Canon EOS 7D Mark II in 2014 [CR2]

[M.ST]

RE to: Please tell me that "Pro" doesn't mean a built-in non-removable grip. That would be a deal-killer for sure.

The preseries 7D Mark II don´t have a built-in non-removable grip.

 

[sanj]

For photographers who want a cost effective crop camera there is the 70D. I am wishing for a 'mini 1dx'. Will be perfect second camera along with my 1dx for 'good light' wildlife work. And I hope the 7d2 has better IQ than version I starting from ISO 100 itself to 1600. Hope......

 

[Lee Jay]

RE to: Please tell me that "Pro" doesn't mean a built-in non-removable grip. That would be a deal-killer for sure.

The preseries 7D Mark II don´t have a built-in non-removable grip.

Great!

 

[thfifthcrouch]

This is not a camera for the full frame pixel peeping connoisseur. If your worried about razor thin depth of focus, noise at 6400 iso or any of that sort of thing, this is not your camera. It simply can't be. This will be amazing for the wild life or birder who wants that extra reach with a multitude of tools to get you there. It will produce amazing pics at ISOs up to 800 (which if you come from film is amazing). It will do fine over that for small prints or such that you want to post on facebook and just like every crop frame. All that said I love birding and it's mine, all mine. ;D

Canon was able to do amazing high ISO performance in the C100, and C300, which are basically APS-C, so they could do it in the 7DII

They are also basically 8MP downscaled to 2MP though.

The reason I say this is that a full frame sensor is 2.6 times larger then a crop frame. That is 2.6 times or 1.15 stops more light to work with. So full frame will always be the better performer. But I think the crop frame is a different way of shooting and requires a different lens strategy. Bird pictures no matter how long a lens you have will always require cropping unless your right on top of them which seldom happens. They also require detail that intensely packed pixels on the crop frame provide, so crop is IMHO better for that type of application.
Also I think that lens' can be designed at least economically that can take advantage of the smaller frame size. The example here is the Sigma 18-35mm f/1.8. All looks of that piece of glass seems to be outstanding and kinda evens (though not completely) the crop full frame thing. Cheers!

 

[crazyrunner33]

I only have two wishes, a sensor that doesn't line skip to create a live view image and a fast CF card slot. Anything else is icing on the cake.

 

[rsdofny]

All these changes are only incremental. With the DSLR market is maturing and the low end market completely decimated by smartphone, Canon needs to work a lot harder to keep themselves in the game. Sony, on the other hand, has been capturing a lot more headlines lately while Nikon is pushing the technological curve very hard as well. To say the least, Canon does not even have an answer for a compact APS-C/full frame camera after Sony has introduced the RX100 more than 12 months.

I have been a Canon person all my life. It is hard for me to switch, but that does not mean I would buy more new gear.

 

[kaihp]

With today's technology I'm sure they could redesign the battery bay to be smaller and carry a thinner battery that equals the power of about two LP-E6s and a slightly better voltage to drive the AF better than it's driven on the 5D mark III but not as good as the 1D-X.

Alas, we are up against physics here, so getting towards a ~ half-sized battery (compared to an LP-E6) is not very likely.

 

[TrabimanUK]

Alas, we are up against physics here, so getting towards a ~ half-sized battery (compared to an LP-E6) is not very likely.

Damn that Isaac Newton! The world was much better off before he invented gravity and physics! Just think of the possibilities!

 

[WPJ]

1st half.......what first half, calendar or physical. And will they deliver it before 2015?

Sorry, but as an accountant I had to correct this. It is a fiscal year, not a physical year. How do you even know their fiscal year is different from the calendar year, maybe it's the same?

thanks typo, typing,to fast,on my phone. Correct I have no idea if there years line up, hence why I was asking

 

[Loswr]

1st half.......what first half, calendar or physical. And will they deliver it before 2015?

Sorry, but as an accountant I had to correct this. It is a fiscal year, not a physical year. How do you even know their fiscal year is different from the calendar year, maybe it's the same?

thanks typo, typing,to fast,on my phone. Correct I have no idea if there years line up, hence why I was asking

FWIW, Canon's fiscal year is the calendar year, Nikon's fiscal year is April-March.

 

[docsmith]

Actually, the 6D and 7D2 should be a pretty excellent combo!

They are...it is called the 5DIII ;D

For photographers who want a cost effective crop camera there is the 70D. I am wishing for a 'mini 1dx'. Will be perfect second camera along with my 1dx for 'good light' wildlife work. And I hope the 7d2 has better IQ than version I starting from ISO 100 itself to 1600. Hope......

Yep, this is the basis for my earlier comment that I am worried that $2k isn't a high enough price to make the 7DII "professional level"....really, I was thinking "mini-1DX."

Considering it would be $900 more than the 70D, there is plenty of room/need for differentiation. But, "mini-1DX" I'd expect to be on par with the 5DIII in price. As the quick example, if the 7DII was given 63 pt AF, 10 fps, improvments in sensor technology gave us ~1-2 stops better high ISO noise performance, AND there was improved low ISO noise performance at $2k price point....who would buy the 6D, 5DIII or 1DX?

Perhaps Canon does go this route, kill the sales of their current FF lineup and release the fabled high MP FF body (3D? 1DXs?) so they'd get sales from the 7DII and 3D/1DXs for 2014 and then refresh the 6D/5D/1D lineup in 2015 with the improved sensor tech.

Maybe....really, that would be great and make everyone very happy....but I am expecting a more modest upgrade to the 7DII at the $2k price point.

 

[viggen61]

Please tell me that "Pro" doesn't mean a built-in non-removable grip. That would be a deal-killer for sure.

I, for one wouldn't mind the EOS-1D form factor one bit. I've had the grip on my 7D almost from the start, and it works just so much better for me.

But, if Canon keeps the present form, could we at lest get a grip that maintains the same level of weatherseal as the camera? I'm still working out intermittent problems with the grip (I.e. Grip shutter activates meter, but is intermittent firing...) since I used the camera in a very, very light mist...

 

[viggen61]

This is not a camera for the full frame pixel peeping connoisseur. If your worried about razor thin depth of focus, noise at 6400 iso or any of that sort of thing, this is not your camera. It simply can't be. This will be amazing for the wild life or birder who wants that extra reach with a multitude of tools to get you there. It will produce amazing pics at ISOs up to 800 (which if you come from film is amazing). It will do fine over that for small prints or such that you want to post on facebook and just like every crop frame. All that said I love birding and it's mine, all mine. ;D

+1

(Though a little high-ISO help would be much appreciated!)

 

[mahilandfnp]

It is funny how people are so concerned with image quality... I get it... at least, I used to. But I used the Canon 40D then 7D for wedding photography for over six years. In that time, I was nominated and voted into the top 4 wedding photographers in a large market city twice. I normally only used primes to compensate for the lack of high ISO performance and depth of field from the crop bodies (they are sharper anyhow). For these reasons, I have far less $$$$ wrapped up in equipment than any of my colleagues. There will always be something newer and better, but the image quality achievable from the 7D mark I is awesome, even on large prints (e.g. 36x48). Anything Canon releases moving forward will only be icing on the cake!!!

 

[unfocused]

It is funny how people are so concerned with image quality... I get it... at least, I used to. But I used the Canon 40D then 7D for wedding photography for over six years. In that time, I was nominated and voted into the top 4 wedding photographers in a large market city twice. I normally only used primes to compensate for the lack of high ISO performance and depth of field from the crop bodies (they are sharper anyhow). For these reasons, I have far less $$$$ wrapped up in equipment than any of my colleagues. There will always be something newer and better, but the image quality achievable from the 7D mark I is awesome, even on large prints (e.g. 36x48). Anything Canon releases moving forward will only be icing on the cake!!!

Thank you!

This is a perspective we don't hear often enough. And, I'm sure there will be someone who replies trying to dispute or discredit your statement. But, I would be willing to bet that no client ever came to you and said: "This is a great shot, but could you get a little more shadow detail in the groom's tuxedo?" Or maybe, "There's just not enough dynamic range in this picture of the bride in her wedding gown."

It's one thing to always be wanting better tools. We all do that. It's quite another to act as though it's the camera's fault if you can't produce outstanding images.

 

[unfocused]

1st half.......what first half, calendar or physical. And will they deliver it before 2015?

Sorry, but as an accountant I had to correct this. It is a fiscal year, not a physical year. How do you even know their fiscal year is different from the calendar year, maybe it's the same?

thanks typo, typing,to fast,on my phone. Correct I have no idea if there years line up, hence why I was asking

FWIW, Canon's fiscal year is the calendar year, Nikon's fiscal year is April-March.

FWIW #2, You're still typing too fast apparently. I think the years line up over there.

 

[ajfotofilmagem]

It is funny how people are so concerned with image quality... I get it... at least, I used to. But I used the Canon 40D then 7D for wedding photography for over six years. In that time, I was nominated and voted into the top 4 wedding photographers in a large market city twice. I normally only used primes to compensate for the lack of high ISO performance and depth of field from the crop bodies (they are sharper anyhow). For these reasons, I have far less $$$$ wrapped up in equipment than any of my colleagues. There will always be something newer and better, but the image quality achievable from the 7D mark I is awesome, even on large prints (e.g. 36x48). Anything Canon releases moving forward will only be icing on the cake!!!

Exactly. Every day I see people in CR, praising 5D classic. Now that is a cheap camera (and very old) can compete in price with APS-C. I see in my city, some photographers doing weddings with classic 5D + 28-135mm, and the result is quite disappointing. On the other hand, several photographers doing weddings with 7D + 17-55mm has far superior results.

 

[docsmith]

It is funny how people are so concerned with image quality... I get it... at least, I used to. But I used the Canon 40D then 7D for wedding photography for over six years. In that time, I was nominated and voted into the top 4 wedding photographers in a large market city twice. I normally only used primes to compensate for the lack of high ISO performance and depth of field from the crop bodies (they are sharper anyhow). For these reasons, I have far less $$$$ wrapped up in equipment than any of my colleagues. There will always be something newer and better, but the image quality achievable from the 7D mark I is awesome, even on large prints (e.g. 36x48). Anything Canon releases moving forward will only be icing on the cake!!!

I agree with the others, and love the perspective. It is very important to note that what we have is good enough. Skill/time/effort are usually the limiting factors, not the camera. Most pro photographers I know aren't worried about upgrades. Matter of fact, most that I know are shooting with 1-3 generation old equipment. The one I know the best has something like 8xD300s and 2xD3s bodies as their arsenal and typically shoot events with a Tamron 28-75 f/2.8 @ f/5.6. I was speaking with a pro videographer and they manual focus everything...couldn't care less about dual pixel technology. When the canon 24-70 II came out I read an article and saw a video about several several pretty famous pros that were planning on keeping their 24-70 I. They saw no need to upgrade.

It is interesting, but I often don't think upgrades are about pros.

But getting back to perspective, I don't think we can forget, people can have different interests in the same subject. Using cars as the analogy, for some people they just get them from point A to point B, others love the technology, some like the ride comfort, some the speed, some cornering, others--fuel economy or what they can haul. Lots of different interests....and perspectives. Yet, they keep coming out with new car models when, really, we've had all that we "need" for decades.

 

[ZimUW]

I hope the 7D mk II isn't a "gripped" model. I plan to replace my 550D with the 7D2 as my underwater camera. And a housing for a 1D-size camera will cost a fortune.

J

 

[Lee Jay]

If you look at the numbers over at sensorgen, the 7D's sensor is around 1/3 of a stop behind the 1Dx sensor in performance per unit of surface area. That isn't much.

There's always room for improvement, and the 7DII should do better, but let's keep this in perspective. If it has more pixels and a better sensor with lower read noise and higher QE, it *might* do 1/2 a stop better at high ISO in raw than the 7D. Of course, low-ISO read noise could drop a lot more, and improve DR by up to 3 stops or so, but Canon hasn't shown technology of their own that can manage that yet. Maybe this is the one, I don't know, but the talk about 1-2 stops better high-ISO performance is simply not possible except, perhaps, in out-of-camera JPEGs due to superior in-camera processing, not a better sensor.