No 7D Mark II? [CR1]

[fengshui]

I'd not be surprised if they killed the 7D. I've always wondered at the purpose of that camera. Upgrading the XXD's to take it's place and releasing a faster focusing, fast shooting 5D and supplementing with a slower high MP one makes sense.

Also, the corp-factor argument for extra reach is getting tired, even Canon showed us this with the 1D X. Sports and wildlife shooters need reach, but plenty of them use full frame Nikons. If you are a pro that needs super reach you get the lens for it.

go for it. Kill the 7D.

The point of the 7D is to provide an upgrade path for users with an investment in EF-S lenses, and for wildlife/sports shooters who want extra reach and speed on EF series lenses.

 

[AUGS]

One thing I've never really understood, and maybe someone like neuro can inform me, but why does the Canon naming/numbering seem discontinuous and random. By that I mean we have the flagship in the 1D, and pro-bodies and generally accepted next level down being the 5D, followed by current 7D (ignoring all mark versions).
So why is the next Series "leader" the 60D and not the 10D (which is no longer available)?

Is this rumour, and the rumoured 5D split into 2 bodies, the change to their naming paradigm? Could we see the rumoured 5D split become 5Dx (22MP, 1D type AF, etc) and 7Dx (full-frame big MP based on existing 7D sensor scaled up, 7D type AF spec, higher fps - hence no 7D2 - and as seen in Kenya which looked very 7D-esque), with the successor to the 7D becoming the 10Dx and we see a gradual naming convention trickle down over time? The 10Dx becomes the APS-C flagship with current 7D type features including the AF and build standard?

Just a thought based on a huge number of rumours and postings of late.

If Canon were to stick to their naming convention the followup 7D would be the MK II. Only the XXD, XXXD etc change their model number. PRobably due to the 1D and 5D being very strong brands, not so sure about 7D though, so... Maybe it'll be an 8 or 9 or 10?

And if you think Canons naming is weird look at Nikons.

True, I can see that. No reason for the new high MP to be called 7Dx, I was just alluding to the fact that the high MP body may take many "features" from the existing 7D and the rumour it may not be succeeded. It could be 6Dx (or any other single digit number) and allow the 7D to co-exist until its successor is unveiled.

For the same reasons of strong branding of 1D and 5D, I'm surprised 10D isn't highly coveted.

I do know Nikons naming is very confusing. Canon has at least some logic behind it.

 

[dtaylor]

What you're asking for is a cheap 1D with an APS-C sensor, not a 7D. I want a 1D that makes coffee as well. Probably not going to happen.

The 7D is already a "cheap 1D with an APS-C sensor." But if they reposition it in the xxD line I doubt it will get some of the emerging pro features. I don't care what they call it as long as it has the specs I want. And I want a pro level APS-C body.

 

[Gcon]

If your 7D ego has just been bruised then I suggest you get yourself a full frame camera and start pixel peeping and see the "full frame light" my friend

Excuse me? I should stop taking pictures and start pixel peeping to justify the weight and the cost of full frame?

You don't like your 7D, fine. I shooted with a 5DII, I'd never buy one, and even if I had unlimited money, I'd usually prefer to lug around a 7D+17-55+Tokina 11-16 than a 1DX+24-70 Mk II+16-35. (Not being a dentist, I'd rather save the money to replace my car when it dies).

Next time you see a press conference on TV, look at the cameras behind Canon lenses: they'll be mostly X0D, a bunch of 7D and some 1D (if any).

The 7D is a great camera for news/reportage:- light, rugged, relatively cheap, and news copy doesn't need that high a quality images for web pages and black and white newspaper print. It's not archival material Smaller file sizes too. Most of those shots will be bright daylight shots where IQ isn't really an issue. Saves the news desk on cost both up front and insurance too - and they always look to save money.

Pixel peeping - I'm not sure how you're going to pixel peep if you "stop taking images" - you generally need an image first in order to peep it. By pixel peeping I should clarify I don't mean just head-butting the monitor and 1:1 zoom of the image. The noise/color differences of the inferiority of the 7D is well noticeable to me at "normal viewing distances". I'll scan through my photos quickly in Lightroom and hit an image and think "ahh what's not right about that one?" and then check EXIF and then go... ah!! another 7D image. True story. I'm not biased - just calling it how I've seen it.

If you're not prepared to carry the weight of a full frame for better image quality, then don't even think about medium format! I hope your car holds in there buddy.

Excuse me? I should stop taking pictures and start pixel peeping to justify the weight and the cost of full frame?

Ignore him - another bad workman, blaming his tools.

It always creases me up when FF zealots like him say things like that as if we haven't tested these cameras, and the files that come off them, to the nth degree.

And the fact that he's suggesting pixel peeping (as opposed to IQ comparison at the image level, the only place where it matters) tells you everything you need to know about his understanding.

Thanks for the entertainment Keith. You can address me directly in forums if you like instead of the third person. I agree with you on many things. I am a "full frame zealot" from years of experience with both crops and full frame cameras. For what I shoot - it gives me the quality I need. I also a agree that I do blame my tools if I've used the wrong one for the job. The 7D has let me down in low-light high-ISO situations. Switching to the 5D in the same situations has saved the shoot.

Speaking of what I shoot, it's low-light landscapes, portraits and weddings. Stuff that is ideally suited to full frame for the low noise, dynamic range, colour and clarity. It suits me - might not suit you. It gives my clients the quality they deserve. As for "bad workman" - a bad workman is someone doesn't know the limitations of their tools. A good workman will use the best tools for the job. I won't embarrass you by listing my achievements both commercial and otherwise...no I won't start - it's not about me - it's about the cameras

The 7D is good for the aforementioned news reportage, and is great for the bird shooters and aircraft shooters out there, when shooting in good light. Saves having to fork out for a much bigger and more expensive lens. If anyone suggests that the 7D has the image quality of the full frame (and I'm not sure that you are but if you are....) then you're sadly mistaken. I suggest you get to the eye doctor ASAP, or upgrade your monitor... or both!

Have fun.... don't get your ego too bruised here. Go outside and take a walk in the sunshine... don't take it to heart that the 7D line might get axed hehe. Canon still loves you! They will love you even more if you trade up to full frame and then buy a swag of L lenses

 

[dtaylor]

Also, the corp-factor argument for extra reach is getting tired, even Canon showed us this with the 1D X. Sports and wildlife shooters need reach, but plenty of them use full frame Nikons. If you are a pro that needs super reach you get the lens for it.

And if you don't have the $5-15k required for the lenses you need but Nikon offers a pro level crop body...you go to Nikon? Some how I don't think that's a winning strategy for Canon since the number of people on a budget who want a pro level crop camera exceed the number of pros who can shoot FF sports cameras with super expensive telephotos.

 

[Herr_Synnberg]

Hello all,

I'm a long term reader and decided to chip in for the first time in this topic. My personal feeling is that the 60D was a marketing blunder from Canon. They totally misread Nikon's intentions with the upgrade to the D90 and "Dumbed down" the 50D successor into D90 territory. Nikon on the other hand scaled up the D7000 into 50D territory.

I can understand Canon's intentions to elevate the 60D successor back in specs to be a competitor to the D7000, owing to the strong sales of the latter, but to kill off the 7D for that would be absolutely stupid. Stupid, because Canon products don't exist in a vaccuum, but compete with offerings from other manufacturers. The 7D was conceived as a competitor to the much respected D300 and it did that job very well. As many have mentioned in this thread, the "Budget action shooter" prefers exactly this kind of camera and don't really intend to upgrade to FF anytime soon. The D400 would be taking this category further and the Sony A77 is no slouch either. To completely ignore this segment segment would be Canon's folly.

...and no, a "Specced up" 5D won't be an answer as well. There's no way Canon can price that at D400/ A77 levels. At best, this body would live alongside the 7D equivalent, much like how the D700 and D300 did. They are bought by very different types of photographers with only minor overlap between them.

 

[dtaylor]

Pixel peeping - I'm not sure how you're going to pixel peep if you "stop taking images" - you generally need an image first in order to peep it. By pixel peeping I should clarify I don't mean just head-butting the monitor and 1:1 zoom of the image. The noise/color differences of the inferiority of the 7D is well noticeable to me at "normal viewing distances". I'll scan through my photos quickly in Lightroom and hit an image and think "ahh what's not right about that one?" and then check EXIF and then go... ah!! another 7D image. True story. I'm not biased - just calling it how I've seen it.

If other people are producing prints and even 100% crops that cannot be discerned from 5D2 shots, then perhaps you are doing something wrong.

I won't embarrass you by listing my achievements both commercial and otherwise...no I won't start - it's not about me - it's about the cameras

No one cares. Can you pass a double blind test and tell us, with 100% accuracy, which prints or crops come from which camera when both are shot/processed to maximum potential? That's all that matters.

If anyone suggests that the 7D has the image quality of the full frame (and I'm not sure that you are but if you are....) then you're sadly mistaken. I suggest you get to the eye doctor ASAP, or upgrade your monitor... or both!

For properly processed, low to mid ISO shots there are no significant differences. Yes, there is a difference out of camera with neutral settings, but nobody I know shoots or prints that way.

The 5D2 pulls ahead at high ISO, though the 7D does quite well through 3200 for normal print sizes. Oh yeah, I just had my yearly eye exam (20/10).

They will love you even more if you trade up to full frame and then buy a swag of L lenses

Rumors are rumors and this 7D rumor is probably rubbish. But...if Canon fails to answer the D800 and fails to continue their pro crop body, Nikon will eventually get my money. Will Canon still love me then?

Canon needs a high MP FF body and a fast, professional level, sports orientated crop body. I hope they realize that.

 

[D.Sim]

Cropping will never replace framing the image well in the first place.

Well, yes and no, right? The D800 has a DX Mode that turns it into a crop-sensor camera. The only reason it can do this is because it has a huge number to start out with and it pre-crops it for you down to a 16MP camera. I don't know how this looks in the viewfinder or how it works in practice. It will be interesting.

Think of all the arguments that would just vanish if they came out with an über 5D that had enough MPs to be able to put it into an 16MP crop mode. Also, if you put an EF-S lens on it, it automatically senses it and puts the camera into crop mode.

Yeah, this is pretty much what the D800 does. Cool, right?

Then breaks the mirror/lens? The main reason you can't put a EF-S lens onto a FF/EF Only camera isn't that Canon don't want you "cropping down" in camera, its more that the EF-S lenses work by getting closer to the sensor - hence the S - "Short back focus" if i remember correctly. IE, once the lens is on, its a lot closer to the sensor AND mirror, and with the bigger sensored/mirrored cameras, that means theres a massive chance of it making contact.

Its not so much Canon don't want to, its more of a design issue, where the EF-S lenses were designed that way, in order to reduce cost & end user price

 

[Herr_Synnberg]

Cropping will never replace framing the image well in the first place.

Well, yes and no, right? The D800 has a DX Mode that turns it into a crop-sensor camera. The only reason it can do this is because it has a huge number to start out with and it pre-crops it for you down to a 16MP camera. I don't know how this looks in the viewfinder or how it works in practice. It will be interesting.

Think of all the arguments that would just vanish if they came out with an über 5D that had enough MPs to be able to put it into an 16MP crop mode. Also, if you put an EF-S lens on it, it automatically senses it and puts the camera into crop mode.

Yeah, this is pretty much what the D800 does. Cool, right?

Then breaks the mirror/lens? The main reason you can't put a EF-S lens onto a FF/EF Only camera isn't that Canon don't want you "cropping down" in camera, its more that the EF-S lenses work by getting closer to the sensor - hence the S - "Short back focus" if i remember correctly. IE, once the lens is on, its a lot closer to the sensor AND mirror, and with the bigger sensored/mirrored cameras, that means theres a massive chance of it making contact.

Its not so much Canon don't want to, its more of a design issue, where the EF-S lenses were designed that way, in order to reduce cost & end user price

This, and also because Nikon owns patents that related to offering in-camera crop modes, if I'm not mistaken.

 

[AUGS]

Cropping will never replace framing the image well in the first place.

Well, yes and no, right? The D800 has a DX Mode that turns it into a crop-sensor camera. The only reason it can do this is because it has a huge number to start out with and it pre-crops it for you down to a 16MP camera. I don't know how this looks in the viewfinder or how it works in practice. It will be interesting.

Think of all the arguments that would just vanish if they came out with an über 5D that had enough MPs to be able to put it into an 16MP crop mode. Also, if you put an EF-S lens on it, it automatically senses it and puts the camera into crop mode.

Yeah, this is pretty much what the D800 does. Cool, right?

Then breaks the mirror/lens? The main reason you can't put a EF-S lens onto a FF/EF Only camera isn't that Canon don't want you "cropping down" in camera, its more that the EF-S lenses work by getting closer to the sensor - hence the S - "Short back focus" if i remember correctly. IE, once the lens is on, its a lot closer to the sensor AND mirror, and with the bigger sensored/mirrored cameras, that means theres a massive chance of it making contact.

Its not so much Canon don't want to, its more of a design issue, where the EF-S lenses were designed that way, in order to reduce cost & end user price

EF-S is a poka-yoke feature. Poka-yoke is a Japanese term that means "fail-safing" or "mistake-proofing". The EF-S lens aren't designed for the full-frame cameras due to the shorter distance between the back of the lens and the sensor, and have been designed to mistake-proof by not allowing the lens to engage where not specifically design to do so.

 

[krjc]

I'm looking to move up to full frame in the next nine months but at the same time I want an APS-C sensor and the market for such a camera (semi-pro) is not going away. I would be willing to upgrade to a 7DII with an incremental improvement in IQ, DR and high ISO performance.

 

[Meh]

Then breaks the mirror/lens? The main reason you can't put a EF-S lens onto a FF/EF Only camera isn't that Canon don't want you "cropping down" in camera, its more that the EF-S lenses work by getting closer to the sensor - hence the S - "Short back focus" if i remember correctly. IE, once the lens is on, its a lot closer to the sensor AND mirror, and with the bigger sensored/mirrored cameras, that means theres a massive chance of it making contact.

Correct. But it is more than a massive chance... it would be an absolute certainty.

 

[D.Sim]

Then breaks the mirror/lens? The main reason you can't put a EF-S lens onto a FF/EF Only camera isn't that Canon don't want you "cropping down" in camera, its more that the EF-S lenses work by getting closer to the sensor - hence the S - "Short back focus" if i remember correctly. IE, once the lens is on, its a lot closer to the sensor AND mirror, and with the bigger sensored/mirrored cameras, that means theres a massive chance of it making contact.

Correct. But it is more than a massive chance... it would be an absolute certainty.

I was trying to be diplomatic

 

[maxxevv]

Yes, most people still want a high density sensor for 'reach' applications. And partly also for cost.

But what if the 7D successor moved up the ladder and became a APS-H, with compatibility to EF-S lenses ?
And kept the pixel density at about 12-16Mp instead for APS-C crop ?

Wouldn't that make for a very appealing camera if it kept all the bells and whistles of the orignal 7D and add a Digic V processor? In the process (mainly due to US$ to Yen exchange rates), price moves to about US$2200.

 

[D.Sim]

I'm going to get smited into the ground for this one..... Why are people acting like it's the end of the world if Canon makes the 70D the new 7D? If the make that move, they'll likely make the 70D better than the current 7D, so what's the problem? Is it because then you wouldn't have bragging rights on owning a "pro body"? As long as it's better, then who cares what number it's badged with. Whether or not they make a 7DII, you'll still get an upgrade. Or just buy a Nikon.... Let the smiting begin.

No, it's because if it's a 70D it won't have pro features. The xxD line is gimped compared to the xD line. I want high end durability, AF, metering, 2 CF slots... everything that's in the 1D line but with a APS-C sensor. I'm not the only one.

What if it is the 70"DX", to try and distinguish it from the 60"D"?

There's no reason why Canon can't put more features into the xxD line if they also bump the price up.

If they can bring in micro-focus for the 50D and then take it away for the 60D, then there's no reason why they can't bring it back (for example.)

Think of this in another way...

A camera with the 7D's features would cost what a 7D does (or did) regardless of the name on the camera. It isn't the name on the camera that determines the cost.

Therefore consider the price as the indication of what features are in the camera and the name to just be "dressing."

As for the durability of the xxD series, search youtube for the video of someone that tries to destroy their xxxD and see what it withstands.

Agreed - just because the 60D isn't the top of the line body doesn't mean the 70D can't be - the two digits were the top of the line before, no reason they shouldn't be now.

And if you're talking about the durability of the xxD, and watching the digitalrev video of them destroying the Canon/Nikon but still getting it work.... as someone whos just managed to break his 50D, its sorta a moot point - it CAN break, just depends on what you do with it...

 

[Gcon]

If other people are producing prints and even 100% crops that cannot be discerned from 5D2 shots, then perhaps you are doing something wrong.

In the conditions the most favor the 7D, with a bit of noise reduction and maybe some blur tool on the bokeh, I can produce prints that are very close to the 5DmarkII. It takes a fair bit of work though, and my time is valuable. Alas the conditions I need my 5D2 aren't very friendly to the poor old 7D, and no amount of work will save the 7D image under those conditions.

Can you pass a double blind test and tell us, with 100% accuracy, which prints or crops come from which camera when both are shot/processed to maximum potential? That's all that matters.

If the shot is straight from Camera with just basic levels adjustment and no noise reduction, I will pass this 100% of the time. If it's conditions that favor the 7D (i.e. don't expose its weaknesses) and someone works the files over a lot with Lightroom and photoshop, then it's anyone's guess (see above). If it's conditions that expose its weakensses, then even with a lot of 'shopping, I'd be able to tell the vast majority of the time. My eyes and grey matter have had daily exposure to the images produced by the 5D so I'm backing myself on this one.

For properly processed, low to mid ISO shots there are no significant differences. Yes, there is a difference out of camera with neutral settings, but nobody I know shoots or prints that way.

Even at base ISO, the 7D images require more work though to match the 5D2, but yes no 'significant' differences under the conditions that most favor the 7D....and they are properly processed.
{edit - actually even in bright light - I remember going around shooting with the 7D and the colors weren't as rich as the 5D and the dynamic range was notably less - not sure if this counts as 'significant' or not}

The 5D2 pulls ahead at high ISO, though the 7D does quite well through 3200 for normal print sizes. Oh yeah, I just had my yearly eye exam (20/10).

First part is true. My opinion is the 7D is pretty horrible at ISO3200. Everyone has different thresholds / standards of what they find acceptable. Funnily enough I am partially blind in one eye and require glasses, yet to me the differences are readily apparent. My good eye with glasses is pretty sharp Better monitor?!

Rumors are rumors and this 7D rumor is probably rubbish. But...if Canon fails to answer the D800 and fails to continue their pro crop body, Nikon will eventually get my money. Will Canon still love me then?

Canon will correct their lineup with an updated 70D and leave the xD to the full frames. Notice how Nikon don't have a Dx model that's a crop? I'm sure Canon won't ignore this market segment - the crop zealots. I'm not too keen on the D800 though. Canon will check the sales on that and react accordingly if they need to. The 22MP 5dx/III will be wildly popular though. I will be buying two.

 

[[email protected]]

I'm in the market for a DSLR and two lenses, willing to spend about $2500. I'm thinking EOS 60D and canon ef-s 15-85 and 70-200 f/4L IS USM. Any thoughts? I'm mainly shooting family photos/outdoor activities/youth sports and travel shots.

 

[briansquibb]

This, and also because Nikon owns patents that related to offering in-camera crop modes, if I'm not mistaken.

I have a Canon EOS IX film camera that allows in camera cropping - so probably not

 

[wickidwombat]

I'm in the market for a DSLR and two lenses, willing to spend about $2500. I'm thinking EOS 60D and canon ef-s 15-85 and 70-200 f/4L IS USM. Any thoughts? I'm mainly shooting family photos/outdoor activities/youth sports and travel shots.

Here you go

see if you can stretch another $500

and go 60D with 17-55 f2.8 IS and the 70-200 f2.8 non IS

http://www.ebay.com.au/itm/U1821-Canon-60D-17-55mm-f2-8-77mm-CPL-16GB-Bat-Gft-Wty-/380410110627?pt=UK_CamerasPhoto_DigitalCameras_DigitalCameras_JN&hash=item589235a2a3
and
http://www.ebay.com.au/itm/A0487-Canon-EF-70-200mm-f-2-8-L-USM-Lens-Gift-5YrsWty-/390340094308?pt=AU_Lenses&hash=item5ae2152964

 

[Meh]

Yes, most people still want a high density sensor for 'reach' applications. And partly also for cost.

But what if the 7D successor moved up the ladder and became a APS-H, with compatibility to EF-S lenses ?
And kept the pixel density at about 12-16Mp instead for APS-C crop ?

Wouldn't that make for a very appealing camera if it kept all the bells and whistles of the orignal 7D and add a Digic V processor? In the process (mainly due to US$ to Yen exchange rates), price moves to about US$2200.

Sorry but no, EF-S lenses are designed for APS-C sensors and can not be used for larger sensors. EF-S lenses extend further into the body therefore the larger mirror on an APS-H or FF would hit the back of the lens. EF-S lenses also produce a smaller image circle designed to cover an APS-C sensor only.