Since Sony A7III apears, I've been waiting Canon's respounce. Someting to replace my 7D MkII. Maybe a new body with more focus points, better AF or eye tracking, tilting or variable angle touchscreen, a better sensor, and of course, more speed, with a reasonable price.
But Canon simply insists on low specification bodies with high prices.
Maybe is time to change for Sony and forget about Canon.
That's why so many full time wildlife photographers are using 7D's because it's consumer only. Who cares about EF-S lenses. The 7D is to be used with 100-400, 500, 600mm big whites. The big megapixel R will need to have 50MP+, at least 10FPS and AF-C/buffer on par with the 7D to compete.
And even then it would not compete with double the price.
With camera sales dropping, and Canon offering a growing line of mirrorless models, they are likely making the tough decision, drop the less profitable models.Although I had three 7D's, I never warmed up to the 7D MK II and went to FF instead. The ability to gather more light was the reason for me.
The crop factor makes these lens appear to be 800 and 960 mm on the 7DMII and when you are limited in how close you can approach wildlife the length of the lens is all you have to make up that distance. Depending on the pixel size of your sensor, there is only so much you can crop the picture to still have enough to print. I photograph to print, not to post on the web, and because of that I can do very little cropping to a photograph from the 7DMII because of the sensor size depending on the size of the print to be made. I have more latitude with my R which has a larger sensor.its bit odd peoples who can afford 500 or 600mm big white wants consumer price body
its bit odd peoples who can afford 500 or 600mm big white wants consumer price body
I'd agree with these points.Hi Folks.
In my opinion (and it is just my opinion and worth about tuppence) a replacement for the 7DII needs 4 things,
1, Single-point spot AF. For burrowing through the brush for little birds. Missing on 80D.
2, Deep buffer. At least as many shots as the 7DII and preferably more RAW capability.
3, Joystick. Still the quickest way to move the AF point around the viewfinder, (select joystick direct in the custom menu) and helpful for ordinary navigation.
4, Weather resistance. At least as good as the 7DII.
As for frame rate, I very rarely use 10fps, I learned very quickly that you can bury yourself in almost identical shots, I only use it if I want a particular shot, like an exhaust flame that is not easy to predict and time a shot to capture it so high frame rate, nice but not essential!
I’m not very familiar with a touch screen for AF selection but I can’t imagine trying to manoeuvre a thumb around under your nose with your eye to the viewfinder?
I basically went 7D to retain the joystick when the 60D lost it, upgraded to 7DII and hope that a 7DIII might be a next step before going R something when they are up there with a sports spec body.
If they do merge the 7D and X0D lines I hope they lift the spec of the X0D and not drop the spec of the 7DIII.
Not sure why it's worth supporting, there would be very little benefit over using a 1.4 anyway, other than maybe for video.I've been waiting to replace my 7D with a 7D III, or a suitable R body. I also have a M5. A couple of comments:
Bottom line: if Canon wants to sell a R replacement for the 7D, it better be able to handle a 7D like frame rate and handle AF at sport/wildlife focal lengths. I wouldn't mind a full frame sensor (most of my lenses are full frame anyway), with the ability to use EFS lenses.
- The original 7D can't autofocus a 70-200 f4 L IS USM or a 100-400 L IS USM with a 2x III extender, while the M5 does.
- The M5 can't handle saving JPEG + RAW at frame rates over once every two or three seconds, while the 7D merrily shoots a fast burst.
Just because I don't miss 8 fps doesn't mean I want to drop to 3 fps
My M wasn't, I agree, but the R nails focus every time. I couldn't even get my EOS-1Ds MkIII to nail focus 10% of the time with the EF 50/1.2 but I can shoot my 5yo dancing around with the RF50/1.2 wide open and get eyelash-counting sharpness on 8 out of 10 shots. I haven't really shot the R with the 600/4 but I can't imagine why it wouldn't be the same story.I'm not yet convinced that mirrorless cameras can handle the focusing required using long lenses and tiny subjects.
I logged in to reply to this.My M wasn't, I agree, but the R nails focus every time. I couldn't even get my EOS-1Ds MkIII to nail focus 10% of the time with the EF 50/1.2 but I can shoot my 5yo dancing around with the RF50/1.2 wide open and get eyelash-counting sharpness on 8 out of 10 shots. I haven't really shot the R with the 600/4 but I can't imagine why it wouldn't be the same story.
I am anal compulsive when it comes to AF, and constantly comparing shots to find which ones give the best resolution of detail of bird plumage. I find the 5DIV and 5DSR to be very consistent. My previous 7DII, although not quite as good as the more modern bodies, was still pretty good. (I also do use mirrorless and don 't find them substantially better with my lenses.) Did you AFMA your 70-200 f/4? A constant out of focus seems likely to be an AFMA problem. But, you could have had a rogue 7DII.I logged in to reply to this.
I agree. The R does nail focus and can tear through a lot of shots without buffering. I couldn't nail focus no matter the settings in the 7d mk ii. Looked sharp when the mirror flapped on a 70-200 f4 but was out of focus constantly. Sigma 50 f1.4 art - no sharp focus ever. The 200d/100d could nail focus more consistently... All be it slow