EOS 7D Mark II Information [CR2]

Status
Not open for further replies.
I guess this makes good marketing sense. Canon came out with the SL1, 70D and PROBABLY the new "M" camera before the year is over. Enough to keep mindshare active when they have a huge year for 2014.

Lets see: BIG MP DSLR which will probably blow away the Nikon D800. 7D MK II. Fastest APS-C camera on the planet with great ISO performance and even better AF. The new successor to the 1DX. And there isn't much they can do to better the 1DX. So that will be interesting. And they will probably announce the successor to the 5D MKIII at the end of the year.

The 7D is still a fine camera and have some great pics come out of them. Yes, ISO and AF performance could be better. But it's really good as it stands and Canon is smart for milking it as long as they can.

But heck. I know full-time professionals who are still using their 1D MKII N cameras and supporting their families very well with them. Same with the 1Ds MKIII. So yeah, Canon knows people will wait for something that's going to be significantly better than what they have.
 
Upvote 0
MichaelHodges said:
Twostones said:
Hopefully the body will be the same size as the current 7D or larger to fit us with larger hands. Other wants in the new 7DII would be Magnesium body, Fully weather sealed, 100% view finder, On board Flash controller, built in Introvalometer, a rear facing sensor for wire less remote, 24 megapixels and a flip out screen. All this and keeping the same features of the current 7D would be a nice camera. As far as Wi-Fi, I could care less about that.


None of these are worth upgrading over the current 7D, especially since the IQ appears to be the same with their latest sensor in the 70D.

Disagree. That's like saying you only buy a new lens if it's sharper than the old lens. There's so much more to life than IQ. Consider:

  • A great AF system will net you more keepers.
  • Faster burst will net you more keepers.
  • Better high ISO performance will help you net previously uncapturable shots, or in situations where the light is only bad (and not terrible), you can actually use higher ISO to get a slightly quicker shutter or larger DOF.
  • Better build and weathersealing will help the camera last longer.

If you are not pushing the limits of your gear -- if you only shoot stills in good light -- then you are right. Buy a Rebel or XXD and an F/4 zoom or F/5.6 supertele and snap away. Your pictures will be fantastic and you didn't spend a fortune to do it. That's a win.

But if you live in a difficult shooting environs -- low light, sports, wildlife, handheld, etc. -- there are other considerations than IQ. It's the overall value of the camera that drives it's worth, and the above four points will absolutely move units in the marketplace.

- A
 
Upvote 0
SecundumArtemRx said:
HoodlessShooter said:
DSLR development appears to be reaching a plateau, and sales seem to be reflecting this. The 70D is basically a consumerized version of the 7D, similar to how the 6D was a consumerized version of the 5D2. I don’t really think there is as much room for a 7D2, as the 70D is probably good enough to basically replace it. The image quality of the 6D/5D3, and the AF advantages of the 5D3 probably have also sliced off a significant share of potential buyers. There is likely a bean counter somewhere that has figured they would be better selling more 70Ds, 6Ds, and 5D3s than having to produce and market another camera in the current economic climate. By next year these cameras will all be mid-cycle when they can re-evaluate the marketplace and put out a 7D2 to goose sales if it makes sense.
Agree, but speaking as someone who made the mistake of getting a 60D instead of the 7D and now realizing its limitations (AFMA, better focus points, etc) - I will be boycotting these marginal upgrades and hoping others will too, in favor of true market "re-evaluation." I can see the lure of improved videography with the 70D, but there's a notable absence of high end photography features to make me drop more "camera cash."

Canon fooled me once with the 60D and am waiting for the next true sports camera, rather than settling for another marginal 60D upgrade. Lets see a novel APS-C camera with 20+MP, an AF point system on par with the 1D, good iso, and I'd be first in line to buy! That'd be an awesome 7DmkII.

Unfortunately the 70D isn't appealing to professional videographers, even as a B cam. It still line skips and creates terrible moire, aliasing and nasty artifacts. The cameras also use crippling codecs that are terrible to work with and destroy the IQ.

It appears that Canon has not fixed any of the much needed issues for videographers and have not given the photographers a worthy upgrade. At this point I would only buy a Canon camera that would work well with Magic Lantern; they seem like their providing more ground breaking features at a faster pace when compared to Canon.
 
Upvote 0
Realising this is a rumour, so with that in mind....

IF it was to have the same sensor as the 70D, which by some accounts will have little improvement at RAW level compared to the current 7D etc, I figure I may as well put my money towards a full frame body upgrade, which of course, may all be part of Canon's grand plan......
 
Upvote 0
insanitybeard said:
Realising this is a rumour, so with that in mind....

IF it was to have the same sensor as the 70D, which by some accounts will have little improvement at RAW level compared to the current 7D etc, I figure I may as well put my money towards a full frame body upgrade, which of course, may all be part of Canon's grand plan......

I believe that is exactly Canon's plan. Or course, then your EF-S lenses won't work and will need to be replaced, and your longest lens will no longer be long enough. I wonder if Canon has thought of that, too? ::)
 
Upvote 0
insanitybeard said:
Realising this is a rumour, so with that in mind....

IF it was to have the same sensor as the 70D, which by some accounts will have little improvement at RAW level compared to the current 7D etc, I figure I may as well put my money towards a full frame body upgrade, which of course, may all be part of Canon's grand plan......

I'm not even a crop shooter and I still think the 7D2 could be dynamite if they 'pro' it up on build, framerate, AF, etc. If you own $10k+ of longer glass, I still think a built-for-war, high FPS, stellar focusing APS-C rig could sell for $2500 and be successful.

- A
 
Upvote 0
I like the GPS spec. There are too many Wi-Fi alternatives available for me to "need" it built into the camera. GPS, on the other hand, is an expensive camera add-on. Having it built into the camera seems to be more wallet friendly.

I am guessing it [GPS] can't be shoe horned into an SD card, otherwise Eye-Fi and others would have it available.

Speaking of which, I am trying out the app GPS4CAM until my dream of a GPS in every camera comes true.
 
Upvote 0
ahsanford said:
I'm not even a crop shooter and I still think the 7D2 could be dynamite if they 'pro' it up on build, framerate, AF, etc. If you own $10k+ of longer glass, I still think a built-for-war, high FPS, stellar focusing APS-C rig could sell for $2500 and be successful.

- A

Not that I disagree with what you're saying, but as a current 7D owner (I may or not be a typical one) my main reason to upgrade would be better IQ across the ISO range, I'm already happy with the current 7D's build, framerate and AF spread (accuracy is another matter possibly, as discussed elsewhere). What you are describing is more a backup or second body to a shooter already heavily invested in glass and full frame bodies than an upgrade for somebody who has the 7D as their primary body.
 
Upvote 0
lopicma said:
I am guessing it [GPS] can't be shoe horned into an SD card, otherwise Eye-Fi and others would have it available.

I can see two possible problems:

1. Antennas inside the metal chassis of the SD slot might or might not be able to detect the relatively weak GPS signal successfully.

2. The lowest-power GPS chips I've seen draw 131 mW during acquisition, and as far as I can tell, the SD card spec (at least the pre-UHS spec) only allows 540 mW max, so you'd be drawing almost a fourth of the maximum allowed power just for the GPS chip, not counting the power drawn by whatever interface circuitry you use to communicate with the camera or the power consumption of the flash parts (if somebody took a picture during acquisition).

It might not be impossible, but I'd expect it to be a lot of work. :)
 
Upvote 0
ahsanford said:
If you own $10k+ of longer glass, I still think a built-for-war, high FPS, stellar focusing APS-C rig could sell for $2500 and be successful.

What fraction of Canon's intended 7DII market segment do you think owns $10K+ of longer glass?
 
Upvote 0
neuroanatomist said:
ahsanford said:
If you own $10k+ of longer glass, I still think a built-for-war, high FPS, stellar focusing APS-C rig could sell for $2500 and be successful.

What fraction of Canon's intended 7DII market segment do you think owns $10K+ of longer glass?

not me...

For me, the big reasons for upgrading to a 7D2 are better autofocus system and wifi that will allow remote control over the camera. Remote control is very useful for shooting birds at feeders or small animals that scurry away when you get close enough for a picture.
 
Upvote 0
I think the small differences from camera body to camera body are greatly exaggerated. More often than not it's people who collect cameras looking for an excuse to have something shiny and new (I'm not saying there's anything wrong with that, it's great...but don't disguise it as something else.)

At some point, those who must have improved low light ability are going to just buy full frame. There are only so many tricks for APS-C, so many machinations. I shoot low light in extreme conditions (national parks and wilderness in all seasons) and the 7D works pretty well for that. I'm not going to buy another APS-C unless there is a *significant* upgrade in dynamic range and RAW noise. Improved AF and a flip out screen are nice, but the heart of a camera is the sensor.

Honestly I don't see the point in a $1900 7D II that has the image quality of the $1300 70D.
 
Upvote 0
whothafunk said:
people take this rumor as an absolute truth. its a RUMOR. second half of 2014? more than 12 months (again a rumor) until released? many things can change.

I know what will change…my sanity. Waiting for the body and reading posts on peoples beliefs on what this cameras shortcomings (and a few who will actually speak positively) are and how they are disappointed. This one will top the long waits and endless threads for the 200-400, 5D3 and even the Unicorn lenses (i.e. 14-24)
 
Upvote 0
Here's a possible differentiation that no one's brought up: video-centric features.

The 70D has the new dual-pixel autofocus during video, and its inherited the All-I recording option found in the current-gen XD full frame cameras. But early sample footage suggests image quality isn't much better than that found in earlier ASP-C Canon models. Lots of artifacts, sub-HD resolution, etc.

That means the 7D II could feature some kind of significant step-up in video features. Maybe it will have a cleaner image, like the 5D Mark III (though I doubt it, if the 7D Mark II shares the 70D's sensor). Or maybe it will be a little sharper, like the 1DX, or even like the 35mm crop mode in the 1D-C. Or maybe Canon will do something really surprising, like implement decent video encoding. The much-ballyhooed All-I recording feature is better than the original implementation, but something that uses 4:2:2 color space would be nice, or that legitimately had a broadcast-ready bit rate.

Other rumors mentioned a 60fps burst mode, which has interesting photographic applications. That could produce 2.5 seconds of RAW 4K slow-mo footage, which opens up a world of applications currently unavailable to any Canon shooter--including the 1D-C crowd.

I think Canon could go this route without harming its other products.

The full frame models will have enough differentiation purely because of their larger sensors. The full frame aesthetic isn't possible on an ASP-C camera, at least not unless Speed Booster-style adaptors become more reliable and widely-adopted. For film people, it could make sense to have both an ASP-C body and a full-frame body, if Canon releases these hypothetical video enhancements. For stills people, meanwhile, if the 7D II shares the 70D's image sensor, full frame cameras are likewise still protected. So these video features present no loss to the XD full frame bodies, excluding losses that Canon is already evidently ready to accept (e.g. the company seems ready to accept some 5D Mark III losses among sports shooters by making the 7D Mark II a faster camera with a comparable autofocus system)

What about the C-series cameras? Well, the 7D II won't have the ergonomics of a C300, and that matters. If it didn't, Canon wouldn't be selling so many of the things. The RED Scarlet isn't much more money, and it produces better image quality in many ways. Still, the C300 still does very well because it allows faster workflows while offering, for most applications, video quality that's close enough to what one gets from RED. Plus there are other factors, such as built-in ND filters, audio ports, etc.

Also, Canon is going to have to move the lower-level C-series cameras to 4K relatively soon. Maybe not in the next year, but if the 7D Mark II is a 2014 camera, I wouldn't be surprised if a C300 mark II and a C100 mark II appeared shortly thereafter. If Black Magic ever gets its manufacturing act together, and if Sony keeps pushing hard on price, Canon's hand might be forced even sooner. So I don't think superior video specs on a 7D Mark II will cause any trouble with C-series bodies.

I constantly hear people talk about backlash when a company releases a superior spec on a downstream product-- i.e. is it possible some 5D Mark III users will be pissed if the 7D Mark II comes along with the video features they actually wanted? Sure, some people will grumble-- but they'd grumble more if Canon keeps relying on the same crappy video codecs.

The video improvements I've described could also help Canon with the Magic Lantern angle. I think Canon likes Magic Lantern in the sense that the hack encourages budget filmmakers to buy Canon DSLRs instead of, say, Nikon DSLRs, or something like the Sony FS100. But Canon also gets a lot of flack over Magic Lantern because the hacks illustrate how much Canon intentionally handicaps hardware. From Canon's perspective, this criticism isn't that big a deal, as it doesn't impact the markets where Canon makes its money-- e.g. consumers buying Rebels. But the markets it DOES annoy are still lucrative, both because there's a growing number of people in them, and because these people tend to buy more accessories than the average consumer. You'll find a million consumers who stick with the kit lens-- but try finding a wannabe filmmaker who hasn't begun investing in some fast primes, or who isn't salivating over something expensive, like the creamy bokeh of the 50L?

This is kind of a rambling post, but the point is this: I see lots of reasons for Canon to differentiate the 7D Mark II's video features in a major way, and not a lot of risk if the company chooses to do so.
 
Upvote 0
Status
Not open for further replies.