EOS 7D Replacement Mentioned Again [CR1]

[Rienzphotoz]

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

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

I tried photographing Nessie in 2010 with my 7D but due to low light conditions & limited ISO capability I couldn't capture it ... but the better specd 7D MK II should be able to capture it ;D

 

[jrista]

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

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

I tried photographing Nessie in 2010 with my 7D but due to low light conditions & limited ISO capability I couldn't capture it ... but the better specd 7D MK II should be able to capture it ;D

That'll be one for Guinness! To photograph Nessie with Nessie! You'll have finally solved the chicken and the egg problem. ;-P

 

[Steve]

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.)

No offense but this seems like a really weird complaint. I mean, if it bothers you it bothers you I guess but even with amazing super vision you'd still have to concentrate pretty hard to see individual pixels at ~3000ppi. And as the other person said, you aren't using the EVF for a display, its a framing tool. It could be monochrome and still work well if the refresh rate was fast enough.

 

[jrista]

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.)

No offense but this seems like a really weird complaint. I mean, if it bothers you it bothers you I guess but even with amazing super vision you'd still have to concentrate pretty hard to see individual pixels at ~3000ppi. And as the other person said, you aren't using the EVF for a display, its a framing tool. It could be monochrome and still work well if the refresh rate was fast enough.

We aren't talking cell phone distances here. Most EVFs are recessed at around a quarter of an inch or so, pretty much always less than an inch. At around an inch, 3000-5000ppi would do it, but at a quarter of an inch, people with better than 20/20 vision are going to see pixels.

Additionally, you must not shoot action. When your an action shooter, your eye LIVES in the viewfinder. It's never away from the viewfinder. I have spent so much time with my eye pressed up against my VF while photographing shorebirds that when I take my eye away and look around, I have to close my eyes and wait for them to adjust to the brighter light.

Not everyone is a landscape photographer or other kind of photographer where you spend a small amount of time looking through a viewfinder. Some of us live and die by the viewfinder...it is one of the single most important factors for choosing a camera body, alongside AF and frame rate (again, not everyone needs 25 stops of DR at ISO 100.)

So it isn't a weird complaint. It's a complaint based on the way I use my camera pretty much every single time I take it out and shoot something. If I have a camera in my hands, chances are, I'm looking through the viewfinder. The quality of the VF is of the utmost critical importance to me, so I think the complaint is entirely warranted and legit.

 

[Rienzphotoz]

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

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

I tried photographing Nessie in 2010 with my 7D but due to low light conditions & limited ISO capability I couldn't capture it ... but the better specd 7D MK II should be able to capture it ;D

That'll be one for Guinness! To photograph Nessie with Nessie! You'll have finally solved the chicken and the egg problem. ;-P

;D ;D ;D ... so are you saying the 7D MK II ain't gonna happen?

 

[jrista]

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

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

I tried photographing Nessie in 2010 with my 7D but due to low light conditions & limited ISO capability I couldn't capture it ... but the better specd 7D MK II should be able to capture it ;D

That'll be one for Guinness! To photograph Nessie with Nessie! You'll have finally solved the chicken and the egg problem. ;-P

;D ;D ;D ... so are you saying the 7D MK II ain't gonna happen?

LOL...no, not quite. It was a play on words and context, but I'm guessing not many people would actually get it.

 

[Don Haines]

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

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

I tried photographing Nessie in 2010 with my 7D but due to low light conditions & limited ISO capability I couldn't capture it ... but the better specd 7D MK II should be able to capture it ;D

That'll be one for Guinness! To photograph Nessie with Nessie! You'll have finally solved the chicken and the egg problem. ;-P

;D ;D ;D ... so are you saying the 7D MK II ain't gonna happen?

LOL...no, not quite. It was a play on words and context, but I'm guessing not many people would actually get it.

The 7D2 and Nessie are nothing alike..... there are millions of people that believe Nessie is real

 

[wsmith96]

Is AFMA toast?

The 70D is the tip of the iceberg..... it barely scratches the capabilities of Dual Pixel... there are interesting times ahead!

I think this is a correct assessment. With dual pixel technology, you really don't need AFMA any more. There is a great article about this in the April edition of "Digital Photo Pro" magazine.

http://www.digitalphotopro.com/technique/camera-technique/autofocus-evolution.html

 

[weixing]

Hi,

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.

The main issue with EVF is that it require battery power to operate which is a big disadvantage especially for wildlife and nature photographer... they usually spend very long time looking through the viewfinder and wait for the moment to get the shot they want. With OVF, the camera can be in standby mode while waiting for the moment, but you can't do that with EVF... just imagine how many battery they need to bring and change during the wait.

Have a nice day.

 

[Rienzphotoz]

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

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

I tried photographing Nessie in 2010 with my 7D but due to low light conditions & limited ISO capability I couldn't capture it ... but the better specd 7D MK II should be able to capture it ;D

That'll be one for Guinness! To photograph Nessie with Nessie! You'll have finally solved the chicken and the egg problem. ;-P

;D ;D ;D ... so are you saying the 7D MK II ain't gonna happen?

LOL...no, not quite. It was a play on words and context, but I'm guessing not many people would actually get it.

The 7D2 and Nessie are nothing alike..... there are millions of people that believe Nessie is real

Wait, isn't that what we think about the 7D MK II? ;D

 

[weixing]

Hi,

Is AFMA toast?

The 70D is the tip of the iceberg..... it barely scratches the capabilities of Dual Pixel... there are interesting times ahead!

I think this is a correct assessment. With dual pixel technology, you really don't need AFMA any more. There is a great article about this in the April edition of "Digital Photo Pro" magazine.

http://www.digitalphotopro.com/technique/camera-technique/autofocus-evolution.html

Or may be an Auto AFMA which you can perform easily in the field... something:
1) You put an AF target at a certain distance and turn on Auto AFMA.
2) AF lock using the traditional PDAF and press the shutter.
3) When the shutter is pressed, the dual-pixel AF kick in to check the AF.
4) The difference will be updated in the camera (or lens) for that lens.

Have a nice day.

 

[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.

I have 20/2000 vision.... I can't find my camera without my glasses.....

 

[tron]

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.

I have 20/2000 vision.... I can't find my camera without my glasses.....

;D ;D ;D

 

[Richard8971]

I was excited about 2 years ago about a 7D replacement but now I don't care much anymore. I suspect that Canon is waiting to see how sales of the 70D go. If it sells well enough they may forget about any kind of 7D replacement. The firmware 2.0 update lends itself to the fact that Canon may not release a replacement. If they were then why "unlock" a bunch of cool, useful features on a camera you were going to replace soon? Seems to me it would (even a little) cut into sales of the new model.

D

 

[unfocused]

The firmware 2.0 update lends itself to the fact that Canon may not release a replacement. If they were then why "unlock" a bunch of cool, useful features on a camera you were going to replace soon? Seems to me it would (even a little) cut into sales of the new model.

D

The 2.0 major firmware update occurred in August, 2012. Back in 2012, the update was clearly intended to extend the life of the 7D and buy Canon some time. Perhaps they knew at the time that it would be nearly two years before they had a replacement ready.

At this point, the existence of the firmware upgrade would have little to no impact on a 7DII.

 

[Rienzphotoz]

The firmware 2.0 update lends itself to the fact that Canon may not release a replacement. If they were then why "unlock" a bunch of cool, useful features on a camera you were going to replace soon? Seems to me it would (even a little) cut into sales of the new model.

D

The 2.0 major firmware update occurred in August, 2012. Back in 2012, the update was clearly intended to extend the life of the 7D and buy Canon some time. Perhaps they knew at the time that it would be nearly two years before they had a replacement ready.

At this point, the existence of the firmware upgrade would have little to no impact on a 7DII.

+1

 

[Rienzphotoz]

I was excited about 2 years ago about a 7D replacement but now I don't care much anymore. I suspect that Canon is waiting to see how sales of the 70D go.
D

True, 2 years ago I had my focus set on a 7D MK II (I knew it wasn't gonna release so soon) but as when it was released, I was prepared to get it ... but after getting the 5D MK III, I lost interest in 7D MK II and with the purchase of my 7D last week, I am even less likely to get the 7D MK II even if it does show up in 2014 ... but if it comes in 2015, maybe GAS will kick in enough to make the plunge.

 

[Tugela]

The firmware 2.0 update lends itself to the fact that Canon may not release a replacement. If they were then why "unlock" a bunch of cool, useful features on a camera you were going to replace soon? Seems to me it would (even a little) cut into sales of the new model.

D

The 2.0 major firmware update occurred in August, 2012. Back in 2012, the update was clearly intended to extend the life of the 7D and buy Canon some time. Perhaps they knew at the time that it would be nearly two years before they had a replacement ready.

At this point, the existence of the firmware upgrade would have little to no impact on a 7DII.

I think that would have been around the time it became clear that the future in the form of 4K video would be arriving within a planable time frame, and the 7D2 project was refocused to catch that wave. The old 7D got the firmware upgrade and the original 7D2 tech features got repackaged into the 70D instead. IMO they originally anticipated 4K arriving in 2015, but in 2013 the projections were advanced to 2014 instead, and that has mixed up their development program and accelerated things.

 

[Steve]

We aren't talking cell phone distances here. Most EVFs are recessed at around a quarter of an inch or so, pretty much always less than an inch. At around an inch, 3000-5000ppi would do it, but at a quarter of an inch, people with better than 20/20 vision are going to see pixels.

Additionally, you must not shoot action. When your an action shooter, your eye LIVES in the viewfinder. It's never away from the viewfinder. I have spent so much time with my eye pressed up against my VF while photographing shorebirds that when I take my eye away and look around, I have to close my eyes and wait for them to adjust to the brighter light.

Not everyone is a landscape photographer or other kind of photographer where you spend a small amount of time looking through a viewfinder. Some of us live and die by the viewfinder...it is one of the single most important factors for choosing a camera body, alongside AF and frame rate (again, not everyone needs 25 stops of DR at ISO 100.)

So it isn't a weird complaint. It's a complaint based on the way I use my camera pretty much every single time I take it out and shoot something. If I have a camera in my hands, chances are, I'm looking through the viewfinder. The quality of the VF is of the utmost critical importance to me, so I think the complaint is entirely warranted and legit.

Ok, like I said if it bothers you that's your thing but I still don't understand why it bothers you. So what if you can see the pixels? It doesn't affect your ability to frame an image in any way. Refresh rate, battery life, those are complaints that I can understand because they have a real affect on the ability to make an image but being able to discern the individual pixels does not. To me, it seems like complaining that an OVF isn't contrasty enough or something.

I do shoot action almost exclusively and I appreciate the OVF in my 1DIV but thats because it is large and bright and has a refresh rate of c. If an EVF had a refresh rate that was indistinguishable from reflected light, I would certainly be interested because of all of the other advantages that could be conferred, such as brightening the scene, magnification or overlaid information like zebras/focus peaking. It may be that it won't ever work for what I do but there is certainly potential in the technology and it seems weird to me discount it out of hand because you can see the pixels if you concentrate on finding them.

 

[thepancakeman]

Ok, like I said if it bothers you that's your thing but I still don't understand why it bothers you. So what if you can see the pixels? It doesn't affect your ability to frame an image in any way.

If you are spending hours looking through the viewfinder, it's not just "the ability to frame an image". I think you're asking for migraines and digital eyestrain and a whole bunch of other uncomfortableness looking at a pixelated image for that amount of time.