Canon EOS 7D Mark II in 2014 [CR2]

[Eldar]

I have some friends who occasionally say "I wish I was 20 again. Think of all the things we could do then ...". My response to that is "I´m happy being in my fifties ... Think of all the things we can do today, because we can afford to"

 

[Lee Jay]

By the way, you know why I'm hot to upgrade? Because I'm still shooting with my 20D and 5D (including weddings and other professional outings). They've served me well and I've accumulated some good lenses for them, but I'm not into little upgrades. 20D -> 7DII should be a pretty big step. 5D -> 5DIV should as well (I hope).

 

[LetTheRightLensIn]

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

I agree completely.

I disagree completely.

I don't see it happening, whether I agree or disagree. Integrated grip is one of the big selling points of the 1-series, and I can't imagine the 7-series getting it before the 5-series.

I sure hope neither 7 nor 5 series get the integrated grip (unless it absolutely truly is the only way to get more computing performance and nothing they can do in battery design or slightly upsizing the batteries works).

 

[LetTheRightLensIn]

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?

It might not allow raw video the way the hacked 5D3 does.
It still wouldn't be FF, if they improved the high ISO SNR 1-2 stops then they'd also do the same for the next 5D3 and so on. Plus they don't have the room to improve the high iso that much, the 7D is already too good at high iso.
If they just give it the tiniest tweak who would ever buy it compared to the current 7D??? Or a D400 or whatnot??? And this thing needs to be able to sell for a few years. There is competition.

Of course the way Canon has acted lately and priced things maybe you do have some legitimacy to your worry, but all the same it doesn't have to play out as you say at all.

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.

They sort of have to do that anyway, so yeah.

 

[LetTheRightLensIn]

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.

Nobody ever said you can't make outstanding images. The bride doesn't complain because she is never shown and maybe the photographer never attempted the shots that wouldn't fit into the DR of the body used. If all he shot was shots that didn't work with the camera he used he wouldn't be getting hired.

It's all about having less limitations and if the competition has sensors that offer less, why not get them too. Nobody is saying you can't take an endless stream of great photos that do work.

 

[LetTheRightLensIn]

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.

That is because are in a different world, a cold hard calculating world where money rules and if they don't think they bring in a lot more cash from some equipment then it means nothing to them or if they don't think they might miss a certain one of shot that had to be taken and get a mad boss then they don't care. That is looking at things from a very different perspective and one, ironically enough, often with much looser standards (at least in some number of cases about some things, it depends, lots of Olympics type pros were flipping out over the 1D3 and lower body AF problems and were very happy about 1DX/5D3).

 

[jrista]

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.

For batteries, probably. That doesn't mean manufacturers couldn't move towards fuel cells of some kind, though...and fuel cells can be remarkably efficient.

 

[dufflover]

That is because are in a different world, a cold hard calculating world where money rules and if they don't think they bring in a lot more cash from some equipment then it means nothing to them or if they don't think they might miss a certain one of shot that had to be taken and get a mad boss then they don't care..

As much as I can appreciate the whole "it's not the camera that makes the photo" type of posts basically justify lack of development, that doesn't really change the fact that as mentioned the best of both worlds can exist. I for one spend my hard earned very carefully to not buy something that is only marginally better when the competition is doing so much more.

It is hard for me to switch, but that does not mean I would buy more new gear.

Well put. Nikon doesn't have anything in particular that ticks all the boxes (the D300 replacement may ...) but I could sure use some Nikon/Sony improvements in my primary camera. On the flipside, after promising that I wouldn't buy a 4 yr old Canon sensor again, the EOS-M price got slashed and I bought it because at that price for that product it was a bloody good deal.
Like many others can't really do much but use what we got and twiddle our thumbs. I'm sure Canon have benefited by getting people giving up and paying more for a 5D3 LOL. I've been tempted by that as well but I keep finding myself reach limited (my lazy fault most of the time though) so it wouldn't be good value for me.

 

[Marsu42]

Low ISO DR, Low ISO DR, Low ISO DR, Low ISO DR, Low ISO DR, Low ISO DR, Low ISO DR..... ;D ;D ;D

Won't happen, this is exactly what Nikon/Sony patented (exmor) and so far Canon doesn't seem to be willing to license it, just as they devised their own operating System (DryOS) rather than license an existing one. For Canon, it's all about high iso, look at their latest line of ultra low-light security cams.

 

[eml58]

That would not be a very nice thing to do. Just inbox me and I come to collect it. Will give you a non grip camera in exchange.

I think the line at this Lads front door is going to be reasonably long.

Very Funny Sanj.

 

[sanj]

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.

Agree. Except even with all these improvements, a crop camera cannot beat the benefits of a full frame. So even if they launch our wish list 7d2, the full frame cameras still have their appeal.

 

[duppencf]

a crop camera cannot beat the benefits of a full frame

4K or RAW video would be the killer features (combined with dual pixel af) that could make this body a stand out for the entire product life cycle and get every videographer pressing the Buy Now button. Both are proven possible with small sensors.

Obviously we're getting 10+ fps and great traditional AF... Just not sure what "innovative video features" will entail.

 

[dufflover]

Except even with all these improvements, a crop camera cannot beat the benefits of a full frame. So even if they launch our wish list 7d2, the full frame cameras still have their appeal.

Except the price lol

 

[Richard8971]

Except even with all these improvements, a crop camera cannot beat the benefits of a full frame. So even if they launch our wish list 7d2, the full frame cameras still have their appeal.

Except the price lol

For now... Who knows what the technology of the near future will bring.

Try and remember that APS-C sized digital sensors came about because Advanced Photo System's film sized formats (C, H and P) was introduced right around the time that digital SLR's were first hitting the market (1996). That is why, unfortunately for Kodak, that size of film format never really took off.

Canon and Nikon (among others) saw this as an opportunity to be able to produce a smaller digital sensor to help keep costs down and to get digital cameras into the hands of many as possible, while keeping to a known film foramat size. (Something that was VERY important, at the time, in getting someone used to film to switch over to digital) The APS-C format was something people were already familiar with, so it really didn't have much to do with image quality or one being better than another, it was a way to produce a DSLR cheaper and advertise the "additional reach" you can get with a crop sensor over FF! That was one of Kodak's main marketing strategies for the APS-C film format!

Well, it worked. So much so, that we today have evolved into 2 main groups of DSLR lovers. Ones who love FF and ones who love crop sensors. They both have advantages and disadvantages over each other. Sensors are getting cheaper and cheaper to manufacture so it really isn't so much a matter of pure costs anymore. Canon and Nikon (and others) recognize that even though they could inexpensively put FF sensors into ALL of their cameras now, not everyone is going to want that.

That's why Canon will continue to make crop sensor bodies. There is a market and need for them. The 7D is one of the most successful and popular bodies that Canon has ever made and I see them twice in number over many of the other DSLR's.

Canon really has their work set out for them, it will be a hard camera to top. I love my 7 so much in fact that I really don't plan on replacing it until this one falls apart, regardless of what Canon puts out. It has done everything I have ever asked of it and more. Nothing currently (based on cost) is worth "upgrading" to. It's funny, I even keep a 40D as a back up to my 7. Love that camera just as much.

Don't take me wrong, I have shot FF as well as many offerings from Nikon etc... They are all wonderful cameras. But compared to the overall awesome image quality and brute speed of the 7 at it's current asking price, it is a VERY hard camera to beat.

In 5 years? Who knows what digital sensors will be like. Maybe low noise at high ISO will be a thing of the past, regardless of sensor size. Who knows, maybe all DSLR's will have the option of shooting FF, or crop sensor (H or C) with a flip of a switch. I know some do that already...

Hard drives went through a similar problem. Around the turn of the century, hard drive space was nearing it's maximum, using then-current hard drive technology (about 1TB). In 2005 Perpendicular Magnetic Recording became commercially available and now we have 4TB drives with 12TB drives being predicted being available by 2016.

You never know what tomorrow will bring.

D

 

[Richard8971]

???

Did I kill the thread?

 

[WPJ]

I still think that there could be a crop sensor come out which is miles better than existing full frame which will just make the next full frame even more wild. After isn't that what we all want canon to finally innovate again..

 

[StudentOfLight]

Time is flying at the moment so in my mind, at least, it won't be long before the 7D-II is released ;D

 

[Marsu42]

Time is flying at the moment so in my mind, at least, it won't be long before the 7D-II is released ;D

But not before at least a dozen of other [CR2] threads pop up about the 7d2, of course quickly followed by a couple of [CR3] before the announcement ... this shows how slow 2013 has been for Canon in the enthusiast/semipro market segment :-o

 

[DRR]

Sensors are getting cheaper and cheaper to manufacture so it really isn't so much a matter of pure costs anymore. Canon and Nikon (and others) recognize that even though they could inexpensively put FF sensors into ALL of their cameras now, not everyone is going to want that.

I have to disagree with this statement - it will always be a matter of cost. The reason being that a crop sensor is significantly less expensive to manufacture:

Yes prices are dropping, and of course there are a lot of other factors that go into the price of a camera/camera body, but remember just based on size, a full frame sensor will always be roughly three times the cost to manufacture as a crop sensor.

If a crop sensor can yield 90% of the IQ for a third of the cost - it's kind of a no-brainer for the manufacturer!

 

[9VIII]

Sensors are getting cheaper and cheaper to manufacture so it really isn't so much a matter of pure costs anymore. Canon and Nikon (and others) recognize that even though they could inexpensively put FF sensors into ALL of their cameras now, not everyone is going to want that.

I have to disagree with this statement - it will always be a matter of cost. The reason being that a crop sensor is significantly less expensive to manufacture:

Yes prices are dropping, and of course there are a lot of other factors that go into the price of a camera/camera body, but remember just based on size, a full frame sensor will always be roughly three times the cost to manufacture as a crop sensor.

If a crop sensor can yield 90% of the IQ for a third of the cost - it's kind of a no-brainer for the manufacturer!

http://www.robgalbraith.com/images/canon_full-frame_cmos_white_paper.pdf

Interestingly, the APS-H sensor of the EOS-1D Mark II N is the largest size that can be imaged in one shot onto a wafer. Extended through the whole sensor production process, the difference in price between the 1D Mark II N and the 1Ds Mark II can be readily understood.

I want APS-H sensors back!
Though I wouldn't be surprised if they increased the size of their projectors since 2006.

In the article it says that Full Frame sensors cost 10-20 times as much ,or more, than APS-C. It says that dust particles can easily wipe out an entire wafer of Full Frame sensors, where an APS-C batch would still have plenty of usable chips.

I hate to think what people have to go through to get a medium format sensor out the door.