# Thinking Out Loud: EOS 7D Mark II Thoughts



## Canon Rumors Guy (Dec 15, 2013)

```
<div name="googleone_share_1" style="position:relative;z-index:5;float: right; /*margin: 70px 0 0 0;*/ top:70px; right:120px; width:0;"><g:plusone size="tall" count="1" href="http://www.canonrumors.com/2013/12/thinking-out-loud-eos-7d-mark-ii-thoughts/"></g:plusone></div><div style="float: right; margin:0 0 70px 70px;"><a href="https://twitter.com/share" class="twitter-share-button" data-count="vertical" data-url="http://www.canonrumors.com/2013/12/thinking-out-loud-eos-7d-mark-ii-thoughts/">Tweet</a></div>
<strong>A pro APS-C camera possible?


</strong>Earlier today we posted that there would be no Canon EOS 7D Mark II, we also have noticed this has appeared in a <a href="http://www.canonwatch.com/rumor/" target="_blank">few other places</a> on the web.</p>
<p>This got me thinking today whether or not it was possible that Canon would abandon this segment of the APS-C camera lineup. I came to the conclusion that they will not. It would simple not be a smart decision, however there could still be some truth to the “no 7D Mark II” statements passed around today.</p>
<p>What I do think is a possibility is that the camera will not be called the 7D Mark II, and be called something else. We have <a href="http://www.canonrumors.com/2013/10/eos-7d-mark-ii-talk-cr1/" target="_blank">previously been told</a> that a successor would have new and innovative video features. Perhaps we’re going to see something along the lines of an EOS 7D C? Canon is fully behind Cinema EOS and will continue to develop that product line.</p>
<p>The other possibility is perhaps Canon just doesn’t like the “7D” name and will simply rename it.</p>
<p>I, <a href="http://www.dslrbodies.com/newsviews/the-year-behind-the-year.html" target="_blank">and others</a> think Nikon will be releasing a replacement to the D300s and it only makes sense that Canon would do the same and replace the 7D. It’s possible that Canon is waiting for Nikon to play their hand first.</p>
<p>I’m looking forward to finding out what Canon has planned in 2014…..</p>
<p><strong><span style="color: #ff0000;">c</span>r</strong></p>
```


----------



## tomK (Dec 15, 2013)

I shoot a little over 50 weddings a year in APS-C. The 70D is good enough. I pay my mortage and send my kids to college with the 70D and I don't lust for a more capable EF-S body. So ... who's a 7DmkII for? High School football shooters that want a 1.6x tele extender? Birders?

Somebody please enlighten me.


----------



## crasher8 (Dec 15, 2013)

tomK said:


> I shoot a little over 50 weddings a year in APS-C. The 70D is good enough. I pay my mortage and send my kids to college with the 70D and I don't lust for a more capable EF-S body. So ... who's a 7DmkII for? High School football shooters that want a 1.6x tele extender? Birders?
> 
> Somebody please enlighten me.



....sports......not there's any money in it


----------



## catfish252 (Dec 15, 2013)

I think you happen to be right about the renaming of the 7D, staying with the same name kind of indicates to many people that it is just a new iteration of an old thing. I don't believe that Nikon will name the D300/s camera the D400, I would think that D9000 would be more inline with the rest of the DX (crop sensored) bodies. It sure is irritating to think they are both sitting there waiting for the other to pull the trigger first. Come on Canon and Nikon it'll be 5 years before they hit the market. We all want them now.


----------



## tomK (Dec 15, 2013)

So what's the top end a sports shooter would pay for non EOS-1 body ?

I don't know, but that's what a 7DmkII should sell for.


----------



## Synkka (Dec 15, 2013)

New name would represent what a lot of users want. How about the name Canon 1.6dx  primary use will still be sports and birds, particularly in good light.


----------



## unfocused (Dec 15, 2013)

As usual, Thom Hogan makes some very good points in his analysis of the Nikon side of things. 

Canon is not going to abandon the 7D model name. It's been too successful and they've invested too much in making it the top of the line APS-C camera. No corporation is going to just toss aside that investment. 

Sensor aside, there is plenty of room between the 70D and 7D for improvement. Keep the 7D build quality, beef up the weather sealing a bit, add dual card slots, keep the frame rate above the 70 D, add a 5DIII-style autofocus and you've got a heck of a camera. With a new sensor it becomes a category killer. 

Canon's goal is not convert people from APS-C to full frame, Canon wants to sell enthusiasts two cameras, one full frame and one APS-C.


----------



## Marauder (Dec 15, 2013)

I've been a long time watching this page and reading the forum, albeit as a 'guest.' But this particular rumour has 'brought me out of the wood work,' so to speak. I have the 7D (and also a T3i) and I shoot 'things that move' for the most part--birds in flight, aircraft etc. I have to say that I am distressed by this rumour and I hope it's not true. The 7D II, in the format that has been repeatedly stated for it, would be a remarkable camera for someone who likes to take wildlife/nature shots, as well as other "action" photography. Although the 70D looks to be a great camera, I don't see it as being a worthy 7D replacement. It only beats the 7D in a few areas where technical improvements allow it, such as DPAF giving greatly improved Live and Video focussing, both of which are of secondary importance to me, and to many other shooters. Moreover, in other areas it merely "matches" the 7D, having the same 19 point AF system. There's certainly nothing wrong with the 19 point AF system, with all of them being cross-type, but it is an older system and it is one of the items I am most anxious to see improved upon in a genuine 7D replacement, preferably with something similar to the 61 point AF on the 5D III and IDX. As if being merely "equal" to the aging 7D wasn't already enough to make the 70D unequal to the task of replacing the 7D, it is outright inferior in a couple areas. Certainly, many might say that it's only losing one fps, but that's still a step *DOWN* from the 2009 7D. More importantly, the smaller buffer means fewer images captured in a burst, which is a much bigger deal. And it loses two of the most useful AF modes, the AF Expansion and the Spot AF, both of which have come in very handy. I usually use AF Expansion when tracking BIF, especially if there is a background that might distract Zone mode. And I've found Spot AF can be remarkably handy, even in Servo mode, when trying to get a bird through foliage. As both AF Expansion and Spot AF are missing from the 70D, it cannot match all of the shooting scenarios of the 7D. None of this is to imply that the 70D is a bad camera. I think it's a worthy successor to the 60D and it raises the xxD line to a higher level, just a bit below the 7D as a wildlife/sports/action camera. I was actually happy to see the 70D so well spec'd, not because I want one, but because it raised the bar on what we could expect from a TRUE 7D successor. I keep reading that the 70D doesn't give room for the APC 7D Mark II, and that the rumoured spec isn't enough to justify the expected price. I don't agree at all! I'd LOVE to see the 7D Mark II come out with the rumoured Spec--24MP DPAF, 10-12 fps, dual Digic 5+ (or 6) sensor and a nice deep buffer, and a greatly improved 61 point AF system. That is VASTLY better than the 70D for someone who wants a high performance camera that will give greatly improved odds of capturing an amazing "never come again" moment. 
I also keep reading about how the price drop on the 6D makes the 7D II obsolete. It's been stated repeatedly by others why the 6D doesn't figure into the matrix, but I guess I'll add my voice to that since it seems to still come up repeatedly. The 6D is NOT a competitor to the 7D Mark 2. It's not even a competitor to the 70D for that matter! Not for someone who shoots fast moving objects. If I didn't already have a 7D and my choices were between a 7D, a 70D and a 6D _at the same price_, I'd go for the 7D, with the 70D my second choice. The 6D would be a distant third. Again, I'm not knocking the 6D, IQ is apparently amazing, but a sluggish AF, burst and buffer make it an inadequate choice for a steady diet of photographing fast moving subjects. I see the 6D (like the 5D II before it) being aimed at a completely different kind of photographer, with very different needs. Indeed, the 6D is much more of a spiritual successor to the 5D II than is the 5D III! Anyone who buys a 6D over a 70D (or 7D) with the purpose of shooting fast moving objects has, quite simply, bought the wrong camera. If the 6D isn't really a competitor for the 70D and 7D, than that goes DOUBLE for the 7D II! I'd be willing to pay substantially more for a crop-framed 7D II over a reduced 6D, because it's a better camera _for the kind of shooting I do!_ If you shoot weddings, landscapes and models, than by all means the 6D, with it's better high ISO IQ and it's full-frame sensor is the better choice--but it was never designed as an "action" based camera. 
Now the 5D III is a much more attractive substitute to a 7D or 70D. It has the superb 61 Point AF system, combined with a decent 6 fps frame rate and a decent buffer. But it still trades a frame per second to the 70D and two fps under the 7D, and that can be significant. Weighted against that, it's AF system is superior to either, so you may still actually get more "keepers" than the 19 point AF system of the 7D and 70D. But...it's vastly more expensive than the 7D and 70D, and substantially more expensive than the proposed 7D II. If the 7D II has an advanced AF system based on the 5D III and 1DX, then the AF advantage for the 5D III goes away. In addition, if the 7D II is 10 or 12 fps, then it will be 4-6 fps faster than the 5D III. Again, that is a huge bonus for a bird/sports/action photographer! Also, like many other photographers here, I LIKE the crop frame! I like that I can get tighter framing on a small subject like a bird with my hand-holdable 100-400L lens. 
As to the notion of the 7D replacement moving to the cinema line--*yawn*. Count me out then. I'm not video averse. I realize the camera must be versatile and flexible, and I welcome DPAF and all the Live View and Video benefits it brings, but I'm not looking for a "video first" camera. 
So, to sum up, I REALLY hope that this rumour is a myth and that the 7D II is released next year, with all the promised features. I'd love it if they made it a 'mini 1DX' style camera, with the full 12 fps, 24 MP DPAF crop sensor, deep buffer, 61 point AF system. I'd also love for it to have the 1DX AF scenarios, for customizing Servo mode for different types of subject! That'd be cool! 
Canon, please make the 7D II a reality!!!!!!!!


----------



## Don Haines (Dec 15, 2013)

Marauder said:


> I've been a long time watching this page and reading the forum, albeit as a 'guest.' But this particular rumour has 'brought me out of the wood work,' so to speak. I have the 7D (and also a T3i) and I shoot 'things that move' for the most part--birds in flight, aircraft etc. I have to say that I am distressed by this rumour and I hope it's not true. The 7D II, in the format that has been repeatedly stated for it, would be a remarkable camera for someone who likes to take wildlife/nature shots, as well as other "action" photography. Although the 70D looks to be a great camera, I don't see it as being a worthy 7D replacement. It only beats the 7D in a few areas where technical improvements allow it, such as DPAF giving greatly improved Live and Video focussing, both of which are of secondary importance to me, and to many other shooters. Moreover, in other areas it merely "matches" the 7D, having the same 19 point AF system. There's certainly nothing wrong with the 19 point AF system, with all of them being cross-type, but it is an older system and it is one of the items I am most anxious to see improved upon in a genuine 7D replacement, preferably with something similar to the 61 point AF on the 5D III and IDX. As if being merely "equal" to the aging 7D wasn't already enough to make the 70D unequal to the task of replacing the 7D, it is outright inferior in a couple areas. Certainly, many might say that it's only losing one fps, but that's still a step *DOWN* from the 2009 7D. More importantly, the smaller buffer means fewer images captured in a burst, which is a much bigger deal. And it loses two of the most useful AF modes, the AF Expansion and the Spot AF, both of which have come in very handy. I usually use AF Expansion when tracking BIF, especially if there is a background that might distract Zone mode. And I've found Spot AF can be remarkably handy, even in Servo mode, when trying to get a bird through foliage. As both AF Expansion and Spot AF are missing from the 70D, it cannot match all of the shooting scenarios of the 7D. None of this is to imply that the 70D is a bad camera. I think it's a worthy successor to the 60D and it raises the xxD line to a higher level, just a bit below the 7D as a wildlife/sports/action camera. I was actually happy to see the 70D so well spec'd, not because I want one, but because it raised the bar on what we could expect from a TRUE 7D successor. I keep reading that the 70D doesn't give room for the APC 7D Mark II, and that the rumoured spec isn't enough to justify the expected price. I don't agree at all! I'd LOVE to see the 7D Mark II come out with the rumoured Spec--24MP DPAF, 10-12 fps, dual Digic 5+ (or 6) sensor and a nice deep buffer, and a greatly improved 61 point AF system. That is VASTLY better than the 70D for someone who wants a high performance camera that will give greatly improved odds of capturing an amazing "never come again" moment.
> I also keep reading about how the price drop on the 6D makes the 7D II obsolete. It's been stated repeatedly by others why the 6D doesn't figure into the matrix, but I guess I'll add my voice to that since it seems to still come up repeatedly. The 6D is NOT a competitor to the 7D Mark 2. It's not even a competitor to the 70D for that matter! Not for someone who shoots fast moving objects. If I didn't already have a 7D and my choices were between a 7D, a 70D and a 6D _at the same price_, I'd go for the 7D, with the 70D my second choice. The 6D would be a distant third. Again, I'm not knocking the 6D, IQ is apparently amazing, but a sluggish AF, burst and buffer make it an inadequate choice for a steady diet of photographing fast moving subjects. I see the 6D (like the 5D II before it) being aimed at a completely different kind of photographer, with very different needs. Indeed, the 6D is much more of a spiritual successor to the 5D II than is the 5D III! Anyone who buys a 6D over a 70D (or 7D) with the purpose of shooting fast moving objects has, quite simply, bought the wrong camera. If the 6D isn't really a competitor for the 70D and 7D, than that goes DOUBLE for the 7D II! I'd be willing to pay substantially more for a crop-framed 7D II over a reduced 6D, because it's a better camera _for the kind of shooting I do!_ If you shoot weddings, landscapes and models, than by all means the 6D, with it's better high ISO IQ and it's full-frame sensor is the better choice--but it was never designed as an "action" based camera.
> Now the 5D III is a much more attractive substitute to a 7D or 70D. It has the superb 61 Point AF system, combined with a decent 6 fps frame rate and a decent buffer. But it still trades a frame per second to the 70D and two fps under the 7D, and that can be significant. Weighted against that, it's AF system is superior to either, so you may still actually get more "keepers" than the 19 point AF system of the 7D and 70D. But...it's vastly more expensive than the 7D and 70D, and substantially more expensive than the proposed 7D II. If the 7D II has an advanced AF system based on the 5D III and 1DX, then the AF advantage for the 5D III goes away. In addition, if the 7D II is 10 or 12 fps, then it will be 4-6 fps faster than the 5D III. Again, that is a huge bonus for a bird/sports/action photographer! Also, like many other photographers here, I LIKE the crop frame! I like that I can get tighter framing on a small subject like a bird with my hand-holdable 100-400L lens.
> As to the notion of the 7D replacement moving to the cinema line--*yawn*. Count me out then. I'm not video averse. I realize the camera must be versatile and flexible, and I welcome DPAF and all the Live View and Video benefits it brings, but I'm not looking for a "video first" camera.
> ...


Wow! That has to be the best first post EVER! Welcome to the forum!


----------



## jrista (Dec 15, 2013)

unfocused said:


> As usual, Thom Hogan makes some very good points in his analysis of the Nikon side of things.
> 
> Canon is not going to abandon the 7D model name. It's been too successful and they've invested too much in making it the top of the line APS-C camera. No corporation is going to just toss aside that investment.
> 
> ...



Totally agree. I think the 7D has been one of Canon's most successful cameras, probably only after the 5D line.


----------



## LetTheRightLensIn (Dec 15, 2013)

unfocused said:


> As usual, Thom Hogan makes some very good points in his analysis of the Nikon side of things.
> 
> Canon is not going to abandon the 7D model name. It's been too successful and they've invested too much in making it the top of the line APS-C camera. No corporation is going to just toss aside that investment.
> 
> ...



Then again what would a 7DII offer over an 8fps 39MP 5D4 to make it worth it?

I guess they could go no AA filter and 27MP and 10-12fps.

I think I'd be more excited by a single just about do everything 5D4 myself though.


----------



## jdramirez (Dec 15, 2013)

I just picked up a 7d & 28-135 for 650. It reminds me quite a bit of my 5d mkiii. It is a very comfortable 2nd body. I'm not sure I need a top performing aps-c body... and I can't claim it is for my daughter, so I will probably wind up selling it. But now that there may not be another 7d model... I feel compelled to keep it.


----------



## Mt Spokane Photography (Dec 15, 2013)

unfocused said:


> As usual, Thom Hogan makes some very good points in his analysis of the Nikon side of things.
> 
> Canon is not going to abandon the 7D model name. It's been too successful and they've invested too much in making it the top of the line APS-C camera. No corporation is going to just toss aside that investment.
> 
> ...


 
I think you are right. The 7D name is a extremely valuable property. Canon has sold a ton of them, and won't let it die.

I bought a used D300s just to use with the Nikon 200-400 lens I bought. It is way behind the 7D. Nikon really needs to update it. I suspect that Canon hasn't updated the 7D because of the lack of competition, and possibly its still selling well. At some point, lower end cameras with feature creep will out perform it.


----------



## WPJ (Dec 15, 2013)

I stood beside some nice lady who just bought a 7D last week over the 70d, the 7d is an amazing price of kit.


----------



## RGomezPhotos (Dec 15, 2013)

Yes. The 7D is a highly respected camera and Canon isn't going to abandon the model. If they didn't do it with the 5D. They won't with the 7D.

I simply hope Canon won't do with the 7D what they did with the 5D MKII: Make it's successor half the camera everyone expected. The MKIII rode on the laurels of the MKII pedigree. And Canon used that pedigree to sell the MKIII.

I love my Canon 50D and mostly love my 5D MK II. An extra stop or two of ISO would be nice. I would like the ergonomics closer to the MKIII. And love MF DR. Still, these cameras are capable of creating just about any image any other DSLR can do except for the extremes. Which is about .005% of photographers.

If Canon wants to make halfies, that's fine with me. I'll just wait for something that rocks for my needs. If I want to spend money, there's lots of lenses, lights, stands and other gear to buy in the meantime!


----------



## Sabaki (Dec 15, 2013)

A question bandied about often: "Which body? 6D or 70D/7D II?"

What I keep asking myself is, why did Canon create the 6D and I keep coming up with one answer: Every kit bag should have a APSC & A Full Frame body. 

Although we all dream of having a single body that can do it all but current technology is just not capable enough. APSC can't do DR or control noise like a FF and full frame cannot extend the focal length of a lens by 1.6. 

So my answer to 6D or 70D/7D is both. Well, unless your photography ambitions are focused on a single genre. 

The 7D II will happen. I feel too that it will usher in a level of performance not yet seen in an APSC body. Basically, I believe it will be a revolution. 

More AF points, full weather sealing (fingers crossed), dual slot cards and my personal most wanted, ability to control Speedlites in camera. 

Canon must push the envelope with the 7D II or I fear the next gen Canon bodies will be leagues behind other manufacturers.


----------



## Marsu42 (Dec 15, 2013)

Mt Spokane Photography said:


> I think you are right. The 7D name is a extremely valuable property. Canon has sold a ton of them, and won't let it die.



On the other hand with every other manufacturer being in the "small sensor" market, Canon maybe wants to reserve the one-digit names for full frame cameras and thus has to invent an altogether naming scheme for the 7d successor? This would at least square with the "no 7d2" rumor and the bit of an eye wink about it.


----------



## WPJ (Dec 15, 2013)

Marsu42 said:


> Mt Spokane Photography said:
> 
> 
> > I think you are right. The 7D name is a extremely valuable property. Canon has sold a ton of them, and won't let it die.
> ...



it could be a,D17 or a D77....smiles...


----------



## Marsu42 (Dec 15, 2013)

WPJ said:


> it could be a,D17 or a D77....smiles...



They could also stop using cryptic number names at all, like when software manufacturers did the seemingly impossible some years ago and dropped version numbers ("Office 15"), adapting yars ("Office 2013") that have an actual meaning. How about Canon "wildlife fantastic" :-> ?


----------



## AJ (Dec 15, 2013)

I too think there will be a 7D2 with some break-through feature, probably something to do with video. It'll cost at least $1500. Early adopters will flock to buy it. 

Three months after, there will be an 80D which will incorporate the same feature. It'll cost significantly less. Some features will be missing from the 80D that the 7D2 has (e.g. AF micro-adjust).

Three months after that the same video feature will hit the Rebel line.

Proven recipe. Why wouldn't they go for it again.


----------



## Albi86 (Dec 15, 2013)

unfocused said:


> Canon's goal is not convert people from APS-C to full frame, Canon wants to sell enthusiasts two cameras, one full frame and one APS-C.



I believe you're right in theory, but how is that feasible?

I believe that for most people a 5D3 is a more sensible investment than, say, a 6D + 70D. In fact, if the 6D had the same AF as the 70D, maybe people would have dropped their 5D3 _en masse_, as it happened with D800/D600 when many people realized that 24 MP and 39 AF points were good enough and worth more money in their pockets.

At this point, the 6D2 will probably have at least the AF system of the 70D, and for most people that would be a deal worth throwing out their APS-C. Simply because at that point, you'd rather spend that 1-2 grands on a good tele instead of a pro crop body. Who would spend more money on a crop? Some for sure, but maybe not enough.

It comes a time when things get good enough and expensive yet marginal upgrades become inconvenient. The 7D/70D AF is not the best out there, but I believe it satisfies the most. So in this respect, if the price of such a crop body goes too high, it might lose the competition with entry-level FF, even if specs are better.

The real IQ upgrade at that point becomes what Canon seems most reluctant to provide: a new sensor tech.


----------



## Don Haines (Dec 15, 2013)

Marsu42 said:


> WPJ said:
> 
> 
> > it could be a,D17 or a D77....smiles...
> ...


I would like a killer camera to take pictures of fluffy the cat, but somehow I don't think sales would be too good if they marketed a camera called the "Kitten Killer"


----------



## mrsfotografie (Dec 15, 2013)

Sabaki said:


> What I keep asking myself is, why did Canon create the 6D and I keep coming up with one answer: Every kit bag should have a APSC & A Full Frame body.
> 
> Although we all dream of having a single body that can do it all but current technology is just not capable enough. APSC can't do DR or control noise like a FF and full frame cannot extend the focal length of a lens by 1.6.
> 
> So my answer to 6D or 70D/7D is both. Well, unless your photography ambitions are focused on a single genre.



That's what I thought too but now I'm considering replacing my 7D by a 5DMkIII because I like using two bodies, but the IQ of the 7D just can't compete with my 5D MkII. I've become a little less interested in the really long focal lengths so I might just be able to live without a (Canon) crop sensor.


----------



## jdramirez (Dec 15, 2013)

RGomezPhotos said:


> Yes. The 7D is a highly respected camera and Canon isn't going to abandon the model. If they didn't do it with the 5D. They won't with the 7D.
> 
> I simply hope Canon won't do with the 7D what they did with the 5D MKII: Make it's successor half the camera everyone expected. The MKIII rode on the laurels of the MKII pedigree. And Canon used that pedigree to sell the MKIII.
> 
> ...



What were you expecting of the mkiii? I feel as though all of the complaints about the mkii were addressed and Canon created a near perfect camera... with a less than perfect price point.


----------



## AvTvM (Dec 15, 2013)

I am convinced canon will bring a 7D II. I expect it to be a modest iteration. 
As un-innovative as they can possibly get away with! 

Specifically:
24 MP sensor, only slightly better DR (+ 0.5 EV) and less banding/noise @hi-ISO (good to 6400)
dual-pixel AF with more than 19 but less than 61 sensors (45?)
9 fps
Some slightly better video crap, but not 4k raw
Built in wifi and GPS
Maybe built-in RT radio flash Controller
Articulated LCD, maybe touchscreen
USD/€ 2299

They will sell a decent number to sports/action/birders/wildlifers. 
And buy them some more time for the transition to mirrorless.




It will be too little too late.


----------



## Maximilian (Dec 15, 2013)

Canon Rumors said:


> <strong>A pro APS-C camera possible?


I think, your arguments are all quite correct.

I believe, there is a market for such a camera and I also believe that the canon people aren't that blind an stu**d to not see that market. But I am not sure what reasons are leading them to the marketing decisions of the last few months and years. So I would say, that everything is possible.

But I *hope*, they will built a camera as good as the 7D was when it was approaching the market and that they will bring it to the market soon and at a decent price.


----------



## Marauder (Dec 15, 2013)

Don Haines said:


> Marauder said:
> 
> 
> > I've been a long time watching this page and reading the forum, albeit as a 'guest.' But this particular rumour has 'brought me out of the wood work,' so to speak. I have the 7D (and also a T3i) and I shoot 'things that move' for the most part--birds in flight, aircraft etc. I have to say that I am distressed by this rumour and I hope it's not true. The 7D II, in the format that has been repeatedly stated for it, would be a remarkable camera for someone who likes to take wildlife/nature shots, as well as other "action" photography. Although the 70D looks to be a great camera, I don't see it as being a worthy 7D replacement. It only beats the 7D in a few areas where technical improvements allow it, such as DPAF giving greatly improved Live and Video focussing, both of which are of secondary importance to me, and to many other shooters. Moreover, in other areas it merely "matches" the 7D, having the same 19 point AF system. There's certainly nothing wrong with the 19 point AF system, with all of them being cross-type, but it is an older system and it is one of the items I am most anxious to see improved upon in a genuine 7D replacement, preferably with something similar to the 61 point AF on the 5D III and IDX. As if being merely "equal" to the aging 7D wasn't already enough to make the 70D unequal to the task of replacing the 7D, it is outright inferior in a couple areas. Certainly, many might say that it's only losing one fps, but that's still a step *DOWN* from the 2009 7D. More importantly, the smaller buffer means fewer images captured in a burst, which is a much bigger deal. And it loses two of the most useful AF modes, the AF Expansion and the Spot AF, both of which have come in very handy. I usually use AF Expansion when tracking BIF, especially if there is a background that might distract Zone mode. And I've found Spot AF can be remarkably handy, even in Servo mode, when trying to get a bird through foliage. As both AF Expansion and Spot AF are missing from the 70D, it cannot match all of the shooting scenarios of the 7D. None of this is to imply that the 70D is a bad camera. I think it's a worthy successor to the 60D and it raises the xxD line to a higher level, just a bit below the 7D as a wildlife/sports/action camera. I was actually happy to see the 70D so well spec'd, not because I want one, but because it raised the bar on what we could expect from a TRUE 7D successor. I keep reading that the 70D doesn't give room for the APC 7D Mark II, and that the rumoured spec isn't enough to justify the expected price. I don't agree at all! I'd LOVE to see the 7D Mark II come out with the rumoured Spec--24MP DPAF, 10-12 fps, dual Digic 5+ (or 6) sensor and a nice deep buffer, and a greatly improved 61 point AF system. That is VASTLY better than the 70D for someone who wants a high performance camera that will give greatly improved odds of capturing an amazing "never come again" moment.
> ...



Thank you!  I am enjoying reading all the posts. It's nice to see that others are as hopeful and excited at the prospect of a 7D II, regardless of what it's called. I tend towards thinking the 7D's rich reputation and legacy will be continued, but I'm more interested in the prototype that's been described in rumours seeing the light of day---a rose by any other name, as it were. Still, I think 7D Mark II has a nice ring to it! ;D 
If a 7D IIish camera doesn't release, I'll probably go for a 5D Mark III in time. Gordon Laing, in his 5D Mark III review called it "almost a full-frame 7D," which is I believe a very accurate description. I'd love to gain the full-frame IQ and low noise benefits whilst still having a superb (much better actually) AF system. I'd be less enthusiastic about losing 2 fps compared to my beloved 7D, although 6 fps is still a decent level for wildlife shooting. I'd also miss the crop factor, which I think does give a genuine benefit for framing, tracking and AF, especially for small, fast subjects like birds. But then, I'd use the 5D Mark III as a supplement to my 7D, rather than a replacement for it. If the light is good and the subject is distant, I'd still use the 7D, switching to the 5D III for larger, easier to track subjects like aircraft at airshows, and for poor lighting. Truth is, I'd like the 5D III in my bag eventually, even with a 7D II - at least once the second-hand price drops sufficiently. Different cameras have different strengths. Naturally, I'd love a 1DX even more, but it's too hellishly expensive! Even the 1D IV's are holding at high prices! 
The speculation on what a 5 DIV is interesting, but it remains just speculation. And it will be out of my price range for a long time regardless. Ditto any new 1D series, although I suppose a new 5D and 1D may push the prices of the current models down to where a mere mortal can do more than dream of ownership!  
Still, it's the 7D II for which my groaning, over-extended wallet is yearning. Hopefully, Canon will give me a chance to fork over my hard-earned dollars as my face goes pasty white at the financial ruin their products bring to me, as my shaking hands reach out for "the grail."


----------



## Don Haines (Dec 15, 2013)

Marauder said:


> Thank you!  I am enjoying reading all the posts. It's nice to see that others are as hopeful and excited at the prospect of a 7D II, regardless of what it's called. I tend towards thinking the 7D's rich reputation and legacy will be continued, but I'm more interested in the prototype that's been described in rumours seeing the light of day---a rose by any other name, as it were. Still, I think 7D Mark II has a nice ring to it! ;D
> If a 7D IIish camera doesn't release, I'll probably go for a 5D Mark III in time. Gordon Laing, in his 5D Mark III review called it "almost a full-frame 7D," which is I believe a very accurate description. I'd love to gain the full-frame IQ and low noise benefits whilst still having a superb (much better actually) AF system. I'd be less enthusiastic about losing 2 fps compared to my beloved 7D, although 6 fps is still a decent level for wildlife shooting. I'd also miss the crop factor, which I think does give a genuine benefit for framing, tracking and AF, especially for small, fast subjects like birds. But then, I'd use the 5D Mark III as a supplement to my 7D, rather than a replacement for it. If the light is good and the subject is distant, I'd still use the 7D, switching to the 5D III for larger, easier to track subjects like aircraft at airshows, and for poor lighting. Truth is, I'd like the 5D III in my bag eventually, even with a 7D II - at least once the second-hand price drops sufficiently. Different cameras have different strengths. Naturally, I'd love a 1DX even more, but it's too hellishly expensive! Even the 1D IV's are holding at high prices!
> The speculation on what a 5 DIV is interesting, but it remains just speculation. And it will be out of my price range for a long time regardless. Ditto any new 1D series, although I suppose a new 5D and 1D may push the prices of the current models down to where a mere mortal can do more than dream of ownership!
> Still, it's the 7D II for which my groaning, over-extended wallet is yearning. Hopefully, Canon will give me a chance to fork over my hard-earned dollars as my face goes pasty white at the financial ruin their products bring to me, as my shaking hands reach out for "the grail."



Something that a lot of people seem to forget is affordability...Regardless of how good a 1DX and a 600F4 are, there are many people who will never plop down the dollars to purchase them, but they are willing to pay $2000 for a camera or lens that is "pretty darn good", but not the best. Canon knows this. The bulk of their DSLR sales are the T3i and to a lesser amount, the T5i..... that's the market segment that is keeping the lights on at the factory.

Right now, Canon is in transition. The new models will probably all have touchscreens, dual-pixel technology, and WiFi connectivity for tethering and file transfer. I expect some interesting focus tracking modes to emerge as the technology matures.... The 70D is a good teaser.... and look what it did to 7D sales.... they seem to have dropped off of a cliff. If Canon came out with a 7D2 that was to the 70D what the 7D was to the 60D, it will probably sell well. Yes, it would probably cost canon a few sales of 5D3's and even a few 1DX's, but there will probably be more people who buy both bodies than "lost sales".... plus, as stated above, if you can't afford a 5D3 or a 1DX, the technical superiority is moot.


----------



## Marauder (Dec 15, 2013)

Don Haines said:


> Marauder said:
> 
> 
> > Thank you!  I am enjoying reading all the posts. It's nice to see that others are as hopeful and excited at the prospect of a 7D II, regardless of what it's called. I tend towards thinking the 7D's rich reputation and legacy will be continued, but I'm more interested in the prototype that's been described in rumours seeing the light of day---a rose by any other name, as it were. Still, I think 7D Mark II has a nice ring to it! ;D
> ...



I concur completely! I think there are a lot of us who dream for a 1DX, but who can "afford" a 7D II. And it doesn't mean I'll never buy full-frame. I'll just buy it years from now when it's a couple of generations old. LOL Either that or a gently used 1D IV for around 2 grand when a 1DX replacement pushes the current 1DX down and has a trickle down impact upon older 1D products. As it is, my "full-frame" experience is around some classic Canon film cameras I've bought, including the A-1 and a few FD lenses and the EOS 3 and Elan 7E. But film is just too expensive to be my "main" way of capturing images. It's fun, but I just can't do it all the time!


----------



## Marsu42 (Dec 15, 2013)

Maximilian said:


> I believe, there is a market for such a camera and I also believe that the canon people aren't that blind an stu**d to not see that market.



Usually, I'm the first one to bash canon for being conservative, but I do think they have a very good idea of the market at least as *profit* goes - they won't release a "flashship" aps-c camera just to excel in specs but that isn't sold in sufficient numbers. Also the r&d for a supposedly 7d2 mirrored design is a dead end as the future goes.

That's where the 70d comes it: it has a "dumbed down" af system and might be inferior to a rumored 7d2, but it is close enough to the 7d1 so that it's sufficient in *absulute* specs to work as a wildlife "machine-gun" camera type. Once the 7d2 or whatever-its-called comes in at $2000+ manyy people will give the 70d a second look and consider a better lens instead.


----------



## candc (Dec 15, 2013)

Marsu42 said:


> Maximilian said:
> 
> 
> > I believe, there is a market for such a camera and I also believe that the canon people aren't that blind an stu**d to not see that market.
> ...



I expect that the extra AF modes will be enabled via firmware on the 70d but not until the 7d gets replaced or discontinued.


----------



## Sella174 (Dec 15, 2013)

I have four theories ...

*ONE* ... Somebody at Canon goofed by accidentally releasing the 7DII labeled as the 70D.

*TWO* ... Canon has finally realised that they cannot ignore DSLM cameras any longer and now plan on migrating their APS-C cameras over to mirrorless technology.

*THREE* ... This is a false rumour by Canon, because sales of 7D camera dropped significantly as everyone are holding out for the Mark II.

*FOUR* ... I don't know what the heck I'm talking about.


----------



## jdramirez (Dec 15, 2013)

Sella174 said:


> I have four theories ...
> 
> *ONE* ... Somebody at Canon goofed by accidentally releasing the 7DII labeled as the 70D.
> 
> ...



I'm not willing to jump into the mirrorless pool... not even as a back up... just seems cheap... putting an L lens on one seems like putting rims on a pinto... but I'm biased so there's no validity to my opinion.

I kinda think 3 might have some merit. The USED 7D market is remarkably low. I've said this before, but I picked up a 7D with 2704 actuations along with a 28-135 for $650... so if I sell the lens for $200... that would be $450... I'm 100% sure this is atypical, but a really good condition 7D selling for $700-800 still doesn't seem to make much sense. 

It is a really good camera and it seems weird that it is suffering that much depreciation, especially when people are jumping at the chance to buy a 70D for $1000... but maybe dual pixel and wifi really make all the difference in the world. :/


----------



## mrsfotografie (Dec 15, 2013)

jdramirez said:


> Sella174 said:
> 
> 
> > maybe dual pixel and wifi really make all the difference in the world. :/



Yes, anything that doesn't directly upload to facebook is now nearly obsolete :


----------



## AprilForever (Dec 15, 2013)

1. There had better be a 7d MK II.

2. I hate video. Optimize my camera for still images.

Divergance is an extremely important concept Canon does not get. See this link...

http://www.luminous-landscape.com/essays/an_appeal_for_divergence_and_simplicity.shtml

3. The 7d mk II MUST be APS-C. I have discussed many times on this forum the superior nature of APS-C.

Canon, listen, or let the K3 eat your ever dwindling customer base...


----------



## mrsfotografie (Dec 15, 2013)

AprilForever said:


> Divergance is an extremely important concept Canon does not get. See this link...



Thanks for posting, I couldn't agree more. And this goes beyond camera's IMHO. Cars for instance are turning into smartphones as well. Aaarrgghhh!!


----------



## neuroanatomist (Dec 15, 2013)

AprilForever said:


> I have discussed many times on this forum the superior nature of APS-C.



APS-C is superior in that the sensor is cheaper to produce, meaning cheaper bodies, or additional features added in lieu of a better sensor. The economic argument can be extended to cheaper/smaller/lighter wide and normal lenses. If you think APS-C is superior in other ways, you're deluding yourself. 



AprilForever said:


> Canon, listen, or let the K3 eat your ever dwindling customer base...



...and this statement confirms that you're deluding yourself. In a big way.


----------



## candc (Dec 15, 2013)

is an aps-c sensor really cheaper to produce? You would think the 70d sensor with its smaller photo sites and dual pixel tech would be more expensive than the 6d sensor which is about the same mp count?


----------



## neuroanatomist (Dec 15, 2013)

candc said:


> is an aps-c sensor really cheaper to produce? You would think the 70d sensor with its smaller photo sites and dual pixel tech would be more expensive than the 6d sensor which is about the same mp count?



Pixel size doesn't matter significantly (as long as the density is achievable with the process scale being used (500 nm, 180 nm, etc.). Area matters - you get a lot more APS-C sensors than FF from a wafer; the larger sensor also means a higher QC failure rate, raising the cost further.


----------



## Lawliet (Dec 15, 2013)

neuroanatomist said:


> If you think APS-C is superior in other ways, you're deluding yourself.



At least if you have an EVF and electronic shutter.
Otherwise you introduce guesswork or a mostly masked out OVF as costs for the reduced workload of partial readout and the curtains still have to travel the whole height of the sensor. Canon isn't exactly doing much in that regard though.


----------



## dickgrafixstop (Dec 15, 2013)

The famous industrial designer Charles Eames had a motto - "Innovate as a last resort". I'm 
delighted to see that this may well have become the mantra of the Canon design team.


----------



## candc (Dec 15, 2013)

neuroanatomist said:


> candc said:
> 
> 
> > is an aps-c sensor really cheaper to produce? You would think the 70d sensor with its smaller photo sites and dual pixel tech would be more expensive than the 6d sensor which is about the same mp count?
> ...


I suppose that's true, I just don't think that it is the huge cost difference its made out to be and if its the sensors area and not pixel count is what makes it expensive then they should hurry up with the high mp ff sensor. I think its as much about marketing as anything. If they were able to make a high mp camera with super dr and low noise it would not make business sense to release it, why make the last upgrade you really need? Makes more sense to sell you incremental upgrades over time. Maybe I am just being cynical but I think there is some degree of truth in that.


----------



## candc (Dec 15, 2013)

Here's another way to look at it,

You can buy an sl1 with a kit lens for $500, what do you suppose it costs canon to produce the sensor in that camera, $50-$100? You could put 2 of those side by side vertically and get a 36mp ff sensor


----------



## ME (Dec 15, 2013)

Why all the speculation? Just bring out the crystal ball. Oops, just dropped and broke mine. Hack Canon? Dont know how. Besides,it's against the law. In the USA at least.... Ok, in that case Canon will buy Nikon and possibly other companies and become a monopoly. Then they will produce the 7D7, combining the best features of the 70d and the current 7d, enhancing fps and video capabilities, slightly improved sensor, and adding smartphone capabilities to attract that market. Sort of an all-in-one to please everyone, except fullframers & mirrorless users. Sorry Nikon users, nothing for you. The cost? Who knows, since they will be a monopoly. ???


----------



## candc (Dec 15, 2013)

ME said:


> Why all the speculation? Just bring out the crystal ball. Oops, just dropped and broke mine. Hack Canon? Dont know how. Besides,it's against the law. In the USA at least.... Ok, in that case Canon will buy Nikon and possibly other companies and become a monopoly. Then they will produce the 7D7, combining the best features of the 70d and the current 7d, enhancing fps and video capabilities, slightly improved sensor, and adding smartphone capabilities to attract that market. Sort of an all-in-one to please everyone, except fullframers & mirrorless users. Sorry Nikon users, nothing for you. The cost? Who knows, since they will be a monopoly. ???



7d7, I like the sound of it. Instead of making smart phones that take better pictures, how about a DSLR with a phone built in! Might be a bit awkward to hold up to your ear, better include a Bluetooth headset.


----------



## AprilForever (Dec 15, 2013)

neuroanatomist said:


> AprilForever said:
> 
> 
> > I have discussed many times on this forum the superior nature of APS-C.
> ...



No, I'm not... If I were to buy new, I would go Pentax. They get crop. Canon is trying to force people towards FF, it seems...


----------



## neuroanatomist (Dec 15, 2013)

AprilForever said:


> AprilForever said:
> 
> 
> > Canon, listen, or let the K3 eat your ever dwindling customer base...
> ...



No, I'm not... If I were to buy new, I would go Pentax. They get crop. Canon is trying to force people towards FF, it seems...
[/quote]

Ok, fair enough. Dwindling by n=1. I'm sure that has Canon terrified. 

Why do people have such trouble understanding that _their individual preferences_ don't necessarily reflect the entire market. :


----------



## jrista (Dec 15, 2013)

AprilForever said:


> neuroanatomist said:
> 
> 
> > AprilForever said:
> ...



Correction:

The Canon _speculators_ and _unofficial self-proclaimed "voice" of Canon_, are *assuming* that Canon is going to *try* to force people towards FF, based on the *unverified* opinion of one reporter on one review site _who took the words of a Canon employee *out of context*_.


----------



## AvTvM (Dec 16, 2013)

Preference for a well-specced 7D Mk. II with APS-C sensor is certainly not only an "individual preference" but definitely on the wishlist of quite a few people in this forum and many more outside of it. 

BUT: 
Both Canon (and Nikon) have delayed introduction of successors for their hi-end APS-C DSLRs for a very long time (Canon 4+ years, Nikon 3+ years) 
AND 
meanwhile FF-DSLRs (6D, D6100/610), mirrorless FF cameras (Sony A7/R) are now available in the same price-bracket that a 7D II (or Nikon D400) would likely be launched into (USD/€ 1500-2000+) the target audience for a 7D has shrunk considerably. Especially "general use" enthusiasts and semi-pros on a budget are not waiting for the 7D II as much as they have waited for the 7D (when FF bodies were still considerably more expensive). By now, many Nikon D300/s users have moved on to D800 and (less so) to D600/610. Many Canon 7D users who never or only rarely experience focal length limited situations have moved on to 6D or 5D III. Or are seriously considering smaller/lighter (FF) mirrorless options (e.g. myself ... and no, I am not the only one with such an individual preference). 

From my observation, target group for 7D II by now are mainly "action + reach-oriented "semi-pro/enthusiasts" and possibly some semi/pros who don't want to/cannot afford two 1D X bodies. However, this group is still large enough to warrant a 7D II, especially as long as Canon brings no higher MP / higher fps FF DSLR [5D IV] to market. 

That's why I believe Canon will bring a 7D II rather soon in 2014 and a 5D IV only later (2015). 

In addition to action-oriented/reach-limited users they will certainly also try to attract some video shooters on a budget lower than 5D III. Plus some "generalists / enthusiasts" who are happy with an (improved) APS-C sensor and willing to pay for a better body than 70D ... AND don't want to spend large sums to replace their existing EF-S lenses in order to go FF. Especially 10-22, 17-55, 15-85, 18-135 STM, 60 Macro ... these are very decent to really good lenses and to replayce them with equally good or better EF (L) glass ain't cheap. 100 L Macro, 24-105, 16-35 II or 24-70 II ... $$$-$$$$


----------



## neuroanatomist (Dec 16, 2013)

AvTvM said:


> Preference for a well-specced 7D Mk. II with APS-C sensor is certainly not only an "individual preference" but definitely on the wishlist of quite a few people in this forum and many more outside of it.



No doubt. But if Canon doesn't give them one, are they all going to buy a Pentax K3? :


----------



## unfocused (Dec 16, 2013)

AvTvM said:


> BUT:
> Both Canon (and Nikon) have delayed introduction of successors for their hi-end APS-C DSLRs for a very long time (Canon 4+ years, Nikon 3+ years)



A minor point, but the Nikon D300s was released in July, 2009, so it is actually older than the 7D.



AvTvM said:


> Many Canon 7D users who never or only rarely experience focal length limited situations have moved on to 6D or 5D III...From my observation, target group for 7D II by now are mainly "action + reach-oriented "semi-pro/enthusiasts" and possibly some semi/pros who don't want to/cannot afford two 1D X bodies. However, this group is still large enough to warrant a 7D II, especially as long as Canon brings no higher MP / higher fps FF DSLR [5D IV] to market.



I generally agree. I am one of those who "moved on" to a 5DIII. However, I'm still interested in a 7DII, even if the demand is not quite as "pent up" as it used to be. Canon will still be able to sell me one if it has autofocus similar to the 5DIII, a frame rate that exceeds the 5DIII, and reasonable improvements in sensor performance especially at higher ISOs. I don't expect it to exceed the 5DIII but somewhere between the 7D and 5DIII would be nice. Bonus features would be: f8 autofocus, improved weather sealing and dual card slots.

The advantage that the 7D will always have will be price per features. Full frame will always be more expensive so the trade off will continue to be fewer features on the entry level 6D. I know there is much debate over the perceived advantage of the 1.6 magnification factor and I'm not anxious to re-start that whole debate. Suffice it to say that I see enough advantages under specific conditions that I'm willing to invest in the 7DII.



AvTvM said:


> That's why I believe Canon will bring a 7D II rather soon in 2014 and a 5D IV only later (2015). ..



Yes. While I'm not sure whether it will "rather soon" in 2014, I think it will be in 2014 and I don't expect to see a 5DIV until at least 2015 and maybe 2016. There's just nothing major that needs to be improved on the 5DIII.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Dec 16, 2013)

unfocused said:


> There's just nothing major that needs to be improved on the 5DIII.



My God, man, the DR...how in the name of all that's holy could you have forgotten about the abysmally horrible DR of the 5DIII?????????


----------



## AvTvM (Dec 16, 2013)

neuroanatomist said:


> unfocused said:
> 
> 
> > There's just nothing major that needs to be improved on the 5DIII.
> ...



now that you mention it! ;D

But ... as we know ... DR is just for DRones. Real men expose correctly. Those funny image sensors don't really matter in digital cameras anyways. They're nothing but center-markers in those big fat DSLRs. Put in there so it's not only smoke and mirrors flapping around in all that empty space. It really is the camera surrounding that sensor that counts, stupid! 2 stops less DR than D800 at low ISO? Pah, utterly useless! Nobody uses those boring low ISO settings, ever! Real men will boldly shoot at ISO 3200 and higher, always! That will unlock the 5D III's full potential ... a whopping 0.1 stops more DR than D800. Now that's what counts! ;D


----------



## RiceCanon (Dec 16, 2013)

I would be extremely disappointed if Canon doesn't release a new and improved version of the 7D. I have a 7D mainly for birding and wildlife and now also own a 6D for landscape. I was really hoping for a 7D Mark II with improved high ISO performance, autofocus, and frame rate. Come on Canon, don't let us down!


----------



## AprilForever (Dec 16, 2013)

neuroanatomist said:


> AvTvM said:
> 
> 
> > Preference for a well-specced 7D Mk. II with APS-C sensor is certainly not only an "individual preference" but definitely on the wishlist of quite a few people in this forum and many more outside of it.
> ...



No, but thats's not the point. There are plenty of other places they will go too, so I am sure I am not delusional. I speak the same many people speak and feel. MANY do not want video!!! Most stills people I know have never even tried the video features beyond mere expirementation.


----------



## garyknrd (Dec 16, 2013)

I have a Sigma 500mm F/4.5 lens and a Sigma 300mm F/2.8 prime in Pentax mount. 
Also have the Canon 500mm lens and Canon 300 mm F/2.8 prime.

I am serious thinking about having the Sigma gear shipped to me and picking up a K-3. I presently only shoot with Canon since the K-5.

As I get older I am looking for a light weight and small rig for birding. Also I am a big crop sensor fan. DXo shows the ISO rating at 1250 for the K-3 and 1350 for the Canon IV. And I find that my limit on the IV for general birding. But the 7D is way outdated IMO. 

If the K-3 has the AF? The reason I ditched Pentax originally. I will start using it again. The size of the primes suit me. Easier for me to hand hold and easy to handle.

Before I would seriously considering using it. I will have to shoot with it for at least 6 months. It takes me that long to really get the hang of a lens camera combo. Then if good I would start buying the new Sigma Art lenses. 

Really what I think is going to happen is. Sigma is going to update there big lenses and make them sharper with IS. We are already seeing the smaller lenses really coming of age. 

But honestly Pentax is not a threat to Canon in any way what so ever. And IMO never will be. As a birder, I am probably the least important person Canon thinks about for there Camera gear. If I drift away it would be like loosing a drop of water in Lake Michigan.. LOL

Nice to have a choice though. I'm looking forward to playing with it.


----------



## Hillsilly (Dec 16, 2013)

If you set your mind back a few years, at the "affordable" end, the original 7d had a noticeable AF capability and speed advantage over the 5Dii and 50D. It had a clearly defined position in the Canon hierarchy.

But, now, apart from an increase in fps, I'm not sure what a 7Dii could offer over a 5Diii, whereas the 5Diii would offer better IQ (something we all value highly). At the other end, the 70D at $950 looks very compelling. Canon would need to have something special to demand a significant premium. So I think the problem is pricing. There is clearly a lot of interest in a 7Dii type camera. But can Canon put something together that can justify a high price tag and motivate buyers? I hope so.


----------



## MrPeevee (Dec 16, 2013)

There are news about this topic: 

http://www.canonwatch.com/another-tidbit-eos-7d-mark-ii-rumor-aps-c-flagship-set-come/

It appears there will be a new high-end APS-C DSLR but its name will not be 7D Mark II :


----------



## Zlyden (Dec 16, 2013)

My two rupees:

1) If Canon did plan to release 7D II any time soon, it would release it _before_ 70D. Playing the same game it did with Nikon on FF bodies last year: first release expensive camera, wait 6 month for current owners to upgrade, than release cheaper camera that has similar specs as old model + some new stuff (like wi-fi).

2) Current Canon's APS-C lineup has enough segmentation: 100D, 700D, 70D. It makes more sense to limit it to these 3 (+ old models) with price points _below_ FF cameras ($1500). And 60D obviously needed update (because it looked very strange on its initial release: with features like MFA removed most of reviewers called 'oversized rebel' or similar).

What Canon do need to release soon is another FF camera that would sit between current 6D and 5D prices (let's say at MSRP $2000-2500) -- to lure more users into FF world and to sell them more EF lenses (while they can). If Canon will be forced to release mirrorless FF with new lens mount (and they will have to do it, if Nikon will do it) that will create another 'bastard' member in EOS family (like EOS M), and another 'dead end' in the roadmap for EF lenses (like EF-M). 

(After that they can re-release new and mighty 7D II with price point of $5000 and weight of 10 pounds for dedicated bird and sport shooters.)


----------



## AprilForever (Dec 16, 2013)

MrPeevee said:


> There are news about this topic:
> 
> http://www.canonwatch.com/another-tidbit-eos-7d-mark-ii-rumor-aps-c-flagship-set-come/
> 
> It appears there will be a new high-end APS-C DSLR but its name will not be 7D Mark II :



Oddly, I feel this is true. Remember the rumors about the 1dx? About there being no 1d4s? This has the same feel. I don't care too badly what the new name is, as long as they don't meddle with what the 7D is...


----------



## RLPhoto (Dec 16, 2013)

The 7D was everything I wanted in a camera, except it wasn't FF. That's about it.


----------



## Zlyden (Dec 16, 2013)

AprilForever said:


> MrPeevee said:
> 
> 
> > There are news about this topic:
> ...



How about "1D Z" (or "1D Y") name and proper price range because it targets limited and very specific user base (that's not too crowded by 'mass market consumers who will be better off with FF')?


----------



## mrsfotografie (Dec 16, 2013)

RLPhoto said:


> The 7D was everything I wanted in a camera, except it wasn't FF. That's about it.



Isn't that where the 5DMkIII comes in?


----------



## RLPhoto (Dec 16, 2013)

mrsfotografie said:


> RLPhoto said:
> 
> 
> > The 7D was everything I wanted in a camera, except it wasn't FF. That's about it.
> ...



But if you don't need FF, the 7D was the camera to get.


----------



## Zlyden (Dec 16, 2013)

On the other hand: 

How many additional EF-S lenses Canon ever created for APS-C cameras?

Just 3 = 10-22, 17-55 and 60-macro?

The rest of EF-S family are 'kit lenses' for this or that camera model (18-55, 55-250, 17-85, 15-85, 18-135 and 18-200). These lenses were needed to make specific camera models attractive to some target users at some point in time. 

Those who purchased 7D are supposed to use its 'kit lens' = EF-S 15-85. If they use EF 300 lens with 7D -- they are probably regarded by Canon as 'cheaters' who managed to get away from purchase of 5D.

So it looks like: Canon never treated APS-C cameras too seriously. These cameras were needed and intended to bring new users into EOS system. APS-C camera users were supposed to purchase EF lenses (with existing EF-S lens lineup being so limited) and to make a switch to FF cameras 'some time later' (= now!).

PS: This could be the reason why Canon tries to cripple or limit EOS M and its EF-M lenses and will be the last camera maker to release mirrorless FF. The situation with EOS M is not like with usual DSLR APS-C users, the chances that new users of small and tiny EOS M will ever purchase EF-EOS M adapter and EF-S or EF lenses (including big whites) are close to zero -- these are just too large for this camera...


----------



## AvTvM (Dec 16, 2013)

mrsfotografie said:


> RLPhoto said:
> 
> 
> > The 7D was everything I wanted in a camera, except it wasn't FF. That's about it.
> ...



yes, quite possibly. If Canon had sold it at 6D price.


----------



## mrsfotografie (Dec 16, 2013)

Zlyden said:


> On the other hand:
> 
> How many additional EF-S lenses Canon ever created for APS-C cameras?
> 
> ...



Interesting post, I think you may be right.


----------



## Sella174 (Dec 16, 2013)

Zlyden said:


> How many additional EF-S lenses Canon ever created for APS-C cameras?



And how many of those EF-S lenses are true APS-C lenses and not merely crummy FF'ish lenses?


----------



## AprilForever (Dec 16, 2013)

Zlyden said:


> AprilForever said:
> 
> 
> > MrPeevee said:
> ...



I was thinking it might be a 1D something... 1D mk V? 1D Y or Z sound odd, butt so does X... 1DZ actually sounds like they might do it...


----------



## Random Orbits (Dec 16, 2013)

Zlyden said:


> ...
> 
> PS: This could be the reason why Canon tries to cripple or limit EOS M and its EF-M lenses and will be the last camera maker to release mirrorless FF. The situation with EOS M is not like with usual DSLR APS-C users, the chances that new users of small and tiny EOS M will ever purchase EF-EOS M adapter and EF-S or EF lenses (including big whites) are close to zero -- these are just too large for this camera...



Perhaps true for those that don't already own a EOS camera, but probably not for those that do. For those that do, the M serves as a more portable solution that can be used in a pinch with other EOS lenses. The 11-22/20/18-55 setup would be about as far as I'd take the M setup -- a compact travel kit.


----------



## Zlyden (Dec 16, 2013)

Random Orbits said:


> Zlyden said:
> 
> 
> > ...
> ...



Yes. Thanks!

We all (most of us) have EOS M, because it's small and allows us to use existing lenses (if needs arise) 

But >>> in normal Canon's 'lineup-upsell-play' (like that of 3 years ago) such camera should play a role of 'introducing new users to great and wonderful world of EOS and EF lenses'. 

It does not. It just can't.

So, EOS M plays the role of 'bastard' in the family (everybody loves it except parents who had to accept it with a scowl), and EF-M is a 'dead-end' in EF lenses roadmap because it makes no sense to use larger lenses on EOS M (unless you already have these...)


----------



## Maximilian (Dec 16, 2013)

Marsu42 said:


> Maximilian said:
> 
> 
> > I believe, there is a market for such a camera and I also believe that the canon people aren't that blind an stu**d to not see that market.
> ...


I can follow your argumentation, that some will consider the 70d instead of the 7d2 (or what it might be called, if it comes) but there are also people that want and/or need that "machine-gun" and so Canon takes advantage in both. 
But what I didn't believe, when i Saw the rumored specs was the price or the specs that would come at "just" $2000+.

Let's just see, what Canon marketing is deciding...


----------



## Marsu42 (Dec 16, 2013)

Maximilian said:


> Let's just see, what Canon marketing is deciding...



Considering this is a "flagship" model, it is expected and longed for for a very long time, and the target crowd includes enthusiasts with deep pockets I bet they'll put a very large early adopter's premium on it... as long as it's below a 5d3+longer tele lens it'll find enough buyers @€2000+


----------



## Viper28 (Dec 16, 2013)

The trick Canon are missing here is:
1. Take the 1D4
2. Remove the badge and stick a 7D2 badge on it (or 7D Sport)
3. Sell it for $2500

R&D costs about 10yen to design the 7D2 badge, the rest is depreciated to zero now anyway so you would be making decent cash on it at $2.5k and it would drive Nikon nuts.

7D users would go for it because it would be a significant upgrade at a reasonable price, most I know with 7D are sports / wildlife people so use EF lens anyway (so loss of EF-s means little too them).

Yes some people would be unhappy (those who don't like gripped bodies for one) but a lot more would be happier

Right back to the coolaid....


----------



## wsmith96 (Dec 16, 2013)

Viper28 said:


> The trick Canon are missing here is:
> 1. Take the 1D4
> 2. Remove the badge and stick a 7D2 badge on it (or 7D Sport)
> 3. Sell it for $2500
> ...



I'm also thinking that this may be where canon is heading with the 7d based upon some rumors that I have seen. I'd be fine with that too though I'm going to lose out on some of my lenses. But, I made the choice to go that route with EF-S long ago, so if the route changes, then it changes. Seems like a great way to recycle a product that was already (and still is) good. Maybe add some integrated wifi.


----------



## Marsu42 (Dec 16, 2013)

Viper28 said:


> The trick Canon are missing here is:
> 1. Take the 1D4
> 2. Remove the badge and stick a 7D2 badge on it (or 7D Sport)
> 3. Sell it for $2500



It would be awesome if they did it and it would be possible, but my guess is that the 1d series actually use expensive parts that result in the well-known and infamous price of these things :-\ ... that's why the 1d bodies even when used a lot still sell for horrendous prices.


----------



## unfocused (Dec 16, 2013)

Time for a reality check



Zlyden said:


> ...How many additional EF-S lenses Canon ever created for APS-C cameras?
> 
> Just 3 = 10-22, 17-55 and 60-macro?
> 
> ...



Actually the selection of consumer-priced EF-S zoom lenses is a lot greater than EF lenses. If I counted correctly there are about a dozen EF-S lenses in the "normal" range compared to about four non-L full frame zoom lenses in the "normal" range. 

Canon produced an excellent 55-250mm very low cost zoom exclusively for APS-C cameras. They've never offered anything of comparable quality and price to full frame users. Full frame buyers can choose from some very bad non-IS zooms, a mediocre IS version, an overpriced DO lens or an "L" lens. And that "L" lens has from the beginning been marketed equally to both full frame and APS-C users.

Yes, in terms of prime lenses, Canon has never done much for APS-C users, but some of that may simply reflect the changing nature of lens design and the market for new lenses. Most of Canon's prime lenses were developed well before the digital age. Canon has been slow to upgrade and modernize these prime lenses, so it's not like EF-S primes were being neglected while Canon was forging ahead with new EF primes. 

Let's also stipulate that beyond about 75mm, there is really no reason to have a specific EF-S lens. The 55-250 EF-S IS being an exception to that rule. Any of the three 50mm lenses work fine as a substitute for an 85mm portrait lens. The 85mm, 100mm and 135mm EF lenses all serve as short telephotos... and so on up the line. 



Zlyden said:


> So it looks like: Canon never treated APS-C cameras too seriously. These cameras were needed and intended to bring new users into EOS system. APS-C camera users were supposed to purchase EF lenses (with existing EF-S lens lineup being so limited) and to make a switch to FF cameras 'some time later' (= now!).



Actually, these cameras were "needed and intended" to offer an affordable digital camera to consumers. Full frame sensor fabrication was just too expensive to achieve mass market adoption.

Canon and Nikon may have once thought they could move everyone back to full frame. 

But, markets and technology evolve and companies aren't in control of that evolution. 

The quality differences between full frame and APS-C are much smaller than most on this forum care to admit and for the majority of users under the majority of shooting conditions, the differences are imperceptible. On the other hand, the cost differential between APS-C and full frame, has not shrunk as much as some might have expected.

There is still a substantial "cost of entry" into the world of full frame. Even with recent price cuts, the cost differential between the 70D and 6D is significant and that between the 7D and 5DIII even more so. For much of the market, that cost difference will never be worth it for a small, perceived improvement in image quality.

And, for enthusiasts, that cost of entry grows exponentially for certain customers – such as sports and wildlife enthusiasts. If you are an APS-C user, you can buy the equivalent of a 480mm f4 lens for under $1,500, vs about $10,000 for a 500mm f4 for full frame. That's enough to keep many enthusiasts demanding better and more sophisticated APS-C cameras.

Regardless of what their initial intentions might have been, the reality is that the APS-C market is now too big and too independent for either Canon or Nikon to risk alienating and losing customers by not meeting the consumers' demands.


----------



## kaihp (Dec 16, 2013)

candc said:


> neuroanatomist said:
> 
> 
> > candc said:
> ...



Neuro's got it right here.

The silicon wafers used for IC and sensor fabrication have a fixed manufacturing cost per wafer*. So if you can get ten times the number of good parts out of a wafer, the part cost will be - everything else equal - 1/10th the original cost.

There are a couple of things that affect the actual yield of a wafer:
1. How many (rectangular) dies that can be put on the (round) wafer. The "square peg in round hole" problem. See Wikipedia. Plugging in some numbers for a 300mm wafer size, I get 1610/610 = 2.64 times more APS-C sensors than FF sensors.
2. Intrinsic die yield. This is usually modeled as falling exponentially with the die area, so an APS-C sensor will intrinsically have exp(1.62)~=13 times higher yield than a FF sensor. The yield is based on how likely fabrication defects will not impact a die of size X, with an inherent defect density of A0. The defect density is related to the fabrication line itself (it usually starts out high, and then improves over the lifetime of the fab line, as the engineers learn how to control and improve the process line). 
3. Feature density. This reflects how dense the wires/transistors etc are, and will somewhat counteract the die yield above. I'll ignore this below, since I don't have data and this has never been significant enough for me to bother about when considering the yield of a particular product.

So for APS-C vs FF sensors, fabricated on the same line, a single 300mm wafer will yield ~2.64 * exp(1.62) ~ 34 times more _good dies_ of APS-C size than of FF size.

I probably forgot a number of details in relation to the yield - apologies in advance for that - but hopefully this shows why an APS-C sensor will _always_ have a cost advantage over a FF sensor.

As a reference, the cost of a processed 180nm wafer for mixed analog/digital designs can be on the order of USD2000 (ex fab cost). Lower geometry wafers are generally more expensive, higher geometry less expensive.

*) This assumes a number of technicalities, such as using the same fab options, metal layers, equipment utilization rates etc etc etc. To the first order and for this discussion, this is a good assumption.


----------



## lilmsmaggie (Dec 16, 2013)

AprilForever said:


> 1. There had better be a 7d MK II.
> 
> 2. I hate video. Optimize my camera for still images.
> 
> ...



+ 1 IMHO this is spot on an I think that Mark Dubovoy and other professional and semi-pro photographers need to let their photography company of choice know just how they feel about how unnecessarily complex cameras have become. 

I don't need an swiss army knife camera that does everything but only does some things well, or marginally well. But the complexity thing that Mark Dubovoy addresses is really gotten out of hand. Don't the major camera manufacturers employ design engineers that are also photographers too!

My first DSLR was the Canon 40D. I picked it up ONCE, looked at all the dials and menus and went directly back to my film cameras. I even preferred to use my 4x5 than have to deal with the complexity of my DSLR. The 40D just sat unused. I remember going to a night photography workshop on Mare Island. Everyone had DSLR's except me. I chose to take my lowly Minolta X700 and a couple of fast lenses and a couple of rolls of HP5+ and I was good to go. I was shooting while the DSLR owners were busy navigating through menus and checking this setting and checking that setting. They were working harder with their cameras than I was. My exposures may have been longer and I needed to take film reciprocity into consideration but I didn't have anywhere near the fidget factor that my DSLR counterparts had. Made no sense.

And while I have transitioned to shooting digital, I still have a couple of film cameras that I occasionally use. 

To borrow a phrase from fitness guru Susan Powter: "STOP THE INSANITY !!"


----------



## Otara (Dec 16, 2013)

The actual die yield rate matters quite a bit though doesnt it?

As in if you get 1 failed sensor out of 1000 for a full frame, its not going to really matter all that much that its even only 1 in a million for the APS-C sensors. Its going to be much closer to just the actual 1.6 square, ie about 3 times as much.

So depending on the numbers, we could be talking a $10 sensor vs a ~$30 one, or 10 vs 340.

The gap in price between the 6D and and a 60D or the like does seem surprisingly close though.


----------



## eml58 (Dec 16, 2013)

Has anyone else read this story over at Canon watch, I rarely go to this site but happened to check yesterday & read this article about "No 7DMK II", concerned me after reading all the interest in a 7DMK II here at CR, I can imagine Blood in the Streets here at CR if Canon did decide not to do a 7DMK II.


http://www.canonwatch.com/another-tidbit-eos-7d-mark-ii-rumor-aps-c-flagship-set-come/


----------



## unfocused (Dec 16, 2013)

eml58 said:


> Has anyone else read this story over at Canon watch, I rarely go to this site but happened to check yesterday & read this article about "No 7DMK II", concerned me after reading all the interest in a 7DMK II here at CR, I can imagine Blood in the Streets here at CR if Canon did decide not to do a 7DMK II.
> 
> 
> http://www.canonwatch.com/another-tidbit-eos-7d-mark-ii-rumor-aps-c-flagship-set-come/



Someone started a separate thread on this, but really, it makes more sense to continue the discussion here.

I'm not buying it. Companies don't like to switch product names. Too much invested to just drop a name and start over. Particularly unlikely with something as popular as the 7D. Even Nikon didn't drop the D600 name despite how badly damaged it is. Strikes me as more rumor trolling.


----------



## Don Haines (Dec 17, 2013)

Otara said:


> The actual die yield rate matters quite a bit though doesnt it?
> 
> As in if you get 1 failed sensor out of 1000 for a full frame, its not going to really matter all that much that its even only 1 in a million for the APS-C sensors. Its going to be much closer to just the actual 1.6 square, ie about 3 times as much.
> 
> ...


The fail rate is not linear.
Let's say the pass rate is 90 percent for APS-C. A full frame sensor has an area of 1.6^2, or 2.56 times an APCS sensor. The pass rate for FF is .9^2.56 or 76 percent. (with more area, a flaw is more likely to occur)

If you said an APSC sensor cost $10 to make, then the cost per working sensor is $11
You can fit 2.6 times as many APSC sensors on a wafer than you can fit FF sensors.... that would mean that a FF sensor costs $26 to make, but with a 76 percent pass rate, the cost per working FF sensor becomes $34... over three times the cost per sensor. 

If the pass rate for APS-C was 50 percent, then the FF pass rate becomes 17 percent. Cost per working sensor becomes $20 for APSC and $153 for FF, or 7 1/2 times the price

If the pass rate for APS-C was 25 percent, then the FF pass rate becomes 2.9 percent. Cost per working sensor becomes $40 for APSC and $897 for FF, or 22 1/2 times the price

This is what happens as you scale larger with lower yields... Image sensors are complex to fabricate and at the start of production you can expect yields lower than 10 percent, climbing higher as experience is gained. Nobody other than Canon knows what their yields are.. these numbers are just for the purpose of making a point, but 90 percent yield for an APSC might be achievable...


----------



## sdsr (Dec 17, 2013)

AprilForever said:


> 1. There had better be a 7d MK II.
> 
> 2. I hate video. Optimize my camera for still images.
> 
> ...



I'm not interested in video either (I was delighted to discover, after accidentally pressing it, that the movie button on the new OM-D can be assigned any one of a number of useful functions such as AF-assist or disabled altogether; perhaps that's true of all other cameras too...), and I also like the ideas of specialization and simplicity. We may be in a tiny minority, though (not only do people seem to like things that do everything, but I suspect that the longer the list of specifications, the more appealing it is to a certain sort of consumer).

Besides, these problems are exaggerated. It's easy not to use the movie functions in a camera (how much do they add to its cost), and some modern cameras, despite looking dauntingly complex, can be set up so that they are, in fact, extremely simple to use (the latest OM-D, for instance).

As for Pentax, its high-end dslrs have given better sensor performance than anyone else's for several years by some accounts (esp. DxO scores), even when they're using the same sensor as others, but that doesn't seem to have hurt Nikon, let alone Canon, and it's hard to see why it should start now. Even with its improvements, I don't think anyone is claiming that the K3's AF performance comes close to rivaling Canon's, and when it comes to lenses, not only does Pentax have nothing like the range of Canon, overall the quality isn't as good either (especially in terms of AF speed and accuracy). Sure, they have a few cute little primes (far more attractive aesthetically than anything made by Canon), but hardly any of them have really fast apertures and many of them have focus problems (speed and/or accuracy). 

As it happens, before I switched to Canon I owned a K5 (five minutes with 5DII & 24-105L and I was sold), and am once again enjoying using a few old Pentax manual lenses (Takumar) because they work even better on my new OM-D (with its excellent and easy-to-use in-EVF magnification and focus assist). These new-fangled complex cameras have their advantages....


----------



## Otara (Dec 17, 2013)

You keep working backwards though - if the yield for FF is high enough, the increased rate of failure becomes more and more irrelevant.

You quoted 90% or APS-C, but I dont see where that came from vs FF max rates possible - what is the max rate likely, and is 99, or 99.9 or whatever possible at some point or anything? The usefulness of your figures rest mostly on how often FF have to be failed, and to me thats the rate that we need to know about most.

Edit: So we seem to agree that the differences get smaller and smaller where the sensor price becomes comparatively irrelevant ie we talk 7 vs 30+ times. The 6D price alone shows either dumping is occurring, or the price of sensors are getting very low as part of the total cost - any improvement is going to have to be pretty amazing to overcome the introduction cost of something new with 10% rates etc etc.

Otara


----------



## eml58 (Dec 17, 2013)

unfocused said:


> eml58 said:
> 
> 
> > Has anyone else read this story over at Canon watch, I rarely go to this site but happened to check yesterday & read this article about "No 7DMK II", concerned me after reading all the interest in a 7DMK II here at CR, I can imagine Blood in the Streets here at CR if Canon did decide not to do a 7DMK II.
> ...



I tend to agree, but then I'm an owner of the 1DMK IV & the 1DsMKIII, and Canon without too much forward warning, if any, dropped the APSH format & the higher MP FF sensor & went with the 1Dx, but from my perspective although I was concerned to start I think it was a smart decision, the 1Dx has proven to be a pretty good piece of gear, but I do miss that higher MP Sensor.

I never quite worked out why Canon couldn't implement the same set up that Nikon have had for some time, the capability of doing in camera crop, I owned the D800 for a year before I sold it off, but that in camera crop was a pretty useful tool I thought.


----------



## Don Haines (Dec 17, 2013)

Otara said:


> You keep working backwards though - if the yield for FF is high enough, the increased rate of failure becomes more and more irrelevant.
> 
> You quoted 90% or APS-C, but I dont see where that came from vs FF max rates possible - what is the max rate likely, and is 99, or 99.9 or whatever possible at some point or anything? The usefulness of your figures rest mostly on how often FF have to be failed, and to me thats the rate that we need to know about most.
> 
> Otara


The max rate is obviously 100 percent, where the FF chip will cost 2.6 times the APS-C. When in "research mode", the yields may be down to 10 percent or lower... it's probably around 50 percent by the time they start making prototypes, and probably 75 percent or better by the time they go into production, and probably 90 percent after a half year or so of production....

The point to make here, is that even with 90 percent yield the cost is about 3 times APS-C, while perfect yields give 2.6 times.... the difference caused by yield during production is insignificant.. 

I have no idea what it costs to make an APS-C sensor, but an EOS-M can be bought for $300. Even if you said the sensor cost $100 (and 1/3 of the retail cost of a camera is insanely high), then by the above math we could expect a FF sensor to cost $300..... realistically, I would expect an APS-C sensor to cost UNDER $20 to make, and that would mean $50-$60 for a FF sensor.... $40 difference in sensor cost does not explain the price difference between APS-C and FF cameras.


----------



## Don Haines (Dec 17, 2013)

eml58 said:


> unfocused said:
> 
> 
> > eml58 said:
> ...


The 60D has an in-camera crop mode for video  probably not what you want to hear


----------



## jrista (Dec 17, 2013)

eml58 said:


> unfocused said:
> 
> 
> > eml58 said:
> ...



I have never known Canon to really show much interest in directly competing model for model, feature for feature, with Nikon or any other competitor. As a matter of fact, one of the things I really like about Canon is the fact that they really do seem to listen to the most important and vocal collective voices of their own direct customers.

For all the complaints people have levied at Canon for the "faults" of their latest generation of cameras, Canon listened intently to, and delivered exactly, what their most important customers were calling for. The sports and wedding photographers in particular demanded, *DEMANDED*, better high ISO performance, faster frame rates, better AF, and in the case of sports shooters, FEWER MEGAPIXELS! In the case of wedding photographers, I think the one ubiquitous request was a better AF system for the 5D III. Canon DELIVERED. They delivered exquisitely. They focused on the things their customers asked for, and pushed out a camera with the most amazing high ISO performance I've ever seen (at least, when it comes to bird and sports photography, I've seen quite a number of entirely usable ISO 51200 photos, at magazine print and web sizes you can barely tell there is any noise at all.)

There has never been a large, vocal outcry for Canon to add dynamic cropping modes to their cameras. There are certainly some niche groups of photographers who want it, but they seem to be far from the majority of Canon's customers. The largest groups have not only the most buying power, but the most important voice when it comes to demanding what they want from the largest photography company on the planet. That is, fundamentally, the sports/olympics, wedding/portraiture, and maybe in aggregate landscape/wildlife/bird photographers. You can kind of lump sports/olympics/wildlife/bird together as well...that's the action group, and in most of the ways that count, they all need the same thing: High ISO, high speed shutter, very fast frame rate, highly accurate and fast AF. That singularly large group of photographers has Canon by the gonads, and their demands in aggregate will always reign supreme. Wedding/portraiture has similar needs, but they also benefit from much higher sensor resolution and could probably use more dynamic range as well...and they would probably make up the second largest group.

If Canon continues to listen to it's own customers as a guide for where they should direct their R&D funding, then I don't suspect we will see quite as many interesting features like dynamic crop sensors as we do from Nikon. I think we will see a direct response to the most vocal outcry from the greatest majority of users. I think higher resolution is probably the largest outcry right now...more resolution without a loss in IQ. Improved dynamic range is probably secondary to more resolution...although I am honestly not as sure that a call for more dynamic range is really strong enough to get Canon to act on it by the next generation camera releases. I don't see much call at all for any of the other various and small features that Nikon currently offers in their cameras that are not available in Canon cameras. Some certainly offer small conveniences, but until a very loud vocal majority demands it, I don't foresee Canon even batting an eye at them.


----------



## RichM (Dec 17, 2013)

Lots of interesting thoughts here. Since this thread is still titled "Thinking Out Loud...." here goes....

I have had my 7d since the day it hit the shelves. It is still my "go to" action photography camera, despite purchasing the 5d2, and then replacing the 5d2 with a 5d3. While I'd love a 1DX, I cannot possibly justify the price, and the corresponding increase in cost for lenses that provide the same reach as my 7d/300f4 combo.

The 5d3 is simply awesome. When I can only bring 1 body, for whatever reason, the 5d3 comes along. It is outstanding for everything. It is vastly superior in low light, and for landscape and portrait photography. But there is something about the 7d that makes it a joy to use for all sports photography. It is a poor man's 1D4.

I will buy the 7d replacement, regardless of what they call it, if it provides 3 things: improved low light performance, improved image quality, and an APS-C sensor. Simply put, I'm a huge 7d fan.


----------



## candc (Dec 17, 2013)

The article at canon watch makes sense. I read the interview where a canon exec said there would be a 7dii but they want it to be revolutionary not just evolutionary. I took that to mean a new manufacturing process, maybe its something else.

Anyway, 7dii is an evolutionary name, not a revolutionary one so I think what this is really all about is "what will the 7dii be called?"


----------



## Don Haines (Dec 17, 2013)

jrista said:


> There has never been a large, vocal outcry for Canon to add dynamic cropping modes to their cameras. There are certainly some niche groups of photographers who want it, but they seem to be far from the majority of Canon's customers.



Strictly speaking.... changing the aspect ratio is in-camera cropping.... but I know what you mean.

Personally, I shoot RAW and worry about cropping later. A lot of my personal work gets shown in 16x9 but I like the ability to sit down later and adjust the crop/size to what works best. At work, my shots end up in reports and documentation, so size/format are all over the place.... including playing with levels/contrast/color to make cables or markings stand out.... I don't think I have taken a single picture that was not the full sensor area.


----------



## mkabi (Dec 17, 2013)

There is a possibility that they may call it a 7DC... in which case... I'm sold.

I do not think its going to be a mini 1Dx or 1DC, because if any consumer/prosumer/enthusiast/professional was to choose between a 1Dx or a 7D mark II... they would always choose a 7D mark ii, because of price. Especially, if the only difference between them is going to be FF vs APS-C. In which case, Canon's 1 series bodies lose...

So, I too believe that the 7D mark ii is going to have a modest upgrade, but a modest upgrade from the 70D.
Same sensor as the 70D, better low light capabilities, more fps but not 12 fps., slightly better AF.... etc.

However, I think they are going to push 4K, may be 1080/120p.
Because, they know people can't afford the 1DC (but want 4K, seeing all of Magic Lantern efforts going towards that) and they have modest sales with the C100 so video is not going to die.

But expect the price to be a little less than the C100, which would put it next to the price a 5D mark iii, when it came out. 

If Sony can make camcorders with 4K for $4000, then Canon can do the same with their DSLRs.


----------



## Zlyden (Dec 17, 2013)

unfocused said:


> Regardless of what their initial intentions might have been, the reality is that the APS-C market is now too big and too independent for either Canon or Nikon to risk alienating and losing customers by not meeting the consumers' demands.



But, if consumer demand for P&S cameras is on rapid decline, APS-C size sensor cameras becomes the primary competition arena for all camera makers where they should try to recover sales volumes that compacts lost to smartphones.

This should lead to Canon's APS-C camera prices going even lower than they are now (because it needs to compete with mirrorless offerings in $200-400 price range). The price decrease may also lead to difficulty with sales of APS-C cameras in '$1000 and up' segment.

In such situation FF DSLRS and EF lenses could be long term solution (or at least 'short term solution', until it's forced to create mirrorless FF) for Canon. It will not take a lot of marketing efforts to convince consumers that 'bigger means better'. And having only Nikon and Sony in this segment as competitors, Canon will be differentiated enough from the rest of the camera-maker crowd.

Another problem that Canon faces now and may solve by killing of 7D (in my opinion) are owners of older APS-C cameras (like 550D, 600D or 60D) who feel that may need to purchase new camera, but can not decide -- which one? "I own 550D (or 60D) what should I buy: 70D, 6D, 7D or wait for 7D II?" -- is probably frequent enough question on any photo forum. If Canon will remove 7D from the lineup (and drop official MSRP of 6D to $1500-1600 level), the answer to this question and customer's choice will be much simpler (and bring some more $$$ to company's quarter sales report).


----------



## wsmith96 (Dec 17, 2013)

Zlyden said:


> unfocused said:
> 
> 
> > Regardless of what their initial intentions might have been, the reality is that the APS-C market is now too big and too independent for either Canon or Nikon to risk alienating and losing customers by not meeting the consumers' demands.
> ...



funny you mention this as that's the position I'm in right now. So far, my answer to this would be to get both.


----------



## Zlyden (Dec 17, 2013)

wsmith96 said:


> funny you mention this as that's the position I'm in right now. So far, my answer to this would be to get both.



Well, then it just means that Canon marketing folk are much wiser again and do need any suggestions from various forums. 

They just needed to spread out rumor that will terminate another rumor about '7D II to be released very soon'...


----------



## drmikeinpdx (Dec 17, 2013)

My 7D doesn't get much use anymore, because of the noise level. I'd only be interested in a 7D2 if Canon makes a substanially lower noise 1.6 sensor and from what I've seen, they are not making much progress on that front.


----------



## Zlyden (Dec 17, 2013)

drmikeinpdx said:


> My 7D doesn't get much use anymore, because of the noise level. I'd only be interested in a 7D2 if Canon makes a substanially lower noise 1.6 sensor and from what I've seen, they are not making much progress on that front.



Well, it is not only Canon -- no camera makers in APS-C or 4/3 segment did make much progress on 'noise level' during past 10 years (unless a great jump from ISO 1600 being 'just awful' to 'almost acceptable' counts as a progress).

I do not think that it's possible that '7D II' may be much better in this quality... unless they will use the same type of sensors as in current FF cameras (like 6D) and reduce 18 MPs back to 8-10 MPs.


----------



## jrista (Dec 17, 2013)

Don Haines said:


> jrista said:
> 
> 
> > There has never been a large, vocal outcry for Canon to add dynamic cropping modes to their cameras. There are certainly some niche groups of photographers who want it, but they seem to be far from the majority of Canon's customers.
> ...



I think your misunderstanding just a little bit. By in-camera cropping, I am referring to the ability of say a FF sensor to support different crops wherein ONLY the cropped area is read out and saved to a proper RAW image format. If Canon released a 46mp FF sensor, they might also provide an 18mp APS-C cropped read. By doing so, they could offer more than just crop, but ALSO offer higher frame rate, since reading 18 megapixles requires less time and overhead than reading 46 megapixels. You might have a 4fps rate at 46mp, and 10fps at 18mp. You could also have other crop factors as well, maybe a 1.3x APS-H crop at 8fps. And, since it is still a native sensor read, just a sensor read limited to a smaller central region of pixels, there is no reason whatsoever that the output couldn't and shouldn't be the same native RAW format as full frame reads.


----------



## Don Haines (Dec 17, 2013)

jrista said:


> Don Haines said:
> 
> 
> > jrista said:
> ...



I knew exactly what you meant.... but I didn't consider the faster frame rate with the smaller files... Even a Rebel can read an 18M sensor at 60 times per second, and any "big megapixel" camera that supports video should have no problem with being able to read the sensor 60 times per second.

I think that what slows down frame rate is the shutter speed, the time needed to create the files, and mostly the ability to dump the files out to storage. I agree, smaller number of pixels to be used in the image gives faster processing and less time to write, and that gives you more frames/second.

As an interesting aside, I have a p/s with a 16M sensor, it can shoot video at 240 frames per second so that implies that time required to read the sensor is not important... As you shrink down the recorded size of the image the frame rate goes up...
11.5fps/17 images (16M)
60.3fps/60 images (3M)

If Canon put out a DSLR where you could put it into a 10Mpixel crop mode and fire off a burst at 30 or 40 frames per second there would be a lot of interested bird photographers


----------



## jrista (Dec 17, 2013)

Don Haines said:


> jrista said:
> 
> 
> > Don Haines said:
> ...



I am talking about cropped stills, not cropped video. (Personally, I could really care less about video in my DSLR...it's convenient for some uses, but I really use my DSLR for photography.) Also, keep in mind, read occurs at the front end of the pipeline...compression, such as video compression or compression of photos into RAW files/JPEG, occurs at the back end of the pipeline. The readout rate requires that the front end speed, the data being pulled off the sensor and shipped into the DSP, support the full RAW data size of the full sensor at it's native bit depth, masked pixels and any error correcting or other intrinsic overhead included.

As for readout rate, they aren't reading the entire sensor at 60fps. Video reads are different than full frame stills reads. You only need to read two megapixels for full HD video. If they actually WERE reading the full frame at 60fps, that would mean the data throughput rate was TWO GIGABYTES PER SECOND. The DIGIC5+ is only capable of 250 MEGABYTES per second each (and the 1D X needs 480MB throughput to support 14fps, hence the use of dual digic.) Conversely, at 2 megapixels, the total throughput rate for 1080p readout at 60fps is 218MB/s, and is very likely achieved via some kind of basic hardware binning at best, and row skipping at worst.

Your little P&S is using binned readout or something like that to achieve 240fps, and even then, is it a progressive readout, or interleaved readout? If interleaved, the true readout rate would be 120fps, very likely for a mere 1mp worth of data. To actually read a full 16mp worth of data at 240fps (even at a mere 12 bit), you would need over 6BG/s throughput (that would be faster than SATA 3!)

What I think most people are referring to is a true native stills photography read, but with native cropping. Assuming we get DIGIC7+, capable of 7x DIGIC5+ performance. That would allow a 1750MB/s (1.75GB/s) raw data readout rate. That would allow around 19fps @ 46mp (assuming masked border pixels and some additional overhead). It would allow 37.7mp APS-H reads at ~33fps, and 18.1mp APS-C reads at ~51fps. For all that seven times more processing power than a single DIGIC5+, it still doesn't get you over the 60fps hump...even with hardware cropping.


----------



## Don Haines (Dec 17, 2013)

jrista said:


> Don Haines said:
> 
> 
> > jrista said:
> ...


Interesting....
Every time I discuss something with you I learn things. Thanks for the patience!


----------



## candc (Dec 18, 2013)

in camera cropping or digital zoom is great with an evf so you see what you see is what you get. it would be splendid with a high mp ff mirrorless body. when canon makes a big mp ff body like the d800 then it should have a crop mode also, its better than not having it but you just get a crop square in the viewfinder. i don't know if there is a good way to change the magnification of what you see in the finder when you switch to crop mode?


----------



## jrista (Dec 18, 2013)

Don Haines said:


> jrista said:
> 
> 
> > I am talking about cropped stills, not cropped video. (Personally, I could really care less about video in my DSLR...it's convenient for some uses, but I really use my DSLR for photography.) Also, keep in mind, read occurs at the front end of the pipeline...compression, such as video compression or compression of photos into RAW files/JPEG, occurs at the back end of the pipeline. The readout rate requires that the front end speed, the data being pulled off the sensor and shipped into the DSP, support the full RAW data size of the full sensor at it's native bit depth, masked pixels and any error correcting or other intrinsic overhead included.
> ...



No problem.


----------



## AvTvM (Dec 18, 2013)

candc said:


> in camera cropping or digital zoom is great with an evf so you see what you see is what you get. it would be splendid with a high mp ff mirrorless body. when canon makes a big mp ff body like the d800 then it should have a crop mode also, its better than not having it but you just get a crop square in the viewfinder. i don't know if there is a good way to change the magnification of what you see in the finder when you switch to crop mode?



Yes! Perfectly implemented crop mode with EVF is available. Sony A7 = 10MP in 1.5x crop mode, A7R = 15.3MP. 
Canon would not even have to innovate. Just imitate. 

http://www.dpreview.com/previews/sony-alpha-7-7r


> The two cameras are perfectly capable of using existing E-mount and A-mount lenses, and you have the choice as to whether the image is cropped. If you choose to crop, the resolution will drop to 15 megapixel on the α7R and 10 megapixel on the α7, and the equivalent focal length will increase by 1.5X. Sony also gives you the option not to crop and use the entire sensor, though this may lead to strong vignetting (and for most lenses, probably will).





> The camera offers three options for its APS-C crop mode - Off, Auto and On. With it switched Off, you'll see Image 1 with a full-frame lens and Image 2 if you're using an APS-C lens. In the default, Auto, mode you'll get Image 1 or Image 3, depending on whether you're using a full-frame or an APS-C lens. And finally, with it On, you'll see Image 3, regardless of which lens type you put on the camera.



Image 1: http://www.dpreview.com/previews/sony-alpha-7-7r/images/lensFF.jpg
full sensor area, uncropped frame (with FF lens) 

Image 2 http://www.dpreview.com/previews/sony-alpha-7-7r/images/lensAPSCNoCrop.jpg
full sensor area, vignetted image (with APS-C lens)

Image 3: http://www.dpreview.com/previews/sony-alpha-7-7r/images/lensAPSC.jpg
cropped viewfinder display, higher viewfinder magnification, cropped image [with APS-C lens]


----------



## Marsu42 (Dec 18, 2013)

candc said:


> Marsu42 said:
> 
> 
> > That's where the 70d comes it: it has a "dumbed down" af system and might be inferior to a rumored 7d2
> ...



Don't count on that happening, I wouldn't advise buying a 70d expecting an af feature update that brings it up to the 7d1 level - Canon is not in the habit of doing *any* updates on the xxd cameras, they're to be sold and used "as is".


----------



## Zlyden (Dec 18, 2013)

AvTvM said:


> Yes! Perfectly implemented crop mode with EVF is available. Sony A7 = 10MP in 1.5x crop mode, A7R = 15.3MP.
> Canon would not even have to innovate. Just imitate.



Such 'innovation' makes much more sense for Sony, because it has wide range of reasonably good 'crop lenses' and probably wants to 'lure' existing NEX and APS-C alpha users into brave new world of FF. (And probably this is not a luxury but necessity, given limited number of new FE lenses.)

On Canon's side I can't imagine a lot 'future mirrorless FF' buyers to use such camera in cropped mode with lenses like EF-M 22 or EF-S 55-250...


----------



## AvTvM (Dec 18, 2013)

Marsu42 said:


> Don't count on that happening, I wouldn't advise buying a 70d expecting an af feature update that brings it up to the 7d1 level - Canon is not in the habit of doing *any* updates on the xxd cameras, they're to be sold and used "as is".



exactly! "Upgrades" for Canon xxD users are available solely by purchasing a "new" (incrementally improved) xxD body. ;-)

And sometimes it turns out to be a downgrade ... 50D anyone?


----------



## unfocused (Dec 18, 2013)

How was the 50D I downgrade? Just curious. I can see the 60D, but 50D?


----------



## jdramirez (Dec 19, 2013)

unfocused said:


> How was the 50D I downgrade? Just curious. I can see the 60D, but 50D?


That's what I was thinking... and how awesome was the 40d?


----------



## Marsu42 (Dec 19, 2013)

unfocused said:


> How was the 50D I downgrade? Just curious. I can see the 60D, but 50D?



As far as I remember the 50d was the first Canon aps-c to be accused of having a too high pixel density for it's own good, and it was even sold alongside the 40d for a while since they served different purposes (just like 5d2 vs 5d3)... the high iso noise gave the 50d a bad reputation, little did they know back then about what was to come next


----------



## jdramirez (Dec 19, 2013)

Marsu42 said:


> unfocused said:
> 
> 
> > How was the 50D I downgrade? Just curious. I can see the 60D, but 50D?
> ...



I would be curious if there is a market for a low pixel density, high pixel quality, aps-c camera with low light functionality on par with full frame. Since it would use the best part of the lens, there would be less vignetting, sharper images at the corners, and no novice buyers because they see the megapixel number and are blind to everything else.


----------



## AvTvM (Dec 19, 2013)

unfocused said:


> How was the 50D I downgrade? Just curious. I can see the 60D, but 50D?


50D sensor was hardly a progress over 40D. 
But you are right, I meant the downgrade with no AFMA ... that was 60D then right?

Canon only barely retained me as a customer in 2009, because they finally brought the 7D which I considered to be at least as good as the Nikon D300s. And because Nikon had and still has no stabilized 17-55/2.8 lens ... and still does not have one to the day. Without 7D - meaning something as lame as 50D or 60D - I would definitely have switched from my 40D to Nikon back then.


----------



## mrsfotografie (Dec 19, 2013)

AvTvM said:


> unfocused said:
> 
> 
> > How was the 50D I downgrade? Just curious. I can see the 60D, but 50D?
> ...



I switched from a 40D to a 5DMKII and then also bought a 7D. The 50D I recall was disappointing and I always felt (and still do today) that the 40D was better. The 60D by the way, was a joke when compared to the format of the xxD bodies until then.


----------



## Lawliet (Dec 19, 2013)

jrista said:


> As for readout rate, they aren't reading the entire sensor at 60fps. Video reads are different than full frame stills reads. You only need to read two megapixels for full HD video. If they actually WERE reading the full frame at 60fps, that would mean the data throughput rate was TWO GIGABYTES PER SECOND. The DIGIC5+ is only capable of 250 MEGABYTES per second each (and the 1D X needs 480MB throughput to support 14fps, hence the use of dual digic.) Conversely, at 2 megapixels, the total throughput rate for 1080p readout at 60fps is 218MB/s, and is very likely achieved via some kind of basic hardware binning at best, and row skipping at worst.



Thats where we should look at Sonys RX10 - it archives video quality on par with the much bigger solutions by actually reading (and using the data of) its full sensor @60p. Using similar readout & processing cores on each the left&right half of a full frame sensor would get you very close to 4K 4:4:4 (i.e. 7680/8192px on the long side) @60p. Or really high fps for 39/45MP stills. You might need a bigger body to fit everything in...but that could be considered a bonus after all


----------



## Buschtrommel (Jan 3, 2014)

I hope the 7D II would might have a better image quality - I`m owning a 7D and a 5d3 and since I bought the 5d3 I only use the 7D at sportsevents with action and good light !!! In all other cases I use the 5d3, cause her IQ is so much better. The 7D II should have the AF of the 5d3 and the speed of 8 - 10 p/s a much better IQ, especially at ISO 800 and higher. In this case I would buy it up to 2000,- €.


----------



## MichaelHodges (Jan 9, 2014)

Marsu42 said:


> unfocused said:
> 
> 
> > How was the 50D I downgrade? Just curious. I can see the 60D, but 50D?
> ...



Selling my 50D for the 7D was a mistake at the time.


----------

