Eos7D mk2, How EXCITED will you be if . . .?

[Lee Jay]

• Really high performance AF system, including f/8 AF point(s)
• Hybrid EVF/OVF viewfinder (for shooting video)
• Good video features (focus assist, good focus performance, continuous windowing/zoom)
• High pixel density sensor
• High quality sensor
• 100-400L II designed for use on this camera with a 1.4x TC while still preserving outstanding optics and AF

 

[bosshog7_2000]

I bought the 7D when it was first released and I had two impressions....One: I LOVED the ergonomics and control layout over the 5D2. Two: I was majorly disappointed in the quality of the files out of the camera....just too mushy for my taste. One year later I sold the thing.

to even consider a 7D2 it would need to have a 24mp sensor with no AA filter and much better dynamic range.

 

[Loswr]

Serious 7D shooters are not necessarily amateurs on tight budgets. I still contend that serious crop-shooters (lovingly clinging to their original 7D bodies) have invested far far far far far more dollars in glass and other gear than 6D shooters, so outpricing the 6D (even considerably) is not unreasonable.

Many 'serious crop shooters' also own a full frame body to overcome the limitations of the crop sensor. The 7D plus 5DII was a well-liked combination. The 5DIII combined the best of both, obviating the need.

The 6D is a nice rig but it's an entry-level FF rig that lacks a lot of bells and whistles. The 7D2 likely will not. It's a pro crop body. If that sentence seems a contradiction to some folks, they may not understand the notion that crop is a strength and not a weakness to some shooters. These folks pay great money for reach.

The 1D series with APS-H sensors were 'pro crop' bodies. The 1.3x sensor offered a compromise between cost, frame rate and image quality, with the latter being significantly better than 1.6x. The 1D X combined FF image quality with the speed of the 1D series, for a cost slightly lower than the 1DsIII – again, the best of both worlds.

The bottom line is that the only real advantage of APS-C is that the sensors and the cameras that contain them are cheaper.

...the birding camera that lets you just bring the 400 prime instead of a 1Dx and a 600 prime, 10 FPS with 2 stops better low light performance, etc.

Sounds great for consumers. I'm not so sure it would sound great to the bean counters at Canon HQ.

2 stops better lowlight performance? That loud buzzing sound you hear is your alarm clock, time for the dream to end….

 

[jrista]

I'll get excited if the 7DII has substantially better IQ... AND that sensor gets used in the next EOS M!

Better IQ and much higher performing AF, and used in the next EOS M. I'd be interested in that. I want a more capable ILC for days when I generally can't bring my big DSLR kit...something with high resolution, fast focus, and good IQ (across the board, including better DR) would be nice to have. I could use it for wildlife/birds and landscapes.

 

[l_d_allan]

• I'd have mixed feelings, but overall positive if Canon 'bit the bullet' and "swallowed their pride" and used a Sony sensor with 24 mpx with high DR of 14 stops. That might bode well for Canon using a similar sensor to the Nikon 810 / A7r in an upcoming full-frame.
• Foveon-like technology with great high-ISO, great DR, and fast frame-rate performance, which hints that Canon is well along on the learning curve for a full-frame with really ground-breaking competition for the Sony ff sensor.
• 4k video with dual-pixel for video follow focus
• Kit lens at great bundle price like an EF-S 16-70mm f2.8 IS STM (about equiv to 24-100mm with fixed fast aperture)
• Native MagicLantern-like Dual-ISO for much greater DR
• Lots of capabilities "borrowed" from MagicLantern, like Auto-Dot-Tune AF micro adjustment, Auto-ETTR, RAW histogram, RAW Blinkies, more flexible Bulb, intervalometer, more flexible HDR, etc.
• Better AF, although my impression is that the 7d AF is quite good
• Touch screen with tilting mount

 

[jrista]

• I'd have mixed feelings, but overall positive if Canon 'bit the bullet' and "swallowed their pride" and used a Sony sensor with 24 mpx with high DR of 14 stops. That might bode well for Canon using a similar sensor to the Nikon 810 / A7r in an upcoming full-frame.

Not gonna happen, as Canon prides themselves too much on their "in house, fully integrated" approach.

• Native MagicLantern-like Dual-ISO for much greater DR

You want both a Sony Exmor sensor...and ML Dual ISO? How much DR do you want? Unless Canon is moving to a 16-bit ADC, which if they used an Exmor is impossible (since Exmor includes the ADC), then having both is moot. You can only get 14 stops of DR out of a camera with a 14-bit ADC.

If Canon natively improves their own sensors DR, which is more than possible, it isn't like Sony has an exclusive right on high dynamic range sensor technology, then having ML Dual ISO is again moot. If Canon tops 13 stops of DR, they would be comparable to the D800/600/810, which all get around 13.2-13.3 stops (as far as editing latitude/shadow lifting goes). Adding ML Dual ISO to that wouldn't really offer any benefit...as to achieve that kind of DR in the first place, ISO 100 would have to have as low read noise as ISO 800 anyway.[/list]

 

[lol]

Many 'serious crop shooters' also own a full frame body to overcome the limitations of the crop sensor. The 7D plus 5DII was a well-liked combination. The 5DIII combined the best of both, obviating the need.

I own such a combination, but to me, the 5D series is no replacement. If I had unlimited funds and said I could only have one camera body, I'd still pick the existing 7D over the 5D3 without hesitation. About the only way I might put up with full frame is once pixel densities get more reasonable. The Nikon D800 would be adequate as a starting point for such a hypothetical body, if you could get it to 8fps and focus well at the same time.

I hate to do this, but I might start sounding like a microFourThirds fanboy at this point. The arguments for choosing crop over full frame are similar to those thrown by MFT to APS-C. For a given "reach", the crop sensor is just better optimised. On full frame you'd need silly big (and expensive) lenses. Even if people could afford them, they wouldn't want to carry it! Why not ever smaller? I have to say the Nikon 1 with native 70-300 lens sounds like an interesting reach combination, but I'm not sold on its overall performance.

Full frame serves a single niche of shallow(er) depth of field. If you're not after that, smaller sensors make more sense. Side note: why not continue my own argument and get smaller sensors? Because mirrorless tracking AF is still a long way off even a basic DSLR.

 

[ahsanford]

...the birding camera that lets you just bring the 400 prime instead of a 1Dx and a 600 prime, 10 FPS with 2 stops better low light performance, etc.

Sounds great for consumers. I'm not so sure it would sound great to the bean counters at Canon HQ.

2 stops better lowlight performance? That loud buzzing sound you hear is your alarm clock, time for the dream to end….

Neuro, I'm not saying we're going to get all those nice things in the 7D2, but some combination of them might occur to keep the price up.

And I'm not ever saying a crop with lens X is going to deliver the same IQ as a contemporary FF sensor and a 1.6X lens attached. But if it were close, I'd see people sizing up the 'half the total cost / half the total weight' argument and possibly staying in the crop universe.

Again, I represent such a niche piece of Canon's business that I wonder why I even stick up for them -- heck, I'm not even one of them! I'm not a wildlife / birder guy at all, but I have friends who shoot sports and wildlife who make camera acquisitions in much more modest chunks, like $1-3k additions at a time. Climbing Mount Full-Frame / Supertele is a mountain they will never climb, so a 7D2 (or Pentax?) is their big opportunity to improve their world in a reasonably sized one-off spend.

I just think value propositions are more than just IQ and cost, and crop has an interesting duckbill platypus of a value proposition at the whacko long end of focal lengths. Some folks live and die by it.

- A

 

[l_d_allan]

You want both a Sony Exmor sensor...and ML Dual ISO?

I meant to convey "either / or", not both. But it seems technologically possible ... much better sensor DR that incorporates Dual-ISO approach. I think a 14-bit ADC would be sufficient, as my understanding is that the Dual-ISO approach interleaves ISO 100 and a higher ISO like 800, 1600, 3200, etc. The ML approach costs some resolution. My speculation is that such an approach by Canon engineers would be even better as "native" rather than a brilliant hack by the ML dev team (thanks A1ex).

How much DR do you want?

Lots. I shoot plenty of panos with 6d + 14mm Samyang or Samyang fish-eye. Panos, especially at night, tend to have lots of DR. As I use ML's Dual-ISO more and more, I use HDR less and less. However, I consider use of Dual-ISO to be a "hold-your-nose-work-around" to the relatively modest native DR of the 6d.

FWIW: the Nikon D800(e) had an ad ... something like ... "you're gonna want to re-shoot lots of your pictures". I often feel that way, especially on long road trips at 2:00 am in the morning, freezing my tail off ... "wish I'd rented a Sony A7r with EF adapter as long as I've gone to all this trouble."

 

[ahsanford]

I hate to do this, but I might start sounding like a microFourThirds fanboy at this point. The arguments for choosing crop over full frame are similar to those thrown by MFT to APS-C. For a given "reach", the crop sensor is just better optimised. On full frame you'd need silly big (and expensive) lenses. Even if people could afford them, they wouldn't want to carry it! Why not ever smaller? I have to say the Nikon 1 with native 70-300 lens sounds like an interesting reach combination, but I'm not sold on its overall performance.

Forget fanboyism -- this is a debate that has raged for ages. How much do you want to spend / lug around versus how nice you want your shots to come out is an ancient debate in these forums.

And you're not alone in wanting to have a specific sweet spot of sensor size / gear size / cost to IQ. Heck, APS-H guys are like the folks who used to sleep in bed with their Amiga computers after they were discontinued. Love is not love which alters when it alteration finds.

I just think the argument has sublimed above basic forum back and forth and become one of those religiously held beliefs we won't ever sway on, like to use / not use UV filters, the value of IS on wide angle lenses, etc.

- A

 

[Tugela]

16 MP is fine for my purposes, anything more would be nice but it would have zero effect on the image in the formats I use. So I don't really care about that.

Improved sensitivity would be interesting.

Accurate tracking (with accurate focus) would be a very interesting, especially with a touch screen so that you can rapidly select what you want tracked (this would need to be a toggled ability, since you don't want random things tracked just because you brushed the screen).

Being able to select multiple points on the screen (touch for flexibility) to create a focus matrix that the camera would try to encapsulate would be useful.

What would make the camera really interesting however would be 4K video, along with robust recording options. I think that alone will be a deal maker.

 

[Sporgon]

Serious 7D shooters are not necessarily amateurs on tight budgets.

Not everyone can afford to spend significant amounts of money on a camera body, or indeed lenses, yet they may wish or really need to have a given performance. Many people who earn their living from photography cannot afford 'the best' or 'the latest'. I was at a large function recently where the official photographer was using two Nikon D200 s, 2005 tech. ( With its CCD the D200 was, and still is, a fine camera).

When I was at the London Olympics I was surprised to see so many of the official photographers with ringside access using 7D s. I think someone on a 7DII thread here on CR recently said they were surprised at how many 'non gripped' Canons with pop up flash were in use at such a big event as the World Cup, so one would assume they were 7D s.

For the images that these people are producing there will be no perceivable difference between FF or crop; no one will know the difference. That situation will change in low light sports though. Will this situation change; will Canon want it to change ? This may be one reason why the new 7DII won't be 16 mp. It is one thing to offer a cheaper, credible alternate to those that cannot afford a 1Dx, but quite another to allow that cheaper alternative to compete in every sphere !

So as I have said before, the 7DII has to be significantly cheaper than a 5DIII.

The 7D is far from being a cheap camera anyway, so someone who is really 'budget minded' would be splashing out on one. However if the 7D and the 5DIII were the same price I think the 7D only be a very small percent of purchases.

 

[MichaelHodges]

I bought the 7D when it was first released and I had two impressions....One: I LOVED the ergonomics and control layout over the 5D2. Two: I was majorly disappointed in the quality of the files out of the camera....just too mushy for my taste.

Agreed. Especially the bold part. The 7D had the worst IQ of any Canon product I have used. It was especially weak in crepuscular light, which is where most big-game wildlife shooting occurs.

I'll be staying away from anything with the 7D name, no matter the amount of enticing gadgets. I found the 70D to be a far superior camera.

 

[Loswr]

Full frame serves a single niche of shallow(er) depth of field. If you're not after that, smaller sensors make more sense.

Not if you care about image quality and shoot in anything other than bright light...

And I'm not ever saying a crop with lens X is going to deliver the same IQ as a contemporary FF sensor and a 1.6X lens attached. But if it were close, I'd see people sizing up the 'half the total cost / half the total weight' argument and possibly staying in the crop universe.
...

I just think value propositions are more than just IQ and cost, and crop has an interesting duckbill platypus of a value proposition at the whacko long end of focal lengths. Some folks live and die by it.

I still maintain the real advantage to APS-C is lower cost. But for the sake of full clarity, APS-C has an advantage IF you are using the longest lens you can afford/carry AND IF you're shooting at low ISOs (less than 800-1600, give or take), AND IF you are printing at sizes larger than 16x24"/A2. If ALL of those apply to your typical shooting needs, then you should be looking forward to the 7DII. You might also be looking forward to the 7DII if you can't afford a 5DIII (or 1D X). Else, you should stop waiting for the 7DII and just buy a 5DIII.

 

[jrista]

I bought the 7D when it was first released and I had two impressions....One: I LOVED the ergonomics and control layout over the 5D2. Two: I was majorly disappointed in the quality of the files out of the camera....just too mushy for my taste.

Agreed. Especially the bold part. The 7D had the worst IQ of any Canon product I have used. It was especially weak in crepuscular light, which is where most big-game wildlife shooting occurs.

Aye, low light is definitely the 7D's weak point. I had a real tough time with the 7D and the 100-400mm lens, things beyond ISO 1600 were unusable, and 1600 itself was borderline. I will say, however, that with the EF 600mm f/4 II lens, the 7D is a remarkable performer, even in lower light. I've taken some amazing shots in extremely low light with the 7D and 600/4, such as this:

7D, 600/4, ISO 3200. Taken well after sunset, as blue hour was starting. With enough light and proper technique, even the "muddy" 7D could be made to perform quite well.

I'll be staying away from anything with the 7D name, no matter the amount of enticing gadgets. I found the 70D to be a far superior camera.

The past IQ of the original 7D doesn't mean the 7D II will have the same problems. For Canon to succeed with the 7D line, the 7D II MUST have better IQ and overall performance than the 70D. It would just be a flop if it did not. If the 7D II does end up being a superior performer to the 70D...would you still adhere to the above statement? (Just curious...personally I find it odd when one single bad experience with one single product permanently taints a person's opinion of something...to me, every product generation is a chance for a new start, a chance for a company to reinvent itself, reinvigorate itself, or if necessary redeem itself (not that Canon needs redeeming, but they do need some reinvigoration in some areas.))

 

[nc0b]

I have two APS-C bodies and two FF bodies. At least 80% of the time I grab a FF body, be it a 5Dc or 6D. Nothing wrong with my 40D or 60D, and for small birds they are a good choice. I doubt I will ever buy another crop body simply because the focal length of my lenses work better with FF. I need more pixels like a hole in the head. For me it is how my 24-105 f/4 IS and 70-200 f/4 IS & f/2.8 IS II work for general shooting. Include the Zeiss 18mm f/3.5, and I generally want the option of wider angle shots with full frame.

 

[luckydude]

I've seen some cost comments from folks. I know that this is a thread about positivity, but sub $2k, sub 6D pricing may be a tough get depending on how 'pro' this body is designed.

As I've said many times in this forum, for some people, the reach of APS-C is vital to what they do (BIF people come to mind). To those folks, crop is a really high-quality 1.6x T/C without the T/C headaches of AF responsiveness or significantly lessened IQ. To those folks, the length upside lets them not have to buy a $10k+ lens to get their shots or for those who do have that money, it lets those great lenses reach even further. To those folks, Canon could eeeeeeasily get above $2k for this new body.

Yup. I'm on record as saying I'd pay $3-4K for a 5DIII in crop factor form and no ISO/image quality penalty. I have a 7D and a 5DIII and the 7D sits unused, the 5D is that much better.

Don't get me wrong, the 7D is a capable camera, I think it gets beat up a bit too much on the forums. It's just that the 5D is better. I'm really hoping that the 7DII is like a 5DIII w/ a 1.6x TC that doesn't take a stop of light and doesn't drop the image quality. That would be worth a lot to anyone who does wildlife, especially birds.

 

[henrywang]

I bought the 7D when it was first released and I had two impressions....One: I LOVED the ergonomics and control layout over the 5D2. Two: I was majorly disappointed in the quality of the files out of the camera....just too mushy for my taste.

Agreed. Especially the bold part. The 7D had the worst IQ of any Canon product I have used. It was especially weak in crepuscular light, which is where most big-game wildlife shooting occurs.

I'll be staying away from anything with the 7D name, no matter the amount of enticing gadgets. I found the 70D to be a far superior camera.

With the supposed redesigned sensor of the new 7D, I would think the IQ would be far superior to the original, and also improved from any other crop body.

 

[ahsanford]

Yup. I'm on record as saying I'd pay $3-4K for a 5DIII in crop factor form and no ISO/image quality penalty. I have a 7D and a 5DIII and the 7D sits unused, the 5D is that much better.

HA! I knew you people were out there.

Don't get me wrong, the 7D is a capable camera, I think it gets beat up a bit too much on the forums. It's just that the 5D is better. I'm really hoping that the 7DII is like a 5DIII w/ a 1.6x TC that doesn't take a stop of light and doesn't drop the image quality. That would be worth a lot to anyone who does wildlife, especially birds.

But I think you realize the madness of Canon were they to offer it. Even if they could pull off a 'crop 5D3' with the same IQ, to do so would damage their FF body sales and the sale of their superteles. People could simply do more (on the long end) with less gear. Canon probably does not want that.

Further, I'm not sure a crop sensor can actually beat a relatively contemporary FF sensor like the 5D3 or 6D.

So the question becomes, how close does the 7D2 IQ have to be to that of the 6D or 5D3 to have you opt for that instead of FF?

- A

 

[bdunbar79]

I've seen some cost comments from folks. I know that this is a thread about positivity, but sub $2k, sub 6D pricing may be a tough get depending on how 'pro' this body is designed.

As I've said many times in this forum, for some people, the reach of APS-C is vital to what they do (BIF people come to mind). To those folks, crop is a really high-quality 1.6x T/C without the T/C headaches of AF responsiveness or significantly lessened IQ. To those folks, the length upside lets them not have to buy a $10k+ lens to get their shots or for those who do have that money, it lets those great lenses reach even further. To those folks, Canon could eeeeeeasily get above $2k for this new body.

Yup. I'm on record as saying I'd pay $3-4K for a 5DIII in crop factor form and no ISO/image quality penalty. I have a 7D and a 5DIII and the 7D sits unused, the 5D is that much better.

Don't get me wrong, the 7D is a capable camera, I think it gets beat up a bit too much on the forums. It's just that the 5D is better. I'm really hoping that the 7DII is like a 5DIII w/ a 1.6x TC that doesn't take a stop of light and doesn't drop the image quality. That would be worth a lot to anyone who does wildlife, especially birds.

Probably the only way an APS-C sensor could match the ISO quality of the 5D3 would be to double the QE and that's just not going to happen. Likely, it won't even be close. I would have liked to have seen them continue on with a 1D Mark V, APS-H sensor, but that went away.