# What's Not Coming in 2018?



## Canon Rumors Guy (Apr 27, 2018)

```
<p>There is still some chatter around the web that an EOS 7D Mark III will be coming ahead of Photokina in September. We can safely say that this is not the case and the EOS 7D Mark III will be coming some time in 2019.</p>
<p>If we go by our <a href="http://www.canonrumors.com/buyers-guide/">buyer’s guide announcement dates</a>, there are a lot of cameras that still have some time in the lineup before they get replaced.</p>
<ul>
<li>The Canon EOS 7D Mark II was announced 1320 days ago, the previous time between the EOS 7D and EOS 7D Mark II was 1637 days.</li>
<li>The Canon EOS 80D was announced 799 days ago, the previous time between the EOS 70D and EOS 80D was was 961 days.</li>
<li>The Canon EOS 5DS/5DS R were announced 1176 days ago, since there is no previous versions of these cameras, we’ll use the EOS 5D series dates. The time between the EOS 5D Mark III and EOS 5D Mark IV was 1637 days.</li>
</ul>
<p>We suspect product lifecycles are going to continue to stay the same or increase slightly in the coming years.</p>
<span id="pty_trigger"></span>
```


----------



## xps (Apr 27, 2018)

Not the rumor, I´d like to hear. But if you see it from Canon´s view absolutely an economic strategy.
The competitors are increasing tempo and putting a lot of good features in their products. But despite this, Canon is still earning a lot of Money with their "older", but still well working stuff.


----------



## amorse (Apr 27, 2018)

xps said:


> Not the rumor, I´d like to hear. But if you see it from Canon´s view absolutely an economic strategy.
> The competitors are increasing tempo and putting a lot of good features in their products. But despite this, Canon is still earning a lot of Money with their "older", but still well working stuff.


Agreed - their current offerings have enough of what people need to do their job. Until the market swings to other manufacturers Canon will keep doing what it's doing. If it isn't broken, don't fix it!

It seems to me that with so many different camera lines produced by Canon, it makes more sense for them to update each line more slowly in order to have a wider variety of cameras targeting different market points. Maybe targeting more market points at once is more profitable than a more rapid turnover of products.


----------



## MrFotoFool (Apr 27, 2018)

In a review by Dustin Abbott (I think for 80D) he made an interesting observation. (It is his opinion but it may be true). He said while other manufacturers are quicker to come out with new features, Canon has the features more refined so that they work better when they do come out.

I was also reading another thread here about 7Dmarkii and the last posts were from almost two years ago (May 2016). People back then were holding off on purchase because the 7Dmarkiii release was imminent! I wonder if they are still waiting?


----------



## tomscott (Apr 27, 2018)

Hard work being a Canon fan...


----------



## ritholtz (Apr 27, 2018)

Canon Rumors said:


> <li>The Canon *EOS 90D* was announced 799 days ago, the previous time between the EOS 70D and EOS 80D was was 961 days.</li>


I think it is 80D.


----------



## fingerstein (Apr 27, 2018)

MrFotoFool said:


> I was also reading another thread here about 7Dmarkii and the last posts were from almost two years ago (May 2016). People back then were holding off on purchase because the 7Dmarkiii release was imminent! I wonder if they are still waiting?


Well... Yes! I own a 7D Mark II and it's for sale. But there seems to be no interest for it. People prefer to invest money in a camera that is future proof. Or, because fits their budget. 
Most o people know about Canon-Nikon war... Maybe it doesn't matter what better features competition will add as long these two are the best. If everybody will do like me... Because there's a better system, nobody cold sell their used gear. If Canon doesn't come very soon with something to compete with Sony as a perfect hybrid camera (photo/video) it's very likely that I'll have two systems. Just because Canon is hard to sell.


----------



## dak723 (Apr 27, 2018)

fingerstein said:


> MrFotoFool said:
> 
> 
> > I was also reading another thread here about 7Dmarkii and the last posts were from almost two years ago (May 2016). People back then were holding off on purchase because the 7Dmarkiii release was imminent! I wonder if they are still waiting?
> ...



Hard to sell? Interesting. Noticed that 12 Canon 7D II cameras were sold on Ebay (USA) yesterday and 17 in the past two days. Just sayin'


----------



## Diko (Apr 27, 2018)

Canon Rumors said:


> The Canon EOS 7D Mark II was announced 1320 days ago, the previous time between the EOS 7D and EOS 7D Mark II was *1637* days.
> ....
> The Canon EOS 5DS/5DS R were announced 1176 days ago, since there is no previous versions of these cameras, we’ll use the EOS 5D series dates. The time between the EOS 5D Mark III and EOS 5D Mark IV was *1637* days.
> 
> We suspect product life cycles are going to continue to stay the same or increase slightly in the coming years.


Quite sound observation there. Thank you, Canon rumors. 

It would have never even occur to my mind to count the _days_ instead of _years_ or _months_ of the gaps. The same number in the days of the 7D and 5D series is quite astonishing and seems well Japanese.



tomscott said:


> Hard work being a Canon fan...


Feel ya there, bro! Feel ya


----------



## wldbil (Apr 27, 2018)

MrFotoFool I was waiting for the 7D Mark III. No longer interested.

Had 2 7D mark ii’s. After getting the first one wet at the Formula 1 in Montreal, I had to replace it. Decided to get another 7D Mark ii. I really liked the machine gun action when shooting sports. The downside was only getting a 40 to 60 percent keeper rate. Also found that I was spending too much time deleting a lot of photos.

Wanted the next generation because I wanted better color, better low light, higher keeper rate.

After getting the Rockinon 14 mm f 2.4 for night photography I decided to go full frame with the 5D Mark IV. I’m very happy that I did. Don’t miss the 7D Mark II much. Had no problem selling the 7D Mark II. Did find that it was shaper for microphotography. That was surprising. I do have a larger field to work with the 5D Mark IV but I don’t find the photos are quite as sharp when stacking with Zerene Stacker. When I say not as sharp I’m nitpicking at the micron level. The colours of the 5D are better, keeper rate is better, low light is better. 

Regardless of what the next generation of the 7D will bring, I personally have moved on. I presently am not interested in what the next 5D will be unless I can get a sharper picture from it for microphotography. For all my other photography the pictures are great. I’m still learning things about the 5D Mark IV and will be until I’m too old to shoot anymore.


----------



## KeithBreazeal (Apr 27, 2018)

I still have my trusty 7D and really thought I'd jump for the 7D mark III when the time came. After buying an M5, I'm having second thoughts. I have the 5D Mark IV and 5DS for FF along with way too many EF lenses and a few crop body lenses. I may wind up giving my son the 7D and some lenses for it- that will please him to no end. He got into photography when I gave him my first DSLR- a 40D. 
So, my thoughts for now are sticking with FF bodies and using the M5 for either a second body or the everyday personal fun stuff. The little M5 is surprisingly good. The 11-22mm on the M5 is killer.
The 7D Mark III would have to be "over the top" stunning for me to reconsider. Throw in a flippy screen and 10+ fps and I'll take notice.


----------



## Chaitanya (Apr 27, 2018)

dak723 said:


> fingerstein said:
> 
> 
> > MrFotoFool said:
> ...


Even in India I have seen a lot of adverts on local websites for 7D Mk2 for sale. You can get it used for lot less than price of 80D(new). Not sure why people are selling them off but they do seem to be the most commonly sold Canon camera after Eos 600/700D.


----------



## Treyarnon (Apr 27, 2018)

> The Canon EOS 90D was announced 799 days ago, the previous time between the EOS 70D and EOS 80D was was 961 days.



You mean the 80D right?
This suggests that the 80D replacement is due 6th October 2018. Cool 

I say '80D replacement' - as I'm not sure it will be called the 90D (this naming conversion is going to hit the buffers very soon anyway). If Canon wants the "benefit" of my "superior market acumen" - how about and '8D'? 
As in: 1D (full pro brick outhouse, money no object) - 5D and 6D (good full framers) - 7D and 8D (good croppers) and then slightly re-brand and tidy up the Rebel lines .


----------



## traveller (Apr 27, 2018)

MrFotoFool said:


> In a review by Dustin Abbott (I think for 80D) he made an interesting observation. (It is his opinion but it may be true). He said while other manufacturers are quicker to come out with new features, Canon has the features more refined so that they work better when they do come out.
> 
> I was also reading another thread here about 7Dmarkii and the last posts were from almost two years ago (May 2016). People back then were holding off on purchase because the 7Dmarkiii release was imminent! I wonder if they are still waiting?



The counter view to this is that Canon are behind the times with their approach and should change their approach to continuous development of product lines via downloadable firmware upgrades. Thom Hogan advocates for Nikon to do this is a recent article http://dslrbodies.com/newsviews/nikon-to-do-list.html (see point #3). 

Of course, one can argue that Fujifilm is freer to release bug-ridden products as their users are more likely to be friendly to this sort of approach (partly through self-selection).


----------



## jolyonralph (Apr 27, 2018)

"While the EOS 7D Mark II will not be replaced in 2017, we think it’s very possible we see a replacement later in 2018 ahead of Photokina. The 5 year wait between Mark 1 and Mark II likely won’t repeat itself"

Source: http://www.canonrumors.com/buyers-guide/#ixzz5Du11MMNp


----------



## slclick (Apr 27, 2018)

What's not coming? Cue Mr. Sanford


----------



## chrysoberyl (Apr 27, 2018)

slclick said:


> What's not coming? Cue Mr. Sanford



Ha ha. Where is he, anyway? Trying a new approach - like acting disinterested?

I'll try that - Ohh - I really don't want a 400 5.6 upgrade!


----------



## traveller (Apr 27, 2018)

I can see the resource constraints that Canon face and their desire to claw back the maximum potential revenue from each product line. Nevertheless, there is a perception that Canon is lagging a bit at the top end. They seem to have gone a bit out of sync with Nikon and Sony's high end releases, perhaps partly due to the D800 sensor oil debacle and partly because of the rapid update cycles of the A7 (and now A9) series. 

At the moment, both the 7D2 and the 5DS(R) are a sensor generation behind Canon's latest, which combined with the superior D500 AF system and huge buffer depth makes the 7D2 seem a bit behind the times. 5D series users also face a dilemma: the 5D4 is clearly a superior camera in every way, except resolution: this isn't a choice that we should have to make. Now the D850 and A7rIII are on the scene, Canon needs to up their game to new levels with the 5DS Mark II and not just put a full frame version of the 80D sensor in a modified 5D4 body (the 5DS(R) is effectively a full frame 7D2 sensor in a modified 5D3 body).


----------



## zim (Apr 27, 2018)

KeithBreazeal said:


> I still have my trusty 7D and really thought I'd jump for the 7D mark III when the time came. After buying an M5, I'm having second thoughts. I have the 5D Mark IV and 5DS for FF along with way too many EF lenses and a few crop body lenses. I may wind up giving my son the 7D and some lenses for it- that will please him to no end. He got into photography when I gave him my first DSLR- a 40D.
> So, my thoughts for now are sticking with FF bodies and using the M5 for either a second body or the everyday personal fun stuff. The little M5 is surprisingly good. The 11-22mm on the M5 is killer.
> The 7D Mark III would have to be "over the top" stunning for me to reconsider. Throw in a flippy screen and 10+ fps and I'll take notice.



yip, me to still using a 7D (thank goodness for improved raw processing software!) 
waiting for 7d3 OR M52 but as neither seem imminent very frustrating


----------



## ethanz (Apr 27, 2018)

Canon is *******


----------



## bernie_king (Apr 27, 2018)

fingerstein said:


> MrFotoFool said:
> 
> 
> > I was also reading another thread here about 7Dmarkii and the last posts were from almost two years ago (May 2016). People back then were holding off on purchase because the 7Dmarkiii release was imminent! I wonder if they are still waiting?
> ...



I just sold mine a couple of months ago. Literally sold in 9 hours on FredMiranda. I didn't sell cheap either.


----------



## Talys (Apr 28, 2018)

bernie_king said:


> fingerstein said:
> 
> 
> > MrFotoFool said:
> ...



Indeed, Canon is a very easy system to sell.

Sony _FE lenses_ are easy to sell, and command a very respectable sale price, because supply of used FE lenses is very limited compared to demand. Their APSC lenses have seem to hang around forever. Sony _bodies_ are a dog's breakfast if they aren't the current model. Even relatively new bodies like A7R2 that the Internet loved not so long ago are hard to flog, even at giveaway prices. I see mint condition ones hang around forever, even when the price goes pretty low.

My suggestion if you're buying a Sony body is that if you're buying a latest-and-greatest, plan on just holding onto it.


----------



## Isaacheus (Apr 28, 2018)

MrFotoFool said:


> In a review by Dustin Abbott (I think for 80D) he made an interesting observation. (It is his opinion but it may be true). He said while other manufacturers are quicker to come out with new features, Canon has the features more refined so that they work better when they do come out.



I tend to agree on a number of points here, but I see parts where canon haven't done this as well in the later releases, the 5dmk4 4k limitations could be considered one, as an example. On the other side, it's good to see them adding in newer features like the dual pixel raw; not that I feel this is a effective as advertised initially but that they're trying something new overall. 

I tend to sit myself on the side where I prefer having the features there where possible, even if they don't work in all situations, rather than just not having the option at all. I'm hoping canon will either throw everything in, including the kitchen sink, even if there are caveats. At the moment, it seems a little that they're kinda doing both to a degree, having some features with limitations etc, and also not putting all they can in a camera to meet the competition.


----------



## Ozarker (Apr 28, 2018)

On this news, 10 people who were counting on an upgrade to improve their photography skills will switch to Sony. Well, not really. 9 will just threaten to switch. The other 1 will club himself to death with a 70-200 after he gets lost in Sony's menu system on a rainy day with his "weather sealed" miracle machine.


----------



## Talys (Apr 28, 2018)

Isaacheus said:


> MrFotoFool said:
> 
> 
> > In a review by Dustin Abbott (I think for 80D) he made an interesting observation. (It is his opinion but it may be true). He said while other manufacturers are quicker to come out with new features, Canon has the features more refined so that they work better when they do come out.
> ...



There is a right and wrong way to do this.

I'm ok with features that are thrown in that have caveats, as long as they can be totally disabled and they don't get in the way of photography.

I am not ok with half-baked features that complicate basic functionality, or where there isn't a way to get to clean, straight-forward shooting.

At the core of it, I want modes where I can have the camera resolve one of aperture/shutter/ISO for exposure, and I want to be able to point at something and have the camera autofocus where I tell it to with good precision and quickly. If the camera can't do that very efficiently, the rest is just turns into gimmicky stuff that gets in the way.

The other thing is, at the end of the day, _that's all I need_. I'm more than happy to figure out the rest of it myself, through a blend of trial, error, and experience. For me, at least, whether a shot is poor or amazing has nothing to do with WYSIWYG or zebras or whatever tools to help me take a some technically ok shot. It usually has to do with light and shadows and my subject -- and mostly, whether I had a good idea or a bad one. And sometimes, I just fluke out! 

For "generalist" photography that Sonys are well-liked for, with few exceptions, a lot of stuff like what gear I'm using matters nearly not at all. Where gear matters the most for me is having the right lens for the right job, and having a good quality lens for that purpose.


----------



## davidcl0nel (Apr 28, 2018)

The 1DX3, 5D5, 5DSR2 and 7D3 will come in mid to end 2019, to get the upcoming Olympics.


----------



## Deleted member 374702 (Apr 28, 2018)

From nikonrumors: 
"At least two high-end Nikon cameras and at least two lenses expected by the end of 2018". 
"Nikon is developing a new mirrorless camera at a “rapid pace”, getting close to the official announcement".

From canonrumors: "What's not coming in 2018" 

Because, you see, Canon are so ahead... no need to hurry.


----------



## jolyonralph (Apr 28, 2018)

davidcl0nel said:


> The 1DX3, 5D5, 5DSR2 and 7D3 will come in mid to end 2019, to get the upcoming Olympics.



The 1D timeline does match the Olympics now, so yes, expect launch in early 2020.

I wouldn't expect to see a 5D mark V before 2021 though.

A 7D Mark III is inevitably before the end of next year, and I still believe we'll see that announced at Photokina - depending on whether Canon are ready to announce their mirrorless or not. We'll see one or the other, probably not both.

The fate of the 5DSR depends on what their mirrorless plans are. It may end up being the mirrorless replaces the 5DSR II


----------



## 100 (Apr 28, 2018)

Nik said:


> From nikonrumors:
> "At least two high-end Nikon cameras and at least two lenses expected by the end of 2018".
> "Nikon is developing a new mirrorless camera at a “rapid pace”, getting close to the official announcement".
> 
> ...



There are rumors and there are facts.
These are the facts:
No Nikon D5s and D500s, they were due in January this year but never came. 
Nikon DL (1” compact) never made it to the consumer.
Nikon 1 (1” ILC) is dead, and Nikon has no DX (APS-C) mirrorless solution.
Nikon is losing market share in a declining market despite a camera like the D850 which outperforms both the Canon 5DIV and 5DSr. 

I’d like to see Canon lose some market share. That will push them more, but it hasn’t happened in over a decade…


----------



## maxfactor9933 (Apr 28, 2018)

Nik said:


> From nikonrumors:
> "At least two high-end Nikon cameras and at least two lenses expected by the end of 2018".
> "Nikon is developing a new mirrorless camera at a “rapid pace”, getting close to the official announcement".
> 
> ...



how did u measured its pace? nothing confirmed yet, also nikon selling it d850 like hot cake. not gonna cannibalize its market by a mirrorless anytime soon


----------



## jolyonralph (Apr 28, 2018)

maxfactor9933 said:


> also nikon selling it d850 like hot cake. not gonna cannibalize its market by a mirrorless anytime soon



If they can make more profit on a new mirrorless than they can on the d850 then that won't be an issue. Even if they don't they'll calculate the % they'll lose by cannibalization vs the extra profit from having a camera in a different niche.


----------



## Isaacheus (Apr 28, 2018)

Talys said:


> Isaacheus said:
> 
> 
> > MrFotoFool said:
> ...



I completely agree with that sentiment; most cameras nowadays are going to be able to do many tasks without issue as long as the photographer knows what they're wanting. Having the extra features can often help with the more niche/less common shooting types though, and it's the ease of use that can be had with some of these things that has me hoping canon will also add these in - zebras are a great one, for both video and timelapse (which I play around with), it's very useful to monitor the exposure via this and the metering rather than just the metering. Not something that everyone will want all the time no, but it's having the option to turn it on/off as suits. 

A good example of what I was meaning above is something like the 10 fps on the latest sony's; while it allows for a 8fps with a live view finder, the 10 fps has the slideshow setting. Overall though, I'm happier they included the 10 fps (although it would have been better advertised as a true 8 fps with a 10 fps 'option'), as they also give the option for the 8 fps; it would have been a fine camera at just 8 fps but the option of slightly higher means I have that option if I ever need. It might be just me, but I would have liked to have seen a higher fps on the 5dmk4, even if they had gone with a similar set up (blacked out view finder at 10 fps, normal with the current 7fps for example)

I'm not meaning that without the extra features that people will take bad shots or not be able to get them, but they can make things easier/more enjoyable if the option of using them is there. I don't think any manufacturer has all the options/features right yet, each have their pros and cons in different areas, but having more features in one camera is one of the big ones where I think canon could improve


----------



## BillB (Apr 28, 2018)

It might be just me, but I would have liked to have seen a higher fps on the 5dmk4, even if they had gone with a similar set up (blacked out view finder at 10 fps, normal with the current 7fps for example)

[/quote]

The 5DIV has a redesigned mirror flipping mechanism intended to reduce vibration and noise, and the goal of reducing vibration and noise may have had a limiting effect on max fps. As has often been pointed out, Canon could have reduced vibration and noise by designing the 5DIV as a mirrorless camera, but they didn't do so. They could also have increased fps by using a blackout viewfinder design, but no doubt there would be people complaining about that if they had done so.


----------



## Talys (Apr 28, 2018)

BillB said:


> Isaacheus said:
> 
> 
> > It might be just me, but I would have liked to have seen a higher fps on the 5dmk4, even if they had gone with a similar set up (blacked out view finder at 10 fps, normal with the current 7fps for example)
> ...



Like many other people, I think 1 more fps on the 5DIV would have been nice, though from my perspective, mostly for product positioning rather than that I care about 6 or 7 or 8 fps. They're all pretty blazing fast.

On the Sony, I simply never used the 10fps option (because I wanted to see what I was shooting). So yes, that's a good example of something that doesn't get in the way, because you can just set it to 8fps. But in reality, it's "just" an 8fps camera to me.

On the 5DIV, if they had made it a mirrorless, it would still have blackouts due to the rolling shutter (no different than the A7). But like the mirror actuation, this is something that people who take a lot of sports/action/wildlife photography have gotten pretty accustomed to. Would they prefer it without any interruption to the image? Sure, why not? But it might not be a good tradeoff to having the optical image; or it might be a very poor tradeoff for the loss of a dedicated PDAF sensor.


----------



## 3kramd5 (Apr 28, 2018)

Talys said:


> On the 5DIV, if they had made it a mirrorless, it would still have blackouts due to the rolling shutter (no different than the A7)



It’s not that it rolls. A global shutter would also have blackout without sufficiently high readout speeds. On the flip side, Sony’s A9 doesn’t blackout and its shutter rolls (well, the modern curtain style anyway), but it reads fast enough to not notice.


----------



## Talys (Apr 28, 2018)

3kramd5 said:


> Talys said:
> 
> 
> > On the 5DIV, if they had made it a mirrorless, it would still have blackouts due to the rolling shutter (no different than the A7)
> ...



Sure, but as far as we know, global shutters as a function of price and performance are not there yet for consumer cameras. It's not a realistic choice for the 5DIV's release in 2016, and probably remains an unrealistic option for 2019 cameras.

My bigger issue (because I enjoy birding) is with the performance of on-sensor autofocus versus dedicated AF sensor. The latter is provably faster on every camera that has both, and there are no mirrorless cameras that can autofocus as quickly as the fastest DSLRs.


----------



## 3kramd5 (Apr 28, 2018)

Talys said:


> 3kramd5 said:
> 
> 
> > Talys said:
> ...



I wasn’t advocating global shutter*, I was commenting on rolling shutter as the source of blackout. With electronic shutters blackout isn’t caused by line-by-line reads, it’s caused by too slow reads.


*But incidentally, as I think we’ve discussed before, I don’t think GS needs be prohibitively expensive any more than does BSI or stacked architecture. A $3,000 sensor is expensive, but large production runs would burn down the NRE and unit cost.


----------



## Talys (Apr 28, 2018)

3kramd5 said:


> I wasn’t advocating global shutter*, I was commenting on rolling shutter as the source of blackout. With electronic shutters blackout isn’t caused by line-by-line reads, it’s caused by too slow reads.
> 
> 
> *But incidentally I don’t think it needs be prohibitively expensive. A $3,000 sensor is expensive, but large production runs would burn down the NRE.



Oh, I see. I was also citing the rolling shutter on most mirrorless cameras (like Sony) as the source of blackouts. I've read about price and performance (image quality as it relates to stills) reasons against global shutters to put them into consumer cameras now, but it's impossible for me to distinguish between fact and fiction. I just don't think it's on anyone's roadmap, yet.

Obviously, they're in some pro CMOS sensor camcorders, so there must be at least the possibility that we'll see them in cameras at some point. I'm happy to eat crow if I'm wrong


----------



## 3kramd5 (Apr 28, 2018)

Talys said:


> 3kramd5 said:
> 
> 
> > I wasn’t advocating global shutter*, I was commenting on rolling shutter as the source of blackout. With electronic shutters blackout isn’t caused by line-by-line reads, it’s caused by too slow reads.
> ...



Here’s a full frame 8k 30FPS global shutter bayer CMOS sensor. It costs about $5,000, but that’s for a quantity of 1. More production lowers the price.

http://www.cmosis.com/products/product_detail/cmv50000


----------



## jolyonralph (Apr 28, 2018)

Talys said:


> My bigger issue (because I enjoy birding) is with the performance of on-sensor autofocus versus dedicated AF sensor. The latter is provably faster on every camera that has both, and there are no mirrorless cameras that can autofocus as quickly as the fastest DSLRs.



Not only is this becoming less and less of an issue with each iteration of mirrorless sensor technology, mirrorless focus has the great advantage that as this technology improves the camera can interpret the scene and, in many cases, interpret what you are trying to focus on, predict movement in three dimensions for tracking and focusing in a way that makes modern systems, even with multi-focus points spread across the view, look very primitive.

Eye detection is just one part of this. Sports and wildlife are equally important. 

Future cameras will be judged by the power of their AI features as much as their resolution and focus speed.


----------



## Isaacheus (Apr 29, 2018)

Talys said:


> 3kramd5 said:
> 
> 
> > I wasn’t advocating global shutter*, I was commenting on rolling shutter as the source of blackout. With electronic shutters blackout isn’t caused by line-by-line reads, it’s caused by too slow reads.
> ...



I was under the impression that the typical backout in mirrorless cameras is purely to the readout speed of the sensor, so stacked sensors help here (only the a9 has this I think?), whereas rolling is reduced by a stacked sensor but only eliminated by a global one? Happy to be corrected if I'm wrong

As I do agree the a7 series are really more like 8fps cameras with a 'boost' mode


----------



## Talys (Apr 29, 2018)

jolyonralph said:


> Talys said:
> 
> 
> > My bigger issue (because I enjoy birding) is with the performance of on-sensor autofocus versus dedicated AF sensor. The latter is provably faster on every camera that has both, and there are no mirrorless cameras that can autofocus as quickly as the fastest DSLRs.
> ...



They are certainly getting better, but that is not the same as 'as good as' and certainly not 'superior'.

The end result is what matters, meaning the number of keepers. For me, it isn't even close. Will on sensor AF be better in the future? I have no idea. But basically, fast point at it and autofocus speed will determine what my main camera is for as long as I'm a birdie enthusiast. 

The other stuff like tracking doesn't work well (because the subjects are so fast that if they're big enough to be keepers, they will be gone in a fraction of a second. Things like eye af just don't work. 

The other issue is that on sensor AF is just much worse in low light, and works not at all/very poorly with illuminators. 

So, not speaking for other people for whom dpaf or hybrid af may be a great solution, both are a much poorer solution for my use cases.


----------



## Don Haines (Apr 29, 2018)

Talys said:


> jolyonralph said:
> 
> 
> > Talys said:
> ...



For a DSLR, you have a module that was specifically designed for AF. You have photoreceptors that are designed for AF, both with sensitivity and geometry, and on higher end cameras, with a dedicated processor. For basic AF functions, this will always be superior (given the same level of technology). 

On the other hand, given decent computing power, the AF on the image sensor can do other things better, such as to track faces, birds when there is a confusing background, or tracking colors....

Neither is absolutely better. They both have strengths and weaknesses....


----------



## Isaacheus (Apr 29, 2018)

Don Haines said:


> Talys said:
> 
> 
> > jolyonralph said:
> ...



I think this is the key point still; both have strengths and weaknesses and realistically for the time being, the designs mean that there will always be these distinctions in specific uses (birds, flash photography, portraits etc).

I have one of each (mirrorless and dslr), for my uses I prefer the mirrorless, but there are definitely times where the dslr is the better choice


----------



## 3kramd5 (Apr 29, 2018)

Don Haines said:


> Neither is absolutely better. They both have strengths and weaknesses....



^ but cameras with mirrors present the option of both methods...


----------



## dak723 (Apr 29, 2018)

Talys said:


> jolyonralph said:
> 
> 
> > Talys said:
> ...



When I bought my mirrorless Olympus E-M1 II, I searched the internet for setup tips from photographers with experience with the camera. When it came to settings for continuous shooting, every one said to avoid the tracking settings and just use the usual C-AF. The "special" tracking AF just doesn't work very well - as apparently you have also found on the Sony. Not saying that these specs won't improve with time, but once again we see that *Specs* and *Actual Use* are not necessarily the same. 

Alas, since people believe all they read when it comes to specs and the promotional material that comes out with each new release, Canon continually gets criticized and Sony applauded. Sony (since they are mirrorless) is heralded as the great innovator, mirrorless is given far more credit for its abilities than actual use would warrant. People can criticize Canon all they want, but they are usually pretty straight shooters when it comes to specs and in many cases, actual users are surprised at how much better the camera is than advertised. The opposite seems to be true with many mirrorless brands - many things don't work quite as well as advertised. And I speak as someone who no longer owns any DSLRs and have gone 100% mirroless. But to deny their shortcomings is just plain being biased and untruthful.


----------



## transpo1 (Apr 29, 2018)

So hilarious we’ve resorted to discussing what’s NOT coming from a camera company. Canon is not exactly the most Agile company. Still, the interest level in Canon in Canon products remains high, which means they are probably leaving a lot of money on the table at the moment. Time to come out with some exciting new product lines or within existing ones.


----------



## Talys (Apr 29, 2018)

Isaacheus said:


> I think this is the key point still; both have strengths and weaknesses and realistically for the time being, the designs mean that there will always be these distinctions in specific uses (birds, flash photography, portraits etc).
> 
> I have one of each (mirrorless and dslr), for my uses I prefer the mirrorless, but there are definitely times where the dslr is the better choice



Right -- at the moment, there isn't one solution that is perfect everywhere, so it just depends on what you want to use it for. There are definitely EVF aspects that I really miss on DSLR, and vice versa. 

In a lot of ways, photography is still "messy" that way -- different lenses are optimal for different tasks, different bodies are more efficient for various purposes, all sorts of light sources and modifiers produce different results, and so on and so forth. It's really no different than, "is a softbox better than an umbrella?", "is a prime better than a zoom?", or "is a c-stand better than a light stand?"

Even if you own a really wide variety of stuff, you need to pick what you're going to take with you, and then you just get used to what works for you in the types of situations you foresee.



3kramd5 said:


> Don Haines said:
> 
> 
> > Neither is absolutely better. They both have strengths and weaknesses....
> ...



This is very true  Sometimes, it isn't quite as elegant. For example, I really value that on a Canon DSLR you can switch to live view, magnify, and manual focus so that exactly what I want to be in focus is, and then take the shot. It's slicker with an EVF, but there are tradeoffs to that, some of them significant.




dak723 said:


> Alas, since people believe all they read when it comes to specs and the promotional material that comes out with each new release, Canon continually gets criticized and Sony applauded. Sony (since they are mirrorless) is heralded as the great innovator, mirrorless is given far more credit for its abilities than actual use would warrant. People can criticize Canon all they want, but they are usually pretty straight shooters when it comes to specs and in many cases, actual users are surprised at how much better the camera is than advertised. The opposite seems to be true with many mirrorless brands - many things don't work quite as well as advertised. And I speak as someone who no longer owns any DSLRs and have gone 100% mirroless. But to deny their shortcomings is just plain being biased and untruthful.



Sometimes, I think that camera makers have turned into wizards of mind control. They're very adept at getting us to believe the hype of "new camera = new features = better photography". Sadly, for me, it is very, very rare that a new camera has actually resulted in better photography for me  I haven't really learned my lesson yet though, because I still buy into the hype every time, until I disappoint myself 

The biggest jumps for me in camera bodies were going digital (because it hugely cut down in cost) and then recently in full frame (because it let me shoot higher shutter speeds/higher ISOs). Other than that, most of the improvements I've had from equipment purchases is studio gear related. It's amazing what the right light modifier can do, or how I can capture a moment (often by fluke) just by having strobes that can keep up with faster fps.


----------



## Deleted member 374702 (Apr 29, 2018)

100 said:


> Nik said:
> 
> 
> > From nikonrumors:
> ...



Here it comes - the drowning man's straw - the market share. Why do people care about how much profit Canon do? In what way that indicates, or suggests, the quality of the products? They've been going like that for years and yet their cameras are lagging behind in AF and IQ. Why should I care how is Canon doing when it has proven to be of no benefit to me - the payer - in any way whatsoever. You can be slow and steady, and stable financially, even on top, and still provide mediocre products at a high price. Canon are the Toyota of the photo camera business: quantity and familiarity over quality. Canon are living in a vacuum and, sooner or later, that mentality of theirs will implode if they do not make some radical changes. Similar attitude ate Blackberry, Windows Phone and Kodak. 
Nikon looses share but their products are miles ahead in the most important aspects: AF and IQ. That's what I care about. It's of little interest to me how much market share a company has got due to the ignorance of the brand-slave herd. It's like Leica - higher price tag should mean quality? Nonsense! It's the stupidity of the masses.


----------



## 100 (Apr 29, 2018)

Nik said:


> 100 said:
> 
> 
> > Nik said:
> ...



Did you even read what I wrote? I want Canon tot push harder, I want them to be best at everything that matters to me. Why, because I have over a dozen EF-mount lenses that won’t fit on anything Nikon makes. But Canon doesn’t care about me or any individual photographer, they only care about profit. They do just enough to stay market leader because that will maximize their profit. I don’t like it, but I understand it. 

Funny you mention “the drowning man's straw” and come up with “Blackberry, Windows Phone and Kodak”. 
Ask yourself if Blackberry were market leader with a share between 40% and 50% for 15 years before things went south?
Ask yourself if Windows Phone was market leader with a share between 40% and 50% for 15 years before things went south?

Kodak practically invented the digital camera in 1975 but dropped it to protect their photographic film business. They started again in the nineties and had the biggest market share in digital camera’s back in 1999 (27%) it dropped to 15% in 2003, less than 10% by 2007 and just 7% in 2010. How does that compare to Canons 15 years with >40% market share? Do we know a company with leading technology like some say and dropping market share? Is that Canon? No, that’s Nikon. 



Nik said:


> Nonsense! It's the stupidity of the masses.



The masses are where the money is and both Canon and Nikon are in it for the money. 
Niche markets might give you the best products, but prices will increase because R&D-costs stay the same but you have al lot less units to recover those costs with. Look at medium format to see the future of companies that ignore the masses. It could happen to all camera manufactures though, because the quality of smartphone photography is good enough for the masses these days and is still increasing.


----------



## BeenThere (Apr 29, 2018)

For those who feel stuck for a year waiting for an upgrade, how about a poll for “what system camera would you buy today (i.e., available now) if you were starting fresh today”. Assumption is that you currently own no camera gear now. No one knows exactly what is coming down the pike next week or next year, but we do know what is available today.


----------



## 3kramd5 (Apr 30, 2018)

BeenThere said:


> For those who feel stuck for a year waiting for an upgrade, how about a poll for “what system camera would you buy today (i.e., available now) if you were starting fresh today”. Assumption is that you currently own no camera gear now. No one knows exactly what is coming down the pike next week or next year, but we do know what is available today.



PhaseOne XF. Going along with the assumption that I currently own no camera gear is the assumption I can therefore justify spending $100,000 on camera gear.


----------



## quiquae (Apr 30, 2018)

tomscott said:


> Hard work being a Canon fan...


Oh, stop complaining. Not like we’re overburdened with studying new models.


----------



## Talys (Apr 30, 2018)

BeenThere said:


> For those who feel stuck for a year waiting for an upgrade, how about a poll for “what system camera would you buy today (i.e., available now) if you were starting fresh today”. Assumption is that you currently own no camera gear now. No one knows exactly what is coming down the pike next week or next year, but we do know what is available today.



I know what you're trying to get at, but it's kind of a silly assumption, because realistically, virtually nobody who is a photography enthusiast goes from zero to flagship -- it's a terrible idea on any level, because what you buy with zero experience won't be the same as what you buy with at least a few years of experience. There are many non-camera-body/lens investments too, like lighting and accessories.

So I'll do you a solid and ask it in a way that makes more sense. If you all your gear were replaced by insurance for whatever reason, and you could buy all new stuff, what would you buy today, only for camera and lenses?

A) Scenario A - Insurance gives you $5,000
B) Scenario B - Insurance gives you $10,000
C) Scenario C - Insurance gives you $25,000
D) Scenario D - Go crazy.

My picks:

Scenario A - Canon 6D2 + 100-400L2
Scenario B - Canon 6D2, Canon 5DIV, 100-400L2, 70-200/2.8, 24-70/4
Scenario C - Canon 6D2, Canon 5DIV, 100-400L2, 70-200/2.8, 24-70/4, 200-400+TC

I'd have to shell out extra to get the 85/1.4. I couldn't be without it, but it doesn't really fit the arbitrary round-number budgets I made up  I mean, realistically, no matter the budget, I'd end up with, in short order, 24-70, 70-200, 100-400, 85/1.4, and 100 macro. I just use all of those way too much to be without them, and frankly, it makes the price of one body kind of irrelevant (except 1DXII).

Scenario D - 
Canon 1DXII, 5DIV x 2, 80D + a boatload of EF lenses
Canon M5 + most of the EF-M lenses
Sony A7R3 + trinity 2.8's + 85/1.4 + 90 macro

See? Sony would make my list. I don't think it would be at "C", because even at $25,000, it's not enough money to own two systems of lenses. Plus, it's pretty important for me to own two similar or identical bodies.

I'm actually really happy with my kit though. The only thing I'm missing are:
1. A 200-400+TC. I would absolutely love this.
2. A 5DIV with a flippy screen.

I would be in bliss.


----------



## CANONisOK (Apr 30, 2018)

KeithBreazeal said:


> I still have my trusty 7D and really thought I'd jump for the 7D mark III when the time came. After buying an M5, I'm having second thoughts. I have the 5D Mark IV and 5DS for FF along with way too many EF lenses and a few crop body lenses. I may wind up giving my son the 7D and some lenses for it- that will please him to no end. He got into photography when I gave him my first DSLR- a 40D.
> So, my thoughts for now are sticking with FF bodies and using the M5 for either a second body or the everyday personal fun stuff. The little M5 is surprisingly good. The 11-22mm on the M5 is killer.
> The 7D Mark III would have to be "over the top" stunning for me to reconsider. Throw in a flippy screen and 10+ fps and I'll take notice.


Keith - this could have almost been written by me. I have a 5DsR, a 5D4, a 7D2 and a M5 + a few too many L lenses (35L1.4ii, 50L1.2, 85L1.2ii, 100L2.8m, 135L2.0, 200L2.8, 300L2.8ISii, 8-15Lfe, 16-35Lis, 24-70Lii, 24-105Lii, 70-200L2.8ii, 70-300L) and a most of the EF-M lenses. 
I love the 5D4 for its performance, picture quality (although there was something about the 5D3 i liked a bit better), and reliability. The 5DsR has impressed me in numerous situations with the IQ and surprising flexibility. 

My M5 has (for better or worse) become my most-used camera though. Solid all-around performer. When I travel the M5 + 22mm + 11-22mm + 18-150mm give me 90% of what I need at <50% of the size of my other equipment. It's almost too good and makes me want to shed more equipment than I have already.

The 7D2 has been a total disappointment to me. IQ & performance have been underwhelming. I am scared to find out how few shutter actuations I have on the thing as I've been consistently let down by it. I don't think there's much that could get me back into a 7D3.


----------



## jeffa4444 (Apr 30, 2018)

traveller said:


> I can see the resource constraints that Canon face and their desire to claw back the maximum potential revenue from each product line. Nevertheless, there is a perception that Canon is lagging a bit at the top end. They seem to have gone a bit out of sync with Nikon and Sony's high end releases, perhaps partly due to the D800 sensor oil debacle and partly because of the rapid update cycles of the A7 (and now A9) series.
> 
> At the moment, both the 7D2 and the 5DS(R) are a sensor generation behind Canon's latest, which combined with the superior D500 AF system and huge buffer depth makes the 7D2 seem a bit behind the times. 5D series users also face a dilemma: the 5D4 is clearly a superior camera in every way, except resolution: this isn't a choice that we should have to make. Now the D850 and A7rIII are on the scene, Canon needs to up their game to new levels with the 5DS Mark II and not just put a full frame version of the 80D sensor in a modified 5D4 body (the 5DS(R) is effectively a full frame 7D2 sensor in a modified 5D3 body).



Don't know what cameras you use but I have the 5DS (among other Canon cameras) which I use for portraits mainly and I use it in Mraw which is around 30MP and it has plenty of resolution and room for cropping. 
If a Red Weapon can use an approx. 30MP sensor that can fill the largest screens in London theatres with crystal clear, high resolution images why do we need more than 50MP for DSLRs? 
What we need is a wider colour space, better spread of autofocus points, better subject tracking and higher flash sync speed. Canon need to improve the EF 50mm f1.4 and provide a faster 100mm (like Nikon).

Both Sony and Nikon have issues Canon do not have (we rent both as well as Canon). I know if I was in Iceland, the middle of Dartmoor or the Gobe dessert what camera I would want and they don't begin with S or N.


----------



## stevelee (Apr 30, 2018)

> My picks:
> 
> Scenario A - Canon 6D2 + 100-400L2



I bought the 6D2 last fall, and I got the 100-400L2 last Thursday. Excellent choice.


----------



## ethanz (Apr 30, 2018)

Talys said:


> The only thing I'm missing are:
> 1. A 200-400+TC. I would absolutely love this.



Come visit me or let me have free stay where you are and I'll let you try mine out


----------



## dak723 (Apr 30, 2018)

Nik said:


> Here it comes - the drowning man's straw - the market share. Why do people care about how much profit Canon do? In what way that indicates, or suggests, the quality of the products? They've been going like that for years and yet their cameras are lagging behind in AF and IQ. Why should I care how is Canon doing when it has proven to be of no benefit to me - the payer - in any way whatsoever. You can be slow and steady, and stable financially, even on top, and still provide mediocre products at a high price. Canon are the Toyota of the photo camera business: quantity and familiarity over quality. Canon are living in a vacuum and, sooner or later, that mentality of theirs will implode if they do not make some radical changes. Similar attitude ate Blackberry, Windows Phone and Kodak.
> Nikon looses share but their products are miles ahead in the most important aspects: AF and IQ. That's what I care about. It's of little interest to me how much market share a company has got due to the ignorance of the brand-slave herd. It's like Leica - higher price tag should mean quality? Nonsense! It's the stupidity of the masses.



Stupidity can be in the eye of the beholder. If you really believe "Nikon loses share but their products are miles ahead in the most important aspects: AF and IQ" then I would question your judgment. Miles ahead? Or maybe not ahead at all? I strongly prefer Canon color to Nikon, so for me, Canon is ahead in IQ (not miles ahead, that is ridiculous). How about reliability, is that not important? How about tech that actually works well rather than looks good on a spec sheet? 

It's actually funny - people who have used different brand cameras come to realize how little difference their is between them. Those that only look at spec sheets seem to have these totally exaggerated opinions of who's ahead or who's behind. Guess what. No one is.

And every time someone mentions Kodak, that is almost sure fire proof that they have no idea what they are talking about. Kodak failed because their core products (film and all the chemicals, papers involved with printing photos and slides) were no longer needed. As mentioned, Kodak was initially one of the top selling brands - and the top selling digital camera maker in the US for many years. If they sold every digital camera ever made, they still couldn't have recouped the losses they had from the loss of film, film processing, and disposable film camera sales. Their digital camera sales began to drop because Canon and Nikon began making digital camera. And Kodak made primarily point and shoots. And, perhaps most importantly, they made no lenses.


----------



## Talys (Apr 30, 2018)

ethanz said:


> Talys said:
> 
> 
> > The only thing I'm missing are:
> ...



Thanks


----------



## melgross (Apr 30, 2018)

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 (May 1, 2018)

melgross said:


> 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 (May 1, 2018)

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 (May 11, 2018)

unfocused said:


> 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 (May 11, 2018)

unfocused said:


> 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 (May 11, 2018)

melgross said:


> 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.


----------



## neuroanatomist (May 11, 2018)

unfocused said:


> melgross said:
> 
> 
> > 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...
> ...



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


----------



## unfocused (May 11, 2018)

privatebydesign said:


> unfocused said:
> 
> 
> > 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.
> ...



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 (May 11, 2018)

unfocused said:


> 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.
> 
> ...



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 (May 11, 2018)

Random Orbits said:


> unfocused said:
> 
> 
> > 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 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 (May 11, 2018)

unfocused said:


> Random Orbits said:
> 
> 
> > unfocused said:
> ...



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 (May 11, 2018)

unfocused said:


> 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 (May 11, 2018)

unfocused said:


> 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 (May 11, 2018)

Don Haines said:


> 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 (May 12, 2018)

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 (May 12, 2018)

stevelee said:


> 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 (May 12, 2018)

stevelee said:


> 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 (May 12, 2018)

dak723 said:


> stevelee said:
> 
> 
> > 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 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 (May 12, 2018)

dak723 said:


> ...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 (May 12, 2018)

unfocused said:


> 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.


----------



## stevelee (May 12, 2018)

Orangutan said:


> 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.



That strikes me as the kind of relatively static situation in which I would manually focus on the particular flower I wanted to be the sharpest, use AV mode, and use the DOF preview button to help me decide on the aperture that gives me the look I want for the rest of the picture.

I know when I'm shooting out into the woods with a longish lens, and I want the dogwood blossoms, say, to be the sharpest things in the picture, I will switch to manual focus so that the AF doesn't pick the branch just closer. On a windy day, I might have to favor the shutter speed to keep the blowing blossoms sharp. Dogwoods are tricky in terms of exposure, since you don't want to lose detail in the white blossoms, so I bracket exposure and still use highlight recovery in ACR.

I did use autofocus when shooting crocuses earlier in the year with my 100mm macro. I wanted the camera almost on the ground, so I was shooting handheld and looking at the flippy screen, rather than my lying in the mud. If I had focused manually, the camera would have moved just enough in my hands to make the subject less sharp. I did try it some both ways. And even with AF, the camera didn't always read my mind sufficiently as to the main subject. But it hit the mark more consistently than I could manually.


----------



## neuroanatomist (May 13, 2018)

stevelee said:



> ...I was shooting handheld and looking at the flippy screen, rather than my lying in the mud.



Dilettante. Real photographers lay in the mud.


----------



## unfocused (May 13, 2018)

stevelee said:


> ...what I was really hoping beyond the responses I have received thus far are examples that demonstrate when you need outlying focus points...



A shortstop throwing the ball to first base, a volleyball player spiking the ball, a golfer hitting the ball out of a sand trap...In each case, I know which direction the ball will travel. The closer I can put the subject to the opposite edge, the better the chance of getting the ball in the picture and in the case of most sports pictures, if the ball isn't in the picture you don't have a picture. 

But, you are missing the point. If you can't think of any time when you might encounter the need for a wider spread of autofocus points, then you don't need a wider spread. That's fine. What I object to is that others want to dictate that no one else might need a wider spread. 

And, even more offensive, are fools who think that classic rules of composition are the only way to compose a picture. I fall in the Edward Weston camp: (paraphrasing) – _composition is simply the strongest way of seeing_ (which does NOT mean that following rules of composition makes an image stronger. In fact, Weston's point was just the opposite: focus on the strongest way of seeing an object and that will be good composition, regardless of what the rules say.


----------



## Don Haines (May 13, 2018)

unfocused said:


> stevelee said:
> 
> 
> > ...what I was really hoping beyond the responses I have received thus far are examples that demonstrate when you need outlying focus points...
> ...



Well said!

Sometimes there is nothing in the middle to AF on.... you need the sides...…

And sometimes, you really don't care about the classic rule of thirds and want to move the subject off to the side.

Rules are only guidelines, go out and violate them and create!


----------



## stevelee (May 13, 2018)

Without my drawing lines, to me the cat picture appears to be an illustration of the rule of thirds. And most of the cat would seem to fit in the autofocus area of a 6D2.

The ducklings or whatever they are should fit sufficiently within the edges of autofocus not to present a problem, as my memory of the lines serves me at the moment. It might be a stronger picture if it included just one of them instead of a lot of empty space, unless the negative space itself creates something like a vase from two faces. With both of them, I would have probably zoomed out a bit.


----------



## Orangutan (May 13, 2018)

stevelee said:


> The ducklings or whatever they are should fit sufficiently within the edges of autofocus not to present a problem,



I doubt that.


----------



## dak723 (May 13, 2018)

unfocused said:


> dak723 said:
> 
> 
> > ...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.
> ...



Maybe if you read my entire quote you would understand that I am deciding NOTHING about what people need, nor did I suggest that anyone needs to follow any rules of composition. As an art instructor for many years, I have always taught that there are no rules of composition. Of course, apparently, you chose to quote ( and possibly read) only what you wanted so that you could make YOUR POINT. 

The rest of my quote should be self-explanatory:



> 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.*


----------



## dak723 (May 13, 2018)

Orangutan said:


> stevelee said:
> 
> 
> > The ducklings or whatever they are should fit sufficiently within the edges of autofocus not to present a problem,
> ...



For the doubters....


----------



## Orangutan (May 13, 2018)

dak723 said:


> Orangutan said:
> 
> 
> > stevelee said:
> ...



I'd prefer to have both heads at the focus points, not the tails.


----------



## Isaacheus (May 13, 2018)

dak723 said:


> unfocused said:
> 
> 
> > dak723 said:
> ...



I think I get what you're trying to say, but it still comes across a bit like the arguments I've heard against higher MPs; people don't 'need' more than say 10 megapickles, or that you don't need more dynamic range, 4k video, dual cards etc etc. Some people like having more of X, and that it can often improve certain situations quite a lot/makes shooting easier and more enjoyable. Or have I missed what you were meaning altogether?

Going back to the AF points, I know that the spread on my 6d can be very frustrating, which often means I'll manual focus or recompose, but that quite often means missed shots. Would I get all those shots if the af spread was better? No, but I'd likely have a few more keepers in there


----------



## Don Haines (May 13, 2018)

Isaacheus said:


> Going back to the AF points, I know that the spread on my 6d can be very frustrating, which often means I'll manual focus or recompose, but that quite often means missed shots. Would I get all those shots if the af spread was better? No, but I'd likely have a few more keepers in there




This is one of the reasons that I reach for the 7D2 when going after quick or erratically moving objects.... Sometimes crop does beat FF.....


----------



## stevelee (May 13, 2018)

Orangutan said:


> I'd prefer to have both heads at the focus points, not the tails.



Yes, definitely. Ideally I’d want every downy little feather in sharp focus. I don’t know that they would hold still for that.


----------



## stevelee (May 14, 2018)

Thanks to all who replied to my question with various perspectives. It does look like that unlike being the central problem in Western Civilization at the moment, as it would appear from reading the internet, the lack of focus points near the edges is not likely to affect me enough to worry about. But it is good to know there are not some gotchas lurking out there.

Examples were given that I think would be situations when I'd prefer manual focus anyway, as well as sports(which I had already mentioned), and ducklings. If presented with cute ducklings to photograph, I'll let you know how I handle it.

As for sports, if the weather cooperates, I am thinking about taking my 6D2 and new 100-400mm II to a baseball game vs. the University of Dayton later in the week. I usually sit behind home plate, so maybe I could get some good shots of the pitcher as he releases the ball, maybe trying continuous shooting. Parking is not very convenient, so I may decide not to lug that with me, but take the 24-105mm instead. The AF might try focusing on the fence between me and the field, however, so I'm guessing that manual focus will work best.


----------

