, mostly because of the superior AF system, but there were several features on the 70D that I really wish the 7D2 had. I fully expect the 80D to be (mostly) superior to the 7D2, except for the AF system, speed, and build.... but being as those were the reasons I picked the 7D2 over the 70D, I will probably stick with the 7D2.... and probably until the 7D4 comes out because it is a nice camera and does what I bought it for....

That said, I half expect the XXD line and the 7D line to merge..... there really isn't that significant of a difference between them... it's a question of getting some features and missing others. I think they would do better with just one model of high end crop that had all the features.

As things stand now, I expect that my next camera will be a 6D2. I find the ISO advances in the D500 to be astounding and hope that Canon is up to the challenge..... but that said, when I started shooting digital, ISO400 was as high as it went I find everything out there now to be astounding in comparison......

 

[Larsskv]

Speaking of the impressive buffer on the D500, has anyone here filled the 7DII buffer when in real use (not for testing purposes). I now I haven't.

Outperforming the 7D2 is not the issue. A 200 shot buffer is Nikon simply taking buffer off the table for reasons not to use this rig. That 'problem' is now solved for action shooters.

It does beg the question, however: if you can actually handle that much data, why stop at 20 MP or 10 fps? Surely, one of those two numbers could be higher if you can move that much data. This camera would sell a lot better at 30 MP x 10 fps x 130 shot buffer or 20 MP x 14 fps x 130 shot buffer.

My math's probably off, but you catch my drift.

- A

I don't disagree. My point is essentially that the buffer already is "off the table" with the 7DII.

I would be surprised if the Nikon has that performance with the SD card.

 

[Sporgon]

...
Why shouldn't the 80D now leapfrog the 7D2 again and introduce yet another advance in sensors? e.g. A 24 or 28mp, 4K capable, BSI sensor?
...

Because it would offend all of the little boys and girls that think that because they've got a single-digit Canon DSLR that it must be better than any double or triple digit Canon DSLR.

you're so correct! When the 70D came out all the old timer 7d owners were so butthurt they thrash talked it to no end. Sadly when the 7d2 came out it was just a beefed up 70D on speed with less modern features like touch,tilt screen or wifi at almost double the price. It is not a completely crazy idea to think the 80D will step with much greater feature set than the older 7d2...but it is a guarantee the "Professional" or people who think they need a professional build 7d2 will thrash talk the 80D also...then start dreaming about the 7D3..like what happened before.

Probably true for many people....

Myself, I had a 7D at work and a 60D at home. The 60D was getting a bit long in the tooth and was starting to show it's age.... and the 70D came out. Superior in all ways to the 60D! I waited for the 7D2 and got it, mostly because of the superior AF system, but there were several features on the 70D that I really wish the 7D2 had. I fully expect the 80D to be (mostly) superior to the 7D2, except for the AF system, speed, and build.... but being as those were the reasons I picked the 7D2 over the 70D, I will probably stick with the 7D2.... and probably until the 7D4 comes out because it is a nice camera and does what I bought it for....

That said, I half expect the XXD line and the 7D line to merge..... there really isn't that significant of a difference between them... it's a question of getting some features and missing others. I think they would do better with just one model of high end crop that had all the features.

As things stand now, I expect that my next camera will be a 6D2. I find the ISO advances in the D500 to be astounding and hope that Canon is up to the challenge..... but that said, when I started shooting digital, ISO400 was as high as it went I find everything out there now to be astounding in comparison......

Come on Don, admit it. The reason you got a 7DII was because you needed a camera that was fur sealed

 

[Don Haines]

Myself, I had a 7D at work and a 60D at home. The 60D was getting a bit long in the tooth and was starting to show it's age.... and the 70D came out. Superior in all ways to the 60D! I waited for the 7D2 and got it, mostly because of the superior AF system, but there were several features on the 70D that I really wish the 7D2 had. I fully expect the 80D to be (mostly) superior to the 7D2, except for the AF system, speed, and build.... but being as those were the reasons I picked the 7D2 over the 70D, I will probably stick with the 7D2.... and probably until the 7D4 comes out because it is a nice camera and does what I bought it for....

That said, I half expect the XXD line and the 7D line to merge..... there really isn't that significant of a difference between them... it's a question of getting some features and missing others. I think they would do better with just one model of high end crop that had all the features.

As things stand now, I expect that my next camera will be a 6D2. I find the ISO advances in the D500 to be astounding and hope that Canon is up to the challenge..... but that said, when I started shooting digital, ISO400 was as high as it went I find everything out there now to be astounding in comparison......

Come on Don, admit it. The reason you got a 7DII was because you needed a camera that was fur sealed

The sealing was a huge part of the reason..... it sees lots of rain, cold weather, and cat hair

 

[Tugela]

It does beg the question, however: if you can actually handle that much data, why stop at 20 MP or 10 fps? Surely, one of those two numbers could be higher if you can move that much data. This camera would sell a lot better at 30 MP x 10 fps x 130 shot buffer or 20 MP x 14 fps x 130 shot buffer.

The fps limitation is hardware - the mirror movements. Sure, it could be engineered to be faster (there are 12 fps FF bodies, and probably that number will go higher with the 1D X II), but at what cost?

High fps bottlenecks are usually due to computational/data handling limitations. You can get higher frame rates than that, but typically at the expense of parameters like bit depth.

Wouldn't the mirror stay up when the camera is used in burst mode?

 

[ahsanford]

Wouldn't the mirror stay up when the camera is used in burst mode?

I thought that was a Nikon parlor trick to squeeze +2 fps out of a mirror assembly that couldn't handle it.

Most SLR burst rates are true one flip per exposure, aren't they? The 7D2 mirror cycles at 10 fps, doesn't it?

- A

 

[Loswr]

Wouldn't the mirror stay up when the camera is used in burst mode?

That might work as long as your subject isn't moving. Usually the subjects that benefit from high fps bursts move...often fast.

I thought that was a Nikon parlor trick to squeeze +2 fps out of a mirror assembly that couldn't handle it.

Most SLR burst rates are true one flip per exposure, aren't they? The 7D2 mirror cycles at 10 fps, doesn't it?

Canon uses that 'parlor trick' to achieve 14 fps on the 1D X. But they don't list the spec as 14 fps, they list it as 12 fps which is achieved with mirror flipping and AF between each shot (but has a few other requirements like a fast enough shutter speed, not stopping down too much, and not too high an ISO setting).

 

[Don Haines]

It does beg the question, however: if you can actually handle that much data, why stop at 20 MP or 10 fps? Surely, one of those two numbers could be higher if you can move that much data. This camera would sell a lot better at 30 MP x 10 fps x 130 shot buffer or 20 MP x 14 fps x 130 shot buffer.

The fps limitation is hardware - the mirror movements. Sure, it could be engineered to be faster (there are 12 fps FF bodies, and probably that number will go higher with the 1D X II), but at what cost?

High fps bottlenecks are usually due to computational/data handling limitations. You can get higher frame rates than that, but typically at the expense of parameters like bit depth.

Wouldn't the mirror stay up when the camera is used in burst mode?

My P/S camera will do bursts at 120fps...... and it has considerably less computing power than a 7D2 or 1DX
<EDIT> I was wrong, it only does a 100 shot burst at 60FPS </EDIT>

The mirror on DSLRs is the big restriction on FPS....... processing power really does not come into play here, the buffer depth and memory card speed are far more important

 

[Loswr]

As for lenses: if you cannot find a suitable Nikon lens for your job or hobby, you're not trying hard enough.

I regularly use my Canon TS-E 17mm and my Canon MP-E 65mm. Can you help me to find a suitable Nikon ultrawide PC-E lens and a suitable Nikon 5x macro lens for my hobby? I guess I'm just not trying hard enough. :

 

[blb529]

Imagine that you shoot high school sports with a 7D and would really like better high ISO performance as you have to shoot the second half of most lacrosse, soccer, and football games at 6400 in order to keep the shutter speed up. Consider the option of, perhaps in 6 months or so, upgrading to the mark II. Then consider the option of switching brands and upgrading to the d500 (not too horrible as you only have one real lens). Now, add in your thoughts about how low the 5d mark III might drop once the IV is announced and your thoughts about it as an upgrade to the 7d. What would you do?

 

[scyrene]

As for lenses: if you cannot find a suitable Nikon lens for your job or hobby, you're not trying hard enough.

I regularly use my Canon TS-E 17mm and my Canon MP-E 65mm. Can you help me to find a suitable Nikon ultrawide PC-E lens and a suitable Nikon 5x macro lens for my hobby? I guess I'm just not trying hard enough. :

I love the MP-E and use it a lot. I guess, in seriousness, Nikon users would rig up something with one of their (said to be) excellent microscope objectives, which can produce similar results.

 

[crisotunity]

As for lenses: if you cannot find a suitable Nikon lens for your job or hobby, you're not trying hard enough.

I regularly use my Canon TS-E 17mm and my Canon MP-E 65mm. Can you help me to find a suitable Nikon ultrawide PC-E lens and a suitable Nikon 5x macro lens for my hobby? I guess I'm just not trying hard enough. :

Wow! This is some acutely specialised shooting!
Could you use Nikon tilt shift lenses? Or shoot architecture with a wide lens and click on "lens correction" in post (it is after all a hobby). Why not use extensions for macro?

Basically Canon is turning itself into a niche company. Leica have been doing extremely well in this space, so maybe Canon can corner the TS, super macro, super tele-lens market.
I am also Canon's captive (for now) as it would make very little value-for-money sense to move to Nikon. The only reason I would sell up is for less weight and, let's be honest, mirrorless are a bit poor for wildlife (for now). But things change.

 

[crisotunity]

Imagine that you shoot high school sports with a 7D and would really like better high ISO performance as you have to shoot the second half of most lacrosse, soccer, and football games at 6400 in order to keep the shutter speed up. Consider the option of, perhaps in 6 months or so, upgrading to the mark II. Then consider the option of switching brands and upgrading to the d500 (not too horrible as you only have one real lens). Now, add in your thoughts about how low the 5d mark III might drop once the IV is announced and your thoughts about it as an upgrade to the 7d. What would you do?

I found a mint 5D mkIII with 5,500 actuations for £1,400 last year (costs £2k new). For the money I've paid, it's an awesome camera and its AF is great for sports. 6400ISO looks superb to me, as long as you don't go internet-crazy and start trying to lift shadows by +2.
Given the number of good-quality, 2nd hand 5D mkIIIs out there right now, I would find it very difficult to pick a 7D over the 5D as the price would be too close. Of course, if you need a higher burst rate than 6fps and a deeper buffer (I can do 12-14 RAW) then the 5D is not your friend (and make sure you don't use the SD slot, or the numbers will get worse).

Of the APS-C models:
If I were in the market for a new camera system and with only one lens to sell, I would probably wait for Nikon D500 reviews before I made my decision.
Alternatively, good-condition, used 7DmkIIs can now be found at £950. Get a 7D now, use it, enjoy it and (worst case scenario) sell it in a few months at a small loss if the D500 is as good as it looks.

 

[scyrene]

Basically Canon is turning itself into a niche company. Leica have been doing extremely well in this space, so maybe Canon can corner the TS, super macro, super tele-lens market.
I am also Canon's captive (for now) as it would make very little value-for-money sense to move to Nikon. The only reason I would sell up is for less weight and, let's be honest, mirrorless are a bit poor for wildlife (for now). But things change.

Except they produce (I believe) the largest range of lenses of any company. The specialist ones and dozens of generalist offerings. So how is that niche, exactly?

 

[verysimplejason]

...
Except they produce (I believe) the largest range of lenses of any company. The specialist ones and dozens of generalist offerings. So how is that niche, exactly?

Except that 90%+ of DSLR buyers never buy more than their kit lens(es).

50mm F1.8s? They're never a kit lens. Please explain your 90%.

 

[crisotunity]

Basically Canon is turning itself into a niche company. Leica have been doing extremely well in this space, so maybe Canon can corner the TS, super macro, super tele-lens market.
I am also Canon's captive (for now) as it would make very little value-for-money sense to move to Nikon. The only reason I would sell up is for less weight and, let's be honest, mirrorless are a bit poor for wildlife (for now). But things change.

Except they produce (I believe) the largest range of lenses of any company. The specialist ones and dozens of generalist offerings. So how is that niche, exactly?

My point is that in a world of light weight and feature-rich convenience, Canon's unique selling point is a small number of super-duper specialised/expensive lenses. This is what puts a company on the course of becoming niche.

Of course, historically, ie by virtue of being in existence for so long, Canon offer a wider range of lenses.
But for a 14-year-old getting their first "proper camera" and wanting to have a go at a few types of photography without breaking the bank, or for a grant-parent or new parent: why on earth should they opt for a 760D as opposed to a Panasonic G7? Or is Canon going to try to upsell mass-market customers to a 7D mkII? This is also what puts a consumer company on the course of becoming niche.

 

[scyrene]

...
Except they produce (I believe) the largest range of lenses of any company. The specialist ones and dozens of generalist offerings. So how is that niche, exactly?

Except that 90%+ of DSLR buyers never buy more than their kit lens(es).

What relevance does that have to the discussion? The other person said they're becoming a niche producer, implying they only offer super macro, tilt shift, supertele lenses. They offer the whole range, *including* kit lenses that make up 90% of sales.