Canon EOS 7D Mark II Not Coming? [CR1]

[Canon Rumors]

<div name="googleone_share_1" style="position:relative;z-index:5;float: right; /*margin: 70px 0 0 0;*/ top:70px; right:120px; width:0;"><g:plusone size="tall" count="1" href="http://www.canonrumors.com/2013/12/canon-eos-7d-mark-ii-not-coming-cr1/"></g:plusone></div><div style="float: right; margin:0 0 70px 70px;"><a href="https://twitter.com/share" class="twitter-share-button" data-count="vertical" data-url="http://www.canonrumors.com/2013/12/canon-eos-7d-mark-ii-not-coming-cr1/">Tweet</a></div>
<p><strong>No EOS 7D Mark II?

</strong>We received an odd bit of information in regards to the future of the EOS 7D.</p>
<p>We were plainly told “No 7D II – a friend”.</p>
<p>This goes against what Canon itself has said and what we’ve heard for a long while. It is possible that plans have changed, as lots of products get started and never actually reach market.</p>
<p>Does Canon feel there’s no future in the APS-C segment?  Has the production costs of full frame sensors come down enough to do away with APS-C at the $1500 price point? Is the <a href="http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/986389-REG/canon_8469b002_canon_eos_70d_dslr.html/bi/2466/kbid/3296" target="_blank">EOS 70D</a> all you need as an APS-C shooter?</p>
<p>What is apparent is that both Nikon and Canon appear to have abandoned the “prosumer” DSLR segment. The D7100 and the <a href="http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/986389-REG/canon_8469b002_canon_eos_70d_dslr.html/bi/2466/kbid/3296" target="_blank">70D</a> are both very capable cameras. However, they don’t scream “pro” in feature sets or build quality.</p>
<p>I’m sure we’ll hear more soon….</p>
<p><strong><span style="color: #ff0000;">c</span>r</strong></p>

 

[RichM]

That would be very disappointing. I believe there is significant demand for a 7d2, and Canon would be missing a significant market segment.

 

[DaveMiko]

I don't think this latest news will correspond to actual truth. The consumer or prosumer market will still need APS-C DSLRs and the 7D line is the flagship there. That being said, I wouldn't be surprised if they decide to get rid of that segment and focus only on the real deal, that is, full frame cameras. If the price on these excellent products comes down enough, then it might make sense to do so.
P.S. If one can afford it, then, by all means, get the mighty 1DX!!!! 8)

 

[Lichtgestalt]

but... but... M.ST sure has the prototype already?

i call that a false rumor. if not a 7D MK2 then they just release it with a different name, but practically it will be the 7D successor.

 

[MintChocs]

It's plausible, Canon are probably trying to steer people to full frame and protect their more expensive models. The quality produced by new crop sensors is good enough in most sensors some pro's might not feel the need to buy more expensive bodies. You might have only needed a 400mm lens on a crop but now you need a 600mm on a FF so it encourages sales of more expensive lenses.

 

[photonius]

Hmm, a different spin on this could be "no 7D II" within the expected timeframe. The engineers may have encountered more trouble with all the new features they wanted to pack in the new dual-pixel sensor, and it may take it's time to sort it out?

 

[lol]

It would be sad if Canon followed Nikon's missing D400, but thankfully this is rated CR1 and I wouldn't pay much attention to the noise until it is at least a CR2.

I can quite simply state, and I know many shooters like me, would not want a full frame body at the same cost as a 7D (with the tradeoff in performance that implies). They are very different cameras for different uses.

At the other end, however good it is in its own right, the newer 70D doesn't even match the 7D where it really matters. Even if it has new toys, it is isn't filling the same slot.

 

[ScottyP]

I really don't care if they make a metal body. I don't use my camera to smash walnuts or to bludgeon Nikon users.

But they do need to make something a little larger than Rebels or 70d"s, and with a great AF system. Seriously, how much can it cost to go ahead and give the thing 40+ AF points, with most or all being cross-type? If they no longer need to hold back to create space between 70d and 7d2, they could make 80d (or a new line) that has as many AF points as they want.

 

[Zv]

Boooo!

 

[LarryC]

You might have only needed a 400mm lens on a crop but now you need a 600mm on a FF so it encourages sales of more expensive lenses.

That is simply not true. A 400mm lens on a cropped FF image is exactly the same as 400mm on a crop sensor. The only [current] benefits of a crop sensor is sensor/camera production costs, cropped image resolution, image, fps, and lens size/weight.

It will always costs less to produce a smaller sensor, but overall costs are dropping and as more people make the jump to FF, the economies of scale will drive a more rapid decline in costs. Cropped image resolution is a valid issue, but the 1Dx and D4 prove, for most people, that image is not about mp, and this truth is underscored by the resolution of cropped D800 images. Fps is only a matter of processor and storage throughput and capacity, and that is rapidly changing too. While the current D800 may be "slow" in that regard, I would be very surprised if the next iteration did not provide for 6+ fps, and I suspect the same will be true that Canon's first or second "big" mp cameras will also solve or come close to solving the fps issue. As for weight, that only applies to lens and you will still be able to use your older crop camera lenses if you really want to pretend you have a 600mm lens by using a 400mm on a crop sensor.

I don't know what Canon or Nikon will do in the future regarding "pro" cropped sensor camera, but I would be very surprised if they aren't looking looking at the FF "problems" the same way as am I and recognize the inherent long term economies of abandoning pro-level crop lenses and bodies.

 

[9VIII]

That is simply not true. A 400mm lens on a cropped FF image is exactly the same as 400mm on a crop sensor.

Close but not quite. In recent discussions extreme cropping showed benefits with the crop sensor. Maybe the difference is small enough for most people to ignore, but if you know you will be doing a lot of heavy cropping one might still choose a higher density sensor for practical reasons.
We also still have the phenomenon of the SX50HS providing better results than any other camera when cropped to the same sensor size.

No 7DII? If they're trying to protect the 1Dx, then they're going to have to drop the price on that for more people to adopt it. Alternatively I guess they could launch the 6D2 with similar specs to the 5D3, and then move the 5D4 that much closer to 1Dx performance.
Which then makes me wonder what consumer level camera would eventually get a big MP sensor.

 

[thfifthcrouch]

Yes indeed the reach is achieved via a smaller sensor and more densely packed pixels. So the same reach can be achieved via a 40-50 megapixel camera full frame camera like the 36 megapixel Nikon. Such a camera's files would be a little unwieldy I suppose, where the crop frames of like 20 megapixels isn't. All depends on processing speeds which will more then likely be able to handle such, as advances continue. Etc etc. Guessing Mint Chocolates pretty much is aware of this sort of thing.
Love birding and no lens in the world will ever get you that reach you need. A lot depends on getting close. Just the use of a crop gave the added benefit of not having to crop in post. Also cool lens's like the Sigma 18-35mm f/1.8 can be made that makes economic sense where it kinda provides the crop frame user a bit of a catch up to full, but not completely. Also crops can be inherently mechanically sounder due to the fact that it has a smaller shutter mechanism. Minor benefit here as good engineering even makes this rather inconsequential.
All this frame size is all based on the history of film and sensors. There really is no holy grail only what exists is in our past and heads.
Anyway I am really wandering here. Myself I would love the Canon 7d mark ii. But the pixel peepers are going to prevail and the end of crop is in sight.

 

[skycolt]

If there ever will be a 7dii, I'll definitely grab one. If not, I won't buy their expensive FF anyway. This news is disappointing.

 

[Don Haines]

That is simply not true. A 400mm lens on a cropped FF image is exactly the same as 400mm on a crop sensor.

Close but not quite. In recent discussions extreme cropping showed benefits with the crop sensor. Maybe the difference is small enough for most people to ignore, but if you know you will be doing a lot of heavy cropping one might still choose a higher density sensor for practical reasons.
We also still have the phenomenon of the SX50HS providing better results than any other camera when cropped to the same sensor size.

No 7DII? If they're trying to protect the 1Dx, then they're going to have to drop the price on that for more people to adopt it. Alternatively I guess they could launch the 6D2 with similar specs to the 5D3, and then move the 5D4 that much closer to 1Dx performance.
Which then makes me wonder what consumer level camera would eventually get a big MP sensor.

Some people argue that denser sampling is what will meet their needs (APS -C)... Some argue that bigger pixels with lower noise and higher ISO meets their needs (FF). Both sides are right and for some people the answer comes down to one of each.

We could argue the merits of denser sampling against increased noise until the cows come home, but in the end it comes down to sales. If canon thinks that there is enough of a market to make sales of a particular camera profitable then they will sell it. Judging from the pent-up demand for a 7D2 on this site, it would seem like there is.

 

[takesome1]

You might have only needed a 400mm lens on a crop but now you need a 600mm on a FF so it encourages sales of more expensive lenses.

That is simply not true. A 400mm lens on a cropped FF image is exactly the same as 400mm on a crop sensor. The only [current] benefits of a crop sensor is sensor/camera production costs, cropped image resolution, image, fps, and lens size/weight.

No, in fact his statement is true. While it is true the lens produces the same image, the sensors do not see the same image. The crop sensor only sees a portion of the image. So while we know that you can crop an image with many FF and get about the same quality out of 7D sensor, the comparison does not stop there.

The framing of your image is an important difference between a crop and FF sensor. It is best practice to frame your shot as it needs to be framed rather than crop. It is better to practice this rather than approach a picture saying you will crop it. Another issue with framing is your ability to acquire a target. For me personally I found that a crop sensor on a 500mm body (800mm imaginary focal length) gave just about the maximum framing that I could use for hand held fast moving birds. The smaller window of view makes it more difficult to pick up the subject. For me the 1D IV sensor is about right.

So for me on a crop body I would not consider the 600mm, the FOV would bit to tight on a crop body and 500mm would be about right. For the 1D IV either a 500 or 600 would work. For a FF I would have to go with the 600mm.

So yes, going FF over crop sensor does drive the sales of the longer telephoto lenses.

A 7D II sensor that will produce superior or comparable IQ to a FF body would be of great interest. I doubt MintChocs logic that Canon would not release a high grade crop sensor to protect higher end lines. Instead I think Canon would jack the price of such a camera up and hope it increased sales of the 300mm and 500mm lenses

 

[crasher8]

CR1 = Meh

I am still looking forward to this as a 2nd body.

 

[rs]

You might have only needed a 400mm lens on a crop but now you need a 600mm on a FF so it encourages sales of more expensive lenses.

That is simply not true. A 400mm lens on a cropped FF image is exactly the same as 400mm on a crop sensor. The only [current] benefits of a crop sensor is sensor/camera production costs, cropped image resolution, image, fps, and lens size/weight.

No, in fact his statement is true. While it is true the lens produces the same image, the sensors do not see the same image. The crop sensor only sees a portion of the image. So while we know that you can crop an image with many FF and get about the same quality out of 7D sensor, the comparison does not stop there.

The framing of your image is an important difference between a crop and FF sensor. It is best practice to frame your shot as it needs to be framed rather than crop. It is better to practice this rather than approach a picture saying you will crop it. Another issue with framing is your ability to acquire a target. For me personally I found that a crop sensor on a 500mm body (800mm imaginary focal length) gave just about the maximum framing that I could use for hand held fast moving birds. The smaller window of view makes it more difficult to pick up the subject. For me the 1D IV sensor is about right.

So for me on a crop body I would not consider the 600mm, the FOV would bit to tight on a crop body and 500mm would be about right. For the 1D IV either a 500 or 600 would work. For a FF I would have to go with the 600mm.

So yes, going FF over crop sensor does drive the sales of the longer telephoto lenses.

A 7D II sensor that will produce superior or comparable IQ to a FF body would be of great interest. I doubt MintChocs logic that Canon would not release a high grade crop sensor to protect higher end lines. Instead I think Canon would jack the price of such a camera up and hope it increased sales of the 300mm and 500mm lenses

A couple of things:

With a 400mm FF combo, not having it cropped in-camera gives you the breathing space to not 100% follow the action in the centre of the frame, and the ability to see outside of the intended frame to help find your subject

And, what about simply using a TC with a 400 on FF?

 

[hoodlum]

It's plausible, Canon are probably trying to steer people to full frame and protect their more expensive models. The quality produced by new crop sensors is good enough in most sensors some pro's might not feel the need to buy more expensive bodies. You might have only needed a 400mm lens on a crop but now you need a 600mm on a FF so it encourages sales of more expensive lenses.

That is why I will be getting the new Tamron 150-600mm. Canon may want us to buy 600mm but the jump in price is too great to justify any of their lenses.

 

[thfifthcrouch]

TCs are cool but they do represent a loss in f/stops, slightly degraded images and the need for higher ISOs. So I kinda think that it becomes a wash vs a crop frame. But tiz a good point about tracking a bird with a bigger view finder.

 

[takesome1]

You might have only needed a 400mm lens on a crop but now you need a 600mm on a FF so it encourages sales of more expensive lenses.

That is simply not true. A 400mm lens on a cropped FF image is exactly the same as 400mm on a crop sensor. The only [current] benefits of a crop sensor is sensor/camera production costs, cropped image resolution, image, fps, and lens size/weight.

No, in fact his statement is true. While it is true the lens produces the same image, the sensors do not see the same image. The crop sensor only sees a portion of the image. So while we know that you can crop an image with many FF and get about the same quality out of 7D sensor, the comparison does not stop there.

The framing of your image is an important difference between a crop and FF sensor. It is best practice to frame your shot as it needs to be framed rather than crop. It is better to practice this rather than approach a picture saying you will crop it. Another issue with framing is your ability to acquire a target. For me personally I found that a crop sensor on a 500mm body (800mm imaginary focal length) gave just about the maximum framing that I could use for hand held fast moving birds. The smaller window of view makes it more difficult to pick up the subject. For me the 1D IV sensor is about right.

So for me on a crop body I would not consider the 600mm, the FOV would bit to tight on a crop body and 500mm would be about right. For the 1D IV either a 500 or 600 would work. For a FF I would have to go with the 600mm.

So yes, going FF over crop sensor does drive the sales of the longer telephoto lenses.

A 7D II sensor that will produce superior or comparable IQ to a FF body would be of great interest. I doubt MintChocs logic that Canon would not release a high grade crop sensor to protect higher end lines. Instead I think Canon would jack the price of such a camera up and hope it increased sales of the 300mm and 500mm lenses

A couple of things:

With a 400mm FF combo, not having it cropped in-camera gives you the breathing space to not 100% follow the action in the centre of the frame, and the ability to see outside of the intended frame to help find your subject

And, what about simply using a TC with a 400 on FF?

It would give you more breathing room. With the current version of the 7D there are many reasons that a 1D IV or a 1D X would be superior. Most of which have nothing to do with framing and cropping. The AF system alone makes the 1D IV a far superior camera. The low light abilities and the AF system of the 1D X make even more superior.

But there is a question, what if a 7D II sensor closes this gap?

As far as a TC, it slows down AF system and breaks down IQ. But if there is an argument that a crop sensor would cannibalize 600mm sales why would Canon release a TC that might do the same. It isn't going to happen.