unfocused said:
Either option would make a great kit. It will be interesting to see how this goes.
Upvote
0
More EOS 7D Replacement Buzz Going Around [CR2]
- Thread starter Canon Rumors
- Start date
Either option would make a great kit. It will be interesting to see how this goes.
Richard8971 said:
Really, this is just a pure guess, so please don't read into it anymore than that. But if I had to bet, I'd still say the 1D4 ends up better than the 7D2. I just think the 7D2 will be an APS-C sensor with a max useable ISO of maybe 1600. Guessing again, but I'm also assuming the AF system in the 1D4 will still be superior, there will be no spot metering for active AF point in the 7D2, no faux M mode (auto ISO in M mode with limits set), and there certainly will not be a flash sync speed of 1/300s. Not to mention shutter durability and camera build.
The 1D4 really for me, is a cropped sensor 1Dx. It performs less at higher ISO's, but I'm telling you, with shots I did not have to raise in post, at ISO 6400, were totally useable. Where I see the 1Dx beating that is that you can shoot at ISO 6400 and still raise quite a bit in post and yes the metering and AF beat it off the field. But a 7D2 will not likely touch any of that.
Again though, I could be wrong. I actually hope I'm wrong just because of how great I think the 1D4 really is.
Upvote
0
I could still live with one of each(CF/SD). A CF failed for the first tyme in a decade, via a 7D. Butt, the 5DIII/7D combo saved the day. Fortunately, as an olde person, I retained good legal beagles, and am starting to get checkz from deadbeat clients for whom I did work in Y1 and Y2k. Gotta see the specs, but my guess is that I am going to be spending money(olde $).
Upvote
0
CFast card is still very recent, and after its emergence were not pro DSLR cameras released, but other film companies already manufacture compatible devices.dgatwood said:
Moreover, XQD cards are already on the market for 2 years and so far only Sony and Nikon have compatible devices. Sony has a tradition of making your own media, incompatible with other manufacturers (purposely), and abandoning its users after a few years, and I never buy a XQD card.
Upvote
0
johnhenry said:
No. I'm buying this rumor as it seems to be coinciding with lack of 7D stock at the various resellers. This is a CR2.5 in my book -- we may not have dates and specifics, but I'd say it will be released by year end with some confidence.
Also, jumping ship out of frustration waiting for a new model is a great windup for some folks but very, very few people actually do it. An average 7D user today likely has at least three lenses (some have many more) and hopping over to Nikon would represent selling all their stuff at 60-70% value and rebuying it with the other brand. Swapping in light of that says such a person is an enthusiast who must have the latest thing even at great cost, and that's a bit of a rarity.
I think to get large numbers of pros or enthusiasts (with a lot of present dollars committed) to switch is very, very difficult. Those folks typically only bail if:
- Canon's products or services take a fundamental nose dive. Terrible recalls, poor quality, lengthy service, etc.
- The competition releases exactly what you were looking for and your company will not do this. A poor example might be the D800's release, but that didn't really sink Canon so much as build up demand for a similar offering.
- The competition introduces a game changing innovation for what you shoot and you don't have to completely cross over to use it. An example would be the Sony A7 line, possibly adapted for use with Canon glass or for landscape work. You don't have to sell all your gear to give it a real go, so some people have tried it.
- I can't speak for a photography business/studio, but I'd imagine larger scale buyers might be given healthy incentives to switch brands to 'land' them as future customers.
In light of that, people don't bounce around that much. So Canon would much rather take baby steps, lovingly dial-in the 7D2, and not release it until it's 100% ready. And as someone who has enjoyed a completely problem-free 5D3, I agree with that approach completely. The wait is usually worth it.
- A
Upvote
0
D
Deleted member 7828
Guest
The 7D is a great camera. BUT...its high ISO performance leaves a lot to be desired. As I find myself at dimly lit sporting events with it, I'd appreciate an upgrade here...I was hoping a 7D2 would be here by Sept but that's obviously not going to happen. I've been starting to investigate the 1D4 (sounds like it may only be a marginal improvement though).
Upvote
0
ajfotofilmagem said:
Recent by human standards, perhaps, but as standards go, CFast is a dinosaur. The SDHC/SDXC UHS-I standard moved from specification to DSLR adoption in barely two years, and that was a couple of years ago. By contrast, the CFast standard was released more than six years ago (two years before UHS-I) and still hasn't been adopted in much of anything yet. By consumer electronics standards, that's generally considered a failure to launch.
Also, it seems to be the general consensus of the computer industry that the use of SATA for flash is entirely the wrong design from a performance perspective, and I'd expect the camera industry to follow their lead in the matter. With CFast, you're unnecessarily converting data from a PCIe bus to SATA and back to a raw address bus for no good reason. That's a lot of overhead for no real benefit. Unlike external flash-based disk drives, CFast doesn't try to maintain backwards compatibility with existing ATA-based CF cards or readers, so there's no real advantage to using SATA over PCIe-attached flash (e.g. XQD), and the latter is a lot simpler and is likely to have fewer performance bottlenecks.
From what I've read, XQD adoption is already ahead of CFast despite being announced about three years later, though to be fair, adoption of either standard qualifies as glacial by consumer electronics standards, primarily because there's little need for that much speed yet, at least for stills.
We might eventually see XQD in a still camera, but I'd be surprised if CFast doesn't wither on the vine; there might be a couple of years worth of viability in the high-end video arena before XQD thoroughly stomps it into the ground, but that's probably the extent of its future.
ajfotofilmagem said:
XQD is an official standard from the CompactFlash Association, so for once Sony isn't being (too) evil.
To the extent that Canon is paying lip service to supporting CFast, they're seriously backing the wrong horse. I'm pretty sure that literally nobody else in the entire electronics industry other than SanDisk, Canon, Phase One, and Arri think that SATA has any future whatsoever in the world of flash storage.
Upvote
0
ahsanford said:
There's one situation where that's not true, though. Depending on the mix of full-frame and EF-S lenses that you own, some 7D users who decide to upgrade to full-frame might end up selling several of their lenses anyway, not to mention upgrading to lenses with longer focal lengths to make up for the lack of the 1.6x crop factor.
Upvote
0
Entirely fair. Current EF-S mount users choosing between a 6D/5D3 or waiting for a 7D2 absolutely are out there. But I don't really see that as a Nikon conversion risk. I see that as a one-time ripping off of the EF-S band-aid that you have to do to migrate to FF regardless of what company's products you use.dgatwood said:
I see that less as a "Because I am mad at waiting for Canon" and more of a "Movin' on up (movin' on up) to deeeeluxe apartment in the sky-hiiiiiiigh". :
But yes, you are right. Leaving crop altogether costs money, well above the cost of the body itself. This burden varies depending on what you shoot:
- Best case: You just have a standard EF-S zoom, like an 18-55 or 18-135 --> You go and get a 'pried-from-a-kit' 24-105L for $750ish or a 28-135 for $475ish. Ouch, but small change compared to a FF rig.
([Sigh] "Yeah, there's that... But it's worth it.")
- Slightly painful case: You have a standard EF-S zoom and an ultrawide --> Same as above, but now you need a 17-40L for $800ish as well. Painful. But doable.
([Deep breaths] "I can do this... I'll just get that 17-40L next year.")
- Really painful case: You have have a standard EF-S zoom, an ultrawide and a 55-250 and enjoy shooting around 250 on the crop --> Same as above, but now you need a 100-400L as well. Oof.
(The value proposition is starting to take on water rapidly...)
- You-are-totally-screwed case: You are a seasoned vet who shoots a 300 or higher prime on your 7D for wildlife or birding. You have the comically painful choice of settling for the downsides of T/Cs, investing in $10K superteles, or simply not ever making the jump to FF because the glass will bankrupt you for what you shoot. That's a buckler.
(Hint to Canon: You kind of own these people. The 7D2 could be $4k and these people might still the first in line for pre-orders, b/c $4k is still less than Supertele prices. Check and mate.)
Thank goodness I had a succession plan when I bought my third and fourth lenses. I opted for EF glass long before I made the move to FF and my only headache was doing without a 16-24mm FL option after I migrated (sold the EF-S 10-22 but the 24-70 I owned covered the wide end on FF pretty well).
- A
Upvote
0
D
Deleted member 7828
Guest
ahsanford said:Entirely fair. Current EF-S mount users choosing between a 6D/5D3 or waiting for a 7D2 absolutely are out there. But I don't really see that as a Nikon conversion risk. I see that as a one-time ripping off of the EF-S band-aid that you have to do to migrate to FF regardless of what company's products you use.dgatwood said:
I see that less as a "Because I am mad at waiting for Canon" and more of a "Movin' on up (movin' on up) to deeeeluxe apartment in the sky-hiiiiiiigh". :
But yes, you are right. Leaving crop altogether costs money, well above the cost of the body itself. This burden varies depending on what you shoot:
- Best case: You just have a standard EF-S zoom, like an 18-55 or 18-135 --> You go and get a 'pried-from-a-kit' 24-105L for $750ish or a 28-135 for $475ish. Ouch, but small change compared to a FF rig.
([Sigh] "Yeah, there's that... But it's worth it.")
- Slightly painful case: You have a standard EF-S zoom and an ultrawide --> Same as above, but now you need a 17-40L for $800ish as well. Painful. But doable.
([Deep breaths] "I can do this... I'll just get that 17-40L next year.")
- Really painful case: You have have a standard EF-S zoom, an ultrawide and a 55-250 and enjoy shooting around 250 on the crop --> Same as above, but now you need a 100-400L as well. Oof.
(The value proposition is starting to take on water rapidly...)
- You-are-totally-screwed case: You are a seasoned vet who shoots a 300 or higher prime on your 7D for wildlife or birding. You have the comically painful choice of settling for the downsides of T/Cs, investing in $10K superteles, or simply not ever making the jump to FF because the glass will bankrupt you for what you shoot. That's a buckler.
(Hint to Canon: You kind of own these people. The 7D2 could be $4k and these people might still the first in line for pre-orders, b/c $4k is still less than Supertele prices. Check and mate.)
Thank goodness I had a succession plan when I bought my third and fourth lenses. I opted for EF glass long before I made the move to FF and my only headache was doing without a 16-24mm FL option after I migrated (sold the EF-S 10-22 but the 24-70 I owned covered the wide end on FF pretty well).
- A
Or this case: you use a 1.6x with a 70-200 2.8 in low-light venues...there is no real FF equivalent that gives you that kind of reach while remaining fast. At least there isn't one that's really practical...
Upvote
0
bdunbar79 said:
These are my thoughts exactly which would explain why the pricing on the 1D4 has remained strong. I have talked to several people and they said that if I ever got my hands on a 1D4 I would never look back again at the 7D, unless it was a backup.
I really want the 1D4, it's reasonably priced for its capabilities and brute speed and the image quality if fantastic, much better than the 7D.
Unless the 7D2 is just ONE hell of a camera, I am still looking at getting a 1D4. But my gut feeling is that the 7D will just be quietly discontinued allowing the 70D to take its place just like the 6D quietly replaced the 5D2... think about it...
The 70D is about to the 7D what the 6D is to the 5D2, it would go along with Canon's current way of thinking. The 5D2 is better than the 6D in certain things and visa-versa, same with the 70D. Some things are better than the 7D and some are not. Again the LACK of any REAL information THIS late to an announcement date is very strange. I could be wrong, but we will just have to wait and see.
D
Upvote
0
Richard8971 said:
It seems odd that Canon would drop the 60D from CPS and not include the 70D if they were planning to drop the 7D. My gut says that they won't do this, even though they probably should (because IMO they're spreading themselves a bit thin in terms of the number of actively manufactured camera models).
Richard8971 said:
Except for the maximum shutter speed (1/4000 vs. 1/8000), I thought the 6D was consistently ahead of the 5Dmk2. Did I miss some others?
Upvote
0
It'll probably be a 14-40 f/2.8 IS with amazing IQ for $1500, just to tick off all of us 16-35 f/4 IS pre-orderersCanon Rumors said:
Upvote
0
ahsanford said:Entirely fair. Current EF-S mount users choosing between a 6D/5D3 or waiting for a 7D2 absolutely are out there. But I don't really see that as a Nikon conversion risk. I see that as a one-time ripping off of the EF-S band-aid that you have to do to migrate to FF regardless of what company's products you use.dgatwood said:
I see that less as a "Because I am mad at waiting for Canon" and more of a "Movin' on up (movin' on up) to deeeeluxe apartment in the sky-hiiiiiiigh". :
But yes, you are right. Leaving crop altogether costs money, well above the cost of the body itself. This burden varies depending on what you shoot:
- Best case: You just have a standard EF-S zoom, like an 18-55 or 18-135 --> You go and get a 'pried-from-a-kit' 24-105L for $750ish or a 28-135 for $475ish. Ouch, but small change compared to a FF rig.
([Sigh] "Yeah, there's that... But it's worth it.")
- Slightly painful case: You have a standard EF-S zoom and an ultrawide --> Same as above, but now you need a 17-40L for $800ish as well. Painful. But doable.
([Deep breaths] "I can do this... I'll just get that 17-40L next year.")
- Really painful case: You have have a standard EF-S zoom, an ultrawide and a 55-250 and enjoy shooting around 250 on the crop --> Same as above, but now you need a 100-400L as well. Oof.
(The value proposition is starting to take on water rapidly...)
- You-are-totally-screwed case: You are a seasoned vet who shoots a 300 or higher prime on your 7D for wildlife or birding. You have the comically painful choice of settling for the downsides of T/Cs, investing in $10K superteles, or simply not ever making the jump to FF because the glass will bankrupt you for what you shoot. That's a buckler.
(Hint to Canon: You kind of own these people. The 7D2 could be $4k and these people might still the first in line for pre-orders, b/c $4k is still less than Supertele prices. Check and mate.)
Thank goodness I had a succession plan when I bought my third and fourth lenses. I opted for EF glass long before I made the move to FF and my only headache was doing without a 16-24mm FL option after I migrated (sold the EF-S 10-22 but the 24-70 I owned covered the wide end on FF pretty well).
- A
EF-S lenses are mass market low cost products. People who are serious about their hobby probably have mid to high end EF glass anyway even if they use a crop sensor camera, so moving to full frame is not really an impediment. The fact that the 7D2 is apparently coming with an EF-S kit lens suggests to me that the camera itself is going to positioned somewhat lower the 5D camera in its target market, and not close to the 1D as some think. The next generation technology step up from the 70D is more likely. It will probably have a somewhat upgraded sensor, advanced video features, and introduce the next generation of DIGIC processors (so, DIGIC7) as its prime selling points.
The logical market space for the camera to occupy is in competition with Panasonic and Sony's video centric advanced still camera products, since Canon does not currently have much in that market other than the 70D, which trails a distant third place behind the other two companies products. Integrated imaging solutions is where the consumer market is heading at the moment, and right now Canon is way behind the curve on that front. Perhaps the 7D2 will be their first serious attempt to compete effectively in the new paradigm. At least one hopes so, or they will go the way of the Nikon Dodo.
But I guess we will see in a few months what they intend to do.
Upvote
0
Act444 said:
For poor lighting, full-frame cameras are a big win. There's only so much they can do to improve the high-ISO performance on a crop body. Moving away from a Bayer filter (e.g. Panasonic's new diffraction-based design) might get you a factor of 1.5–2. Using a back-illuminated sensor will probably buy you another few percent. Beyond that point, you're getting pretty close to successfully detecting every photon that hits the sensor, and it is almost certainly impossible to exceed 100% efficiency.
So basically from there, your only hope of getting better SNR without DNR involves doing something insane like moving to a fully buffered sensor, taking multiple shots, and doing motion-compensated HDR so that you can take a longer effective exposure without smearing.
Upvote
0
Oh god that would be a dream come true!mackguyver said:It'll probably be a 14-40 f/2.8 IS with amazing IQ for $1500, just to tick off all of us 16-35 f/4 IS pre-orderersCanon Rumors said:
Upvote
0
Similar threads
