EOS 7D Replacement Mentioned Again [CR1]

[Don Haines]

I also hope it gets full 5Dmk3 AF

I'd be disappointed if it did.... I'm hoping to see the emergence of a new AF system that will set the standard for years to come...

If the improvements were incremental changes, it would have been out by now. The delays could mean something completely different.

You mean set a standard higher than the 61pt AF system? I think that one will be hard to beat. I've never seen an AF system lock on so fast, consistently, and easily as Canon'a 61pt AF system. What exactly would you improve in it? It certainly isn't broken, and certainly isn't something to be disappointed about if it found it's way into the 7D II.

When it comes to DPAF, that is an entirely different kind of AF for an entirely different purpose. As someone who uses PDAF for the very vast majority of his photography, I don't see DPAF taking over any time soon. While it is certainly cool technology, it's really just the beginning of the leg up that mirrorless needs to BEGIN to compete with what PDAF units currently offer. I think its going to be a few iterations, especially the one where it becomes QPAF, before we see sensor-based AF reaching the level of consistency, speed, and performance of PDAF.

And even then...it would require an EVF to function entirely properly...and EVFs have just as long a way to come before they can really be viable replacements for OVFs...

If the 7D II gets the 61pt AF system, I'd personally be ecstatic!

A 62pt AF system would be vastly superior.

To my mind, the biggest advantage Canon has is the AF system in it's higher end models.... the 5D3 system is certainly nothing to be sneezed at... but think about how it could be improved... Think about recognizing a bird and tracking it through trees! I have a p/s that can recognize and differentiate between a cat and a dog.... surely a DSLR with two higher end processors can do better? The 7D2 might be the camera that takes AF to the next level... and what about linking exposure to focus points? What about using the split pixels to vastly improve DR?

There are a lot of things that could happen and I eagerly await to see which ones they give us.... It should be an interesting release... certainly more than a mode dial that goes all the way around.

 

[Aglet]

And even then...it would require an EVF to function entirely properly...and EVFs have just as long a way to come before they can really be viable replacements for OVFs...

I'd say today's better EVF's are already more than adequate.
My pretty new Fuji XT1's EVF is a pleasure to use, more than adequate resolution and the high frame rate greatly reduces the lag compared to the older Xe bodies.
Combine that with the great low-light gain-up ability Canon's have and these things already see better in the dark than we do.
One more development iteration and OVF has serious competition.

the only thing I don't like about it...
I keep bringing the camera up to my eye to frame a possible shot and have to remember to turn it ON first... (I'm always in battery conservation mode)
And that's still the 2nd shortcoming... using an EVF still eats a lot of power. I see this being a major consideration when I'm in the wilds for a few days.

 

[jrista]

I also hope it gets full 5Dmk3 AF

I'd be disappointed if it did.... I'm hoping to see the emergence of a new AF system that will set the standard for years to come...

If the improvements were incremental changes, it would have been out by now. The delays could mean something completely different.

You mean set a standard higher than the 61pt AF system? I think that one will be hard to beat. I've never seen an AF system lock on so fast, consistently, and easily as Canon'a 61pt AF system. What exactly would you improve in it? It certainly isn't broken, and certainly isn't something to be disappointed about if it found it's way into the 7D II.

When it comes to DPAF, that is an entirely different kind of AF for an entirely different purpose. As someone who uses PDAF for the very vast majority of his photography, I don't see DPAF taking over any time soon. While it is certainly cool technology, it's really just the beginning of the leg up that mirrorless needs to BEGIN to compete with what PDAF units currently offer. I think its going to be a few iterations, especially the one where it becomes QPAF, before we see sensor-based AF reaching the level of consistency, speed, and performance of PDAF.

And even then...it would require an EVF to function entirely properly...and EVFs have just as long a way to come before they can really be viable replacements for OVFs...

If the 7D II gets the 61pt AF system, I'd personally be ecstatic!

A 62pt AF system would be vastly superior.

To my mind, the biggest advantage Canon has is the AF system in it's higher end models.... the 5D3 system is certainly nothing to be sneezed at... but think about how it could be improved... Think about recognizing a bird and tracking it through trees! I have a p/s that can recognize and differentiate between a cat and a dog.... surely a DSLR with two higher end processors can do better? The 7D2 might be the camera that takes AF to the next level... and what about linking exposure to focus points? What about using the split pixels to vastly improve DR?

There are a lot of things that could happen and I eagerly await to see which ones they give us.... It should be an interesting release... certainly more than a mode dial that goes all the way around.

When it comes to locking onto and tracking subjects through trees, I do that now with my old 7D and its 19pt AF system. Achieving that is largely a matter of tuning the AF system...getting the right tracking jump rate and using the right point size. The 61pt AF system is far more capable than the 7Ds, and tracking through trees has not generally been a problem for me. Locking on can be tricky, however the 1D X with it's subject identification capabilities using the new metering sensor handles it pretty well. The 1D X also locks onto animal faces...it seems to recognize the general shape of a face, even if it isn't human, and is even capable of doing it in profile.

These kinds of things aren't new, and aren't limited you your P&S. Now, there has always been the metering/AF split between the 1D line and everything else. The advanced integrated meter has always been a "premium" feature. That's a canon thing...they may or may not ever change that, but that is certainly not a limitation of the hardware.

Regarding linking "exposure" to focus points...do you mean link metering to AF points? Again, that's been done, it isn't new technology, it's just one of those things Canon relegates to the 1D line. Otherwise, I don't know what you mean by linking exposure to focus points.

As for split pixels improving DR...I don't believe that is possible. Those pixels receive the same amount of light. Split or a single pixel, the amount of light is the same. Now, assuming you are thinking "read one at ISO 100, the other at ISO 800". That isn't really going to help. It's HALF a pixel. For both ISOs, if you only read half of each pixel at a given ISO, then your halving the signal strength. Noise is the SQRT of the signal, so noise will jump considerably.

For example, at FWC ISO 100 on the 70D you get 26726e-, but at half the pixel, you would only get 13363e-. Your noise at 26726 is 163.5e-, and at 13363 it's 115.6e-. Your signal was halved, but your noise as a ratio of the signal only dropped by 30%. Your ISO 100 "half" image is 41% noisier than if you had used the full pixels. Similarly, at ISO 800 your saturation point is 4055e-. Half that you get 2027.5e-. Noise wise, you have 63.7e- at max saturation, and 45e- with a half pixel. Noise as a ratio of the signal dropped by 30%, but your half-pixel ISO 800 image is once again 41% noisier than if you had used full pixels. It would basically be like using ISO 200 instead of ISO 100, or ISO 1600 instead of ISO 800.

This is just referring to the noise intrinsic to the signal...it has nothing to do with read noise. So, assuming you can use this to reduce the impact of read noise on dynamic range...well, you've considerably increased noise levels by only reading half a pixel...so your probably going to end up with a net...nothing. No gain, no real loss. Maybe you get "cleaner" noise, but dual pixel designs aren't going to be the magic bullet for increasing Canon sensor DR.

 

[jrista]

And even then...it would require an EVF to function entirely properly...and EVFs have just as long a way to come before they can really be viable replacements for OVFs...

I'd say today's better EVF's are already more than adequate.
My pretty new Fuji XT1's EVF is a pleasure to use, more than adequate resolution and the high frame rate greatly reduces the lag compared to the older Xe bodies.
Combine that with the great low-light gain-up ability Canon's have and these things already see better in the dark than we do.
One more development iteration and OVF has serious competition.

the only thing I don't like about it...
I keep bringing the camera up to my eye to frame a possible shot and have to remember to turn it ON first... (I'm always in battery conservation mode)
And that's still the 2nd shortcoming... using an EVF still eats a lot of power. I see this being a major consideration when I'm in the wilds for a few days.

For me, it's all about pixel density. I have 20/10 vision with my contacts in. For all the EVF's I've tried, I can CLEARLY see the pixels. It's utterly horrid, IMO, and not a single EVF, even sony's best, has ever even remotely compared to an OVF for me. And that's just one of the problems. They all seem to have relatively low color fidelity...they can't finely differentiate colors, as if they are low bit depth (probably are, in order to handle the refresh rates). They always seem to have a bit of posterization as you transition from highlights to shadows, especially when the transition is more abrupt than gradual.

IMO, these things are 100% entirely unacceptable. I guess most people don't see them, like most people don't see the pixels in an Apple Retina screen (Apple's Retina is NOT high enough resolution for someone with 20/18 vision, let alone 20/10...although some of Samsung's latest screens are finally getting there.)

EVFs have a long way to go before they can be acceptable to the broadest market. People with normal or less than normal vision are probably fine, as they apparently cannot see pixels all that much. But the number of people with better than normal vision combined with the number of people who have corrective lenses (like myself) that give them better than normal vision are currently getting shafted by the underlying poorer quality of EVFs.

 

[Larry]

Anyone else sick and tired of seeing threads about 7D MK II ???

Up to 3 pages as I type this.
Some interesting thoughts have been provoked and posted.
Its a "Canon rumor" on a Canon Rumors forum.
Nothing sickening or tiring to this viewer.
Exactly what the forum claims to be about, what I therefore expect, and what I come here for.

For a contrast, see the "bird" posts, which seldom address anything rumor-ish. (As it happens, I enjoy them also, …but they are definitely not what brings me to CR.)

 

[Tugela]

I also hope it gets full 5Dmk3 AF

I'd be disappointed if it did.... I'm hoping to see the emergence of a new AF system that will set the standard for years to come...

If the improvements were incremental changes, it would have been out by now. The delays could mean something completely different.

You mean set a standard higher than the 61pt AF system? I think that one will be hard to beat. I've never seen an AF system lock on so fast, consistently, and easily as Canon'a 61pt AF system. What exactly would you improve in it? It certainly isn't broken, and certainly isn't something to be disappointed about if it found it's way into the 7D II.

When it comes to DPAF, that is an entirely different kind of AF for an entirely different purpose. As someone who uses PDAF for the very vast majority of his photography, I don't see DPAF taking over any time soon. While it is certainly cool technology, it's really just the beginning of the leg up that mirrorless needs to BEGIN to compete with what PDAF units currently offer. I think its going to be a few iterations, especially the one where it becomes QPAF, before we see sensor-based AF reaching the level of consistency, speed, and performance of PDAF.

And even then...it would require an EVF to function entirely properly...and EVFs have just as long a way to come before they can really be viable replacements for OVFs...

If the 7D II gets the 61pt AF system, I'd personally be ecstatic!

A 62pt AF system would be vastly superior.

To my mind, the biggest advantage Canon has is the AF system in it's higher end models.... the 5D3 system is certainly nothing to be sneezed at... but think about how it could be improved... Think about recognizing a bird and tracking it through trees! I have a p/s that can recognize and differentiate between a cat and a dog.... surely a DSLR with two higher end processors can do better? The 7D2 might be the camera that takes AF to the next level... and what about linking exposure to focus points? What about using the split pixels to vastly improve DR?

There are a lot of things that could happen and I eagerly await to see which ones they give us.... It should be an interesting release... certainly more than a mode dial that goes all the way around.

When it comes to locking onto and tracking subjects through trees, I do that now with my old 7D and its 19pt AF system. Achieving that is largely a matter of tuning the AF system...getting the right tracking jump rate and using the right point size. The 61pt AF system is far more capable than the 7Ds, and tracking through trees has not generally been a problem for me. Locking on can be tricky, however the 1D X with it's subject identification capabilities using the new metering sensor handles it pretty well. The 1D X also locks onto animal faces...it seems to recognize the general shape of a face, even if it isn't human, and is even capable of doing it in profile.

These kinds of things aren't new, and aren't limited you your P&S. Now, there has always been the metering/AF split between the 1D line and everything else. The advanced integrated meter has always been a "premium" feature. That's a canon thing...they may or may not ever change that, but that is certainly not a limitation of the hardware.

Regarding linking "exposure" to focus points...do you mean link metering to AF points? Again, that's been done, it isn't new technology, it's just one of those things Canon relegates to the 1D line. Otherwise, I don't know what you mean by linking exposure to focus points.

As for split pixels improving DR...I don't believe that is possible. Those pixels receive the same amount of light. Split or a single pixel, the amount of light is the same. Now, assuming you are thinking "read one at ISO 100, the other at ISO 800". That isn't really going to help. It's HALF a pixel. For both ISOs, if you only read half of each pixel at a given ISO, then your halving the signal strength. Noise is the SQRT of the signal, so noise will jump considerably.

For example, at FWC ISO 100 on the 70D you get 26726e-, but at half the pixel, you would only get 13363e-. Your noise at 26726 is 163.5e-, and at 13363 it's 115.6e-. Your signal was halved, but your noise as a ratio of the signal only dropped by 30%. Your ISO 100 "half" image is 41% noisier than if you had used the full pixels. Similarly, at ISO 800 your saturation point is 4055e-. Half that you get 2027.5e-. Noise wise, you have 63.7e- at max saturation, and 45e- with a half pixel. Noise as a ratio of the signal dropped by 30%, but your half-pixel ISO 800 image is once again 41% noisier than if you had used full pixels. It would basically be like using ISO 200 instead of ISO 100, or ISO 1600 instead of ISO 800.

This is just referring to the noise intrinsic to the signal...it has nothing to do with read noise. So, assuming you can use this to reduce the impact of read noise on dynamic range...well, you've considerably increased noise levels by only reading half a pixel...so your probably going to end up with a net...nothing. No gain, no real loss. Maybe you get "cleaner" noise, but dual pixel designs aren't going to be the magic bullet for increasing Canon sensor DR.

If you have enough light, noise is not a problem. After all, is that not the principle behind HDR photography?

 

[Rienzphotoz]

Anyone else sick and tired of seeing threads about 7D MK II ???

Well CR1's about the 7D MKII are getting boring :


Give us CR3! 8)

Actually, it isn't only the 7D MK II, even its competitors Nikon D400 & Sony a77 II are also getting similar kind of "not so strong" rumors, and people are kind of getting tired of reading rumors like these ... maybe, Canon, Nikon & Sony are waiting on each other to outdo the spec list? :-\ I don't know ... so far, the rumor that might be closest to being a fact is the Sony a77 II (which according to Sonyalpharumors the "Announcement will be made the first week of May and availability in June!"). To me 7D II seems very complex in terms of pricing strategy ... Canon already has a great camera in 70D and an affordable full frame camera in 6D, so will they price it in between or will they charge more than the 6D ... I am sure there will be people who will buy the 7D II for just shy of $2000, but what about the majority ... a difficult guess.

 

[Tugela]

But, Canon are almost certainly aware that video capability is regarded as important by the average buyer, who would probably prefer to buy a single camera that does both stills and video, rather than two separate cameras. It is also the area where they can add the most bang for the buck in terms of upgraded features in the system. The still aspect of the camera is largely mature technology. If they want to convince the average buyer to replace their old Canon body, this is an excellent opportunity to do it, particularly with the current interest in 4k.

If they do not produce a body with those sorts of capabilities for the average consumer in the market targeted by these cameras, those consumers will move over to other brands that get the combination right, such as Panasonic and Sony.

Canon has no choice but to make a camera similar to the GH4, and do it soon. They have to compete in that market segment now, if they wait a year or two it will be Panasonic's market, not theirs.

With cameras such as the GH3 they could sort of compete using existing cameras and letting Magic Lantern hacks bring the cameras up to speed. That way they could get the capability without the liability. All of that is about to change when the GH4 rolls out of store doors. When that happens all of the existing consumer Canon cameras are going to be obsolete as far as most of the market is concerned. Yes, I know there are those who don't care about video, but they are not the average Joe, who spends a lot for an expensive toy and wants it to do everything well. For them, an expensive camera that can't shoot excellent video is not going to fly when there are others that can.

Remember, the high end cameras have a product life cycle of 2.5-3.5 years, so whatever they release now has to have capabilities that will result in them still being competitive at the end of that time frame.

 

[mkabi]

Always a CR1, never a CR3 or even CR2.

Quite surprised actually, given that NAB is about a month away. It would be quite a shame if they had nothing to show for NAB.

Also surprised, because there is a sale for the 70D going on, I would think that they are selling the 70Ds so that some profit can be made from them prior to a 7D replacement announcement.

 

[Tugela]

Yup, I noticed that. Dumping inventory in preparation for a new more attractive product release (along with a permanent price reduction for the 70D).

 

[greyowlpictures]

I have been waiting rather impatiently for Canon to release the 7D MkII since I heard from a Canon rep that it was expected to hit the market exactly two years ago. At that time, it was rumored to be an "APS-C sensor camera with a resolution of around 23 or 25 megapixels". After a year of waiting, I bought the 7D as a interim camera body, and have won several underwater photo competitions with it. In the two years that I have been waiting for the 7D Mk II, and watching the rumor mill, I hope that Canon still intends to produce the body with an APS-C sized sensor, and will not switch to a full-sized sensor. Small sensors produce a much wider wider depth of field than full frame sensors. If the 7D Mk II arrives with an APS-C sensor, I expect to immediately sell my 7D and camera housing and buy a new system. If the camera ships with a full-sized sensor, I will be VERY disappointed.

 

[jeffa4444]

If we see a Canon 7dMKII then given the 7d build quality as compared to the 6d (which is still very high) its almost a given it will be priced between the 6d and 5dMKIII the gap between these two cameras in pricing is large.
The 7d was definately built with Pros in mind sports photographers, wildlife photograhers and videographers gravitated to it so the new apple will not fall far from the tree and as said by others would compliment the full frame pro cameras.

 

[tron]

Oooh ... Nessie's been sighted again? Great!

... and ... it will be photographed with a 7D2 ;D

 

[Aglet]

For me, it's all about pixel density. I have 20/10 vision..I can CLEARLY see the pixels. It's utterly horrid..

I'm at 20/15 w-o correction, and I can see the pixels in my EVF too if I want to concentrate on that. But it doesn't bother me since I don't expect it to look exactly like an OVF. There's enough information density to be useful for what it is, a composition tool with a rich amount of camera data added. I don't need to color-proof with it, don't care if it has other limitations you've described, as long as it's fast, responsive, works well in low light and provides the information I need to perform the function it's supposed to.
It does that just fine, and it's even better than an OVF when it comes to low light. I don't mind a little noise in my low light EVF image when it allows me to see more detail than I could looking thru an OVF.
So, if today's EVFs don't appeal to you, tomorrow's might.
One of the other benefits is I get from an EVF is a much better idea of how a stopped down image will look because I'm seeing it without the effect of a focus screen in an OVF that interferes with how the image actually looks for in-focus to OOF transition areas.

Either way, good EVFs won't prevent you from using them for what they are there for, to compose the shot. Even the very low rez EVF in my old Panasonic FZ-20 was useful and still truckloads better than trying to compose using the rear display in sunlight.

 

[Don Haines]

For me, it's all about pixel density. I have 20/10 vision..I can CLEARLY see the pixels. It's utterly horrid..

I'm at 20/15 w-o correction, and I can see the pixels in my EVF too if I want to concentrate on that. But it doesn't bother me since I don't expect it to look exactly like an OVF. There's enough information density to be useful for what it is, a composition tool with a rich amount of camera data added. I don't need to color-proof with it, don't care if it has other limitations you've described, as long as it's fast, responsive, works well in low light and provides the information I need to perform the function it's supposed to.
It does that just fine, and it's even better than an OVF when it comes to low light. I don't mind a little noise in my low light EVF image when it allows me to see more detail than I could looking thru an OVF.
So, if today's EVFs don't appeal to you, tomorrow's might.
One of the other benefits is I get from an EVF is a much better idea of how a stopped down image will look because I'm seeing it without the effect of a focus screen in an OVF that interferes with how the image actually looks for in-focus to OOF transition areas.

Either way, good EVFs won't prevent you from using them for what they are there for, to compose the shot. Even the very low rez EVF in my old Panasonic FZ-20 was useful and still truckloads better than trying to compose using the rear display in sunlight.

I have an EVF on my SX-50. It is low res and you can see the pixels.... there is considerable lag. Then look at the EVF on the Olympus u4/3 cameras... It is a world better! /not as good as optical, but getting close. We are very close to hitting the resolution where it is beyond what the eye can see... anyone want to bet that the prototypes in the labs are past that level yet?

This is like the film/digital debate. When digital first came out, the quality was garbage. Over time, the positions reversed themselves. Digital now is far superior to film of the 1990's, but that comparison is meaningless because in that period the quality of lenses has taken a huge jump forward and so have AF systems... in other words, film images shot today WITH THE EXACT SAME FILM are better than film images shot in the 1990's.

The point being, componentry does not exist in a vaccumn... it is affected by all the other facets of the camera.
EVF's are getting better, but many of the improvements are the result of system changes. For example, what kind of dynamic range can you show on an EVF? Improvements in sensor dynamic range have a big impact here...If you have an EVF that can show 10 stops of dynamic range, it will look a lot better maping a 14 stop sensor onto it than it would maping a 6 stop sensor...

Lag time has gone from annoying to you have to look hard to notice it.... how far away is unnoticeable?

EVF's are coming. Is the time now? None of us know. We will not know until it gets released. In the meantime we speculate and discuss.

 

[East Wind Photography]

So whats been talked about is a hybrid vf. Electronic vf used during video and live view shooting and optical vf used during stills.

Seeing pixels when shooting video is not a big deal for me...especially when considering the alternative of using the display on the rear of the camera.

 

[greger]

here we go again. I hope the 7 D ll comes out soon! I don't plan on buying it. I look forward to reading the reviews.
I hope it lives up to our expectations.

 

[luckydude]

I own (currently) the 7D & 5DIII (and have sitting unused a 40D and a T4i). I loved the 7D when I got it, then a few years later got the 5DIII and now the 7D sits unused (sort of. out on loan to a friend of mine).

I *love* the IQ that 5DIII gives me, it's way better than the 7D. I shoot jpeg and don't post process, fixed things a little by cranking up the in camera sharpening a bit. But still the 5D beats it nicely.

I shoot birds and surfers sometimes and I would pay pretty much anything within reason (certainly as much or more than the 5DIII) for a 7DII that was every bit as good as the 5DIII but with the extra 1.6x reach. That would be an awesome tool for wildlife and sports photography. To be clear I don't want a 1.6x crop of the 5DIII sensor, I can do that myself (though wouldn't it be cool if the 5D had a crop mode where it did it for you?). I want the 5DIII IQ with the 1.6x crop bonus. A 25 MP crop sensor _seems_ like it would be close but we'll see.

 

[axtstern]

The 7DII will have a bunch of competitors when it arrives, some of the most fearsome ones coming from Canon itself and most likely the 7D itself being the toughest one. The current 7D has been selling strong and I expect quiet some trade in starting on e-bay once the replacement is out.

The People who bought a 5D3 that I know bought their camera either after intensive research or after no research at all. That might sound strange but I know a lot of Chinese and they buy their DSLR before going on a big trip and the choice of model happens by asking the sales guy in the shop for the best model of the leading brand. The time you and I use for debating the technical details is in such a case used to haggle the price down. The result in case of my Chinese friends was in the past the 5d2 and now the 5d3 hanged around the neck with the Canon strap and the 24-105L. Only other equipment they will ever buy is the lcd protector foil, and 2 fake batteries.

The 7D2 will fall into a different category. We talk here probably of internet savvy consumers but not automatically people who have studied CR for 3 years in hope of this camera arriving.

If I want to sell to semi pros I need a victory by numbers not a victory through a hard to explain concept.
Victory by numbers means up with resolution, up with ISO (I especially do not write usefull ISO) up with FPS.
So anything that is compatible to a Dpreview comparrison table style way of making a choice.

Has popup flash, has green button, has face detection, has live view, has touch screen... those are Amazon shopper review friendly criteria and they are much easier to explain as highlights than the feature of shifting between AI servo and one shot by pressing the little button for depth control next to the bayonet.

I also desire a 1dx style AF System, a microphone monitor feature etc... but the 1dx AF System is beyond the spiritual capacity of the hordes that make Canon the NO1 DSLR seller in the world.

Cudos from my side to the idea with the buit in RT. That is exactly what I would do with my APSC top toy for those with deep pockets . Give them a reason not to buy the 430EX but the more expensive 600. Let them overheat the Little Pop up Flash and afterwards sell them another 600 to master the one they already have.

Please forgive the thousands of spelling mistakes, my spell checker does not want to allow me using English

 

[jrista]

For me, it's all about pixel density. I have 20/10 vision..I can CLEARLY see the pixels. It's utterly horrid..

I'm at 20/15 w-o correction, and I can see the pixels in my EVF too if I want to concentrate on that. But it doesn't bother me since I don't expect it to look exactly like an OVF. There's enough information density to be useful for what it is, a composition tool with a rich amount of camera data added. I don't need to color-proof with it, don't care if it has other limitations you've described, as long as it's fast, responsive, works well in low light and provides the information I need to perform the function it's supposed to.
It does that just fine, and it's even better than an OVF when it comes to low light. I don't mind a little noise in my low light EVF image when it allows me to see more detail than I could looking thru an OVF.
So, if today's EVFs don't appeal to you, tomorrow's might.
One of the other benefits is I get from an EVF is a much better idea of how a stopped down image will look because I'm seeing it without the effect of a focus screen in an OVF that interferes with how the image actually looks for in-focus to OOF transition areas.

Either way, good EVFs won't prevent you from using them for what they are there for, to compose the shot. Even the very low rez EVF in my old Panasonic FZ-20 was useful and still truckloads better than trying to compose using the rear display in sunlight.

I have an EVF on my SX-50. It is low res and you can see the pixels.... there is considerable lag. Then look at the EVF on the Olympus u4/3 cameras... It is a world better! /not as good as optical, but getting close. We are very close to hitting the resolution where it is beyond what the eye can see... anyone want to bet that the prototypes in the labs are past that level yet?

This is like the film/digital debate. When digital first came out, the quality was garbage. Over time, the positions reversed themselves. Digital now is far superior to film of the 1990's, but that comparison is meaningless because in that period the quality of lenses has taken a huge jump forward and so have AF systems... in other words, film images shot today WITH THE EXACT SAME FILM are better than film images shot in the 1990's.

The point being, componentry does not exist in a vaccumn... it is affected by all the other facets of the camera.
EVF's are getting better, but many of the improvements are the result of system changes. For example, what kind of dynamic range can you show on an EVF? Improvements in sensor dynamic range have a big impact here...If you have an EVF that can show 10 stops of dynamic range, it will look a lot better maping a 14 stop sensor onto it than it would maping a 6 stop sensor...

Lag time has gone from annoying to you have to look hard to notice it.... how far away is unnoticeable?

EVF's are coming. Is the time now? None of us know. We will not know until it gets released. In the meantime we speculate and discuss.

I've said this before, but, to be smaller than the eye can see at 20/10 vision, you would need 12,000ppi. Yes, twelve THOUSAND pixel per inch. The best these days are around 2800ppi? Shy of three thousand per inch. The problem with 12000ppi is that the pixels are so small that they filter out red light.

So, they may be working on the next generation, but there is absolutely no way they are ever even going to be CAPABLE of creating pixels in an EVF that sits at less than 1" eye relief small enough to never be seen by people with good vision. Hence my argument that with EVFs, people with good vision get shafted.

At some point, maybe around 8000ppi, it will be good enough that I can handle it. But at 2800ppi, it isn't even remotely close (and 2800ppi is for the GOOD EVFs of today.)

If the 7D II gets a hybrid, where I have total control over when the OVF is used, then I'd be happy. If it end up getting some kind of hybrid where you do not have control over when your in OVF mode and when your in EVF mode, I'd be pretty ticked (and I'd just stick with getting a 5D III, and skip the 7D II altogether.)