Canon EOS 7D Mark II in 2014 [CR2]

[neuroanatomist]

I call BS... I am pretty sure it will have Digic6 processor, which is said to even further improve noise performance up to 6400 ISO point, and probably image quality. 70D with 20.2MP and Digic5+ vs 7DII 20.2MP and (Dual?) Digic6(+) processor. It has got to have better ISO and IQ, doesnt matter if its the same MP count.

Sure...if you shoot JPG. But many (most?) 7D shooters know better, because RAW affords much more flexibility in post. For RAW shooters, 'better ISO and IQ' with a newer Digic processor is no more than marketing BS (which is the worst-smelling kind!).

 

[rs]

For RAW shooters, 'better ISO and IQ' with a newer Digic processor is no more than marketing BS (which is the worst-smelling kind!).

The world is a much richer place thanks to marketing. For instance, where would we be without 'unlimited' data plans with limits on them? :

 

[Don Haines]

For RAW shooters, 'better ISO and IQ' with a newer Digic processor is no more than marketing BS (which is the worst-smelling kind!).

The world is a much richer place thanks to marketing. For instance, where would we be without 'unlimited' data plans with limits on them? :

Yup... and Neuro, you should dump your Canon gear for an iPhone, "The number one camera in the world", or get an entry level Nikon and "Take your photography to exciting new levels"....

 

[jrista]

I really can't see Canon gimping the 7D II with the same sensor as the 70D. It just wouldn't sell. I think most people expect there to be some differentiation between the XXD and 7D line now, and reusing the sensor would diminish that differentiation. It would deliver on their previous comments to make the 7D II something special, too...and maybe give everyone a glimpse of what we might see in Canon's BigMP offering.

I call BS. 7DII will be purchased mostly by people who know what 7DII is and what it offers. They know it will (most probably) offer superior FPS, AF, ergonomics, (dual) CF card, 100% VF and 1x magnification, advanced fuctions, etc etc etc, not to mention I am pretty sure it will have Digic6 processor, which is said to even further improve noise performance up to 6400 ISO point, and probably image quality. 70D with 20.2MP and Digic5+ vs 7DII 20.2MP and (Dual?) Digic6(+) processor. It has got to have better ISO and IQ, doesnt matter if its the same MP count.

And since when did people transfer from "MP doesnt count" to "MP is #1 priority"?

My comment wasn't as much about MP count as it was about the "revolutionary" nature of whatever sensor the 7D II gets. Canon clearly stated a couple of times that they were going to do something great with the 7D II sensor. My point, really, was that if the 7D II gets THE SAME SENSOR as the 70D, then Canon will just be doing the same old thing...AGAIN. Reusing the SAME OLD SENSOR....AGAIN. I think the extensive reuse of their 18mp sensor, even in tweaked forms that have FP-PDAF, has soured a lot of people's expectations. I think it would be negative for PR for a lot of people if Canon did not introduce some kind of new sensor in the 7D II.

Given that the only other rumored sensor is a 24mp sensor...well, I mentioned a 24mp sensor in my last answer. I do think it needs to be different, not only in design, but megapixel count. It could be a 19mp sensor, or a 21mp sensor...although given that the 7D line has always been strongly correlated with reach, I think higher IS better in this context (especially given the 24mp APS-C sensors of the competition). I do believe that with a BSI design, a 24mp sensor could be created that performs as well as the 18mp one without any other technological improvements at all. If you throw in the CFA changes of the 5D III and 1D X, and any other improvements that might have hinted about over the last year (i.e. active cooling, a shift to 180nm, on-die image processing (NR, ADC), etc.), and the 7D II sensor even with more megapixels could perform noticeably better than the original 7D.

Fundamentally, though, my point is that the sensor of the 7D II really needs to shine...it needs to be DIFFERENT than the 70D's sensor, and it should really include some innovative technology (even if Canon sticks with a 500nm process.) Personally, I'm getting a bit tired of extensive sensor reuse over a period of years, especially in a high end product like the 7D line. If I am going to spend $2000 or more on such a product, it damn well better be worthy of it.

(Oh, and BTW...I would point out that the dual DIGIC readout of the current 7D is actually the root cause of its banding problems. It gives a higher readout rate, but it also introduces fairly strong vertical banding up into the midtones (above and beyond the crosshatch banding that already exists in the deep shadows). All single-DIGIC cameras that use the same 18mp APS-C sensor actually have BETTER noise characteristics than the 7D. I don't believe the use of DIGIC 6 will alleviate that, assuming Canon continues to take their current approach to off-die ADC.)

 

[jrista]

For RAW shooters, 'better ISO and IQ' with a newer Digic processor is no more than marketing BS (which is the worst-smelling kind!).

The world is a much richer place thanks to marketing. For instance, where would we be without 'unlimited' data plans with limits on them? :

+1 LOL Seriously...

 

[garyknrd]

For RAW shooters, 'better ISO and IQ' with a newer Digic processor is no more than marketing BS (which is the worst-smelling kind!).

The world is a much richer place thanks to marketing. For instance, where would we be without 'unlimited' data plans with limits on them? :

+1 LOL Seriously...

+2 here, Amazing the BS of marketing.

 

[expatinasia]

If the 7D II comes out with something like 24mp APS-C that improves ISO 100 noise, maybe uses a BSI design *with* split pixels like the 20.2mp sensor, and still offers everything else (10fps, 61pt AF, same durable body design and weather sealing of the 5D III), etc. Then I think it will clock in over $2000, maybe even $2500.

+1, my money (not that I have it) is also on a new sensor, a late release date and a $2500 price remembering of the interview I mentioned above.

Honestly? If Canon launched a camera as described by jrista I could easily see that reaching the US$3,000 and even the US$3,500 mark. In fact why would it be cheaper (especially on release) than the 5D Mark III?

 

[Don Haines]

If the 7D II comes out with something like 24mp APS-C that improves ISO 100 noise, maybe uses a BSI design *with* split pixels like the 20.2mp sensor, and still offers everything else (10fps, 61pt AF, same durable body design and weather sealing of the 5D III), etc. Then I think it will clock in over $2000, maybe even $2500.

+1, my money (not that I have it) is also on a new sensor, a late release date and a $2500 price remembering of the interview I mentioned above.

Honestly? If Canon launched a camera as described by jrista I could easily see that reaching the US$3,000 and even the US$3,500 mark. In fact why would it be cheaper (especially on release) than the 5D Mark III?

I couldn't see it coming in under $2000....$2500 seems likely to me, AFTER the initial rush of early adopters is over.

 

[jrista]

If the 7D II comes out with something like 24mp APS-C that improves ISO 100 noise, maybe uses a BSI design *with* split pixels like the 20.2mp sensor, and still offers everything else (10fps, 61pt AF, same durable body design and weather sealing of the 5D III), etc. Then I think it will clock in over $2000, maybe even $2500.

+1, my money (not that I have it) is also on a new sensor, a late release date and a $2500 price remembering of the interview I mentioned above.

Honestly? If Canon launched a camera as described by jrista I could easily see that reaching the US$3,000 and even the US$3,500 mark. In fact why would it be cheaper (especially on release) than the 5D Mark III?

Well, the 1D X and 5D III pioneered some new technology. Such as the 61pt AF system. The 7D II would be able to piggyback on the profits from sales of those cameras if it reused the 61pt AF system. Same goes for the metering, etc. Canon wouldn't need to do as much R&D for the 7D II...about the only thing that really needs improvement is the sensor...and it sounds like that's being done. So I don't really foresee the 7D II hitting the $3000 mark I think it would be surprising if it came out higher than $2500...I just don't see people buying it at a price point higher than that, given the position it holds (the lowest end "pro" camera in Canon's lineup, plus APS-C to boot...a lot of people have this thing about FF being professional now.)

There is also the competitive aspect to think about. A $3000 7D II would be in a tough competitive spot with Nikon at the very least, as Nikon has been packing in as many features as possible at the cheapest price point possible lately.

 

[wookiee2cu]

I'd be really surprised if it got the 61pt AF system just because they want some seperation between the 7D and 5D MIII. If they dumped all the latest tech in it and it just came down to one being one being full frame and one not then most would probably go for the cheaper 7D with more fps stealing sales from the 5D MIII, I just don't see them doing that.

 

[unfocused]

I'd be really surprised if it got the 61pt AF system just because they want some seperation between the 7D and 5D MIII. If they dumped all the latest tech in it and it just came down to one being one being full frame and one not then most would probably go for the cheaper 7D with more fps stealing sales from the 5D MIII, I just don't see them doing that.

The 7D got newer technology than the 5DII. Giving the 7DII equal or better technology than than the 5DIII, but in an APS-C format is consistent with past practice.

Canon doesn't care about "stealing sales" from one model to the next. They care about stealing sales from Nikon.

 

[jrista]

I'd be really surprised if it got the 61pt AF system just because they want some seperation between the 7D and 5D MIII. If they dumped all the latest tech in it and it just came down to one being one being full frame and one not then most would probably go for the cheaper 7D with more fps stealing sales from the 5D MIII, I just don't see them doing that.

The 7D got newer technology than the 5DII. Giving the 7DII equal or better technology than than the 5DIII, but in an APS-C format is consistent with past practice.

Canon doesn't care about "stealing sales" from one model to the next. They care about stealing sales from Nikon.

Totally agreed.

Competition with other brands is more important than self competition. I don't really even buy the self competition argument either...the 5D III is FF, and that is the most important factor for the majority of people who buy that camera. I know a good number of portrait and wedding photogs (well, and event photogs as well) who would NEVER buy an APS-C camera, for any price with any feature set, because the full frame FoV and DOF are far more important to them. People who buy the 7D line want it for what it is...and gimping its AF relative to the rest of Canon's pro line would just be another detractor against outside competition.

 

[Krob78]

I'd be really surprised if it got the 61pt AF system just because they want some seperation between the 7D and 5D MIII. If they dumped all the latest tech in it and it just came down to one being one being full frame and one not then most would probably go for the cheaper 7D with more fps stealing sales from the 5D MIII, I just don't see them doing that.

The 7D got newer technology than the 5DII. Giving the 7DII equal or better technology than than the 5DIII, but in an APS-C format is consistent with past practice.

Canon doesn't care about "stealing sales" from one model to the next. They care about stealing sales from Nikon.

Totally agreed.

Competition with other brands is more important than self competition. I don't really even buy the self competition argument either...the 5D III is FF, and that is the most important factor for the majority of people who buy that camera. I know a good number of portrait and wedding photogs (well, and event photogs as well) who would NEVER buy an APS-C camera, for any price with any feature set, because the full frame FoV and DOF are far more important to them. People who buy the 7D line want it for what it is...and gimping its AF relative to the rest of Canon's pro line would just be another detractor against outside competition.

Yes, yes and yes!

 

[Krob78]

I'd be really surprised if it got the 61pt AF system just because they want some seperation between the 7D and 5D MIII. If they dumped all the latest tech in it and it just came down to one being one being full frame and one not then most would probably go for the cheaper 7D with more fps stealing sales from the 5D MIII, I just don't see them doing that.

43 point AF...

 

[Krob78]

If the 7D II comes out with something like 24mp APS-C that improves ISO 100 noise, maybe uses a BSI design *with* split pixels like the 20.2mp sensor, and still offers everything else (10fps, 61pt AF, same durable body design and weather sealing of the 5D III), etc. Then I think it will clock in over $2000, maybe even $2500.

+1, my money (not that I have it) is also on a new sensor, a late release date and a $2500 price remembering of the interview I mentioned above.

Honestly? If Canon launched a camera as described by jrista I could easily see that reaching the US$3,000 and even the US$3,500 mark. In fact why would it be cheaper (especially on release) than the 5D Mark III?

Well, the 1D X and 5D III pioneered some new technology. Such as the 61pt AF system. The 7D II would be able to piggyback on the profits from sales of those cameras if it reused the 61pt AF system. Same goes for the metering, etc. Canon wouldn't need to do as much R&D for the 7D II...about the only thing that really needs improvement is the sensor...and it sounds like that's being done. So I don't really foresee the 7D II hitting the $3000 mark I think it would be surprising if it came out higher than $2500...I just don't see people buying it at a price point higher than that, given the position it holds (the lowest end "pro" camera in Canon's lineup, plus APS-C to boot...a lot of people have this thing about FF being professional now.)

There is also the competitive aspect to think about. A $3000 7D II would be in a tough competitive spot with Nikon at the very least, as Nikon has been packing in as many features as possible at the cheapest price point possible lately.

The 7D got newer technology than the 5DII. Giving the 7DII equal or better technology than than the 5DIII, but in an APS-C format is consistent with past practice.

The 7d came in substantially less than a new 5d2 came in at, with the "newer" technology. Why can't a 7D2, having some of the same technology and some "newer" technology come in substantially less than the 5d3?

 

[unfocused]

The 7d came in substantially less than a new 5d2 came in at, with the "newer" technology. Why can't a 7D2, having some of the same technology and some "newer" technology come in substantially less than the 5d3?

Agreed.

Too often, people generalize about Canon pricing based on one example – the higher cost of the 5DIII in comparison to the D800. But, that was an anomaly. Canon and Nikon traditionally price their comparable models at nearly identical price points.

They do so because that's what the market demands. A $2,500 7DII would be hard-pressed to compete against a $1,800 D400.

Why didn't the 5DIII follow that pattern?

I have always argued that Canon set a $500 premium with the 5DIII because the 5DIII was much more targeted to specific buyers than the D800. The 5DIII with its high ISO performance is a must-have tool for photographers in a highly competitive field – weddings and events (which also happens to be about the only sizeable professional field left). Canon knew they could charge a premium because their target audience needs the competitive edge that the clean high ISOs gives them.

The D800 sacrificed high-ISO performance for high resolution. Unfortunately, there simply isn't a large professional base of photographers who gain any competitive edge from a high resolution sensor (emphasis on "large" professional base). It's a nice feature and gives some bragging rights to a company that has been perceived as being behind the curve on resolution for several years. That's not to say that some photographers don't need high resolution, it's just that the target audience is much smaller and the competitive advantages to be gained from the high resolution are much less significant.

I don't understand why people always point to the 5DIII, which was an exception, when every other DSLR Canon makes fits nicely within the rule of consistent pricing with their competitors. Frankly, the relatively low pricing of the 70D should give some reassurance that the 7DII will likely come in comfortably under $2,000

 

[Sporgon]

Why didn't the 5DIII follow that pattern ?

I have always argued that Canon set a $500 premium with the 5DIII because the 5DIII was much more targeted to specific buyers than the D800. The 5DIII with its high ISO performance is a must-have tool for photographers in a highly competitive field – weddings and events (which also happens to be about the only sizeable professional field left).

I disagree here. The 5D mk3 was $500 more as it is $500 more camera: a professional level product in every way. The original 5D and later mk2 were not. Many pros eschewed the 1Ds mk3 in favour of the much cheaper, lighter 5Dmk2. Canon responded to demand and produced a pro grade 5D.

The D800 on the other hand is aimed fair and square at the amateur market, and it is less $$$ because it is a cheaper, less substantial product. 36 mp, a marketing game that didn't come off. They had to bring out the D600 pretty sharpish.

 

[RLPhoto]

I have always argued that Canon set a $500 premium with the 5DIII because the 5DIII was much more targeted to specific buyers than the D800.

I thought canon tagged on an extra 1000$ because they could and users would buy anyway. I used my 5Dc until I saw a reasonable price before buying my first MK3.

 

[unfocused]

I disagree here...

I disagree that you disagree.

Seriously, I think we are saying the same thing. 5DIII targeted to a professional market to fit a specific need. D800 targeted to...whom? I've never been sure.

The 5DIII may be $500 more camera, but that's because it has features that make it worth that to a specific market.

 

[Sporgon]

I disagree here...

I disagree that you disagree.

Seriously, I think we are saying the same thing. 5DIII targeted to a professional market to fit a specific need. D800 targeted to...whom? I've never been sure.

The 5DIII may be $500 more camera, but that's because it has features that make it worth that to a specific market.

Agreed

I think the 7Dii will follow the same path. Many sports 'pros' use the 7D as a much more affordable 1D -whatever. My guess is the next one will be basically an APS-c 1Dx.