Thinking Out Loud: EOS 7D Mark II Thoughts
- Thread starter Canon Rumors
- Start date
AprilForever said:MrPeevee said:There are news about this topic:
http://www.canonwatch.com/another-tidbit-eos-7d-mark-ii-rumor-aps-c-flagship-set-come/
It appears there will be a new high-end APS-C DSLR but its name will not be 7D Mark II :
Oddly, I feel this is true. Remember the rumors about the 1dx? About there being no 1d4s? This has the same feel. I don't care too badly what the new name is, as long as they don't meddle with what the 7D is...
How about "1D Z" (or "1D Y") name and proper price range because it targets limited and very specific user base (that's not too crowded by 'mass market consumers who will be better off with FF')?
Upvote
0
On the other hand:
How many additional EF-S lenses Canon ever created for APS-C cameras?
Just 3 = 10-22, 17-55 and 60-macro?
The rest of EF-S family are 'kit lenses' for this or that camera model (18-55, 55-250, 17-85, 15-85, 18-135 and 18-200). These lenses were needed to make specific camera models attractive to some target users at some point in time.
Those who purchased 7D are supposed to use its 'kit lens' = EF-S 15-85. If they use EF 300 lens with 7D -- they are probably regarded by Canon as 'cheaters' who managed to get away from purchase of 5D.
So it looks like: Canon never treated APS-C cameras too seriously. These cameras were needed and intended to bring new users into EOS system. APS-C camera users were supposed to purchase EF lenses (with existing EF-S lens lineup being so limited) and to make a switch to FF cameras 'some time later' (= now!).
PS: This could be the reason why Canon tries to cripple or limit EOS M and its EF-M lenses and will be the last camera maker to release mirrorless FF. The situation with EOS M is not like with usual DSLR APS-C users, the chances that new users of small and tiny EOS M will ever purchase EF-EOS M adapter and EF-S or EF lenses (including big whites) are close to zero -- these are just too large for this camera...
How many additional EF-S lenses Canon ever created for APS-C cameras?
Just 3 = 10-22, 17-55 and 60-macro?
The rest of EF-S family are 'kit lenses' for this or that camera model (18-55, 55-250, 17-85, 15-85, 18-135 and 18-200). These lenses were needed to make specific camera models attractive to some target users at some point in time.
Those who purchased 7D are supposed to use its 'kit lens' = EF-S 15-85. If they use EF 300 lens with 7D -- they are probably regarded by Canon as 'cheaters' who managed to get away from purchase of 5D.
So it looks like: Canon never treated APS-C cameras too seriously. These cameras were needed and intended to bring new users into EOS system. APS-C camera users were supposed to purchase EF lenses (with existing EF-S lens lineup being so limited) and to make a switch to FF cameras 'some time later' (= now!).
PS: This could be the reason why Canon tries to cripple or limit EOS M and its EF-M lenses and will be the last camera maker to release mirrorless FF. The situation with EOS M is not like with usual DSLR APS-C users, the chances that new users of small and tiny EOS M will ever purchase EF-EOS M adapter and EF-S or EF lenses (including big whites) are close to zero -- these are just too large for this camera...
Upvote
0
Zlyden said:
And how many of those EF-S lenses are true APS-C lenses and not merely crummy FF'ish lenses?
Upvote
0
Zlyden said:AprilForever said:MrPeevee said:There are news about this topic:
http://www.canonwatch.com/another-tidbit-eos-7d-mark-ii-rumor-aps-c-flagship-set-come/
It appears there will be a new high-end APS-C DSLR but its name will not be 7D Mark II :
Oddly, I feel this is true. Remember the rumors about the 1dx? About there being no 1d4s? This has the same feel. I don't care too badly what the new name is, as long as they don't meddle with what the 7D is...
How about "1D Z" (or "1D Y") name and proper price range because it targets limited and very specific user base (that's not too crowded by 'mass market consumers who will be better off with FF')?
I was thinking it might be a 1D something... 1D mk V? 1D Y or Z sound odd, butt so does X... 1DZ actually sounds like they might do it...
Upvote
0
Zlyden said:
Perhaps true for those that don't already own a EOS camera, but probably not for those that do. For those that do, the M serves as a more portable solution that can be used in a pinch with other EOS lenses. The 11-22/20/18-55 setup would be about as far as I'd take the M setup -- a compact travel kit.
Upvote
0
Random Orbits said:
Yes. Thanks!
We all (most of us) have EOS M, because it's small and allows us to use existing lenses (if needs arise)
But >>> in normal Canon's 'lineup-upsell-play' (like that of 3 years ago) such camera should play a role of 'introducing new users to great and wonderful world of EOS and EF lenses'.
It does not. It just can't.
So, EOS M plays the role of 'bastard' in the family (everybody loves it except parents who had to accept it with a scowl), and EF-M is a 'dead-end' in EF lenses roadmap because it makes no sense to use larger lenses on EOS M (unless you already have these...)
Upvote
0
I can follow your argumentation, that some will consider the 70d instead of the 7d2 (or what it might be called, if it comes) but there are also people that want and/or need that "machine-gun" and so Canon takes advantage in both.Marsu42 said:
But what I didn't believe, when i Saw the rumored specs was the price or the specs that would come at "just" $2000+.
Let's just see, what Canon marketing is deciding...
Upvote
0
Maximilian said:
Considering this is a "flagship" model, it is expected and longed for for a very long time, and the target crowd includes enthusiasts with deep pockets I bet they'll put a very large early adopter's premium on it... as long as it's below a 5d3+longer tele lens it'll find enough buyers @€2000+
Upvote
0
The trick Canon are missing here is:
1. Take the 1D4
2. Remove the badge and stick a 7D2 badge on it (or 7D Sport)
3. Sell it for $2500
R&D costs about 10yen to design the 7D2 badge, the rest is depreciated to zero now anyway so you would be making decent cash on it at $2.5k and it would drive Nikon nuts.
7D users would go for it because it would be a significant upgrade at a reasonable price, most I know with 7D are sports / wildlife people so use EF lens anyway (so loss of EF-s means little too them).
Yes some people would be unhappy (those who don't like gripped bodies for one) but a lot more would be happier
Right back to the coolaid....
1. Take the 1D4
2. Remove the badge and stick a 7D2 badge on it (or 7D Sport)
3. Sell it for $2500
R&D costs about 10yen to design the 7D2 badge, the rest is depreciated to zero now anyway so you would be making decent cash on it at $2.5k and it would drive Nikon nuts.
7D users would go for it because it would be a significant upgrade at a reasonable price, most I know with 7D are sports / wildlife people so use EF lens anyway (so loss of EF-s means little too them).
Yes some people would be unhappy (those who don't like gripped bodies for one) but a lot more would be happier
Right back to the coolaid....
Upvote
0
Viper28 said:
I'm also thinking that this may be where canon is heading with the 7d based upon some rumors that I have seen. I'd be fine with that too though I'm going to lose out on some of my lenses. But, I made the choice to go that route with EF-S long ago, so if the route changes, then it changes. Seems like a great way to recycle a product that was already (and still is) good. Maybe add some integrated wifi.
Upvote
0
Viper28 said:
It would be awesome if they did it and it would be possible, but my guess is that the 1d series actually use expensive parts that result in the well-known and infamous price of these things :-\ ... that's why the 1d bodies even when used a lot still sell for horrendous prices.
Upvote
0
unfocused
Photos/Photo Book Reviews: www.thecuriouseye.com
Time for a reality check
Actually the selection of consumer-priced EF-S zoom lenses is a lot greater than EF lenses. If I counted correctly there are about a dozen EF-S lenses in the "normal" range compared to about four non-L full frame zoom lenses in the "normal" range.
Canon produced an excellent 55-250mm very low cost zoom exclusively for APS-C cameras. They've never offered anything of comparable quality and price to full frame users. Full frame buyers can choose from some very bad non-IS zooms, a mediocre IS version, an overpriced DO lens or an "L" lens. And that "L" lens has from the beginning been marketed equally to both full frame and APS-C users.
Yes, in terms of prime lenses, Canon has never done much for APS-C users, but some of that may simply reflect the changing nature of lens design and the market for new lenses. Most of Canon's prime lenses were developed well before the digital age. Canon has been slow to upgrade and modernize these prime lenses, so it's not like EF-S primes were being neglected while Canon was forging ahead with new EF primes.
Let's also stipulate that beyond about 75mm, there is really no reason to have a specific EF-S lens. The 55-250 EF-S IS being an exception to that rule. Any of the three 50mm lenses work fine as a substitute for an 85mm portrait lens. The 85mm, 100mm and 135mm EF lenses all serve as short telephotos... and so on up the line.
Actually, these cameras were "needed and intended" to offer an affordable digital camera to consumers. Full frame sensor fabrication was just too expensive to achieve mass market adoption.
Canon and Nikon may have once thought they could move everyone back to full frame.
But, markets and technology evolve and companies aren't in control of that evolution.
The quality differences between full frame and APS-C are much smaller than most on this forum care to admit and for the majority of users under the majority of shooting conditions, the differences are imperceptible. On the other hand, the cost differential between APS-C and full frame, has not shrunk as much as some might have expected.
There is still a substantial "cost of entry" into the world of full frame. Even with recent price cuts, the cost differential between the 70D and 6D is significant and that between the 7D and 5DIII even more so. For much of the market, that cost difference will never be worth it for a small, perceived improvement in image quality.
And, for enthusiasts, that cost of entry grows exponentially for certain customers – such as sports and wildlife enthusiasts. If you are an APS-C user, you can buy the equivalent of a 480mm f4 lens for under $1,500, vs about $10,000 for a 500mm f4 for full frame. That's enough to keep many enthusiasts demanding better and more sophisticated APS-C cameras.
Regardless of what their initial intentions might have been, the reality is that the APS-C market is now too big and too independent for either Canon or Nikon to risk alienating and losing customers by not meeting the consumers' demands.
Zlyden said:
Actually the selection of consumer-priced EF-S zoom lenses is a lot greater than EF lenses. If I counted correctly there are about a dozen EF-S lenses in the "normal" range compared to about four non-L full frame zoom lenses in the "normal" range.
Canon produced an excellent 55-250mm very low cost zoom exclusively for APS-C cameras. They've never offered anything of comparable quality and price to full frame users. Full frame buyers can choose from some very bad non-IS zooms, a mediocre IS version, an overpriced DO lens or an "L" lens. And that "L" lens has from the beginning been marketed equally to both full frame and APS-C users.
Yes, in terms of prime lenses, Canon has never done much for APS-C users, but some of that may simply reflect the changing nature of lens design and the market for new lenses. Most of Canon's prime lenses were developed well before the digital age. Canon has been slow to upgrade and modernize these prime lenses, so it's not like EF-S primes were being neglected while Canon was forging ahead with new EF primes.
Let's also stipulate that beyond about 75mm, there is really no reason to have a specific EF-S lens. The 55-250 EF-S IS being an exception to that rule. Any of the three 50mm lenses work fine as a substitute for an 85mm portrait lens. The 85mm, 100mm and 135mm EF lenses all serve as short telephotos... and so on up the line.
Zlyden said:
Actually, these cameras were "needed and intended" to offer an affordable digital camera to consumers. Full frame sensor fabrication was just too expensive to achieve mass market adoption.
Canon and Nikon may have once thought they could move everyone back to full frame.
But, markets and technology evolve and companies aren't in control of that evolution.
The quality differences between full frame and APS-C are much smaller than most on this forum care to admit and for the majority of users under the majority of shooting conditions, the differences are imperceptible. On the other hand, the cost differential between APS-C and full frame, has not shrunk as much as some might have expected.
There is still a substantial "cost of entry" into the world of full frame. Even with recent price cuts, the cost differential between the 70D and 6D is significant and that between the 7D and 5DIII even more so. For much of the market, that cost difference will never be worth it for a small, perceived improvement in image quality.
And, for enthusiasts, that cost of entry grows exponentially for certain customers – such as sports and wildlife enthusiasts. If you are an APS-C user, you can buy the equivalent of a 480mm f4 lens for under $1,500, vs about $10,000 for a 500mm f4 for full frame. That's enough to keep many enthusiasts demanding better and more sophisticated APS-C cameras.
Regardless of what their initial intentions might have been, the reality is that the APS-C market is now too big and too independent for either Canon or Nikon to risk alienating and losing customers by not meeting the consumers' demands.
Upvote
0
candc said:
Neuro's got it right here.
The silicon wafers used for IC and sensor fabrication have a fixed manufacturing cost per wafer*. So if you can get ten times the number of good parts out of a wafer, the part cost will be - everything else equal - 1/10th the original cost.
There are a couple of things that affect the actual yield of a wafer:
1. How many (rectangular) dies that can be put on the (round) wafer. The "square peg in round hole" problem. See Wikipedia. Plugging in some numbers for a 300mm wafer size, I get 1610/610 = 2.64 times more APS-C sensors than FF sensors.
2. Intrinsic die yield. This is usually modeled as falling exponentially with the die area, so an APS-C sensor will intrinsically have exp(1.62)~=13 times higher yield than a FF sensor. The yield is based on how likely fabrication defects will not impact a die of size X, with an inherent defect density of A0. The defect density is related to the fabrication line itself (it usually starts out high, and then improves over the lifetime of the fab line, as the engineers learn how to control and improve the process line).
3. Feature density. This reflects how dense the wires/transistors etc are, and will somewhat counteract the die yield above. I'll ignore this below, since I don't have data and this has never been significant enough for me to bother about when considering the yield of a particular product.
So for APS-C vs FF sensors, fabricated on the same line, a single 300mm wafer will yield ~2.64 * exp(1.62) ~ 34 times more good dies of APS-C size than of FF size.
I probably forgot a number of details in relation to the yield - apologies in advance for that - but hopefully this shows why an APS-C sensor will always have a cost advantage over a FF sensor.
As a reference, the cost of a processed 180nm wafer for mixed analog/digital designs can be on the order of USD2000 (ex fab cost). Lower geometry wafers are generally more expensive, higher geometry less expensive.
*) This assumes a number of technicalities, such as using the same fab options, metal layers, equipment utilization rates etc etc etc. To the first order and for this discussion, this is a good assumption.
Upvote
0
AprilForever said:
+ 1 IMHO this is spot on an I think that Mark Dubovoy and other professional and semi-pro photographers need to let their photography company of choice know just how they feel about how unnecessarily complex cameras have become.
I don't need an swiss army knife camera that does everything but only does some things well, or marginally well. But the complexity thing that Mark Dubovoy addresses is really gotten out of hand. Don't the major camera manufacturers employ design engineers that are also photographers too!
My first DSLR was the Canon 40D. I picked it up ONCE, looked at all the dials and menus and went directly back to my film cameras. I even preferred to use my 4x5 than have to deal with the complexity of my DSLR. The 40D just sat unused. I remember going to a night photography workshop on Mare Island. Everyone had DSLR's except me. I chose to take my lowly Minolta X700 and a couple of fast lenses and a couple of rolls of HP5+ and I was good to go. I was shooting while the DSLR owners were busy navigating through menus and checking this setting and checking that setting. They were working harder with their cameras than I was. My exposures may have been longer and I needed to take film reciprocity into consideration but I didn't have anywhere near the fidget factor that my DSLR counterparts had. Made no sense.
And while I have transitioned to shooting digital, I still have a couple of film cameras that I occasionally use.
To borrow a phrase from fitness guru Susan Powter: "STOP THE INSANITY !!"
Upvote
0
The actual die yield rate matters quite a bit though doesnt it?
As in if you get 1 failed sensor out of 1000 for a full frame, its not going to really matter all that much that its even only 1 in a million for the APS-C sensors. Its going to be much closer to just the actual 1.6 square, ie about 3 times as much.
So depending on the numbers, we could be talking a $10 sensor vs a ~$30 one, or 10 vs 340.
The gap in price between the 6D and and a 60D or the like does seem surprisingly close though.
As in if you get 1 failed sensor out of 1000 for a full frame, its not going to really matter all that much that its even only 1 in a million for the APS-C sensors. Its going to be much closer to just the actual 1.6 square, ie about 3 times as much.
So depending on the numbers, we could be talking a $10 sensor vs a ~$30 one, or 10 vs 340.
The gap in price between the 6D and and a 60D or the like does seem surprisingly close though.
Upvote
0
