Canon EOS 7D Mark II - sensor

[Son of Daguerre]

I guess I'm a tad early, but I'm wondering, considering the rumors that the EOS-1D Mark V will be full-frame, as to whether the EOS 7D Mark II will take over.

 

[scalesusa]

Canon issues a new model when they change the sensor size. The 7D is certainly not going to change, its a very popular camera.

 

[drummstikk]

Canon issues a new model when they change the sensor size. The 7D is certainly not going to change, its a very popular camera.

Not sure I understand your point on that. True, there is no precedent for changing a sensor size between models in a particular series, but since they only make three sizes of sensor, I don't see any history that would definitely preclude it. I'm not saying you're wrong, just not sure I see why you're right.

I usually waffle and end up skipping every second iteration of a camera (went from a 20D to a 40D, for example), but one thing that would *definitely* make me jump directly from 7D to 7D MarkII almost immediately would be a larger sensor. It certainly makes no sense to expect the 7D to jump to full frame, but for a camera that Canon clearly wants to sell for a higher price point than a Rebel or 60D, an APS-H sensor would make the 7DMarkII a much easier sell to me and, I'm sure, many, many others.

Here's a blog post I put up over a year ago: http://progenyoflight.blogspot.com/2009/08/prognostication-from-dark-and-smelly.html I was wrong about a LOT in that post. I don't follow the rumor mill religiously and had not heard rumors of 1D Mark V being full frame, but considering that rumor, combined with the idea of 7D MarkII going APS-H, maybe I was right about a few things, just two years early.

 

[foobar]

It's a completely different thing with the (possible) merge of the 1-series since APS-H never was a dedicated system. There aren't any APS-H-specific lenses or stuff like that and technically it's just FF cameras with smaller sensors. The reason why APS-H sensors even exist is because it was the largest sensor size Canon could manifacture in one piece (Source: Canon's FF whitepaper). FF sensors require(d) combining a sensor from multiple parts, which is way more expensive to do.

And given the pixel density of the current 1D, a full-frame 1D5 would "only" need to have ~27mp to offer an APS-H "crop mode" at the exact same resolution of the 1D4.

On the other hand, Canon build a whole system around APS-C, including specialized lenses etc. and the 7D is it's "pro APS-C model".
If there is ever a "FF 7D", it will most likely be called 2D/3D/4D, everything else doesn't make sense in Canon's naming scheme.

 

[scalesusa]

Canon issues a new model when they change the sensor size. The 7D is certainly not going to change, its a very popular camera.

Not sure I understand your point on that. True, there is no precedent for changing a sensor size between models in a particular series, but since they only make three sizes of sensor, I don't see any history that would definitely preclude it. I'm not saying you're wrong, just not sure I see why you're right.

The Rebel Series are all APS-C, the XXD series are all APS-C. The 1D series are and have always been APS-H. The 1DS series are all FF. The 5D series are All FF.

Why would anyone expect a 7D to have some APS-C and some FF? It would get a new model designator, or at least a 7Ds which is extremely unlikely.

While Canon can do anything they want, they have obviously been careful to be consistent.

 

[neuroanatomist]

While Canon can do anything they want, they have obviously been careful to be consistent.

Except for the PowerShot Pro1 with it's fixed L-series zoom lens...what the heck was that?

 

[scalesusa]

While Canon can do anything they want, they have obviously been careful to be consistent.

Except for the PowerShot Pro1 with it's fixed L-series zoom lens...what the heck was that?

Can you explain what you mean? Was their a successor model that was numbered differently/ I thought that there is yet to be a followup model.

 

[neuroanatomist]

Can you explain what you mean? Was their a successor model that was numbered differently/ I thought that there is yet to be a followup model.

Just referring to the incongruence of an L lens on a point-and-shoot camera, and the notable absence of such lenses specifically for EF-S format cameras.

 

[scalesusa]

Can you explain what you mean? Was their a successor model that was numbered differently/ I thought that there is yet to be a followup model.

Just referring to the incongruence of an L lens on a point-and-shoot camera, and the notable absence of such lenses specifically for EF-S format cameras.

Yes, that is strange. It probably did not sell like they thought it would.

 

[IllegalFun]

first of all can someone ban wwwzlzq as they are really annoying with all the spam posts

but back on topic...

The 7D Mk2 will always be an APS-C.... to make it APS-H would mean the 60D/70D would be the premier APS-C camera, and to be frank that would be ridiculous!
seeing as canon keep adding to the line-up there it is more likely that there will be an 8D which is APS-H
and the 7D Mk2 will stay as an APS-C

the 7D is a really popular wildlife camera as is the 1DMkIV... making either with a larger sensor would limit their use for wildlife as you would need a 400mm lens instead of a 300mm... and the F/2.8 versions are very different in weight.

I think it most likely that the 1000D will be replace by a 600D... then a 650D, a 7DMk2 an 8D (APS-H) then the 5D Mk3 and so on....

seeing as nikon is having trouble selling the D3 when the D700 has most of the features, an 8D with reduced FPS and AF would look a good idea.

 

[AprilForever]

FF 7d = 5d.
ASPH = camera abandoned of lenses: too short or too long.

I love my 7d; I eagerly await the 7Dii, and will totally buy it when the rebates come ou (I'm cheap...). But if they change the sensor size, I will totally be quite irritated! I LOVE the ASP-C; if I wanted to shrink my 300 F4's length, I'd shoot it on my film rebel. Usually, I shoot it with my 1.4x TC. so, PLEASE Canon, Do Not grow this sensor!!!

 

[unfocused]

PLEASE Canon, Do Not grow this sensor!!!

Don't worry, it's not going to happen. ASP-C is where both the money and growth are. Canon is not about to undermine the format.

ASPH = camera abandoned of lenses: too short or too long.

Funny and accurate comment. There is clearly a niche for this camera, but it's not a niche I'm interested in.

if I wanted to shrink my 300 F4's length, I'd shoot it on my film rebel.

Ha! Ha! I think we are all getting spoiled by the extra reach of the 1.6 crop. I'm certainly not interested in going backward either.

 

[JRSJ]

I've come to terms with my 7D. I used to dislike it, but then I grew up and realized that ISO 1600 is completely usable in certain situations. There are times I wished it was fullframe, but I can live with my 5D classic a little bit longer.

 

[epsiloneri]

if I wanted to shrink my 300 F4's length, I'd shoot it on my film rebel.

Ha! Ha! I think we are all getting spoiled by the extra reach of the 1.6 crop. I'm certainly not interested in going backward either.

I don't get this. The way things are going, in the future the price of a camera will be set by its optics, not its sensor. If you're anyway using a FF lens, why not let the sensor cover the whole available field? Your "crop" camera will be equivalent to cropping the image of the FF (hence the name "crop" camera). Is it the larger magnification of the view finder on crop cameras you will miss? Concern about many pixels taking space while going unused? Perhaps Canon could do like Nikon and have an "APS-C" mode with in-camera cropping.

Edit: Here's and idea. What would you think of a 3.2x crop camera then? You'd have twice the reach compared to 1.6x!

 

[traveller]

I think that both unfocused and epsiloneri are trying to win an arguement that there is no simple answer to. Both APS-C and Full Frame have their advantages and disadvantages; read Thom Hogan's recent articles about his wildlife workshops in Africa. He found that the 'FX' (Nikon terminology) users on his workshop were sometimes a bit short of focal length, whereas the 'DX' users were disadvantaged in the low light at the beginning and end of the day. This is just one type of photography, I'm sure there are other fields that have the same dilemmas, as well as others where one format or the other is definitely preferable. A large part of the choice of format is the lenses that you wish to use, e.g. there are no ultra-wide angle APS-C tilt-shifts for architectural photography etc.

 

[AprilForever]

if I wanted to shrink my 300 F4's length, I'd shoot it on my film rebel.

Ha! Ha! I think we are all getting spoiled by the extra reach of the 1.6 crop. I'm certainly not interested in going backward either.

I don't get this. The way things are going, in the future the price of a camera will be set by its optics, not its sensor. If you're anyway using a FF lens, why not let the sensor cover the whole available field? Your "crop" camera will be equivalent to cropping the image of the FF (hence the name "crop" camera). Is it the larger magnification of the view finder on crop cameras you will miss? Concern about many pixels taking space while going unused? Perhaps Canon could do like Nikon and have an "APS-C" mode with in-camera cropping.

Edit: Here's and idea. What would you think of a 3.2x crop camera then? You'd have twice the reach compared to 1.6x!

Much of this is actually a workflow issue for me. I am full aware of that 1.6 is actually only a crop of a full frame (and expected someone to make the exact statement you have made! ). FF = lower frame rate (yes, higher is quite important to me), less image size to fiddle with, and, no, I really wouldn't like to crop each and every picture to get my crop frame equivalent. 8)

Anyone who wants a FF 7D really ought to get a 5D. Why a person would want a camera optimized for action to be re-optimized for landscape is unclear to me.

For ultimate image quality, though, abandon the crop frame! Abandon the full frame! Advance to 4x5! (My crown graphic is calling me to take her on her maiden voyage to the everglades...) After all, this used to be the action camera of the day... ;D

 

[neuroanatomist]

Anyone who wants a FF 7D really ought to get a 5D. Why a person would want a camera optimized for action to be re-optimized for landscape is unclear to me.

I don't think people who say they want a FF 7D are looking for a landscape camera. What they're saying is that they want the AF performance and frame rate of the 7D coupled with a FF sensor, and what mean but are not saying is that they don't want to pay the cost of the 1DsIII to get it. People seem to think it's as easy as sticking a FF sensor into a 7D body, which clearly it's not.

It's also important to realize that even at the top end, Canon users need to choose between FF with a 5 fps frame rate (1DsIII) and crop with a 10 fps frame rate (1DIV).

So either way, you're looking at a compromise no matter what level you're at. For example, you can get a 1DIV which offers excellent AF and frame rate in a 1.3x middle-of-the-road crop sensor, or for a slightly lower total cost you can spread the compromise over two bodies and get a 5DII for landscapes/portraits and a 7D for sports/action/wildlife. Personally, I took the latter approach.