Is the EOS 7D Mark II the last in the 7D series? We’re told that it is [CR1]

[Shutterbug]

Again, I was asking specifically how many times a 1 series body had failed on the poster. Obviously they do fail, but as Don points out even more modest models fail remarkable infrequently, my point was most people here (forum and gear junkies) 'justify' a second body to themselves because of this strange 'back up' meme that in reality isn't generally justified. Yes there are trips any of us might make once, or maybe many times, in a lifetime where a spare or taking our older body makes sense, but that isn't particularly common.

How can anybody argue with that simple fact?

You wouldn't cover a wedding or an assignment with one camera body? You couldn't use that excuse that these bodies hardly fail if something were to happen during their "hopefully" once in a lifetime moment. Having the same kind of backup body is helpful and most preferred in many ways but the 7d series makes a very nice backup body to the 1dx series , shaving some weight off the kit.

 

[Kit.]

You wouldn't cover a wedding or an assignment with one camera body? You couldn't use that excuse that these bodies hardly fail if something were to happen during their "hopefully" once in a lifetime moment.

I would cover a "hopefully once in a lifetime moment" with more than one photographer. You know, photographers can fail too.

 

[privatebydesign]

You wouldn't cover a wedding or an assignment with one camera body? You couldn't use that excuse that these bodies hardly fail if something were to happen during their "hopefully" once in a lifetime moment. Having the same kind of backup body is helpful and most preferred in many ways but the 7d series makes a very nice backup body to the 1dx series , shaving some weight off the kit.

I cover weddings with two 1DX MkII's. Principally, as Don and I have already said, to negate the need for lens changes. There are not many pro wedding shooters here, so I stand by my comment which had a very narrow definition.

I have covered hundreds of assignments with one camera body, including my own wedding.

 

[Aussie shooter]

No not the Arctic or Antarctic (though I have spent many years on boats) but if I was I wouldn't rely on a single point of mission failure for anything. But my point was most peoples perceived need for a 'backup' is largely bullish!t, not every specific use case. That was why I wrote "largely".

There is one other reason i like to have a second(specifically a cheaper or older body that i have upgraded from)camera. And that is because i am willing to risk it in situations I don't like taking my more expensive body that i really can't afford to lose. Kayaking in iffy conditions or on faster water. When wading in waterways that don't provide great footing. On small moving boats with lots of spray etc. And obviously as you have stated innorder to have two bodies with different lenses. But yes. You are correct in saying that largely people don't really need a second body. I suppose that is very similar to the argument that we don't really need a second card slot either. For me it is the peace of mind that matters in having redundancy. Not so much that i think i will ever need it.

 

[Jasonmc89]

I think the introduction of the odd ball that was the 77D has something to do with this. The 80D specs are just too close to the 7D series cameras now. To me the 77D’s specs seem like a good middle point between the XXXD cameras and the 7D line.

 

[Valvebounce]

Hi PBD.
As I said, I carry two bodies for two lenses, one body is a 1DsIII.
I didn’t think I was arguing against your point, I thought it was more reinforcing your point as I also stated that I’m more likely to accidentally break a body (and that is more likely the pink squidgy one) than have one fail and that takes in to account that I’m very protective of my gear and already having a lesser body fail!


Cheers, Graham.

Seems we got a long way off topic!

Again, I was asking specifically how many times a 1 series body had failed on the poster. Obviously they do fail, but as Don points out even more modest models fail remarkable infrequently, my point was most people here (forum and gear junkies) 'justify' a second body to themselves because of this strange 'back up' meme that in reality isn't generally justified. Yes there are trips any of us might make once, or maybe many times, in a lifetime where a spare or taking our older body makes sense, but that isn't particularly common.

How can anybody argue with that simple fact?

 

[CanonOregon]

That could be bad news for an awful lot of amateur wildlife shooters out there who have been putting up with the horrid sensor in the 7D2 in the hope of something better. I'm not yet convinced that mirrorless cameras can handle the focusing required using long lenses and tiny subjects. I know my M50 isn't up to it.

I haven't found the sensor that bad but I do worry about BIF and sports without an optical view through the lens.

 

[Shutterbug]

I would cover a "hopefully once in a lifetime moment" with more than one photographer. You know, photographers can fail too.

Tell that to all the media outlets. Have them send out two photographers for each assignment when they can barely pay one. Then come back and explain to them, in the best circumstance, why you're sending in cellphone pics because your one and only body failed.

 

[Kit.]

Tell that to all the media outlets. Have them send out two photographers for each assignment when they can barely pay one. Then come back and explain to them, in the best circumstance, why you're sending in cellphone pics because your one and only body failed.

Why should I care? If I don't get the news from one outlet (because their photographer broke a camera or a leg or whatever), I will get it from another.

 

[takesome1]

I have covered hundreds of assignments with one camera body, including my own wedding.

Please tell us that you had someone shooting for you.
If not you started the marriage on the right foot.

 

[neonlight]

The crop factor and reach, the most miss represented thing about camera bodies in the last decade. Sold as trick photography using the narrower FOV on the smaller sensor. Magically it could turn your 100mm lens to a 140mm.

The lengthy heated debates over the higher pixel density of the crop cameras have all but disappeared.

You are incorrect on one thing you said. You can change pixel density on the fly. Just carry a second body.

The crop factor and reach, the most misrepresented thing about camera bodies in the last decade-
Yes, there are still some pros out there who believe that the lens is longer when stuck onto an APSC body. Sad.

The lengthy heated debates over the higher pixel density of the crop cameras have all but disappeared-
This was a potential argument in favour of the crop factor, since if you had greater resolution on the sensor, that would give an effective increase in resolution. The reason it has faded is that the factor was not 1.6 anyway, but with higher MP FF bodies, is now no longer valid.

 

[Aussie shooter]

The crop factor and reach, the most misrepresented thing about camera bodies in the last decade-
Yes, there are still some pros out there who believe that the lens is longer when stuck onto an APSC body. Sad.

The lengthy heated debates over the higher pixel density of the crop cameras have all but disappeared-
This was a potential argument in favour of the crop factor, since if you had greater resolution on the sensor, that would give an effective increase in resolution. The reason it has faded is that the factor was not 1.6 anyway, but with higher MP FF bodies, is now no longer valid.

It is if they produce a 32mp apsc sensor but not an equivalent pixel density FF sensor.

 

[neonlight]

It is if they produce a 32mp apsc sensor but not an equivalent pixel density FF sensor.

True, but I worry about noise if the pixels are small. What I wanted in a 7D3 is sharper images (no AA, or at least less strong, filter) and (even) better high ISO, and more importantly, more f/8 AF points. The build quality and features of the 7D2 are great, I would not like to see these disappear into a 90D-look-alike. A tilty-flippy on the other hand is useful on occasions, lugging around an angle finder just adds weight most of the time, and is not convenient for over the head shots.

I can't see Canon actually throwing away the 7D3 upgrade to support their 7D2 users, and it is not clear what a 90D would do better than an 80D unless it incorporated the 7D3 features, which might be one option, though not liked much I suspect by all 7D2 users. An R body instead of 7D3 makes some sort of sense, but whether the EVF will be as good as OVF for 10FPS or more remains to be seen. Now if they came out with an inorganic LED display instead of OLED, I could believe it would be fast enough for the most demanding FPS users.

 

[Don Haines]

True, but I worry about noise if the pixels are small. What I wanted in a 7D3 is sharper images (no AA, or at least less strong, filter) and (even) better high ISO, and more importantly, more f/8 AF points. The build quality and features of the 7D2 are great, I would not like to see these disappear into a 90D-look-alike. A tilty-flippy on the other hand is useful on occasions, lugging around an angle finder just adds weight most of the time, and is not convenient for over the head shots.

I can't see Canon actually throwing away the 7D3 upgrade to support their 7D2 users, and it is not clear what a 90D would do better than an 80D unless it incorporated the 7D3 features, which might be one option, though not liked much I suspect by all 7D2 users. An R body instead of 7D3 makes some sort of sense, but whether the EVF will be as good as OVF for 10FPS or more remains to be seen. Now if they came out with an inorganic LED display instead of OLED, I could believe it would be fast enough for the most demanding FPS users.

I can see an R version of the 7D3, but this would have to be about the same size body as a 7D3, with a larger battery than the R and at least dual ( or quad) Digic8 to handle the increased processing load. The problem is, once you have gone that far in your design, why not go a tiny bit further and make it FF?

Time will tell.

 

[koenkooi]

I can see an R version of the 7D3, but this would have to be about the same size body as a 7D3, with a larger battery than the R and at least dual ( or quad) Digic8 to handle the increased processing load. The problem is, once you have gone that far in your design, why not go a tiny bit further and make it FF?

With 'larger battery', do you mean 'updated LP-E6N, backwards compatible' or 'huge like LP-E4N'?

 

[Mt Spokane Photography]

I can see an R version of the 7D3, but this would have to be about the same size body as a 7D3, with a larger battery than the R and at least dual ( or quad) Digic8 to handle the increased processing load. The problem is, once you have gone that far in your design, why not go a tiny bit further and make it FF?

Time will tell.

There exists a larger battery, as used in the 1 series cameras, I don't know if they could fit it into a 7D MK II sized body but maybe. Mirrorless bodies get thinner, so you have to compact everything into a smaller volume, and then heat dissapation rears its ugly head. If you use more power in a smaller space, it really gets nasty. And then, there is 4K high frame rate video, which uses even more power. They have some difficult issues to deal with.

 

[neuroanatomist]

There exists a larger battery, as used in the 1 series cameras, I don't know if they could fit it into a 7D MK II sized body but maybe. Mirrorless bodies get thinner, so you have to compact everything into a smaller volume, and then heat dissapation rears its ugly head. If you use more power in a smaller space, it really gets nasty. And then, there is 4K high frame rate video, which uses even more power. They have some difficult issues to deal with.

I don't see them moving to anything larger than the LP-E6 type battery for a MILC short of a 1-series MILC (if/when that happens). They went the other way for the RP.

 

[Aussie shooter]

True, but I worry about noise if the pixels are small. What I wanted in a 7D3 is sharper images (no AA, or at least less strong, filter) and (even) better high ISO, and more importantly, more f/8 AF points. The build quality and features of the 7D2 are great, I would not like to see these disappear into a 90D-look-alike. A tilty-flippy on the other hand is useful on occasions, lugging around an angle finder just adds weight most of the time, and is not convenient for over the head shots.

I can't see Canon actually throwing away the 7D3 upgrade to support their 7D2 users, and it is not clear what a 90D would do better than an 80D unless it incorporated the 7D3 features, which might be one option, though not liked much I suspect by all 7D2 users. An R body instead of 7D3 makes some sort of sense, but whether the EVF will be as good as OVF for 10FPS or more remains to be seen. Now if they came out with an inorganic LED display instead of OLED, I could believe it would be fast enough for the most demanding FPS users.

Totally agree. I would most likely buy a 7d3 to upgrade my mk2 but i don't feel the ned to go to 30plus mp. No aa filter and a slight bump in MP would be fine. It is the little things i want. Spot metering linked to af point, f8 af across the board better focusing algorithms etc. They are what would make the difference. Not Mp.

 

[Don Haines]

With 'larger battery', do you mean 'updated LP-E6N, backwards compatible' or 'huge like LP-E4N'?

My suspicion is it would be yet another camera using the LP-E6N. One could make a larger battery, but there is an insane amount of spare LP-E6 (and N) batteries out there. I can’t see it being a smaller battery like with the RP

 

[haggie]

Totally agree. I would most likely buy a 7d3 to upgrade my mk2 but i don't feel the ned to go to 30plus mp. No aa filter and a slight bump in MP would be fine. It is the little things i want. Spot metering linked to af point, f8 af across the board better focusing algorithms etc. They are what would make the difference. Not Mp.

I agree with all of the above.

But come on, Canon: a noticable increase in Dynamic Range would also be welcome.
This is not asking for the impossible: It should be doable for the company that boasts so many patents. And also considering the age of the 7D MkII and the improvements that other manufacturers have realised since then.

However, I am more and more afraid that Canon might just not be interested in upgrading the 7D MkII any more.

If Canon wants to get a Full Frame Mirrorless action Camera (1DX) out within a few years, then a mirrorless successor for the 7D Mk II would be a perfect area of experimentation for suh an action camera.
The user base of the 7D MkII , with their on-average higher skill level, could give Canon lots of invaluable feedback on the technology its features and interface.
For sure, the user base of the 7D Mk II will probably be more forgiving for smaller and larger errors in such a new Canon 'mirrorless action camera' than the user base of the full-frame 1DX user base will be. Canon will not want to experiment with the latter (often professional) users.