What's Not Coming in 2018?

[melgross]

Ok, so possibly the 5Ds series won’t be updated this year, but if any cameras in the line need it, they do. Canons new sensors have finally gotten the on chip amp treatment, and it’s made a big improvement. These (expensive) models really do need the higher dynamic range these newer designs offer. The cameras have been mostly ignored because the sensors are too far behind Sony/Nikon in this area. And with their closing in in resolution, there’s hardly any reason to buy these. A good stop of range would help a great deal.

 

[unfocused]

Ok, so possibly the 5Ds series won’t be updated this year...The cameras have been mostly ignored because the sensors are too far behind Sony/Nikon in this area. And with their closing in in resolution, there’s hardly any reason to buy these...

And yet, retailers continue to charge more for the 5Ds series than the 5DIV. If they were as bad as you portray them to be, there would be discounts and significant price drops. After all, retailers don't stock products if they can't sell them.

 

[unfocused]

A delay in the 7DIII until 2019 doesn't bother me in the least. It just means a better camera when it finally does surface. In the meantime, I still find uses for my 7DII that can't be met by the 1DxII or the 5DIV.

 

[Hector1970]

A delay in the 7DIII until 2019 doesn't bother me in the least. It just means a better camera when it finally does surface. In the meantime, I still find uses for my 7DII that can't be met by the 1DxII or the 5DIV.

I agree with this. I'd like the 7DIII to be as good as it can be. If that takes till 2019 I'd live with that
The 7DII has some great aspects but the sensor I think lets it down.
I hope it can have a great sensor - a good performer at high ISO

 

[privatebydesign]

A delay in the 7DIII until 2019 doesn't bother me in the least. It just means a better camera when it finally does surface. In the meantime, I still find uses for my 7DII that can't be met by the 1DxII or the 5DIV.

Interesting point of view. When I had the 1DS MkIII’s I tested the 7D extensively to see if it could offer anything worthwhile image wise that the ff didn’t, I couldn’t find anything, including focal length limited situations, where it did so never bought one.

Now I am shooting 1DX MkII’s I wonder the same thing about the 7D MkII, could you tell us what the uses you find for the 7D MkII are please, I’d certainly like to know.

 

[Sporgon]

Ok, so possibly the 5Ds series won’t be updated this year, but if any cameras in the line need it, they do. Canons new sensors have finally gotten the on chip amp treatment, and it’s made a big improvement. These (expensive) models really do need the higher dynamic range these newer designs offer. The cameras have been mostly ignored because the sensors are too far behind Sony/Nikon in this area. And with their closing in in resolution, there’s hardly any reason to buy these. A good stop of range would help a great deal.

Typical Desk top opinion. I was going to get the 5DIV until a colleague who's a respected wedding photographer and has both the 5DIV and the 5Ds ( which she always refers to as the 5D mark 3 sr - quite accurate I suppose) advised me not to disregard the 5Ds as the finished files were, in her opinion, superior to the IV.

Without going into great detail I have to say that when using really good lenses and a steady platform the images from the 5Ds at low ISO are the only ones from a digital camera that to me really look like a 5x4 Kodachrome transparency. The colour definition and tonal graduation is, to my eye, exceptional.

As far as DR goes the 5Ds probably has more range and malleability than any other 'off chip' sensor. OK it's not as great as the latest 'on chip' sensors, but my advice to anyone interested in the camera is don't be put off by those that call it "old tech". Unless of course you're trying to create a rapport with a pretty model half an hour after sunset and under exposure to boot - then you're probably better off with a Sony anyway

As for sales, well it's a niche camera and wouldn't be expected to sell in the same numbers as the general purpose models. Given current technology anyone wanting to run and gun with a 50 MP camera is going to give themselves a headache.

 

[Loswr]

Ok, so possibly the 5Ds series won’t be updated this year...The cameras have been mostly ignored because the sensors are too far behind Sony/Nikon in this area. And with their closing in in resolution, there’s hardly any reason to buy these...

And yet, retailers continue to charge more for the 5Ds series than the 5DIV. If they were as bad as you portray them to be, there would be discounts and significant price drops. After all, retailers don't stock products if they can't sell them.

True, but for some people the DRoning about DR can DRown out reality.

 

[unfocused]

A delay in the 7DIII until 2019 doesn't bother me in the least. It just means a better camera when it finally does surface. In the meantime, I still find uses for my 7DII that can't be met by the 1DxII or the 5DIV.

Interesting point of view. When I had the 1DS MkIII’s I tested the 7D extensively to see if it could offer anything worthwhile image wise that the ff didn’t, I couldn’t find anything, including focal length limited situations, where it did so never bought one.

Now I am shooting 1DX MkII’s I wonder the same thing about the 7D MkII, could you tell us what the uses you find for the 7D MkII are please, I’d certainly like to know.

In good light and when focal length limited, I fieel the crop sensor can achieve better focus accuracy. The subject you are focusing on represents a larger percentage of the frame and in my experience, I find there are advantages under certain circumstances.

Mind you, the differences are subtle. The 1DX II is great for catching action and it can withstand quite a bit of cropping, but with birds particularly, sometimes I want that 1.6x factor. There are also times when I don't want to be burdened with the weight of the 1Dx II.

The 5DIV can withstand more cropping and is lighter, but it is limited in its frame rate. Although the frame rate is often good enough for birds in flight. (Not so much for sports though).

The 7DII is as light or lighter than the 5DIV, has 10 fps and when focusing on the subject the 1.6 crop factor helps me focus better.

I would phrase the question in another way: If you have the 7DII, what uses do you find for the 1Dx II? The answer in my opinion is: when I need higher ISO or when I want a lens to give me the field of view it was designed for (24mm lens giving a 24mm lens field of view for example).

I know that those who are of the "full frame is always better" persuasion will never be convinced. It's personal preference and for myself, I like having the 7DII as an option at times. I have the luxury of also owning a 5DIV and a 1Dx II, so I am well aware that my situation is rare and unlikely to match that of others.

 

[Random Orbits]

In good light and when focal length limited, I fieel the crop sensor can achieve better focus accuracy. The subject you are focusing on represents a larger percentage of the frame and in my experience, I find there are advantages under certain circumstances.

Mind you, the differences are subtle. The 1DX II is great for catching action and it can withstand quite a bit of cropping, but with birds particularly, sometimes I want that 1.6x factor. There are also times when I don't want to be burdened with the weight of the 1Dx II.

The 5DIV can withstand more cropping and is lighter, but it is limited in its frame rate. Although the frame rate is often good enough for birds in flight. (Not so much for sports though).

The 7DII is as light or lighter than the 5DIV, has 10 fps and when focusing on the subject the 1.6 crop factor helps me focus better.

I would phrase the question in another way: If you have the 7DII, what uses do you find for the 1Dx II? The answer in my opinion is: when I need higher ISO or when I want a lens to give me the field of view it was designed for (24mm lens giving a 24mm lens field of view for example).

I know that those who are of the "full frame is always better" persuasion will never be convinced. It's personal preference and for myself, I like having the 7DII as an option at times. I have the luxury of also owning a 5DIV and a 1Dx II, so I am well aware that my situation is rare and unlikely to match that of others.

I had the 5D III and 7D II, and when I got the 5D IV, the initial intention was to get rid of the 5D III and keep the 7D II. I tried using both with the 100-400 II + 1.4x III trying to get pictures of peregrine falcons on a cliff from the ground and of a distant osprey aerie, and there wasn't that big a difference between the two. I liked the 7D II's higher FPS for sports, but indoor basketball is dim and I wasn't reach limited and light was good for soccer, so I preferred using the 5D IV even though I lost a few FPS. Taking photos of a the kids' musical convinced me that I'd rather have the 5D III than the 7D II. I had a 70-200 and a 300 on two FF bodies and high ISOs were used, and that worked well. Selling the 7D II also meant selling my lone EF-S lens (18-135 IS that was used for video only), which made the kit a bit more rational.

 

[unfocused]

In good light and when focal length limited... I am well aware that my situation is rare and unlikely to match that of others.

...I preferred using the 5D IV even though I lost a few FPS...

I should say that since buying the 5DIV, if find that both the 1DxII and the 7DII have been relegated to secondary status, with the 7DII seeing very little use. I have an irrationally strong emotional attachment to the 7D series as the original 7D was the first high-end digital camera I purchased.

I find the 5DIV with it's high mpixel count significantly reduces any advantage that the 7DII has, but I still see the value of the 7DII.

 

[Don Haines]

In good light and when focal length limited... I am well aware that my situation is rare and unlikely to match that of others.

...I preferred using the 5D IV even though I lost a few FPS...

I should say that since buying the 5DIV, if find that both the 1DxII and the 7DII have been relegated to secondary status, with the 7DII seeing very little use. I have an irrationally strong emotional attachment to the 7D series as the original 7D was the first high-end digital camera I purchased.

I find the 5DIV with it's high mpixel count significantly reduces any advantage that the 7DII has, but I still see the value of the 7DII.

I think the 7D2 is more robust, and of course it is less expensive..... but the 5D4 is one heck of a nice camera and seems to do everything else better than the 7D2.... kind of makes me wonder what the 7D3 will have

 

[privatebydesign]

I would phrase the question in another way: If you have the 7DII, what uses do you find for the 1Dx II? The answer in my opinion is: when I need higher ISO or when I want a lens to give me the field of view it was designed for (24mm lens giving a 24mm lens field of view for example).

I know that those who are of the "full frame is always better" persuasion will never be convinced. It's personal preference and for myself, I like having the 7DII as an option at times. I have the luxury of also owning a 5DIV and a 1Dx II, so I am well aware that my situation is rare and unlikely to match that of others.

Obviously we are all capable of forming our own opinions on these things, in answer to your rephrasing of the question I'd answer "One more stop at all times to use however I want." I happily paid $3,000 more for a stop between the 300mm f4 and f2.8 and 'all that does' is give me another stop.

I suppose that pushes me into your slightly derogatory sounding ""full frame is always better" persuasion" group but I'd rephrase that into 'if I only want to carry one body the 1DX MkII gives me the most flexibility and performance I can get to use my EF's lenses from 11mm-600mm natively'.

Now if I specialized in something I'd probably fined a more finely tuned tool, landscapes or portraits alone would have me shooting a 5DSR etc. But thanks for the insight.

 

[Don Haines]

I know that those who are of the "full frame is always better" persuasion will never be convinced. It's personal preference and for myself, I like having the 7DII as an option at times. I have the luxury of also owning a 5DIV and a 1Dx II, so I am well aware that my situation is rare and unlikely to match that of others.

Having the 5D2, 6D2, and 7D2...... The 7D2 is the best of the three cameras for tracking moving objects. I know thet the 5D4 has considerably more points and a better AF system than the 5D2 and the 6D2, but the AF points on the 7D2 spread out to cover more of the frame... this is great for erraticly flying little birds and other subjects that you have a hard time keeping properly framed....


The size of the AF sensor is constrained by the size of the mirror box, and as a result, the FF cameras can't get the same degree of frame coverage as the crop cameras. Plus, the smaller mirror is faster to move and it seems to be quieter, even in the so called "silent shutter" mode... (You have to admit that "silent shutter" sounds much better in a marketing brochure than "slightly less loud" ). There are some advantages to small......

 

[unfocused]

I know thet the 5D4 has considerably more points and a better AF system than the 5D2 and the 6D2, but the AF points on the 7D2 spread out to cover more of the frame... this is great for erraticly flying little birds and other subjects that you have a hard time keeping properly framed....


The size of the AF sensor is constrained by the size of the mirror box, and as a result, the FF cameras can't get the same degree of frame coverage as the crop cameras. Plus, the smaller mirror is faster to move and it seems to be quieter, even in the so called "silent shutter" mode... (You have to admit that "silent shutter" sounds much better in a marketing brochure than "slightly less loud" ). There are some advantages to small......

Good points. It’s sometimes hard to articulate exactly what I like about a particular camera because I don’t think in terms of a checklist. But I’m glad you reminded me of these features. The 1Dx II is horrible when it comes to “silent” shutter. And the autofocus spread on full frame cameras can be frustrating.

 

[stevelee]

I understand the usefulness of the 7D and 7D2 for sports. I was at a workshop one time, and several folk around me had sons who played high school football, I found out during conversations at break times. They all either had a 7D or planned to buy one. So I'm not questioning that. And I understand that people want autofocus to follow flying birds and need all the help they can get with that. Fair enough.

I have a more general, and perhaps stupid, question. Outside of those kinds of special cases, do people really take pictures where the main subject is in the extreme corner of the frame? I can't think of a time when I wanted to do that, and I don't recall seeing photos like that. My only FF camera is the 6D2, which I have had for less than a year. It apparently is the poster child for limited spread of autofocus points. And yet I never have wished to focus primarily on anything outside its spread, and no situation comes to mind in which I think I would want to.

So what am I missing here?

 

[Don Haines]

I understand the usefulness of the 7D and 7D2 for sports. I was at a workshop one time, and several folk around me had sons who played high school football, I found out during conversations at break times. They all either had a 7D or planned to buy one. So I'm not questioning that. And I understand that people want autofocus to follow flying birds and need all the help they can get with that. Fair enough.

I have a more general, and perhaps stupid, question. Outside of those kinds of special cases, do people really take pictures where the main subject is in the extreme corner of the frame? I can't think of a time when I wanted to do that, and I don't recall seeing photos like that. My only FF camera is the 6D2, which I have had for less than a year. It apparently is the poster child for limited spread of autofocus points. And yet I never have wished to focus primarily on anything outside its spread, and no situation comes to mind in which I think I would want to.

So what am I missing here?

First off.... the spread of the AF points.... there has been an insane amount of noise about this on the forum, but the reality is that the AF point spread on the 6D2 is only slightly smaller than on the 5D4..... it really is not enough to make a significant difference....

Second.... the difference in AF spread between crop and FF is that crop gives you more vertical coverage.... horizontal seems to be about the same....

And finally, have you ever shot a race and wanted to get the lead boat ( or whatever) and the second place boat in the same frame..... you can use the centre point and recompose (terrible for multiple shots), you can select all points and let the camera pick the AF point (and hope it does not pick the water), or you can select one of the AF points on the far right (or left) and let-er-rip.....

 

[dak723]

I understand the usefulness of the 7D and 7D2 for sports. I was at a workshop one time, and several folk around me had sons who played high school football, I found out during conversations at break times. They all either had a 7D or planned to buy one. So I'm not questioning that. And I understand that people want autofocus to follow flying birds and need all the help they can get with that. Fair enough.

I have a more general, and perhaps stupid, question. Outside of those kinds of special cases, do people really take pictures where the main subject is in the extreme corner of the frame? I can't think of a time when I wanted to do that, and I don't recall seeing photos like that. My only FF camera is the 6D2, which I have had for less than a year. It apparently is the poster child for limited spread of autofocus points. And yet I never have wished to focus primarily on anything outside its spread, and no situation comes to mind in which I think I would want to.

So what am I missing here?

What you are missing here is that people will complain about anything, find something wrong with anything, and have little idea about how to take a photo and what a good composition is.

You are quite correct, you don't need AF points anywhere near the edge of the frame. And probably none outside of the 1/3rds points. From what I understand, points farther away from the center are less reliable, as well - and if you need to focus beyond the range of the camera's points, you should be close enough to the outer AF points so that you can focus and recompose with no issues.

But, unfortunately, as with many camera specs, people want a bigger number and think a bigger number is better. I think I can safely say that I have never needed more than about 12 AF points and any more can be a negative rather than a positive.

 

[Orangutan]

I understand the usefulness of the 7D and 7D2 for sports. I was at a workshop one time, and several folk around me had sons who played high school football, I found out during conversations at break times. They all either had a 7D or planned to buy one. So I'm not questioning that. And I understand that people want autofocus to follow flying birds and need all the help they can get with that. Fair enough.

I have a more general, and perhaps stupid, question. Outside of those kinds of special cases, do people really take pictures where the main subject is in the extreme corner of the frame? I can't think of a time when I wanted to do that, and I don't recall seeing photos like that. My only FF camera is the 6D2, which I have had for less than a year. It apparently is the poster child for limited spread of autofocus points. And yet I never have wished to focus primarily on anything outside its spread, and no situation comes to mind in which I think I would want to.

So what am I missing here?

You are quite correct, you don't need AF points anywhere near the edge of the frame. And probably none outside of the 1/3rds points.

I certainly use AF near the edge for flower photography. I like to photograph groups of wildflowers, and often compose with the primary focus near the edge, hoping to create a trail through the frame. It often doesn't work, but I've been happy when it does. I typically use liveview for those shots, but I can certainly imagine someone attempting something similar at a faster pace using PDAF.

 

[unfocused]

...What you are missing here is that people will complain about anything, find something wrong with anything, and have little idea about how to take a photo and what a good composition is.

You are quite correct, you don't need AF points anywhere near the edge of the frame. And probably none outside of the 1/3rds points...

It's nice to know that there are experts on this forum who can decide for the rest of the world what other people need and what constitutes good composition because I guess we all know that if you follow rigid rules of composition it will guarantee a good picture.

 

[stevelee]

It's nice to know that there are experts on this forum who can decide for the rest of the world what other people need and what constitutes good composition because I guess we all know that if you follow rigid rules of composition it will guarantee a good picture.

Yes. I appreciate that, too. But there are exceptional situations that go outside the scope of the most common best practices. So what I was really hoping beyond the responses I have received thus far are examples that demonstrate when you need outlying focus points. So, please post of a couple of your best pictures that illustrate that.