Canon 7Dmk2 any rumors??

[dlleno]

As a sports camera, for the aps-h an ultra wa lens is a bit redundant methinks - not really an indication of its demise. The strength of the crop is the extra reach - reach that the ff cannot match.

yea I see your point -- if Canon releases a new 1.3x body it will be because they have decided to continue targeting the niche pro wildlife market with the expectations that such photographers will be specialized to not require uwa, or if they do, they will have a FF body as well. Whether or not that market is strong enough to remain as profitable as Canon wants may be another issue, and I expect that will drive the 1.3 dead or alive question. But the 1.3x market does highlight that uwa capability is simply not present -- a compromize that serious wildlife shooters are willing to accept.

The way the 7D appears to be positioned, it is intended to serve the needs of all focal lengths, and such photographers will expect all (rectilinear) focal lengths to be available, i.e to get down to the FF 16mm FOV equivalent on a crop body, which currently supplied by the EF-S 10-22

 

[briansquibb]

yea I see your point -- if Canon releases a new 1.3x body it will be because they have decided to continue targeting the niche pro wildlife market with the expectations that such photographers will be specialized to not require uwa, or if they do, they will have a FF body as well. Whether or not that market is strong enough to remain as profitable as Canon wants may be another issue, and I expect that will drive the 1.3 dead or alive question. But the 1.3x market does highlight that uwa capability is simply not present -- a compromize that serious wildlife shooters are willing to accept.

The way the 7D appears to be positioned, it is intended to serve the needs of all focal lengths, and such photographers will expect all (rectilinear) focal lengths to be available, i.e to get down to the FF 16mm FOV equivalent on a crop body, which currently supplied by the EF-S 10-22

The widest on a 1.3 will be the 14mm (apart from the 8-15 fisheye, which is wider than anything for aps-c). This gives an equivalence of 18.2 mm, not exactly shabby, about half way between the 10-22 and the 15-85. I wouldn't see this as a major issue as it would be wider than most want.

 

[dlleno]

the biggest focal gap for 1.3 is an uwa rectilinear zoom

weather sealing things that hinge and move is doable; It is more difficult/costly

 

[briansquibb]

the biggest focal gap for 1.3 is an uwa rectilinear zoom

Which lens is that??

 

[dlleno]

the biggest focal gap for 1.3 is an uwa rectilinear zoom

Which lens is that??

there is none (in the Canon lineup anyway): Thats the 1.3x focal length gap I was attempting to highlight: no uwa rectilinear zoom for 1.3x bodies.

In FF FOV equivalence terms, the 1.3x bodies have an 18mm prime and 21-45mm zoom, while both the 1.6x and the FF bodies have a 16-35mm zoom (provided by the 10-22 for 1.6x bodies)

 

[briansquibb]

That is fine for me - the maximum I use is the 17-40 on ff which is rather wide. For an out and out sports/birding camera that should be enough.

If the user wants a more general purpose camera then there is the option of a 7D or a 5DIII

- Just like I wouldn't choose a 5DII or a D800 for sports

 

[dlleno]

yea . not only that, if one is specialized enough to have a 1D4, then the additional speciality of a FF pro body isn't that surprising of an expectation, should it be needed.

What is interesting to me is whether there will be a specialized pro body for wildlife or not. If they discontinue the 1.3, and a 1.6x body becomes the wildlife body of choice, then what Canon will have decided is that such a body is still "general purpose" at the uwa application because all you have there is the non-weather sealed EF-S 10-22 and 17-55. You STILL have to invest in a FF body to get the most out of uwa (and certainly fisheye)

 

[briansquibb]

You STILL have to invest in a FF body to get the most out of uwa (and certainly fisheye)

Fish eye works fine on the 1.3 - just dont get the full bubble

 

[dlleno]

You STILL have to invest in a FF body to get the most out of uwa (and certainly fisheye)

Fish eye works fine on the 1.3 - just dont get the full bubble

works fine on the 1.6 too , without the full bubble

 

[!Xabbu]

As a sports camera, for the aps-h an ultra wa lens is a bit redundant methinks - not really an indication of its demise. The strength of the crop is the extra reach - reach that the ff cannot match.

This discussion is about the 7D II - the 7D is used by many photographers and it's by far not a sole wildlife/sports camera. So, if Canon doesn't totally change their strategy I don't see how the 7D II will be a wildlife/sports only camera - they will have at least bump the xxD up to where the 7D currently is and then there would be a huge gap to the xxxD line.

 

[briansquibb]

As a sports camera, for the aps-h an ultra wa lens is a bit redundant methinks - not really an indication of its demise. The strength of the crop is the extra reach - reach that the ff cannot match.

This discussion is about the 7D II - the 7D is used by many photographers and it's by far not a sole wildlife/sports camera. So, if Canon doesn't totally change their strategy I don't see how the 7D II will be a wildlife/sports only camera - they will have at least bump the xxD up to where the 7D currently is and then there would be a huge gap to the xxxD line.

The suggestion is that to avoid the 5DIII stealing the 7D owners then there should be an out and out sports/wildlife camera as it there is a hole in Canons line up due to the demise of the 1D4. Also at the same time this would get market share as there nothing simillar in the Nikon lineup

 

[4REEE]

Anyone know if the DIGIC 5 or 5+ has the same pinout as a DIGIC 4? Same or better power dissipation?

I'm hoping that a 7DmkII would have:

a) Dual DIGIC 5 or 5+ processors if they can fit it in body
b) Articulated LCD screen
c) Volume meters for controlling incoming audio
d) 24MP sensor
e) 2 more fps on continuous drive
f) 60fps on 1920 x 1080 video

The camera still has to be fast for those of us who take those action shots. Don't need FF if it means more time to move a more massive mirror. Once again an extra 6MP on the sensor over the 7D would be nice.

Oh well, I can dream, can't I?

 

[briansquibb]

Anyone know if the DIGIC 5 or 5+ has the same pinout as a DIGIC 4? Same or better power dissipation?

I'm hoping that a 7DmkII would have:

a) Dual DIGIC 5 or 5+ processors if they can fit it in body
b) Articulated LCD screen
c) Volume meters for controlling incoming audio
d) 24MP sensor
e) 2 more fps on continuous drive
f) 60fps on 1920 x 1080 video

The camera still has to be fast for those of us who take those action shots. Don't need FF if it means more time to move a more massive mirror. Once again an extra 6MP on the sensor over the 7D would be nice.

Oh well, I can dream, can't I?

Sounds almost like an updated 1D4

 

[4REEE]

@briansquibb: Almost, but the 1D X does have a 3rd processor (DIGIC 4). I'm less greedy... I just want dual DIGIC 5+.

 

[briansquibb]

@briansquibb: Almost, but the 1D X does have a 3rd processor (DIGIC 4). I'm less greedy... I just want dual DIGIC 5+.

Id4 has dual digic 4

 

[4REEE]

Oops! You said 1D4, I was thinking 1D X.

My bad.

 

[briansquibb]

Oops! You said 1D4, I was thinking 1D X.

My bad.

8) 8) 8)

Much as I would love it I dont think Canon are going to drop the price of the 1DX ;D

 

[!Xabbu]

As a sports camera, for the aps-h an ultra wa lens is a bit redundant methinks - not really an indication of its demise. The strength of the crop is the extra reach - reach that the ff cannot match.

This discussion is about the 7D II - the 7D is used by many photographers and it's by far not a sole wildlife/sports camera. So, if Canon doesn't totally change their strategy I don't see how the 7D II will be a wildlife/sports only camera - they will have at least bump the xxD up to where the 7D currently is and then there would be a huge gap to the xxxD line.

The suggestion is that to avoid the 5DIII stealing the 7D owners then there should be an out and out sports/wildlife camera as it there is a hole in Canons line up due to the demise of the 1D4. Also at the same time this would get market share as there nothing simillar in the Nikon lineup

How does a $3,500 camera steal market share from a $1,400 camera? They are in totally different customer segments and even if many people upgrade to the 5D III, I can't see Canon loosing a tear about that. I'd rather sell a $3,500 product with $1,000 profit than a $1,400 product with $200 profit. I can't imagine that Canon has a very different view on that.

The current 7D is probably the upper end of the amateur/ enthusiast scale, which gives them much more volume than for example a 5D III will ever have. (Of course there are the odd rich amateurs who buy a 1D X as their first DSLR, but this is not the majority at all)

 

[briansquibb]

How does a $3,500 camera steal market share from a $1,400 camera? They are in totally different customer segments and even if many people upgrade to the 5D III, I can't see Canon loosing a tear about that. I'd rather sell a $3,500 product with $1,000 profit than a $1,400 product with $200 profit. I can't imagine that Canon has a very different view on that.

The current 7D is probably the upper end of the amateur/ enthusiast scale, which gives them much more volume than for example a 5D III will ever have. (Of course there are the odd rich amateurs who buy a 1D X as their first DSLR, but this is not the majority at all)

We are looking at the 7DII prices. If history repeats (like the 5DIII) itself the 7DII price will be somewhere in the region of $2200. Now if the 7DII stays as a general purpose camera then we would have two cameras in the same segment at about the same (street) price - probably a bad marketing decision.

By moving the 7DII more to a specialised sports role (currently vacated by the demise of the 1D4) then Canon would have two cameras with a distinctly different role and so would increase their market share.

Prior to the 5DIII the 5DII and the 7D were not very close in marketing terms. The 7D had the sporting role, with the best AF (for its day) in the class, along with the new 18mp sensor, improved metering and, gasp, 8fps for a consumer camera. The 5DII focussed on top IQ with the 21mp, top low light performance - but poor (relatively) AF and only 4fps.

The introduction of the 5DIII means that the strengths of the 7D have been included and updated - 7D beating AF and now a more respectable 6fps as well as a slew of extra features. So as a user the 5DIII is now capable of doing everything the 5DII could do plus a lot of things better than the 7D did. So improving the 7D without changing the emphasis means that the two cameras would be very, very simillar.

What I am suggesting is that the 7DII has to have new strengths to re-differentiate itself from the 5DIII

 

[!Xabbu]

We are looking at the 7DII prices. If history repeats (like the 5DIII) itself the 7DII price will be somewhere in the region of $2200. Now if the 7DII stays as a general purpose camera then we would have two cameras in the same segment at about the same (street) price - probably a bad marketing decision.
[...]
What I am suggesting is that the 7DII has to have new strengths to re-differentiate itself from the 5DIII

OK, I partially agree there, but for me price is still the biggest differentiator. Spending $2,200 or $3,500 makes a huge difference (at least to me) and being able to use some of the excellent EF-S lenses opens the 7D II up to a much broader market, if it stays APS-C and doesn't go APS-H.
If the 7D II will be a gripped APS-H camera as some people here are advocating for, the sales numbers will be horrendous compared to the 7D.