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

[Don Haines]

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.

There is a huge jump in price when you go from a 400F5.6 to the big whites.... If you can afford to make that jump, then the cost of going from APSC to FF is insignificant to you. Conversely, the vast majority of people will never plop down $10,000 on a lens. It does not matter to them what the price difference is between FF or APSC..... even if APSC and FF were the same price, they are still not going to spend $10,000 on a lens. Canon knows this....

 

[Don Haines]

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.

The fanatic birders are already using teleconverters on their 600's, so the logic is flawed... If only they would put the 1200F5.6 back into production

 

[lopicma]

It seems like a high end APS-C camera would have a higher profit margin than a mid-low level one. Similar to the automobile industry, the difference between a Cadillac and a Chevy is negligible when it comes to sourcing parts, but the profit on a Cadillac is higher, because your paying for "a Cadillac".

Other than a magnesium body, what are the REAL differences between a 70D and a 7D? The menu system for sure, but that's easy to change... The DIGIC processor...?

My point is, they have more in common than in difference.

 

[thfifthcrouch]

Probably has more to do with the Canon 6d reaching the 1500.00 dollar price mark (and sometimes lower). If the 7d mark ii comes in over that it, it becomes maybe a niche commodity that doesn't sell all that well. I think the market looks at full frame as the complete item. The biggest reason for crop was affordability and if it loses that it could be phased out.

 

[Ellen Schmidtee]

My 2c is that Canon might have too many DSLR lines to differentiate, and might want to cancel one of them. I mean, how many ways can Canon slice features like AF, DPAF, and SD vs. CF cards?

Looking at it another way, Canon is about to finish upgrading all it's super teles, after which it probably plans not to upgrade again for 20 more years. Canon will probably need to push out a 24MP APS-C sensor soon. I doubt the super teles can resolve a lot more than 24MP on APS-C. So, if Canon released a 7DmkII with a 24MP sensor, the same issue would rise with the lower lines - can't raise resolution, so what differentiates the lower lines?

So my guess Canon is going to eliminate a line of cameras, maybe merging the xxD & 7D lines.

 

[jrista]

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.

+1 Couldn't agree more, on all points!

I can't imagine Canon not releasing a 7D II, especially after they clearly said they will be doing something special with it. There is definitely pent up demand. People don't talk much while they are all "pent up", so I figure this is just rumor trolling going on...someone wanting to get a rise. People will talk and rave and hate once the thing is announced.

Then, maybe then, after the 7D II release, I could possibly see Canon dropping the line, if they truly think the pro future is purely in FF. That said...they would have to respond with something in the FF line that had a decent frame rate AND high pixel density, because that is ultimately what the 7D is about...pixel density. It doesn't really matter what the frame size is, so long as you can resolve more detail at a high frame rate.

 

[Albi86]

Probably has more to do with the Canon 6d reaching the 1500.00 dollar price mark (and sometimes lower). If the 7d mark ii comes in over that it, it becomes maybe a niche commodity that doesn't sell all that well. I think the market looks at full frame as the complete item. The biggest reason for crop was affordability and if it loses that it could be phased out.

+1

Same reason why we haven't seen a D400 either, as of yet - not even in rumours.

I believe that when the 70D and the D7100 were designed, they left some room in the specs for more pro models. Later on they might have realized that it's not viable marketing-wise to have such cameras at such an eventually high price point, with FF getting cheaper and cheaper.

That said, the good part is that both the 70D and the D7100 are amazing cameras.

 

[Marsu42]

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

No doubt Canon has/had plans for a 7d2, but maybe they think that the price point for an aps-c with a 1dx-type af system won't find enough buyers, esp. if the sensor again isn't a big step up from the 70d.

They'll probably wait some more until they have a real new sensor design and have the 1dx2 & 5d4 on the market - the Nikon d7100 is a very competent camera with a very good af system, and that's what Canon has to beat by a good margin to justify a much higher price.

 

[rs]

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.

If the lens is good enough (eg the 300 II or the 600 II), they appear to take TC's better than the current (well, 60D) generation of crop sensors to get tighter framing than the lens offers natively:

http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/ISO-12233-Sample-Crops.aspx?Lens=748&Camera=736&Sample=0&FLI=0&API=0&LensComp=748&CameraComp=453&SampleComp=0&FLIComp=1&APIComp=0

The loss of an f-stop is something that levels some of the gap between the two, but with the latest generation of Canon SLR's, there's more than a stop difference between FF and crop.

However in crop cameras defense, AF takes a hit with a TC, so you'd need better AF on FF to bridge that gap. Also, at the price point, its much easier to make a smaller mirror flap faster and a smaller shutter have a higher flash sync speed.

 

[crasher8]

All of this discussion has got me thinking of the possibility to add a TC to a body as opposed to a lens. An integrated TC could offer better IQ than one lens dependent. Nikon does it through the sensor but why not through a mount and with optics? Yes I know it's partly a ricockulous idea and the weight alone and bulk as well would prohibitive...just wondering after TC's and crop vs FF use of certain lenses was mentioned above.

 

[ME]

They have decided to name it the 8D.

 

[unfocused]

... I can't imagine Canon not releasing a 7D II, especially after they clearly said they will be doing something special with it. There is definitely pent up demand. People don't talk much while they are all "pent up", so I figure this is just rumor trolling going on...someone wanting to get a rise. People will talk and rave and hate once the thing is announced...

Exactly. Some troll decides to stir things up and watch everyone scurry. Gives CR Guy some badly needed content, even if it's silly.

My take is that Canon feels no need to rush the 7DII since Nikon had been dragging their feet. While the 7D is getting a little long in the tooth, the D300S looks like a dinosaur in comparison. 7D is still very competitive against the 70D (in fact it's still a better model for stills shooters) and despite all the wailing on forums, the newer Nikon and Sony sensors aren't that much better.

I actually think Canon may be feeling a little pressure because of all that pent-up demand. People are expecting something revolutionary. They could have gotten away with an incremental upgrade a year ago, but the longer they wait, the higher the expectations become. I'm not expecting some super camera with full frame image quality at 1 million ISO, but I think at this point they might not feel they can just slap the 70D sensor in it, add the 5DIII autofocus and call it good.

 

[Don Haines]

It seems like a high end APS-C camera would have a higher profit margin than a mid-low level one. Similar to the automobile industry, the difference between a Cadillac and a Chevy is negligible when it comes to sourcing parts, but the profit on a Cadillac is higher, because your paying for "a Cadillac".

Other than a magnesium body, what are the REAL differences between a 70D and a 7D? The menu system for sure, but that's easy to change... The DIGIC processor...?

My point is, they have more in common than in difference.

If you look at the 60D / 7D, the two big differences were the auto focus system and the frame rate. They both more/less used the same sensor and had the same image quality. Both sold quite well. The AF system of the 7D is still superior to that of the 70D, except in live view....

A 7D2, with dual digic5+ (or better) could run a far better version of live view focusing and should have sufficient computing power to do things like face-tracking and to keep the focus on that face.... or bird... or whatever... A 7D2 with 63 point normal AF would beat the pants off of the 70D for normal AF. The rumoured 10 or 12 frames per second would appeal to action shooters.

And just like the 60D 7D pair, odds are that both the 7D2 and 70D would sell well.

 

[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.

If the lens is good enough (eg the 300 II or the 600 II), they appear to take TC's better than the current (well, 60D) generation of crop sensors to get tighter framing than the lens offers natively:

http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/ISO-12233-Sample-Crops.aspx?Lens=748&Camera=736&Sample=0&FLI=0&API=0&LensComp=748&CameraComp=453&SampleComp=0&FLIComp=1&APIComp=0

The loss of an f-stop is something that levels some of the gap between the two, but with the latest generation of Canon SLR's, there's more than a stop difference between FF and crop.

However in crop cameras defense, AF takes a hit with a TC, so you'd need better AF on FF to bridge that gap. Also, at the price point, its much easier to make a smaller mirror flap faster and a smaller shutter have a higher flash sync speed.

Well when I said wash, I was thinking the full frame has a rather slight but really inconsequential advantage. With the auto focus, shutter mechanism and flash sync speed thrown in, it is a wash. Anyway there is no free lunch when it comes to reach and really in the long run doesn't really matter if you use crop or full. I did look at the sample from The Digital Picture and in fairness to the 60d the default sharpener is set low. He has noticed that in his reviews of some of the crop frames. Probably an effort to make noise appear lower then it actually is. If you take that into consideration, there really not that far apart. Personally if I can get the reach without the hassle of a tc I'll take it!

 

[jrista]

... I can't imagine Canon not releasing a 7D II, especially after they clearly said they will be doing something special with it. There is definitely pent up demand. People don't talk much while they are all "pent up", so I figure this is just rumor trolling going on...someone wanting to get a rise. People will talk and rave and hate once the thing is announced...

Exactly. Some troll decides to stir things up and watch everyone scurry. Gives CR Guy some badly needed content, even if it's silly.

My take is that Canon feels no need to rush the 7DII since Nikon had been dragging their feet. While the 7D is getting a little long in the tooth, the D300S looks like a dinosaur in comparison. 7D is still very competitive against the 70D (in fact it's still a better model for stills shooters) and despite all the wailing on forums, the newer Nikon and Sony sensors aren't that much better.

I actually think Canon may be feeling a little pressure because of all that pent-up demand. People are expecting something revolutionary. They could have gotten away with an incremental upgrade a year ago, but the longer they wait, the higher the expectations become. I'm not expecting some super camera with full frame image quality at 1 million ISO, but I think at this point they might not feel they can just slap the 70D sensor in it, add the 5DIII autofocus and call it good.

Exactly! I am honestly glad Canon is taking a bit more time on it. I'd rather have something truly worthy of an upgrade, rather than an incremental update that might just as well be done with firmware and maybe a send-it-in minor hardware update.

 

[Rowbear]

Probably has more to do with the Canon 6d reaching the 1500.00 dollar price mark (and sometimes lower). If the 7d mark ii comes in over that it, it becomes maybe a niche commodity that doesn't sell all that well. I think the market looks at full frame as the complete item. The biggest reason for crop was affordability and if it loses that it could be phased out.

My taughts exactly. I beleive that both Nikon (D400) and Canon (7DMk ii) are realising that these models wouldn't sell as much anymore as they could have 3/4 years ago.

 

[jrista]

Probably has more to do with the Canon 6d reaching the 1500.00 dollar price mark (and sometimes lower). If the 7d mark ii comes in over that it, it becomes maybe a niche commodity that doesn't sell all that well. I think the market looks at full frame as the complete item. The biggest reason for crop was affordability and if it loses that it could be phased out.

My taughts exactly. I beleive that both Nikon (D400) and Canon (7DMk ii) are realising that these models wouldn't sell as much anymore as they could have 3/4 years ago.

Nah. The 6D is absolutely NO alternative for the 7D. The frame size has nothing to do with the purpose of the 7D, so the price point of the 6D has no bearing on whether we will see a 7D II or not. Canon has also shown little interest in directly competing model for model with their competitors...the 7D has long held a fairly unique position in the DSLR world, and not even the D300S was ever really comparable. There is a huge amount of pent up anticipation for the 7D II, and I honestly can't imagine Canon ignoring that.

The true full-frame counterpart of the 7D is the 1D X, not the 6D...so trying to draw parallels between the two is almost laughable.

 

[KyleSTL]

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.

A crop camera has a higher magnification VF (although it is overall smaller) means that subjects are easier to focus on and compose accurately even if they have the same pixel density.

 

[Chuck Alaimo]

Probably has more to do with the Canon 6d reaching the 1500.00 dollar price mark (and sometimes lower). If the 7d mark ii comes in over that it, it becomes maybe a niche commodity that doesn't sell all that well. I think the market looks at full frame as the complete item. The biggest reason for crop was affordability and if it loses that it could be phased out.

My taughts exactly. I beleive that both Nikon (D400) and Canon (7DMk ii) are realising that these models wouldn't sell as much anymore as they could have 3/4 years ago.

Nah. The 6D is absolutely NO alternative for the 7D. The frame size has nothing to do with the purpose of the 7D, so the price point of the 6D has no bearing on whether we will see a 7D II or not. Canon has also shown little interest in directly competing model for model with their competitors...the 7D has long held a fairly unique position in the DSLR world, and not even the D300S was ever really comparable. There is a huge amount of pent up anticipation for the 7D II, and I honestly can't imagine Canon ignoring that.

The true full-frame counterpart of the 7D is the 1D X, not the 6D...so trying to draw parallels between the two is almost laughable.

Gotta agree here, with the one exception that the 5d3 would be meshed in the middle there (The true full-frame counterpart of the 7D is the 1D X, and ato a lesser extent the 5d3 - not the 6D)

this one is difficult for me because I really have no use for such a camera. I owned and rocked the 7d for 2 years before upgrading to full frame - and the work I'm doing really doesn't scream for more range or fps - which is the major attraction of the 7d line...

the odd thing though from a marketing perspective is who is the end buyer of a 7d? I see all this talk here about it primarily from bird shooter who have these giant expensive lenses. Is there really that much $$$ to be made with bird photography, or are we talking about a consumer segment with lots of disposable income ----if both canon and nikon have determined the target group to be the latter, then yeah I can see them phasing that out - If your spending $4000 + on long lenses for a hobby, then well, you can afford a 1dx.

The missing piece to this is the other side of the market. I look at myself and the reasons I bought the 7d as opposed to a 5d2 - I knew the IQ was better on the 5d2, but the price was pretty high in comparison (when i was looking the 7d with lens was at $1800, and the 5d2 was at $2700 body only). I was on a very tight budget and knew that the only lens I had prior to the purchase was EF-S - so to really jump to the 5d2 it meant shelling out closer to $3400 (more with taxes).

BUT --- Canon has found a way around that now --- wow if i had a potential 6d as an option back then, yeah, would have been all over it.

So what is the target market for a 7d2? If canon determines its hobbyists with deep pockets then yeah, kill that line. what is the 7d line best for --- sports, action, birding --- if you don't need the advanced servo tracking, if you shoot landscapes and portraits - then the only reason to go with a 7d2 as opposed to a FF option is price - and the 6d is quite a bargain if your starting with photography and looking for that bump (
especially if the 7d2 is going to be closer to 2K).

iIf Canon is in fact reconsidering the 7d2 - then it's all about the target market for such a camera --- well that and competition and as many have pointed out --- it seems like nikon is making the same decision - why bother with a pro crop for sports and bird shooters when the bulk of that market segment has more disposable income than most working pros do....

 

[Robert Welch]

This rumor sounds very credible to me. Just looking at the current state of the DSLR market, it's taken a severe tumble in just the last year, and there isn't much reason to think there would be a major change in that direction.

I think Canon is simply seeing the writing on the wall, there is no more market for a $2k APS-c camera, no matter how good it is. At least not enough of one to justify tooling up to make such a camera. The 'pent up demand' for one probably went away when they came out with the 5DmkIII and 6D cameras. The pros and serious amatures probably have largely gone that direction. How much better can they make the 7DmkII over the 7D? Or better than the 70D? Would they be able to see enough profit after making the investment to manufacture such a camera?

Given the decline in sales for all the camera companies, they have to tighten up on new camera releases. They can only afford to make cameras they are certain will sell very well. Also, given the exchange rates and need to keep the pricing on new cameras as high as possible, a high-end APS-c camera would simply be to costly for an adequate volume of sales. I'm convinced these are the metrics Canon (and Nikon) have determined, and the only cameras they can sell much above the $1,200 range are going to be full frame models. That means, no 7DmkII.