Tcapp said:
From imaging resources "the Canon 60D can shoot at 5.3 frames per second. That's down from the 50D's 6.3 frames per second, one of the first downgrades on the list."
The 60d actually has more fps than Canon specifies, esp. on raw, that and removing afma tells you how desperate they were to separate it from their 7d flagship. The real issue with fps seemed to be the digic4 cpu, thus the dual cpu design on the 7d with its iq problems - but with the updated digic5, they might have solved this. Maybe they'll settle for 7fps, or lower if there is an aps-h birding body on the horizon.
AmbientLight said:
I agree that if anything a 7D Mark II must address the 7D's problem areas without taking away any of its obvious advantages such as the 8 frames per second. I would expect better low light capabilities [...] I don't think it will make too much sense increasing the pixel count in this model, because here pixel density is already quite a factor.
You won't see a big jump in low light capability - they'll transfer the improvements from the 5d2->5d3 sensor design to crop, and you'll maybe gain 1-2 stops. But then again, marketing dictates that they'll move to 20+ mp and this might eat up one stop that would have been gained on 18mp.
Seeing how Canon acts and if they'll dump the 7d2 to release and entry-level ff or aps-h later on, the 70d will be the usual 50d-like stuff: good build quility, good video with swivel screen (they won't reserve this for the 600d), good usability and moderate customizability.
The xxd is not only and entry-level model, so if they discontinue the 60d/7d a lot of people with Canon lenses will get this one because the 5d3 is so much more expensive and ff is not for everyone. If they sell it for ~1300$-1500$ and place an upcoming aps-h/ff version at $2000+, they'll have a winner as far as sales are concerned.
