Canon 7Dmk2 any rumors??

[ruuneos]

7D2 would be around $2000-2600?

 

[briansquibb]

Excellent aps-c lens

- 10-22
- 17-55
- 15-85

.... and (apart from non OEM) ...?

are they that much cheaper than the budget L lens?

 

[takoman46]

7D2 would be around $2000-2600?

I really doubt that. If Canon is coming out with an entry-level FF camera (which should not carry the 7D name for obvious reasons), then how would a 7D successor be priced at $2000-$2600? I'm not sure that there is any place for a 7D in the future Canon line up, but if there is one, then I think it would be priced the same as the original 7D. A lot of people seem to expect that the 7D should be packed with all these 1D4 type features that even the 5D3 does not have, but fail to realize that what they are describing falls more in line with what the 1DX is for $6800. Thus is the result of wishful thinking and rumors lol.

 

[!Xabbu]

7D2 would be around $2000-2600?

I really doubt that. If Canon is coming out with an entry-level FF camera (which should not carry the 7D name for obvious reasons), then how would a 7D successor be priced at $2000-$2600? I'm not sure that there is any place for a 7D in the future Canon line up, but if there is one, then I think it would be priced the same as the original 7D. A lot of people seem to expect that the 7D should be packed with all these 1D4 type features that even the 5D3 does not have, but fail to realize that what they are describing falls more in line with what the 1DX is for $6800. Thus is the result of wishful thinking and rumors lol.

Not everyone wants to go FF. I assume that the entry level FF will have either the 5D II AF system or a slightly better one, but nothing close to 7D. And on top of that there is the extra reach you get from APS-C.

Excellent aps-c lens

- 10-22
- 17-55
- 15-85

.... and (apart from non OEM) ...?

are they that much cheaper than the budget L lens?

Yes, please add the Tokina 11-16mm and the Tamron 17-50mm non-VC (I don't know why you ignore non OEM). They might be not as good as some of the L glass, but they are cheaper and deliver great pictures for their price point. Not everyone has $2,000 laying around "just" for a single lens.

 

[smirkypants]

Or to put it differently, how would the 7D Mark II sell against a full frame camera that was priced sub-$2000?

You forget that there are a significant number of people who want the reach of a crop. A ~20MP crop camera with great IQ holds great appeal for people who shoot at a distance.

 

[Positron]

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

They generally don't release that information (plus they've said in the past that each DIGIC model isn't actually a single processor, although I'd guess the ones they put in their DSLRs are the same if they have the same designation), but I don't think they'd even bother releasing a new one if it wasn't going to be more power efficient, since that's literally the #1 most important thing for embedded computing, way more important than performance or any other metric.

If the rumors of a Nikon D600 at 24MP are correct and it will sell at around $1500, then you can kiss goodbye to any hopes of a 7D Mark II. There just isn't space to put a product like it into the lineup and have it sell competitively against the competition.

Or to put it differently, how would the 7D Mark II sell against a full frame camera that was priced sub-$2000?

If the 7D2 had 61-pt AF, 8+ fps, top-of-the-line weather sealing, etc., and the entry-level FF just had image quality and ISO going for it. Even if it takes a lot of corner-cutting to offset the extra cost of the FF sensor, there are a lot of corners to cut in such a complicated device.

 

[smirkypants]

Riddle me this.

If you could buy a Canon DSLR today that was full frame but cropped was 18-20MP, would you buy it and crop or would you use the pictures as they were? Or if there was a crop mode for use with L lenses, would you use it?

Today? In the last couple of months I've used a 5D3 a 1D4 and a 7D for shots at a distance with the best of L lenses ... a 400/2.8. The 5D just doesn't cut it. Of course I shoot a sport that is shot at a very great distance. On a very bright, crisp sunny day, I prefer the 7D. On a day shooting in less than ideal conditions, I prefer the 1D4. I suppose if I were shooting basketball I wouldn't mind the 5D3.

 

[Marsu42]

The 5D just doesn't cut it.

... because? Less reach? Worse af?

 

[Positron]

If the 7D2 had 61-pt AF, 8+ fps, top-of-the-line weather sealing, etc., and the entry-level FF just had image quality and ISO going for it. Even if it takes a lot of corner-cutting to offset the extra cost of the FF sensor, there are a lot of corners to cut in such a complicated device.

Just buy yourself a 1D series camera, ok?

I have no interest in something that heavy, nor can I afford the more recent entries in the 1D series. I'm not in the market for a 7D-like camera either, since I rarely shoot things that move. You asked how a 7D Mark II would sell against an entry-level full frame, and my suggestion was that it would sell just fine against an entry-level full frame with nothing going for it other than being full frame.

I kid you not, if Canon released a camera with a full frame sensor that only went up to 400 ISO, shot 1 FPS, had only one autofocus point, and no weather sealing, but had 14 stops of DR and virtually nonexistent noise at ISO 100 (or even better, native ISO 50) for under $2000, I would buy it. Today. And I bet you I'm not alone.

Everyone wants something different in a camera, so having competing models at the same price point expands the potential market at least as much as it cannibalizes sales from other models. And if they have a camera that caters to a market that the competitor doesn't have a foothold in, then the sales they're cannibalizing are someone else's.

 

[smirkypants]

The 5D just doesn't cut it.

... because? Less reach? Worse af?

Because compared to the 7D, the 5D has less than half the megapixels in the same shot as the 7D's 18. If you have to do any cropping with the 5D, and you have to do a LOT of cropping at things shot far away, you're down to tiny files without much detail. It doesn't work for me at all. Like I said, if you're not shooting at super long distances, it's fine, though. Really nice.

 

[briansquibb]

Not everyone wants to go FF. I assume that the entry level FF will have either the 5D II AF system or a slightly better one, but nothing close to 7D. And on top of that there is the extra reach you get from APS-C.

Yes, please add the Tokina 11-16mm and the Tamron 17-50mm non-VC (I don't know why you ignore non OEM). They might be not as good as some of the L glass, but they are cheaper and deliver great pictures for their price point. Not everyone has $2,000 laying around "just" for a single lens.

We are talking about the 7D upgrade havin the 1D4 AF - far better than the 7D

If you think a L lens is $2000 then you are looking in the wrong place.

Used 17-40 are $5-600
Used 24-105 are $about 1000

Not that different from APS-C, which are budget lens - not designed for the top of the range 7D and up cameras

 

[distant.star]

If you think a L lens is $2000 then you are looking in the wrong place.

Used 17-40 are $5-600
Used 24-105 are $about 1000

Not that different from APS-C, which are budget lens - not designed for the top of the range 7D and up cameras

Uh oh. Wrong thing to say, Brian!

 

[briansquibb]

If you think a L lens is $2000 then you are looking in the wrong place.

Used 17-40 are $5-600
Used 24-105 are $about 1000

Not that different from APS-C, which are budget lens - not designed for the top of the range 7D and up cameras

Uh oh. Wrong thing to say, Brian!

I hate hiding behind weasly words. Truth sometimes hurts and sometimes it needs to be said.

Everyone by now should know that I am not a fanboy of any technology and that I believe that to be so is like running with closed eyes.

 

[smirkypants]

Yes, today. Imagine the 5D3 had 45MP so that when crop'd to APS-C, it delivered 18MP.

Would you....
... use the 45MP full frame and crop everything (or use a crop mode)
... shoot everything full and still complain about "reach" and maybe crop a little
... ignore it and continue to use a 7D because it has "more reach" when you look through the view finder?

I don't have to imagine, Dil... I have a Nikon 200-400/f4 lens that I'm using with a Nikon d800 camera. The results are spectacular.

If I'm shooting something that has a lot of close stuff going on, I'll shoot full-frame and crop the hell out of stuff. Sometimes I'm forced to be behind a line so then I'll shoot at 1.2 crop with a 25mp file.

The attached shot was shot full-frame and then about 50% was cropped away.

Now... if it shot at 8fps, I'd be thrilled.

 

[AprilForever]

So, back to the topic... No new rumors?

 

[!Xabbu]

Not everyone wants to go FF. I assume that the entry level FF will have either the 5D II AF system or a slightly better one, but nothing close to 7D. And on top of that there is the extra reach you get from APS-C.

Yes, please add the Tokina 11-16mm and the Tamron 17-50mm non-VC (I don't know why you ignore non OEM). They might be not as good as some of the L glass, but they are cheaper and deliver great pictures for their price point. Not everyone has $2,000 laying around "just" for a single lens.

We are talking about the 7D upgrade havin the 1D4 AF - far better than the 7D

If you think a L lens is $2000 then you are looking in the wrong place.

Used 17-40 are $5-600
Used 24-105 are $about 1000

Not that different from APS-C, which are budget lens - not designed for the top of the range 7D and up cameras

OK, my last post regarding the EF-S topic in here, but did you ever use one? The build quality of the 17-55mm f/2.8 is very good - perhaps not up to L standards, but still good enough for most people (even 7D owners). Comparing it to the 24-105mm, you're getting superior IQ and a faster lens for less money and you get a new lens. I bet there are enough people who find this deal interesting.

The 17-40mm is known to have only OK IQ and again it is slow. Take the Tokina 11-16mm in comparison - I get a faster lens with way superior IQ and L built quality (OK, no weather sealing - I give you that) again for the same price new.

Third, whenever I mention my 70-200mm f/4 L non-IS lens on this forum someone jumps up that this is a slow and boring budget lens - I personally love this lens, but there seem to be many people who have an unlimited stash of money and buy only the best equipment - lucky you.

The rest of us might still be OK photographers and might want great AF, but can't afford a 5D III - the new entry level FF will not have great AF, because then it would eat away sales from the 5D III.

 

[briansquibb]

We are talking about the 7D upgrade havin the 1D4 AF - far better than the 7D

If you think a L lens is $2000 then you are looking in the wrong place.

Used 17-40 are $5-600
Used 24-105 are $about 1000

Not that different from APS-C, which are budget lens - not designed for the top of the range 7D and up cameras

OK, my last post regarding the EF-S topic in here, but did you ever use one?

Since I moved to digital I have aways had an APS-C camera - 40d/50d/7D. 50D was sold to buy the 7D. In March 2012 I gave away my 40D to a friend along with the 18-55 and 55-250. You will no doubt have spotted the 7D on my kit line - perhaps not :

The build quality of the 17-55mm f/2.8 is very good - perhaps not up to L standards, but still good enough for most people (even 7D owners). Comparing it to the 24-105mm, you're getting superior IQ and a faster lens for less money and you get a new lens. I bet there are enough people who find this deal interesting.

I own a 17-40 and 24-105 and both are in regular use.

The 17-40mm is known to have only OK IQ and again it is slow. Take the Tokina 11-16mm in comparison - I get a faster lens with way superior IQ and L built quality (OK, no weather sealing - I give you that) again for the same price new.

Third, whenever I mention my 70-200mm f/4 L non-IS lens on this forum someone jumps up that this is a slow and boring budget lens - I personally love this lens, but there seem to be many people who have an unlimited stash of money and buy only the best equipment - lucky you.

I own a 17-40 and 24-105 and both are in regular use. Both are excellent lens and stalwarts of the L range. The 24-105 is a great zoom on aps-c, short end does portraits, long end is a useful short telephoto - very different use from the 17-55 which are trying to compare it with. The 24-105 of course is the kit lens of the 5DIII and is used by a lot of pro wedding photographers. Have you owned either lens that you are critisizing?

I also own a 70-200 f/4 non IS - which has the focussing broken. When it was working I gave it a lot of use - as you say - top IQ.

You are advocating ef-s lens as the way ahead - but howabout the non L ef lens - such as the 50 f/1.4 and the 85 f/1.8 which I always put in the bag too ?? You could buy these two used/refurb for the price of the 17-55.

I buy pre-owned kit to make my pension go further, I have only bought 3 lens new for example and all my bodies have been pre-owned.

This thread is about the 7DII and I believe it should not be competing with the 5DIII so it will have to have a new feature set - a 5DII level AF would not be accepted as that would be a downgrade from the existing 7D AF. Just 10fps and better AF and metering link to the AF point would achieve that plus improvements to the low light would consolidate it as an excellent entry level sports camera

 

[dlleno]

focus should definately stay on 7D2 rumors and related topics that might shape such rumors. imho, The EF-S vs L discussion is only relevant to the extent that 7D2 might take a more prominant place on the stage of wildlife bodies. For example if Canon really does kill the 1.3x sensor (as the owner of this forum and site maintains), AND maintains commitment to a crop body for wildlife, THEN the next pro-level wildlife body (meaning 1D4 successor) could be a 1.6x, in which case the high-end APS-C lenses start to become more important to a crowd other than amatuers and prosumers. Whether or not such a camera would be the 7D2 is another topic, to be sure.

But yea to maintain focus on the OP, I agree lets keep this to the 7D2 body specs and release timing, what 1.6x sensor Canon has up its sleave, and whether or not the 7D2 will be a yawn or a game changer.

 

[jouster]

Well, I have no rumors to contribute. But add me to those hoping Canon never abandons the APS-C format. I bolt mine to the back of a 100mm apochromatic scope and image the Moon and planets. APS-C works well for this, giving me more effective reach.

 

[dlleno]

Yes, today. Imagine the 5D3 had 45MP so that when crop'd to APS-C, it delivered 18MP.

If only it were that simple, though -- just think: The IQ/MP discussion would be moot, MP counts could go arbitrarily high and still meet IQ/ISO goals, pixel density wouldn't matter and the 7D2 could be a FF -- oh wait but if that were possible, then Canon could raise the pixel density even higher in a crop sensor and still win the large print contest over a cropped FF image producing the same FOV