# Rest well Canon EOS 7D series [CR2]



## Canon Rumors Guy (May 29, 2019)

> We’ve mentioned a few times previously that there would be no follow-up to the EOS 7D Mark II. We’re again hearing more about the demise of the EOS 7D series in favour of an EOS R solution. We may be beating a dead horse a bit here.
> Will it be an APS-C EOS R?
> We have been told that a few dealers and distributors are a bit worried about what Canon has in store for the replacement to the popular EOS 7D Mark II, as those buyers also buy lenses, more than EOS 80D buyers do. Canon has apparently told a couple of dealers that this concern will be addressed sometime later in 2019.
> There has also been talk that an EOS R replacement for the EOS 7D Mark II will require the RF mount to meet target focusing speed and accuracy. Apparently, there’s more to come with the RF mount that has yet to be revealed to the world. We were given no additional insight into what we haven’t been told.
> We expect an EOS 80D replacement to come sometime in 2019 that may...



Continue reading...


----------



## JoFT (May 29, 2019)

Just a guessing.... a R-mount 7D would mean APS-C and the rumored high speed body.... well, this may all make sense to me...


----------



## Trey T (May 29, 2019)

It sounds like the revised 80D will have some features of 7D mark II to keep us 7D users happy for the time being, like high FPS for sports. That strategy will allow Canon buy so they can produce an awesome 7D-equivalent R camera. I guess I'll have to wait until the end of 2020 to buy this new R camera. I bet the new one will be called "Canon RS"


----------



## unfocused (May 29, 2019)

Okay, I'm trying to figure this out. 

Canon is killing the 7D series, but dealers say the 7D drives lens sales. That would mean Canon is killing the body that is an income generator.

"This concern will be addressed in 2019." What? How? Well, at least we won't have to wait long to find out.

A mirrorless 7DII replacement needs the R mount? So Canon would produce just one APS-C body that uses the R mount, while all other mirrorless APS-C bodies use the M mount? And, if the M mount isn't capable of focusing speed and accuracy, that's a pretty damaging indictment of the design.

"...there’s more to come with the RF mount that has yet to be revealed to the world." Yeah, well of course. The whole idea behind the RF mount was that it would allow Canon to move forward with new features and options.


----------



## neuroanatomist (May 29, 2019)

Struggling with the idea of an APS-C EOS R – would there be an RF-S mount (a _fifth_ mount for current Canon cameras)? If not, lenses are needlessly large (e.g. the patented 17-70mm f/3.5-5.6 lens would be great for APS-C, but it has a FF image circle and could be significantly smaller with a smaller image circle). Does Canon expect users of an APS-C EOS R would just adapt EF-S lenses? Defeats the purpose of a small body, IMO.

I can certainly see Canon merging the xxD and 7D lines into a 90D that looks a lot like the current 7DII, perhaps with a video feature upgrade, enhanced AF and 12 fps.


----------



## docsmith (May 29, 2019)

I think it is very possible that a new 90D is better than the 7DII. 

As for an APS-C version of the R, I agree, it does seem odd. If there is no benefit to the lens size, then the only benefit would be in fps.

What would be great is if they had a FF EOS-R that had a crop mode that was 12-14 fps and FF was ~8 fps.


----------



## unfocused (May 29, 2019)

neuroanatomist said:


> Struggling with the idea of an APS-C EOS R – would there be an RF-S mount (a _fifth_ mount for current Canon cameras)? If not, lenses are needlessly large (e.g. the patented 17-70mm f/3.5-5.6 lens would be great for APS-C, but it has a FF image circle and could be significantly smaller with a smaller image circle). Does Canon expect users of an APS-C EOS R would just adapt EF-S lenses? Defeats the purpose of a small body, IMO...



I hadn't thought about that, but you make a good point. Very little about this makes sense. 

Traditionally, the 7D series has come in under the 5D in price but over the 5D in features. I don't know how Canon packs all of this into a mirrorless body that would come in *under* the price of the R. But, if it is more than the R, I don't see 7D users buying it. We will know more for sure when the 90D or whatever they call it, comes out, but it just seems like Canon has really painted themselves into a corner on this. 

To me that the easy way out is to release a 7DIII with an new sensor, touchscreen, f8 points, upgraded autofocus, 12 fps and call it good. Then wait five years for the market to sort out. As I've said before, I think once full frame hits about 36 mp, the perceived reach advantage of APS-C is no longer that significant in real world use.


----------



## -pekr- (May 29, 2019)

neuroanatomist said:


> Struggling with the idea of an APS-C EOS R – would there be an RF-S mount (a _fifth_ mount for current Canon cameras)? If not, lenses are needlessly large (e.g. the patented 17-70mm f/3.5-5.6 lens would be great for APS-C, but it has a FF image circle and could be significantly smaller with a smaller image circle). Does Canon expect users of an APS-C EOS R would just adapt EF-S lenses? Defeats the purpose of a small body, IMO.
> 
> I can certainly see Canon merging the xxD and 7D lines into a 90D that looks a lot like the current 7DII, perhaps with a video feature upgrade, enhanced AF and 12 fps.



I still don't seem to understand. Is there is a size differentce in an equivalent RF vs EF lens? Or are you talking an RF / EF vs EF-S? Then I wonder, how many 7DII shooters use EF-S lens, so that we have to care about the lens size difference? What other option for Canon there is, if they want to produce 7DIII in a mirrorless form? It can't be an M body, right? That would be too small ergonomics wise? Or it could be just a larger M body, still with an M mount? I am kind of confused


----------



## bergstrom (May 29, 2019)

so canon's idealogy is, listen to what your customers would like and then don't give it to them or give them something else.


----------



## Kit. (May 29, 2019)

-pekr- said:


> Then I wonder, how many 7DII shooters use EF-S lens, so that we have to care about the lens size difference?


I think quite a lot of them have EF-S 15-85.


----------



## Del Paso (May 29, 2019)

-pekr- said:


> I still don't seem to understand. Is there is a size differentce in an equivalent RF vs EF lens? Or are you talking an RF / EF vs EF-S? Then I wonder, how many 7DII shooters use EF-S lens, so that we have to care about the lens size difference? What other option for Canon there is, if they want to produce 7DIII in a mirrorless form? It can't be an M body, right? That would be too small ergonomics wise? Or it could be just a larger M body, still with an M mount? I am kind of confused


Me too!


----------



## amorse (May 29, 2019)

It is certainly an interesting situation. The fact that the 7D II moves lenses suggests that that's what they want out of moving it to the R mount. Canon may need to get more people buying into that system as quick as possible to keep it moving. Canon has aggressively priced the R and RP, likely to get more mounts into the wild which need lenses. I wouldn't be surprised if both the R and RP were loss leaders considering the cost of comparable DSLR release prices in the Canon ecosystem.

Here's an idea - if the spiritual successor to the 7DII was a full frame R camera with a (somewhat) lower resolution sensor, maybe they could release that alongside an EF mount adaptor with a built in teleconverter. The R can focus at f/11, so with a 2x version you could effectively turn the 100-400 into an autofocusing 200-800 on a full frame with improved light collection. Releasing a full frame camera with a somewhat lower resolution to allow a much faster burst rate combined with a EF adapter/teleconverter would could tick a lot of those boxes the 7D II was filling while giving better light collecting power, and provide a better vehicle to move those with interest in crop sensors to move up to full frame and start buying RF glass. Who knows what something like that would cost, but if the 90D is moving up market I would expect the 7D II successor to do the same. Crazy ideas, I know, but if Canon's objective is to get more people buying into RF glass then moving the camera which sells the most glass to the RF mount could be one way to do it!


----------



## tron (May 29, 2019)

If the above (That 7DII owners give a lot of money for lenses) is true - and I have no reason to doubt it - then this would be a stupid move in MY humble opinion. I for one would replace my 7DII with a 7DIII and the only requirement I would have would be the IQ improvement. The fact that the one year newer (2016) 5DsR has better IQ with the same pixel density proves that it can be done. Combine the 5DIV sensor technology and we would have a winner. 24Mpixel would be enough.


----------



## Sharlin (May 29, 2019)

Maybe now it's the time to resurrect APS-H?


----------



## Proscribo (May 29, 2019)

Sharlin said:


> Maybe now it's the time to resurrect APS-H?


In 4:3 aspect ratio thank you.


----------



## Architect1776 (May 29, 2019)

neuroanatomist said:


> Struggling with the idea of an APS-C EOS R – would there be an RF-S mount (a _fifth_ mount for current Canon cameras)? If not, lenses are needlessly large (e.g. the patented 17-70mm f/3.5-5.6 lens would be great for APS-C, but it has a FF image circle and could be significantly smaller with a smaller image circle). Does Canon expect users of an APS-C EOS R would just adapt EF-S lenses? Defeats the purpose of a small body, IMO.
> 
> I can certainly see Canon merging the xxD and 7D lines into a 90D that looks a lot like the current 7DII, perhaps with a video feature upgrade, enhanced AF and 12 fps.



Canon could follow the Nikon lead. If cropped lenses are produced they fit the R mount and the camera automatically crops if on a FF body. That way they have the same mount but the function is changed by what body. There is NO need for an RFs Mount as there is no mirror to hit the rear of the lens if it protrudes farther into the body for the APSC sensor. Rear caps might be universal so a bit deeper to fit all R lenses without worrying which cap for what lens.


----------



## PureClassA (May 29, 2019)

neuroanatomist said:


> Struggling with the idea of an APS-C EOS R – would there be an RF-S mount (a _fifth_ mount for current Canon cameras)? If not, lenses are needlessly large (e.g. the patented 17-70mm f/3.5-5.6 lens would be great for APS-C, but it has a FF image circle and could be significantly smaller with a smaller image circle). Does Canon expect users of an APS-C EOS R would just adapt EF-S lenses? Defeats the purpose of a small body, IMO.
> 
> I can certainly see Canon merging the xxD and 7D lines into a 90D that looks a lot like the current 7DII, perhaps with a video feature upgrade, enhanced AF and 12 fps.



That's where I was thinking as well. Would not an APS-C EOS R essentially be an EOS M?? We have crop sensor lenses for the M but obviously not an RF mount. This would indeed seem a bit strange. I hate to see the 7D name vanish. And 80D + 7D MkII = either a 90D or just call it a 7D Mk III. Not sure why they NEED to retire the name, unless they feel using the 90D name is somehow more effective for marketing?


----------



## unfocused (May 29, 2019)

Kit. said:


> I think quite a lot of them have EF-S 15-85.


Yes. If you want to shoot wide angle to normal on a 7DII, it makes much more sense to use an EF-S lens. The 15-85, 17-55 2.8 and 10-22 are all popular lenses.


----------



## victorshikhman (May 29, 2019)

These leaks about the future of the EF-S system, 90D/7Diii are not helping anyone. The information being teased is confusing, conflicting, or wildly optimistic. It's not helping anyone plan out their upgrade path, except away from Canon. 

Even the title of this post is confusing. "Rest well 7D series"? Does that mean "Rest In Peace", meaning the product line is dead, or does it mean rest secure, in other words, don't worry, a 7Diii or equivalent replacement is coming? Then we are told the distributors are worried, because the 7D line drives a lot of full frame glass sales, which makes perfect sense - 7D is used by professionals and advanced amateurs who need high performance glass. Many 7D wildlife and sports shooters already spend crazy money on long lenses. If anyone can afford the ridiculously expensive pricing and early adoption surcharge of RF glass, it's them. So Canon's response is... what exactly? Don't worry, we're going to make a full frame R camera with specs to satisfy the 7D line? Or an APS-C camera with the R mount? Or an APS-C camera with the M mount or a new mirrorless APS-C mount? Or an APS-C DSLR with EF-S mount?

How is any of this comforting or informational? Basically, anything could happen, literally anything. Thanks, Canon! Why not just release a roadmap?


----------



## unfocused (May 29, 2019)

PureClassA said:


> ...Not sure why they NEED to retire the name, unless they feel using the 90D name is somehow more effective for marketing?



Canon took a tremendous amount of grief when the released the 60D and it was a significant downgrade from the much beloved 40D (The 50D was never much of a seller, although it was a great camera). I doubt they want to repeat that by putting a 7DIII badge on a 90D. However, I do think that 7D owners are going to be upset no matter what they call the 90D, if it is a downgrade and there is no 7D in the future.


----------



## LSXPhotog (May 29, 2019)

I'm OK with this. I honestly want Canon to just move forward with the RF mount instead of keeping us professional users in limbo. The obsession with people thinking they need a native mount APS-C line of lenses now is not really warranted. The adapter works so well and adds one inch of length. Just try it out and leave it on there like a mount conversion - it's what I do with the EOS R.

I'm rocking a 1DX Mark II and 7D Mark II for sports right now and I would love to switch entirely over to RF. Let's make it happen, Canon.


----------



## unfocused (May 29, 2019)

victorshikhman said:


> These leaks about the future of the EF-S system, 90D/7Diii are not helping anyone. The information being teased is confusing, conflicting, or wildly optimistic. It's not helping anyone plan out their upgrade path, except away from Canon...



Yes. I've never felt that Canon paid that much attention to the internet buzz, but I think in this instance, they may be making a mistake by not offering some clarity to their customers. Trying to migrate 7D users to the R system or asking them to downsize their expectations is a risky strategy when Nikon is sitting there with a camera and lens combo that many people may feel is a better fit for their needs.


----------



## Del Paso (May 29, 2019)

Hope it doesn't sound silly, but I could imagine the Hi-MP EOS R to be "switchable" into APS mode, and specific RF bayonet APS lenses being on offer later.


----------



## victorshikhman (May 29, 2019)

unfocused said:


> Trying to migrate 7D users to the R system or asking them to downsize their expectations is a risky strategy when Nikon is sitting there with a camera and lens combo that many people may feel is a better fit for their needs.



So true. If Canon bought the d500 and rebadged it as a 7Diii, most would upgrade in an instant and be happy for years to come. The chances of a 7Dii successor beating the d500's features seem slim.


----------



## Chaitanya (May 29, 2019)

If rumours are true then I hope Canon bumps the Eos X0D back to its glory days in terms of ergonomics and features.


----------



## jtf (May 29, 2019)

So if I'm keeping score correctly, the replacement alternatives to a 7DIII will be the 90D, the possibly APS-C R version mentioned here?, and a sports oriented prosumer FF R to be released in 2020? It'll be interesting if all 3 become reality and available. Probably looking at a $2k price range difference between a 90D and a sports R with this new rumored body somewhere in between. Features, build quality, lens mounts, so many variables.....


----------



## jeffa4444 (May 29, 2019)

Canon have a crop mode on the 5DS/r, they have a crop mode on the EOS-R the difference being you can use EF-S lenses with the adaptor on the EOS-R. To address wide angle concerns Canon only needs to make specific wide angle RF lenses for crop. They would work universally for full frame cameras and crop bodies with the same back-focus. 
We have seem already whether its Sony or Canon RF lenses you dont really get a size saving for certain types of lens especially fast lenses. Most 7D MKII owners are using long focal length lenses for sports or birding / wildlife so its really convergence were going to see with possibly high speed / high resolution being the biggest barriers not lens design. Lenses via the RF mount will automatically adjust crop if they are only suitable for cropped shooting as indeed they do already on the EOS-R using the adaptor. 

My money is on an EOS-R type camera fulfilling the 7D MKIII and may well be a cross between the 1DX II and the 7D MKII, the whole system is still in its early days but over time like we saw with EF / EF-S we will have a universal back-focus and both EF / EF-S will get little or zero attention allowed to die slowly.


----------



## AlanF (May 29, 2019)

amorse said:


> Here's an idea - if the spiritual successor to the 7DII was a full frame R camera with a (somewhat) lower resolution sensor, maybe they could release that alongside an EF mount adaptor with a built in teleconverter. The R can focus at f/11, so with a 2x version you could effectively turn the 100-400 into an autofocusing 200-800 on a full frame with improved light collection. Releasing a full frame camera with a somewhat lower resolution to allow a much faster burst rate combined with a EF adapter/teleconverter would could tick a lot of those boxes the 7D II was filling while giving better light collecting power, and provide a better vehicle to move those with interest in crop sensors to move up to full frame and start buying RF glass. Who knows what something like that would cost, but if the 90D is moving up market I would expect the 7D II successor to do the same. Crazy ideas, I know, but if Canon's objective is to get more people buying into RF glass then moving the camera which sells the most glass to the RF mount could be one way to do it!


Several points against that. The 100-400 loses a lot of MTF with a 2xTC, f/11 makes it worse by getting well into the diffraction region at about twice the DLA, and even though it might focus at f/11, it will be slowed down.


----------



## fredtuck (May 29, 2019)

How about a hybrid. A full frame Eos R with the pixel density of a 7D Mark II over the full frame but a very slow frame rate limited by a single image processor. For the Sports/Wildlife shooters the center APS-C portion of the frame can shoot at high frame rates. Also maybe 4k video only in the APS-C portion with only 24P or 30P. You then have a nice high resolution landscape camera with EF or RF lenses. The high end Eos R would then have two processors and all the bells and whistles to give a high frame in the whole frame and 4k derived from the full frame.


----------



## neuroanatomist (May 29, 2019)

unfocused said:


> To me that the easy way out is to release a 7DIII with an new sensor, touchscreen, f8 points, upgraded autofocus, 12 fps and call it good...


... the 90D.


----------



## Steve Balcombe (May 29, 2019)

I'm just glad I don't need to buy anything right now, because if I did I wouldn't have a clue which way to jump. I'm one of those early 7D and 7D2 owners who has since spent a small fortune on Canon lenses. I do now also have a 5D4 but what I really want is for the 7D2 to be brought up to date - and it was barely up to date on the day it was launched. Not only did the D500 beat it hollow just a few months later, but the much cheaper 80D has a better sensor which has been a source of frustration for me ever since I bought one _three years ago_. But the 80D is not a 7D-class body, and nor was it ever intended to be by Canon. A 90D which is just a faster, updated 80D would also not be a 7D-class body and would be of little interest to me. And of course there is nothing of any interest in the two mirrorless ranges at this point in time. So I sit back and watch, and wonder what will happen, thankful that I can go on using what I have for the foreseeable future.


----------



## AlanF (May 29, 2019)

I, personally, far prefer a FF with high resolution sensor with the same pixel density as an APS-C to an APS-C. The extra field of view gives you a 1.6x gain in the size you can get on to an image and makes capturing BIF so much easier. If I were to go over to Nikon for nature photography, I would go for the D850 rather than the D500, just as I currently prefer a 5DSR to a 7DII, despite the lower fps and higher price. I realise for many, the higher price of the FF is a deal breaker.


----------



## neuroanatomist (May 29, 2019)

-pekr- said:


> I still don't seem to understand. Is there is a size differentce in an equivalent RF vs EF lens? Or are you talking an RF / EF vs EF-S? Then I wonder, how many 7DII shooters use EF-S lens, so that we have to care about the lens size difference? What other option for Canon there is, if they want to produce 7DIII in a mirrorless form? It can't be an M body, right? That would be too small ergonomics wise? Or it could be just a larger M body, still with an M mount? I am kind of confused


I'm confused, too. I don't think there's a difference between RF and EF in terms of lens size (people claim there is, but there are no data to support that claim). But a smaller image circle can make a big difference at short FLs. Look at the EF 11-24 f/4L vs. the EF-S 10-18mm or 10-22mm. 

I do suspect a lot of 7-series shooters use EF-S lenses, 10-18/22, 17-55/2.8, 15-85. Canon has ample data on this, certainly.

I think they could make a larger M body for better ergonomics, but that would mean adapting telephoto lenses to it.


----------



## tron (May 29, 2019)

neuroanatomist said:


> ... the 90D.


90D will certainly be a very nice camera. It will be very tempting for birding but I use the joystick on my 5DiV, 5DsR and 7DII and I would like to continue using it. I guess we will know in a few months...


----------



## neuroanatomist (May 29, 2019)

Architect1776 said:


> Canon could follow the Nikon lead. If cropped lenses are produced they fit the R mount and the camera automatically crops if on a FF body. That way they have the same mount but the function is changed by what body. There is NO need for an RFs Mount as there is no mirror to hit the rear of the lens if it protrudes farther into the body for the APSC sensor. Rear caps might be universal so a bit deeper to fit all R lenses without worrying which cap for what lens.


Excellent point!


----------



## neuroanatomist (May 29, 2019)

AlanF said:


> I, personally, far prefer a FF with high resolution sensor with the same pixel density as an APS-C to an APS-C. The extra field of view gives you a 1.6x gain in the size you can get on to an image and makes capturing BIF so much easier. If I were to go over to Nikon for nature photography, I would go for the D850 rather than the D500, just as I currently prefer a 5DSR to a 7DII, despite the lower fps and higher price. I realise for many, the higher price of the FF is a deal breaker.


Me, too. But Canon would likely charge well over $3K for an EOS R version of the 5DSr, whereas an APS-C camera with that pixel density will be much, much cheaper.


----------



## Lurker (May 29, 2019)

Doesn't make sense to kill the 7D badge in favor of the n0D name. What happens after 90D, 100D is already taken, 91D?
Doesn't make sense to kill an open ended name like 7D in favor of n0D which has nowhere to go. Might as well kill both now and move on.


----------



## Jack Douglas (May 29, 2019)

I sure hope Canon has this all sorted out because obviously there is a lot of concern, including me.

Jack


----------



## AlanF (May 29, 2019)

fredtuck said:


> How about a hybrid. A full frame Eos R with the pixel density of a 7D Mark II over the full frame but a very slow frame rate limited by a single image processor. For the Sports/Wildlife shooters the center APS-C portion of the frame can shoot at high frame rates. Also maybe 4k video only in the APS-C portion with only 24P or 30P. You then have a nice high resolution landscape camera with EF or RF lenses. The high end Eos R would then have two processors and all the bells and whistles to give a high frame in the whole frame and 4k derived from the full frame.


The current 7DII needs two processors for a high frame rate. The high number of focus points in the Canon DPAF of the R series requires more computation than for the much smaller number on a 7DII or 80D, and so even a newer single DIGIC processor would struggle.


----------



## fredtuck (May 29, 2019)

AlanF said:


> The current 7DII needs two processors for a high frame rate. The high number of focus points in the Canon DPAF of the R series requires more computation than for the much smaller number on a 7DII or 80D, and so even a newer single DIGIC processor would struggle.



Those were DIGIC 6 processors. The new DIGIC 8 can probably handle the frame rate. As for focus points just reduce the number to the point that the DIGIC 8 can handle it.


----------



## fredtuck (May 29, 2019)

fredtuck said:


> Those were DIGIC 6 processors. The new DIGIC 8 can probably handle the frame rate. As for focus points just reduce the number to the point that the DIGIC 8 can handle it.


And don't forget to add the combined 1.4 TC and EF/RF adapter. Much stronger mechanically.


----------



## ColinJR (May 29, 2019)

It makes more sense to me that a successor to the 7D MkII would be a RF-mount camera than a M-mount, even if it sported an APS-C sensor. 7D's have been pro cameras with pro bodies, and are often a secondary camera to someone with a 5D, so sharing lenses would be key. If the next 7D uses a full-frame sensor and the RF mount (to say compete with the A9), then I would hope for a EF-RF mount teleconverter adapter to also be released as well as some native RF teleconverters and of course killer performance.


----------



## Wy Li (May 29, 2019)

Canon has to move forward. Even if Canon does build a 7Dmk3 it would be the end of the line. A sports worthy mirrorless camera can be done. Sony with the A9 has proven this. This doesn't mean sports photogs will be moving over the mirrorless anytime soon, but for the rest of us, a A9-like auto focus in an EOS R package would be very appealing. And that EF glass still works! A 7D EOS R (my name) would still be a good driver for EF or R lenses.


----------



## Ditboy (May 29, 2019)

Sad to say, Sony will win this war. Too little, too late. Just like Nikon lost the AF wars, Canon will lose the mirrorless wars.


----------



## AlanF (May 29, 2019)

fredtuck said:


> Those were DIGIC 6 processors. The new DIGIC 8 can probably handle the frame rate. As for focus points just reduce the number to the point that the DIGIC 8 can handle it.


The problem is that the usefulness of DPAF relies on a large number of AF points. The fast frame rates of Sony sensors depends on a much smaller number of embedded PDs.


----------



## unfocused (May 29, 2019)

Ditboy said:


> Sad to say, Sony will win this war. Too little, too late. Just like Nikon lost the AF wars, Canon will lose the mirrorless wars.


I don't think so. Sony is the one losing market share.


----------



## unfocused (May 29, 2019)

AlanF said:


> I, personally, far prefer a FF with high resolution sensor with the same pixel density as an APS-C to an APS-C.. .



Yes and no. I find that the smaller the subject in the viewfinder, the harder it is to nail the focus. For a moderate crop, it's usually not a problem. But, if you are distance limited and need a severe crop, it can be frustrating to find that even though the autofocus point was on the bird's head, it didn't really catch the focus.


----------



## Ozarker (May 29, 2019)

Canon does a wonderful job keeping us all guessing. I have to admire their ability to keep secrets. People get frustrated and will claim they needed this or that yesterday, but really that isn't true.


----------



## jvillain (May 29, 2019)

7D moves a lot of big whites. That is the primary reason why I have been shocked at how poorly the 7D fans have been treated. 

This smells like they are going to take the new sensor for the 90D stick it in an R body and say it is the mirrorless replacement for the 7D. I would be fine with that. There is no specific RF-S mount needed and they really wouldn't have to build any APS-C sized lenses as people could adapt the existing EF-S lenses. That is what I do to shoot video on the R. This would give the APS-C base which is way bigger than FF a path forward rather than just giving them the finger which has been the plan so far. 

I do wish they would change their crop from 1.6 to 1.5 with this move..


----------



## AlanF (May 29, 2019)

unfocused said:


> Yes and no. I find that the smaller the subject in the viewfinder, the harder it is to nail the focus. For a moderate crop, it's usually not a problem. But, if you are distance limited and need a severe crop, it can be frustrating to find that even though the autofocus point was on the bird's head, it didn't really catch the focus.


I have rarely found that to be a problem. If I can't nail the focus, then it's usually too small anyway to make a decent photo, and it's also far enough away to have a decent depth of field. On the other hand, there have been many occasions when I have got a decent BIF when the bird has been on the edge of FF, and on other occasions with primes when the bird has been too close or too large and would have been clipped by a crop. But YMMV, and so each to his own choice.
Edit: here are recent examples, a bullfinch in a tree surrounded by branches, where I nailed focus every shot despite the the bird being only 400-500px high. The images are only for the record as they are too small, but sharp for their size from a 100-400mm on a 5DSR.


----------



## jvillain (May 29, 2019)

CanonFanBoy said:


> Canon does a wonderful job keeping us all guessing. I have to admire their ability to keep secrets. People get frustrated and will claim they needed this or that yesterday, but really that isn't true.


What people need is a road map so they can plan. My biggest frustration hasn't been what they have and haven't released it has been knowing what I can safely buy. I searoiuly belive part of the reason they are loosing customers is no body knows what they can safly buy with out getting F'd out of a lot of money if Canon is planning on abandoning some thing. If I switch to Fuji APS-C I can sleep well knowing that it will be supported into the future. Will Canon APS-C other than M which is a complete non starter for me?


----------



## Josh Leavitt (May 29, 2019)

I'm not too certain about an APS-C RF mount camera being a replacement to the 7D II. It's certainly possible, but with the vast majority of their camera bodies and lenses being for EF/EF-S mount, they may just want to keep their enthusiast grade APS-C cameras as DSLRs. That way they can keep their existing user base happy without having to force them to buy into an entirely new lens library (which doesn't have any APS-C specific lenses yet). Mirrorless _is _growing in market share, but the overall market is still contracting. So I would assume it would be in Canon's best interest to cater to the lens mount that makes up over 80% of their current customers when the market projections are showing fewer and fewer people are buying ILC cameras.

They could turn the 90D into a winner if they implemented that hybrid OVF/EVF they detailed in patent 2017-146322. That would add a lot more usability to an APS-C DSLR - especially for telephoto applications where you run out of usable focus points quickly due to aperture constraints in optical viewfinders. A hybrid OVF/EVF might be a feature that Canon would reserve for the 1D X III, but it would have a lot of benefit on a flagship APS-C as well.


----------



## Dragon (May 29, 2019)

neuroanatomist said:


> Struggling with the idea of an APS-C EOS R – would there be an RF-S mount (a _fifth_ mount for current Canon cameras)? If not, lenses are needlessly large (e.g. the patented 17-70mm f/3.5-5.6 lens would be great for APS-C, but it has a FF image circle and could be significantly smaller with a smaller image circle). Does Canon expect users of an APS-C EOS R would just adapt EF-S lenses? Defeats the purpose of a small body, IMO.
> 
> I can certainly see Canon merging the xxD and 7D lines into a 90D that looks a lot like the current 7DII, perhaps with a video feature upgrade, enhanced AF and 12 fps.



If the 7DII is a lens sale driver of interest, be assured those aren't APS-c lenses and size is not the issue as the 7DII is bigger than an R. The drivers are autofocus and speed, so a high res FF R camera with a very high speed readout of the APS-C area of the sensor gives the best of both worlds. The difference in price won't be an issue for those who were buying big L glass. For the casual user, the 90D will be more than satisfactory.


----------



## tarjei99 (May 29, 2019)

An EOS R 7D2 equivalent makes no sense whatsoever.
An EOS R 80D replacement sounds like something that might work.

The spec we have seen is not something that 7D2 users would find acceptable. On the other hand, it could be that Canon thinks that Nikon needs help to shift more 500D cameras.


----------



## victorshikhman (May 29, 2019)

AlanF said:


> The images are only for the record as they are too small, but sharp for their size from a 100-400mm on a 5DSR.
> View attachment 184810
> View attachment 184811
> View attachment 184812



Wow, you really nailed that focus. Incredible how sharp that looks even at an insane crop. Look at the detail on the tree branches, the moss. My images start falling apart at more than a 100% crop on an 80d with the 50 1.8.


----------



## Wy Li (May 29, 2019)

tarjei99 said:


> An EOS R 7D2 equivalent makes no sense whatsoever.
> An EOS R 80D replacement sounds like something that might work.
> 
> The spec we have seen is not something that 7D2 users would find acceptable. On the other hand, it could be that Canon thinks that Nikon needs help to shift more 500D cameras.



Suppose the EOSR 7D has an AF like the Sony A9. Their mid level A6400 has it now, too. Canon needs to up their game by speeding up the AF in their mirrorless to match or exceed the 7Dmk2 . If Canon dedicates themselves like they do the RF lenses, they would own the mirrorless sports world.


----------



## Graphic.Artifacts (May 29, 2019)

My 7D Mark II is heading to Craigslist this week. End of an era. I like the way it operates but that was never a particularly good sensor and it is really showing it's age. If there isn't going to be a follow up it's time to move on.


----------



## Daner (May 29, 2019)

90D or even 80D sensor
Dual Digic 8 processors
At least 10 fps
Tap and drag focus point adjustment available on the touch screen, but I would also like a joystick
Dual cards (SD only is fine)
RF mount, with the option to use EF and EF-S lenses with an adapter (the 17-55, 10-18 and the latest 18-135 are all decent)
LP-E6n battery, and a grip with full controls, dual batteries, and USB-C sequential charging
Video output that doesn't need excuses
Wouldn't mind if it had a flippy screen, but I wouldn't mind if it didn't
At least as tough and water resistant as the 7D MkII
Low-light capability that enables the EF 100-400 on a 1.4x converter (eq. 224-896mm) to work well with focus points across the whole area

If they only go with a single card, no joystick and a fixed screen the smaller sensor should partially offset the cost of the extra processor, so it could possibly come in at about the same price as the R. But give me controls more like the 5D and 7D series rather than the R stuff.



jvillain said:


> 7D moves a lot of big whites. That is the primary reason why I have been shocked at how poorly the 7D fans have been treated.
> 
> This smells like they are going to take the new sensor for the 90D stick it in an R body and say it is the mirrorless replacement for the 7D. I would be fine with that. There is no specific RF-S mount needed and they really wouldn't have to build any APS-C sized lenses as people could adapt the existing EF-S lenses. That is what I do to shoot video on the R. This would give the APS-C base which is way bigger than FF a path forward rather than just giving them the finger which has been the plan so far.
> 
> I do wish they would change their crop from 1.6 to 1.5 with this move..


----------



## CJudge (May 29, 2019)

amorse said:


> It is certainly an interesting situation. The fact that the 7D II moves lenses suggests that that's what they want out of moving it to the R mount. Canon may need to get more people buying into that system as quick as possible to keep it moving. Canon has aggressively priced the R and RP, likely to get more mounts into the wild which need lenses. I wouldn't be surprised if both the R and RP were loss leaders considering the cost of comparable DSLR release prices in the Canon ecosystem.
> 
> Here's an idea - if the spiritual successor to the 7DII was a full frame R camera with a (somewhat) lower resolution sensor, maybe they could release that alongside an EF mount adaptor with a built in teleconverter. The R can focus at f/11, so with a 2x version you could effectively turn the 100-400 into an autofocusing 200-800 on a full frame with improved light collection. Releasing a full frame camera with a somewhat lower resolution to allow a much faster burst rate combined with a EF adapter/teleconverter would could tick a lot of those boxes the 7D II was filling while giving better light collecting power, and provide a better vehicle to move those with interest in crop sensors to move up to full frame and start buying RF glass. Who knows what something like that would cost, but if the 90D is moving up market I would expect the 7D II successor to do the same. Crazy ideas, I know, but if Canon's objective is to get more people buying into RF glass then moving the camera which sells the most glass to the RF mount could be one way to do it!



This. The solution that canon is bringing in 2019 could simply be a native 1.6x teleconverter for RF. Honestly, what would the downside be?


----------



## bichex (May 29, 2019)

Another bad notice. I just arrived from a trip to Ecuador. Use my 7D II all the time even though it has some malfunctions. Take an 80D as backup and it does not work for my needs, now I'm selling it. My 4 companions used nikon and in high ISOS I was at a disadvantage. Probably when my 7D II stops working I will have to go for a nikon D500, I do not think that a 90D with so many megapixels is a suitable tool.

I understand that canon is a leader in sales and does not seem to worry about the continuity of the 7D line, which may be due to the fact that they have already lost that market


----------



## Dragon (May 29, 2019)

victorshikhman said:


> Wow, you really nailed that focus. Incredible how sharp that looks even at an insane crop. Look at the detail on the tree branches, the moss. My images start falling apart at more than a 100% crop on an 80d with the 50 1.8.


The 100-400L attached to a 5DSR is a wicked sharp combo. Great for BIF because you get a FF field of view with crop frame resolution.


----------



## YuengLinger (May 29, 2019)

We've been consistently underwhelmed by Canon's conservative, practical approach to new products.

But maybe this will be the time they astound all their enthusiastic customers, swinging to the fences with a surprise jump in EVF, AF, and sensor tech. Maybe the R version of the 5D V will incorporate the best of the 7D series and the 5D series in one amazing FF body that costs about the same as the 5D IV, and be so good it replaces the 1D series. An optional grip will satisfy 1D shooters in terms of ergonomics. Streamline the lineup while emphasizing the advantages of FF, more or less casting off crop-sensor customers who don't want to upgrade. (After all, they do have the RP for entry-level FF).

For those who just want a fun camera for family outings and moments that deserve more than a smartphone, the EOS M will be around for a while, until smartphones eat them too.

Make money off of lenses, become untouchable in FF sales. Give people a clear reason to shoot something other than a smartphone.

And smash that hobbling 4k crop-factor in the bargain.


----------



## AlanF (May 29, 2019)

Dragon said:


> The 100-400L attached to a 5DSR is a wicked sharp combo. Great for BIF because you get a FF field of view with crop frame resolution.


Once you have had it, you can't go back.


----------



## unfocused (May 29, 2019)

CanonFanBoy said:


> Canon does a wonderful job keeping us all guessing. I have to admire their ability to keep secrets. People get frustrated and will claim they needed this or that yesterday, but really that isn't true.





jvillain said:


> What people need is a road map so they can plan. My biggest frustration hasn't been what they have and haven't released it has been knowing what I can safely buy. I searoiuly belive part of the reason they are loosing customers is no body knows what they can safly buy with out getting F'd out of a lot of money if Canon is planning on abandoning some thing. If I switch to Fuji APS-C I can sleep well knowing that it will be supported into the future. ...



When getting ready to release the next model of an existing body or even unveiling a new body, it makes sense to build some suspense. But we are not in that situation. 

Canon has introduced a radical new lens mount and that is creating a lot of uncertainty among their customers. While I'm usually a staunch defender of Canon, I'm no apologist. They really need to provide some clarity because high value customers are confused and uncertain about the future. 

For reasons that many have stated here, the situation is heightened with the 7D. It's their flagship APS-C camera and to just drop it is going to leave a lot of customers with a bad taste in their mouths. 

And...while I agree that they need to provide a road map, there is no credibility in claiming Canon is losing customers. That's factually wrong.


----------



## neuroanatomist (May 29, 2019)

unfocused said:


> Yes and no. I find that the smaller the subject in the viewfinder, the harder it is to nail the focus. For a moderate crop, it's usually not a problem. But, if you are distance limited and need a severe crop, it can be frustrating to find that even though the autofocus point was on the bird's head, it didn't really catch the focus.


That’s true with an OVF, but with an EVF the camera could simply magnify the image in the viewfinder to match the crop on the sensor. Or magnify it even further, with an appropriate setting. Problem solved.


----------



## canonmike (May 29, 2019)

unfocused said:


> I hadn't thought about that, but you make a good point. Very little about this makes sense.
> 
> Traditionally, the 7D series has come in under the 5D in price but over the 5D in features. I don't know how Canon packs all of this into a mirrorless body that would come in *under* the price of the R. But, if it is more than the R, I don't see 7D users buying it. We will know more for sure when the 90D or whatever they call it, comes out, but it just seems like Canon has really painted themselves into a corner on this.
> 
> To me that the easy way out is to release a 7DIII with an new sensor, touchscreen, f8 points, upgraded autofocus, 12 fps and call it good. Then wait five years for the market to sort out. As I've said before, I think once full frame hits about 36 mp, the perceived reach advantage of APS-C is no longer that significant in real world use.


Understand your desire here but am afraid that, alas, Canon has spent too much R&D on the R series mirrorless line, with all the hype continuing to get us moving more in that direction. I think their logic is that once we see how good the RF lenses are, in spite of high costs, we'll eventually embrace the fact, that's where the future for Canon and its customers, herein lays. The only reason they gave us an EF adapter is to mitigate the revolt that surely would have developed in the Canon community, in the absence of said adapter that would allow for all those EF lenses out there. I well remember the advent of the EF lenses, which I was not too thrilled about, until I picked one up, used it and saw how fast and quiet it was. That was my first EF lens, a 300mm EF F4L USM. I'm afraid the handwriting is on the well, like it or not, DSLR's are on the way out. With all camera sales down the last several years, I'm just glad that all the mfgs are still willing to bring us new gear, whatever it might be.


----------



## dolina (May 29, 2019)

DSLR will never disappear... mirrorless is a joke...


----------



## AlanF (May 29, 2019)

neuroanatomist said:


> That’s true with an OVF, but with an EVF the camera could simply magnify the image in the viewfinder to match the crop on the sensor. Or magnify it even further, with an appropriate setting. Problem solved.


As far as I have seen so far, DSLRs are able to have a spot AF that is smaller than that available on the various makes of mirrorless and so nail focus on a narrower area. What's the size of the AF spot on your R compared with your 1DX?


----------



## neuroanatomist (May 29, 2019)

canonmike said:


> Understand your desire here but am afraid that, alas, Canon has spent too much R&D on the R series mirrorless line...


How much did they spend? What other undisclosed budget information do you have access to?


----------



## neuroanatomist (May 29, 2019)

AlanF said:


> As far as I have seen so far, DSLRs are able to have a spot AF that is smaller than that available on the various makes of mirrorless and so nail focus on a narrower area. What's the size of the AF spot on your R compared with your 1DX?


Good question, I haven’t checked. However, I suspect the problem lies less with the size of the point, and more with imprecision in the alignment of the AF sensor with the AF point display in the viewfinder, a problem that is exacerbated as the AF point itself becomes smaller.


----------



## Ozarker (May 29, 2019)

jvillain said:


> What people need is a road map so they can plan. My biggest frustration hasn't been what they have and haven't released it has been knowing what I can safely buy. I searoiuly belive part of the reason they are loosing customers is no body knows what they can safly buy with out getting F'd out of a lot of money if Canon is planning on abandoning some thing. If I switch to Fuji APS-C I can sleep well knowing that it will be supported into the future. Will Canon APS-C other than M which is a complete non starter for me?


Canon has really never provided a road map, ever. I don't worry about the camera bodies too much at all. Lenses are more my focus. I used to shoot ASP-C. Were I still doing that, I don't think I would be worried now. Though I understand some will worry, I don't. There are too many things I can change without worrying about what I cannot.

With the sales of entry level DSLR and MILC cameras in such deep decline industry wide (and Fuji holding such a minuscule part of the overall market), I would bet my money on a company in better financial shape at times like this.

As far as being F'd out of money, I don't get it. Bodies are replaced every few years anyway. They don't stop working when a company decides to discontinue a particular line. There are no victims that get ripped off or screwed over. People get what they pay for. A purchase doesn't make Canon perpetually on the hook for whatever one wants in the future.

Canon might also decide (likely have already decided) to produce a capable camera to replace that line.


----------



## criscokkat (May 29, 2019)

jvillain said:


> 7D moves a lot of big whites. That is the primary reason why I have been shocked at how poorly the 7D fans have been treated.
> 
> This smells like they are going to take the new sensor for the 90D stick it in an R body and say it is the mirrorless replacement for the 7D. I would be fine with that. There is no specific RF-S mount needed and they really wouldn't have to build any APS-C sized lenses as people could adapt the existing EF-S lenses. That is what I do to shoot video on the R. This would give the APS-C base which is way bigger than FF a path forward rather than just giving them the finger which has been the plan so far.
> 
> I do wish they would change their crop from 1.6 to 1.5 with this move..


This would also be in-line with multiple statements from multiple canon company reps about selling more full frame lenses. If you want small and light lenses, go to the M mount cameras. If you want the maximum performance, go use the RF mount. Both can use EF lenses just fine. I imagine the only cheaper lens we are going to see on the RF mount anytime soon is the super zoom. That would be a decent kit lens for the prosumer side of the 7d base or for the hypothetical 90d on RF. I also wouldn’t be surprised if Canon takes a page from Sony and Apple, continuing to sell and make the R and RP but for cheaper and cheaper MSRP. If they were able to get the RP+24-240 at a 1499 price point fox Xmas it would sell well in big box stores.


----------



## Shutterbug (May 30, 2019)

I'm just waiting to click the buy button on two lenses for the 2x 7DmkIIs I have or, start moving to a new platform from another vendor. Other than just going cold turkey and switching to the Sony A9 or a Nikon D850 , there are not many options left. Waiting for the 1dxmk3 release for a better used market price on the 1dxmk2 isn't one of them as my trust in Canon is dwindling. The current R line is not ready and I'm hesitant to spend on the new mount before any reliable sports (and general all around) mirrorless cam is released. It's too soon to drop the 7D line. Let's see if the 90D specs are better than rumors project them to be.


----------



## sanj (May 30, 2019)

Yes of course. Was matter of time.


----------



## victorshikhman (May 30, 2019)

Shutterbug said:


> I'm just waiting to click the buy button on two lenses for the 2x 7DmkIIs I have or, start moving to a new platform from another vendor. Other than just going cold turkey and switching to the Sony A9 or a Nikon D850 , there are not many options left. Waiting for the 1dxmk3 release for a better used market price on the 1dxmk2 isn't one of them as my trust in Canon is dwindling. The current R line is not ready and I'm hesitant to spend on the new mount before any reliable sports (and general all around) mirrorless cam is released. It's too soon to drop the 7D line. Let's see if the 90D specs are better than rumors project them to be.



If you can afford to get into the A9 or D850, why not do it? The chances of any Canon model, especially a 7D replacement, beating them in the near future are miniscule. The D850 is the best DSLR ever made. And the A9 is incredibly capable, and will likely continue to receive AI AF updates for years. Sony glass is excellent, if you can afford it.


----------



## c.d.embrey (May 30, 2019)

The 2001 Canon 1D used an APS-H sensor (1.3 crop). Key features were shutter speeds of *1/16000 to 30 sec* and strobe-sync of *1/500 sec.*
These *2001* specs make a good argument for a R body with an APS-H sensor (28.7 x 19.1 mm) as a 7D2 replacement.
An APS-H sensor gives a 24-200mm zoom a 31-260mm FF-FOV. The rumored Canon RF 500mm f/4L IS 500mm becomes a 650mm FF-FOV.


----------



## neuroanatomist (May 30, 2019)

c.d.embrey said:


> The 2001 Canon 1D used an APS-H sensor (1.3 crop). Key features were shutter speeds of *1/16000 to 30 sec* and strobe-sync of *1/500 sec.*
> These *2001* specs...


Important to note that the 1D used a CCD sensor, and after that Canon switched to and has remained with CMOS sensors. That CCD sensor is what made the faster shutter speed and Xsync possible, not the fact that it’s an APS-H sensor. 

Sorry, but APS-H is in a coffin with plenty of nails.


----------



## CADuke (May 30, 2019)

I guess I will be switching over to EOS R and native RF lenses. Maybe go away from Canon, I don't know I have been waiting for 7D Mark III.


----------



## Mr Majestyk (May 30, 2019)

Most of those in the know got a Nikon D500 instead of the 7DII. The 7DII AF is too unreliable, at times superb at times missing easy shots. I won't miss the 7DII but am disappointed they won't offer a 7DIII, as I was hoping to see if they could ever take the lead again in AF. D500 is still amazing for its price and overall AF is better than my 1DX's.

An R replacement will require big changes. Firstly Cannon's sensor tech is just not suitable for mirrorless. The glacial sensor read speed is most of the reason for slow AF in the EOS R and then the use of a single digicis just not up to offering the processing power for so many AF points. Canon needs new sensor tech and it'll be released in FF long before we see any sports oriented APS-C camera. I wouldn't be surprised if we are in the same boat this time next year talking about when sporty FF let alone APS-C R camera is coming. It'll need to be damned good with Sony working on an APS-C version of the A9 effectively.


----------



## Jethro (May 30, 2019)

Mr Majestyk said:


> An R replacement will require big changes. Firstly Cannon's sensor tech is just not suitable for mirrorless. The glacial sensor read speed is most of the reason for slow AF in the EOS R and then the use of a single digicis just not up to offering the processing power for so many AF points. Canon needs new sensor tech and it'll be released in FF long before we see any sports oriented APS-C camera. I wouldn't be surprised if we are in the same boat this time next year talking about when sporty FF let alone APS-C R camera is coming. It'll need to be damned good with Sony working on an APS-C version of the A9 effectively.


Speaking as someone who actually owns and uses an EOS R, the AF is not slow at all. Both the EOS R and the EOS RP reused existing DSLR sensors, hence the price-points of both the current R series cameras. If by 'new sensor tech' you actually mean 'new sensors', then undoubtedly we will see those when the next R series cameras are announced/released.


----------



## privatebydesign (May 30, 2019)

neuroanatomist said:


> Important to note that the 1D used a CCD sensor, and after that Canon switched to and has remained with CMOS sensors. That CCD sensor is what made the faster shutter speed and Xsync possible, not the fact that it’s an APS-H sensor.
> 
> Sorry, but APS-H is in a coffin with plenty of nails.


CMOS sensors can do the high shutter speeds, the Sony A9 does 1/32,000. The specifics of the particular CCD used in the 1D allowed for the unique(?) 1/500 sync speed.

100% agree that APS-H is long dead, and good riddance, if only we had had the 11-24 when the 1D was current!


----------



## c.d.embrey (May 30, 2019)

neuroanatomist said:


> Sorry, but APS-H is in a coffin with plenty of nails.



Time marches on. The APS-H D1 was a halo product in 2001. Like all halo products it was expensive. Fast-forward to 2019, Canon now makes a 59.94P Full Frame (Approx. 20.8 megapixels-6062 x 3432) Digital Cinema camera. A Canon Full Frame 1Dx2 did 16 fps* in Live View mode, four years ago. A 12fps APS-H should be easy-peasy now. Does a Prosumer APS-H Sports/Wildlife camera still sound unreasonable?


----------



## c.d.embrey (May 30, 2019)

privatebydesign said:


> CMOS sensors can do the high shutter speeds, the Sony A9 does 1/32,000. The specifics of the particular CCD used in the 1D allowed for the unique(?) 1/500 sync speed.



The inexpensive Nikon D70 (1974) used a DX CCD sensor that synced at 1/500.


----------



## neuroanatomist (May 30, 2019)

c.d.embrey said:


> Does a Prosumer APS-H Sports/Wildlife camera still sound unreasonable?


Unreasonable...no. Unlikely...absolutely.


----------



## PRINZMETAL (May 30, 2019)

Canon needs to come out with a mirrorless sports camera that tracks well that competes with Sony's A9. Or Maybe even better with one that competes with Sony's A3iiiR that tracks well with around 43 meg. If one puts a S lens on this camera it will have around 18 mg image...not bad.

Now Canon ONLY needs to learn how (Sony's magic) to implement the fantastic tracking that Sony has developed over the last decade. Now that would be something!!!
What are the odds...I say slim or absolutely zero chance.
Bp


----------



## degos (May 30, 2019)

unfocused said:


> And...while I agree that they need to provide a road map, there is no credibility in claiming Canon is losing customers. That's factually wrong.



No, your statement is factually wrong. Canon continue to sell cameras but the overall market is shrinking. A shrinking market means fewer customers.

Certainly on a anecdotal level many 7D2 owners I know have moved away from Canon since Nikon, Sony and Olympus all have interesting fast-shooting options and generally better AF. With most 7D-level users only owning a handful of lenses, often just a kit zoom + 150-600, changing systems is fairly straightforward.

I'm not investing a single penny more in Canon equipment until they give some indication on what's coming next.


----------



## mb66energy (May 30, 2019)

AlanF said:


> As far as I have seen so far, DSLRs are able to have a spot AF that is smaller than that available on the various makes of mirrorless and so nail focus on a narrower area. What's the size of the AF spot on your R compared with your 1DX?



My experience with DSLR PDAF is that the visualization of the AF spot in the view finder is smaller than the "spot" on the PDAF sensor - the sensor needs some extension to sample data for the AF calculations.
If the object is not perpendicular to the optical axis of your lens AF chooses the closest focus setting the "spot" can gain. The center of the "spot" is no longer in the focal plane. Does not matter with e.g. 50mm @ f/11 and subject 5m away but affects the AF quality in opposite conditions (longer FL, wide open).

You can check it if you try to AF some closer tiny objects near the AF spot visualisation: AF finds the object, not the background.

With mirrorless they show the real AF area - the M50 gives a larger "spot" and a tiny spot. The latter helps if you want to AF small objects in a scene with high depth of objects - e.g. a special flower in a meadow. But there is a tradeoff: In low light/low contrast scenarios the PDAF doesn't find enough structure with the tiny spot - here the larger spot helps.
DSLR PDAF sensors were optimized to work under all circumstances so they have chosen larger "spots" - with DPAF where the full sensor is the AF sensor it's just a matter of programming how large the AF spot is and correct visualization is done in a breeze on the computer monitor called EVF.

An image of a DSLR PDAF sensor (1DX) is provided by the-digital-picture - it shows the real extension of the AF "SPOTS":








Canon EOS DSLR Autofocus Explained


Canon EOS DSLR Autofocus Explained




www.the-digital-picture.com




at 75% of the page or search for " diagonal crosses " in the page


----------



## masterpix (May 30, 2019)

The 7D series was the best option for those looking for pro-body while reasonably priced in compare to the 1D series. In that aspect, the X0D series can not replace the 7D's. The idea for APS-C R system is a bit wired to me, for the whole idea of the R system is to be FF (the M system is an APS-C, so why duplicate it?), so if yo make a PRO-R system, why put a APS-C sensor in it? they already have the 30MP sensor of the 5D4 or even the 26MP of the 6D2, so why not place those in the R system (which they already did), and then, all they need to do is to enhance the electronics behind it, to reach the same level of the 7D. But guess what? they will get R system which is... YES! replacing the 1D system. So if Canon like to abandon the 7D, abandon it, not try to make a compromise R system to "fit" into it, for that is a drawback from the FF R. Invest in bringing a pro-R system and not downgrade the R to APS-C.


----------



## AlanF (May 30, 2019)

mb66energy said:


> My experience with DSLR PDAF is that the visualization of the AF spot in the view finder is smaller than the "spot" on the PDAF sensor - the sensor needs some extension to sample data for the AF calculations.
> If the object is not perpendicular to the optical axis of your lens AF chooses the closest focus setting the "spot" can gain. The center of the "spot" is no longer in the focal plane. Does not matter with e.g. 50mm @ f/11 and subject 5m away but affects the AF quality in opposite conditions (longer FL, wide open).
> 
> You can check it if you try to AF some closer tiny objects near the AF spot visualisation: AF finds the object, not the background.
> ...


Thank you for taking the time and effort to answer my question - I appeciate it. However, you had missed what I had written earlier.


AlanF said:


> Precisely, it's Spot AF, introduced in the 7D https://cpn.canon-europe.com/content/education/infobank/focus_points/a_single_focusing_point.do "The EOS 7D introduced a new single AF point mode called Spot AF. On a normal autofocus sensor, the sensor for each point is actually larger than the AF point shown in the viewfinder. Spot AF uses the same AF point to perform focus but the area it uses is much smaller – only fractionally larger than the AF point displayed in the viewfinder."


I use Spot AF on my 5Div and 5DSR and it is much smaller than the smallest AF square on my M5, and I want to know whether Canon can do the equivalent on the R series.


----------



## uri.raz (May 30, 2019)

neuroanatomist said:


> Struggling with the idea of an APS-C EOS R – would there be an RF-S mount (a _fifth_ mount for current Canon cameras)? If not, lenses are needlessly large (e.g. the patented 17-70mm f/3.5-5.6 lens would be great for APS-C, but it has a FF image circle and could be significantly smaller with a smaller image circle). Does Canon expect users of an APS-C EOS R would just adapt EF-S lenses? Defeats the purpose of a small body, IMO.



The reason EF-S lenses can't be mounted on EF bodies is the lenses protrude deeper into the body, and might collide with the mirror. AFAIK, Nikon DX lenses don't protrude deeper than FX lenses, and therefore may be mounted on FX bodies, which auto crop the image. IIRC, I've read EOS R does the same with EF-S lenses mounted with the EF adapter. Canon could do the same - allow R crop lenses to be mounted on R FF bodies, and auto crop.

Then again, Canon might want to prevent that, e.g. so people couldn't cover one of the pins and make crop ultra wide lenses work on FF, at least for wider apertures.


----------



## Otara (May 30, 2019)

If you forget EF/EF-S, going forward theres EF-M and RF. If I buy an EF-M Camera, there are no RF lenses I can buy, so going to fullframe means Im starting from scratch, ie might decide to go Sony instead or whatever. Either EF-M is going to be semi-orphaned, or the crop to full-frame transition as a concept is being abandoned. My bet is EF-M orphaned/standalone given its kind of been that from the getgo. Maybe both?

Given how well uncropped APS-C video and/or high framerate APS-C sports cameras would sell though, Id be surprised and vote for RF-S or whatever acronym results, unless massive breakthroughs are happening somewhere in cost/framerate whatever.


----------



## blackcoffee17 (May 30, 2019)

For me it's amazing how Canon is just dropping the wildlife market where they were the leader for so long and the first choice for most photographers. 
They still have amazing lenses but no bodies i would buy. Outdated, 5 year old 7DII, 6fps 5D4 or a very expensive 1Dx. Even in the lens department they don't have anything affordable above 400mm.


----------



## docsmith (May 30, 2019)

Thinking on this a bit more. Most on this forum have maintained Canon will continue to make cameras that sell. Most also seem to think the 7D series has sold well and were/are "popular." 

So, if this rumor is correct, why the shift in thinking from Canon? On the positive side, Canon thinks they have something that will capture the 7D market better than a 7D, so there is no sense in releasing this new 7D beater and a new 7D. I like that idea. On the negative side, maybe the 7D did not, or is not projected too, sell comparatively well enough to survive in a contracting market.

I am thinking it is actually the former, if Canon is getting rid of the 7D series, they have something better that they will be releasing.


----------



## Otara (May 30, 2019)

I think the obvious answer is 'things have changed'. A new 7D is caught up in the EF/RF transition and while it might have been a good seller it may not have been so great its worth getting in the way of their current transition strategy.


----------



## Adrianf (May 30, 2019)

Like many others, I feel betrayed by Canon over the 7D3. I remain to be convinced that DPAF actually works with long lenses and small subjects. My M50 struggles to focus consistently with my 500mm F4 L IS ii on small birds


----------



## neuroanatomist (May 30, 2019)

Otara said:


> If you forget EF/EF-S, going forward theres EF-M and RF. If I buy an EF-M Camera, there are no RF lenses I can buy, so going to fullframe means Im starting from scratch, ie might decide to go Sony instead or whatever. Either EF-M is going to be semi-orphaned, or the crop to full-frame transition as a concept is being abandoned. My bet is EF-M orphaned/standalone given its kind of been that from the getgo. Maybe both?


I agree conceptually, if not semantically. I was surprised by the elimination of the ‘upgrade path’ of users buying FF lenses while using an APS-C camera, facilitating their eventually buying a FF camera. But Canon has years of data with millions of data points (i.e., product registrations) to inform on just how common that is...and decided to make RF lenses incompatible with the M-series body anyway. 

The did decide to make the M series separate from the R series, but ‘orphaned’ is the wrong connotation. It’s like saying the 50 year old billionaire who’s parents just died was ‘orphaned’. The APS-C market remains far larger than the FF market.


----------



## Don Haines (May 30, 2019)

What is missing from the debate is an example of a high end R body. None of us knows how an R camera with sufficient computing power will behave, nor do we know what features Canon will introduce with such a body.

It is possible that the 7D2 will be the first of the higher performance bodies to go over to R, but we don’t know.


----------



## mb66energy (May 30, 2019)

AlanF said:


> Thank you for taking the time and effort to answer my question - I appeciate it. However, you had missed what I had written earlier.
> 
> I use Spot AF on my 5Div and 5DSR and it is much smaller than the smallest AF square on my M5, and I want to know whether Canon can do the equivalent on the R series.



Thanks for clarification: I do not have one of these wonderful cameras so I had to learn about that feature today 
If the Spot AF in these cameras is bound by the larger "AF point squares" of the view finder it's around 3.5 % of sensor width. If it's bound by the tiny squares/dots in their middle it is roughly 1% of sensor width.

Because I do not own the M5 I do not know if you can reduce the size of the AF area - the M50 has smaller frames available and they have around 5% size of the full sensor width.

About R series: I think they can do that maybe with higher resolution (70MPix = 1.6 x 24MPix) models where the resolution of the DPAF array is better: It would come in at 3% of sensor width (5% / 1.6).

One drawback of DPAF is that it evaluates only horizontal patterns - with quad pixel AF I see an improvement of spot size by a factor of 2 or 3 because you can evaluate vertical patterns so one can get down to maybe 1.5 or 1 % of sensor width. But QPAF with 70 000 000 x 4 pixels makes me nut by its sheer numbers!

Hopefully this is a little bit more "spot on" - and thinking about this is important for me too because I get dramatically improved hit rates in terms of AF with those tiny AF points compared to these AF guestimators in xxD and xxxD cameras.

EDIT: Similar discussion here:




__





Question about the EOS R focus system






www.fredmiranda.com




the smaller point is too roughly 5% from image width like M50 - both cameras have similar resolution so DPAF needs maybe at least 5 % = approx. 300 pixels to compare patterns for AF fast and reliable enough.


----------



## uri.raz (May 30, 2019)

jvillain said:


> I do wish they would change their crop from 1.6 to 1.5 with this move.



I wish they would change it to 1.4


----------



## PRINZMETAL (May 30, 2019)

uri.raz said:


> I wish they would change it to 1.4



One thing about all of the 7d2/7d3 discussion which has not been discussed is the following: That is, Sony and their great tracking cameras at all levels of interchangeable lenses cameras. I have a feeling many 7d2 users have moved onto Sony instead of waiting for Canon to upgrade their 7d2 or moved to a higher end full frame canon that tracks well. Those still using their 7d2 are not a large market no matter what some say about them buying new glass.


----------



## slclick (May 30, 2019)

Since the R and RP are reasonably priced bodies, perhaps the need for a 7D3 is outweighed by an R series style 1DX version. Dual processors, dual cards, better weather sealing and high fps with a reasonable Mp count for better noise control than the 7D series ever had. Lying somewhere between the 5D price and the 1DX2. Then the 90D will creep closer to 7D2 specs yet with a few modern spec bumps. Add the high rez R and you have a great family.


----------



## unfocused (May 30, 2019)

slclick said:


> Since the R and RP are reasonably priced bodies, perhaps the need for a 7D3 is outweighed by an R series style 1DX version. Dual processors, dual cards, better weather sealing and high fps with a reasonable Mp count for better noise control than the 7D series ever had. Lying somewhere between the 5D price and the 1DX2. Then the 90D will creep closer to 7D2 specs yet with a few modern spec bumps. Add the high rez R and you have a great family.


I don't think so. The 7D has traditionally been priced well below the 5D and much closer to the 6D. An R that is priced between the 5D and the 1Dx would make it at least twice the cost of a 7D. That's not a price point that will appeal to 7D users. Plus, unless it has fairly high resolution, it won't fill the niche that a 7D does, which is largely driven by the perceived reach advantages of the 1.6 crop factor.


----------



## unfocused (May 30, 2019)

PRINZMETAL said:


> ...I have a feeling many 7d2 users have moved onto Sony instead of waiting for Canon to upgrade their 7d2 or moved to a higher end full frame canon that tracks well...



Sounds like your "feeling" radar is broken. Go to any popular birding spot and count the number of Sony bodies you see there.


----------



## unfocused (May 30, 2019)

Just pure speculation here for the sake of the conversation: I wonder how much Canon could do with a firmware upgrade. It's not unprecedented after all with the 7D series. 

A new and significantly enhanced 90D body, coupled with a reasonably-priced option for a major 7DII firmware upgrade that adds multiple f8 focus points, some autofocus enhancements and maybe a few other tweaks, might take the sting out of ending the line for many users. 

Despite some forum experts opinions, the objective facts show that the 7D II sensor still competes very well with newer sensors above base ISO (Which is not where most 7D users live anyway.) 

While I would like a newer sensor and few more megapixels and wouldn't mind a touchscreen, if I could get multiple f8 focus points on the 7DII, I'd be pretty content. Release the mythical 150-500 f5.6 zoom alongside the upgrade and I'd be giving Canon more of my money. (Okay, they are going to get more of *my* money anyway, but that's because I have business needs that don't necessarily align with my personal desire for a 7DIII).


----------



## slclick (May 30, 2019)

unfocused said:


> I don't think so. The 7D has traditionally been priced well below the 5D and much closer to the 6D. An R that is priced between the 5D and the 1Dx would make it at least twice the cost of a 7D. That's not a price point that will appeal to 7D users. Plus, unless it has fairly high resolution, it won't fill the niche that a 7D does, which is largely driven by the perceived reach advantages of the 1.6 crop factor.


If it's end of the road for the 7D line, we can throw out all logical assumptions based upon past price points and features, your post is based upon those. I think Canon will position a fast sports/birding body in a new slot, below the 1DX and in the R line but at what tier is anyone's guess. Crop may possibly be limited to the XXD at it's highest point from now on.


----------



## NetMage (May 30, 2019)

unfocused said:


> coupled with a reasonably-priced option for a major 7DII firmware upgrade that adds multiple f8 focus points



A new firmware upgrade can't add f8 focus points - there are physical limitations to the design of a focus sensor that means there must be a compromise and firmware upgrades can't grow new hardware.


----------



## unfocused (May 30, 2019)

NetMage said:


> A new firmware upgrade can't add f8 focus points - there are physical limitations to the design of a focus sensor that means there must be a compromise and firmware upgrades can't grow new hardware.


Got it. Oh well...


----------



## unfocused (May 30, 2019)

slclick said:


> If it's end of the road for the 7D line, we can throw out all logical assumptions based upon past price points and features, your post is based upon those. I think Canon will position a fast sports/birding body in a new slot, below the 1DX and in the R line but at what tier is anyone's guess. Crop may possibly be limited to the XXD at it's highest point from now on.


I see your point. I read your post as implying that a new sports/birding R body would fill the *market* niche of the 7D. It can't hit that price point, but it could certainly hit the use needs/wants of that niche. I admit, I'm having a bit of a hard time letting go of the 7D series. But, I'm not privy to Canon's market research and they may have determined that the customers they will lose by dumping the 7D line will be offset by the gains they will make offering a upscaled 80D at a price point below that of the 7D. 

Canon also likes to make their customers stretch, so maybe they've found that an R that has many of the features of the 1D, but comes in closer to the price of the 5D will be a winner.

With only two R models released to date, it's dangerous to see a pattern, but so far Canon seems to NOT be slotting the R models in as exact mirrors of their DSLRs, but rather as models in their own unique slots.


----------



## AlanF (May 30, 2019)

unfocused said:


> Just pure speculation here for the sake of the conversation: I wonder how much Canon could do with a firmware upgrade. It's not unprecedented after all with the 7D series.
> 
> A new and significantly enhanced 90D body, coupled with a reasonably-priced option for a major 7DII firmware upgrade that adds multiple f8 focus points, some autofocus enhancements and maybe a few other tweaks, might take the sting out of ending the line for many users.
> 
> ...


Objective facts are that the resolution of the sensor is well behind the best opposition - see https://www.optyczne.pl/293.4-Test_aparatu-Canon_EOS_7D_Mark_II_Rozdzielczość.html for quantitative measurements - it was behind the opposition when it was introduced 5 years ago. That doesn't mean you can't get sharp images from it, you certainly can, but you have to get more pixels on the image to equal the resolution of the better sensors.


----------



## MadisonMike (May 30, 2019)

I am happy I did not wait for the 7DIII. The 7DII would not cut it for me. I wanted FF mirrorless for sports. Canon is taking too long to fill this gap in their lineup.


----------



## Shutterbug (May 30, 2019)

victorshikhman said:


> If you can afford to get into the A9 or D850, why not do it? The chances of any Canon model, especially a 7D replacement, beating them in the near future are miniscule. The D850 is the best DSLR ever made. And the A9 is incredibly capable, and will likely continue to receive AI AF updates for years. Sony glass is excellent, if you can afford it.


I can barely afford it. Thus the trepidation. News/Editorial staff have been cut and freelancing takes a while to build up to. I like the Canon glass lineup and the performance/value ratio, just not their bodies (love the UI though, muscle memory at it's best). I also don't want to use their adapter on R bodies and would rather use a native lens. I've concurrently used the 5dmk4 at various events but for outdoor sports, which I'm covering more of, I reach for the 7dmkII.


----------



## YuengLinger (May 30, 2019)

unfocused said:


> I don't think so. The 7D has traditionally been priced well below the 5D and much closer to the 6D. An R that is priced between the 5D and the 1Dx would make it at least twice the cost of a 7D. That's not a price point that will appeal to 7D users. Plus, unless it has fairly high resolution, it won't fill the niche that a 7D does, which is largely driven by the perceived reach advantages of the 1.6 crop factor.


Are we approaching a point where consumers no longer put much faith in the "perceived reach advantages of the 1.6 crop factor," thanks to education and experience?


----------



## deltoo (May 30, 2019)

For me the 7D II is the last camera from Canon, all I see from a possible 90D is not a big Deal to buy it, the 1D as hobby photographer to expensive and if they raise up the mirror less line of business, I'm personally out, because the R-Line is for me no option.


----------



## jvillain (May 30, 2019)

YuengLinger said:


> Are we approaching a point where consumers no longer put much faith in the "perceived reach advantages of the 1.6 crop factor," thanks to education and experience?


No.


----------



## neuroanatomist (May 30, 2019)

PRINZMETAL said:


> I have a feeling many 7d2 users have moved onto Sony instead of waiting for Canon to upgrade their 7d2 or moved to a higher end full frame canon that tracks well. Those still using their 7d2 are not a large market no matter what some say about them buying new glass.


The great thing is that you can have whatever feelings you want. For example, there are some people that feel the earth is flat.


----------



## unfocused (May 30, 2019)

neuroanatomist said:


> The great thing is that you can have whatever feelings you want. For example, there are some people that feel the earth is flat.


I think I'd be more likely to believe the earth is flat than "...many 7d2 users have moved onto Sony instead of waiting for Canon to upgrade their 7d2..."


----------



## BillB (May 30, 2019)

unfocused said:


> I think I'd be more likely to believe the earth is flat than "...many 7d2 users have moved onto Sony instead of waiting for Canon to upgrade their 7d2..."


If not Sony, how about Nikon?


----------



## neuroanatomist (May 30, 2019)

NetMage said:


> A new firmware upgrade can't add f8 focus points - there are physical limitations to the design of a focus sensor that means there must be a compromise and firmware upgrades can't grow new hardware.


Sorry, but the facts contradict your statement:


> Canon has released a firmware update for the EOS-1DX Digital SLR Camera. Affected Product EOS-1DX Digital SLR Camera Details Firmware Version 1.1.1 incorporates the following improvements and fixes. 1. Enables the center AF point to autofocus when the camera is used with lens/extender combinations whose combined maximum aperture is f/8 (f/5.6 without the firmware update).


While it's true that firmware updates can't add hardware, there is not necessarily a hardware change needed to support f/8 AF with an f/5.6 AF point. Going the other way, i.e. increasing the baseline of the AF point ('adding an f/2.8 AF point') is not possible. But AF with a narrower max aperture is really dependent on the sampling density of the AF point, which is typically higher than it needs to be for a given AF point threshold. 

Consider that for many the years f/8 AF was a feature restricted to the 1-series (and thus out of reach for most), people would put a piece of tape over a specific three contact pins on the lens-side of a 1.4x TC to allow autofocus with an f/5.6 lens (400/5.6, 100-400) – and it worked, albeit slowly and with greater propensity to hunt for focus.

In the case of the 1D X firmware update, I suspect Canon tweaked the AF algorithms then determined that performance with the center AF point at f/8 was acceptable, and released the update (in large part because users of previous 1-series bodies that 'officially' supported f/8 AF were a bit ticked off that the new FF 10 fps beast did not).

</history lesson>


----------



## slclick (May 30, 2019)

unfocused said:


> I think I'd be more likely to believe the earth is flat than "...many 7d2 users have moved onto Sony instead of waiting for Canon to upgrade their 7d2..."


OMG the flat earth is playing havoc with the diffraction!


----------



## unfocused (May 30, 2019)

BillB said:


> If not Sony, how about Nikon?


Maybe. I'd like to see something other than "I was at X and four out of five people have switched to the D500." Given Nikon's rather anemic sales overall, I'm skeptical of such claims.


----------



## AlanF (May 30, 2019)

My headmaster (principal) arranged when I was a schoolboy a lecture from the member of the Flat Earth Society to broaden our experience. I think the lecturer is now an active member of CR.


----------



## AlanF (May 30, 2019)

unfocused said:


> Maybe. I'd like to see something other than "I was at X and four out of five people have switched to the D500." Given Nikon's rather anemic sales overall, I'm skeptical of such claims.


I have seen scores of D500s on my regular bird photo outings. How many bird photography events and expeditions do you go to? Tell us the sales figures for D500s.


----------



## IslanderMV (May 30, 2019)

I am seeing a silver lining in this conversation. I use the ORIGINAL 7D. I also have a Canon full frame and lots of amazing glass. I use the 7D for wildlife. I live on an island so about 80% my shooting is in a salt water environment. All those years of rugged use are starting take their toll on my ancient 7D . I am looking foreward to picking up a new 7DII at a fire sale price!


----------



## EduPortas (May 31, 2019)

Rumos rumors rumors!

There is NO way Canon will launch a high-performance "R" model with current EVF technology. There's still a noticeable lag.

That's the main advantage of the 7D series: fast response! Always has been. Good OVF, fast burst shooting, great lens selection.

Come September, everyone will be talking about Canon finally catching up on (maybe even surpassing) Nikon's D500.


----------



## Durf (May 31, 2019)

AlanF said:


> Thank you for taking the time and effort to answer my question - I appeciate it. However, you had missed what I had written earlier.
> 
> I use Spot AF on my 5Div and 5DSR and it is much smaller than the smallest AF square on my M5, and I want to know whether Canon can do the equivalent on the R series.


 
My 6D MKii actually has Spot AF (and it does actually make a difference in some situations)


----------



## unfocused (May 31, 2019)

AlanF said:


> I have seen scores of D500s on my regular bird photo outings. How many bird photography events and expeditions do you go to? Tell us the sales figures for D500s.


Amazon DSLR Listing: D500 is #74, 7DII is #87. Neither one is exactly burning up the charts. Top 10: Eight Canons and two Nikons. Everything below $600.


----------



## unfocused (May 31, 2019)

IslanderMV said:


> I am seeing a silver lining in this conversation. I use the ORIGINAL 7D. I also have a Canon full frame and lots of amazing glass. I use the 7D for wildlife. I live on an island so about 80% my shooting is in a salt water environment. All those years of rugged use are starting take their toll on my ancient 7D . I am looking foreward to picking up a new 7DII at a fire sale price!


You may be the smartest person on this forum.


----------



## Durf (May 31, 2019)

IMO if Canon scraps the 7D Series without offering an up to date alternative Pro Wildlife/Sports/Action APS-C Camera "DSLR" Body, they have obviously decided these types of shooters are not a high priority in their targeted marketing strategy going forward....
I use a 80D with a Sigma 150-600mm Lens for my wildlife and birding shooting, etc., and it works pretty well for me in the right conditions. I was looking forward to getting the 7Diii in a couple years from now, but I reckon the 90D will have to do. It's a bit insane to me to just change systems over a few features, I can improvise and make what I have work (and always do). 
It does amaze me to hear so many are capable of dumping 10 or 20 grand every couple years to switch systems for a few new features!


----------



## Otara (May 31, 2019)

neuroanatomist said:


> I agree conceptually, if not semantically. I was surprised by the elimination of the ‘upgrade path’ of users buying FF lenses while using an APS-C camera, facilitating their eventually buying a FF camera. But Canon has years of data with millions of data points (i.e., product registrations) to inform on just how common that is...and decided to make RF lenses incompatible with the M-series body anyway.
> 
> The did decide to make the M series separate from the R series, but ‘orphaned’ is the wrong connotation. It’s like saying the 50 year old billionaire who’s parents just died was ‘orphaned’. The APS-C market remains far larger than the FF market.



THE APS-C market does yes - but do they see the future APS-C market as essentially EF-M only? As you say thats the data we dont know - it was done when EF was still selling rather well, in both APS-C and Full frame, and the focus seemed to be on a smaller alternative rather than as the future of APS-C.

I agree it definitely isnt orphaned from a sensor perspective and more standalone is probably better as a term overall, Im more focussed on any 'non-compact' APS-C camera - in that if you buy one in EF-M mount, you cant put anything over 250mm on it going forward.

I dont see that happening, and FF is still a 'jump'. Either large APS-C cameras are dead, or its going to be RF, or some very surprising things are happening with EF-M going forward. I see 2 as most likely in that it reverts to what we had with EF/EF-S/EF-M.


----------



## masterpix (May 31, 2019)

JoFT said:


> Just a guessing.... a R-mount 7D would mean APS-C and the rumored high speed body.... well, this may all make sense to me...


Only problem is that the specs mentioned, are 1D replacement. Why put APS-C sensor when you can put FF sensor and get a much better result? Mirrorless cameras are all about the electronics. So is you have a 30MP FF or 30MP APS-C sensor, it is (as far for anything else) the same electronic solution (design). So why taking the R camera, and place an APS-C sensor it in for? you already have the R camera with 30MP sensor in it.

To satisfy the 7D customers, you only need to make 7Dmark3, not downgrade the R to APS-C sensor. People (as me for example) bought the 7D not because we like APS-C sensor, we bought it cause we wanted PRO camera and we could not afford the 1Dx (which is about three times as much). The lenses people having the 7D's are mostly L lenses, not EF-S. So the whole concept of R system with APS-C sensor seems a bit wired to me.


----------



## masterpix (May 31, 2019)

Durf said:


> IMO if Canon scraps the 7D Series without offering an up to date alternative Pro Wildlife/Sports/Action APS-C Camera "DSLR" Body, they have obviously decided these types of shooters are not a high priority in their targeted marketing strategy going forward....
> I use a 80D with a Sigma 150-600mm Lens for my wildlife and birding shooting, etc., and it works pretty well for me in the right conditions. I was looking forward to getting the 7Diii in a couple years from now, but I reckon the 90D will have to do. It's a bit insane to me to just change systems over a few features, I can improvise and make what I have work (and always do).
> It does amaze me to hear so many are capable of dumping 10 or 20 grand every couple years to switch systems for a few new features!


I might add, that most of the new features are those one will hardly ever use. My 7D produce wonderful pictures, this one for instance, was printed on 20X30inch paper and it looks amazing.


----------



## AlanF (May 31, 2019)

unfocused said:


> Amazon DSLR Listing: D500 is #74, 7DII is #87. Neither one is exactly burning up the charts. Top 10: Eight Canons and two Nikons. Everything below $600.


I get a different set of figures. The D500 is 35th best selling and the 7DII is 118th DSLR body on Amazon.com whereas they are 14 and, 19 on Amazon.co.uk. Whatever, the D500 outsells the 7DII on Amazon you will have to agree. Now please answer the rest of my question about how many bird photography outings do you go on to have any first hand knowledge of the occurrence of the D500 in the field.


----------



## degos (May 31, 2019)

YuengLinger said:


> Are we approaching a point where consumers no longer put much faith in the "perceived reach advantages of the 1.6 crop factor," thanks to education and experience?



Why would we be? A 32MP APS-C sensor in the 90D will still have more 'reach' through density than any other Canon camera, even the fabled 70MP RS.


----------



## koenkooi (May 31, 2019)

degos said:


> Why would we be? A 32MP APS-C sensor in the 90D will still have more 'reach' through density than any other Canon camera, even the fabled 70MP RS.



For people like me, reading this before their second coffee on the morning: 32MP on APS-C multiplied twice by 1.6 comes out at 82MP.


----------



## miggyt (May 31, 2019)

Canon should really release a version of their DSLRs with EVF and maybe with a more updated dual pixel sensor. and then call it a day. too many people love Canon DSLR ergonomics and are already heavily invested with EF lenses. bonus: replace the flippy mirror with an ND filter. i think a lot of people will love that.


----------



## Michael Clark (May 31, 2019)

amorse said:


> It is certainly an interesting situation. The fact that the 7D II moves lenses suggests that that's what they want out of moving it to the R mount. Canon may need to get more people buying into that system as quick as possible to keep it moving. Canon has aggressively priced the R and RP, likely to get more mounts into the wild which need lenses. I wouldn't be surprised if both the R and RP were loss leaders considering the cost of comparable DSLR release prices in the Canon ecosystem.
> 
> Here's an idea - if the spiritual successor to the 7DII was a full frame R camera with a (somewhat) lower resolution sensor, maybe they could release that alongside an EF mount adaptor with a built in teleconverter. The R can focus at f/11, so with a 2x version you could effectively turn the 100-400 into an autofocusing 200-800 on a full frame with improved light collection. Releasing a full frame camera with a somewhat lower resolution to allow a much faster burst rate combined with a EF adapter/teleconverter would could tick a lot of those boxes the 7D II was filling while giving better light collecting power, and provide a better vehicle to move those with interest in crop sensors to move up to full frame and start buying RF glass. Who knows what something like that would cost, but if the 90D is moving up market I would expect the 7D II successor to do the same. Crazy ideas, I know, but if Canon's objective is to get more people buying into RF glass then moving the camera which sells the most glass to the RF mount could be one way to do it!




The lenses of consequence that the 7D series sells are all 70-200mm and upwards. The attractiveness of an APS-C body with premium telephoto lenses is the pixel density of the cropped 20+ MP sensor that still gives fast frame rates. The 7D Mark II has the same pixel density as the 5Ds, but can go at 10 fps instead of 5 fps, and for many more frames before hitting the limits of the buffer. Much of what is shot with the 7DII is in dim to low light: night sports, gym sports, dawn/early morning or late afternoon/dusk wildlife, etc. Using a TC to remove the need to crop with a low density sensor would cost too much in terms of shutter speed.

What Canon is going to learn is that instead of moving to the R mount and much more expensive lenses, 7D shooters are going to move to the Nikon 500D and its successors. Or the Olympus E-M1x if that proves successful and Olympus comes up with some impressive fast glass in the 80-320mm range (equivalent to 100-400mm on 1.6X APS-C).

The only logical explanation for this is that Canon has no idea if they are ever going to be able to develop a sensor with fast enough readout to do AI Servo AF off the main imaging sensor at 10+ fps. This they are conceding the entire market niche filled by the 7D series to Nikon, Olympus, and Sony.


----------



## Michael Clark (May 31, 2019)

Kit. said:


> I think quite a lot of them have EF-S 15-85.



I've never shot anything shorter than a 70-200 on my 7D Mark II. That's what my 5D Mark III is for. I haven't used an EF-S lens (or third party APS-C only lens) apart from at-home testing in at least eight years.

The only crop lens I currently own that isn't (semi-permanently) loaned out to an APS-C only friend/relative is my Tamron SP 17-50mm f/2.8 Di II that I've had forever and can't part with due to its sentimental value as my first constant aperture zoom when I was shooting with a Rebel XTi.

The lens sales that 7D series cameras generate are in the 70-200mm range and up, not EF-s lenses.


----------



## Michael Clark (May 31, 2019)

unfocused said:


> Yes. If you want to shoot wide angle to normal on a 7DII, it makes much more sense to use an EF-S lens. The 15-85, 17-55 2.8 and 10-22 are all popular lenses.



Those are popular lenses, but I see them on the Rebels and x0D cameras. I don't often see them on the 7D Mark II.


----------



## Michael Clark (May 31, 2019)

neuroanatomist said:


> ... the 90D.



Except everything is pointing to the 90D having the same 45-point AF system as the 80D, which is a definite step down from the 7D Mark II, and not just in terms of the higher number/wider spread of AF points.


----------



## Kit. (May 31, 2019)

Michael Clark said:


> I've never shot anything shorter than a 70-200 on my 7D Mark II. That's what my 5D Mark III is for.
> ...
> The lens sales that 7D series cameras generate are in the 70-200mm range and up, not EF-s lenses.


Are you saying that you, an owner of a 5D series body, would not be buying the same lenses if you didn't have a 7D series body?


----------



## Michael Clark (May 31, 2019)

neuroanatomist said:


> I'm confused, too. I don't think there's a difference between RF and EF in terms of lens size (people claim there is, but there are no data to support that claim). But a smaller image circle can make a big difference at short FLs. Look at the EF 11-24 f/4L vs. the EF-S 10-18mm or 10-22mm.
> 
> I do suspect a lot of 7-series shooters use EF-S lenses, 10-18/22, 17-55/2.8, 15-85. Canon has ample data on this, certainly.
> 
> I think they could make a larger M body for better ergonomics, but that would mean adapting telephoto lenses to it.



Of course it's anecdotal, but almost all of the 7D Mark II shooters I know use FF bodies for WA work. They only use the crop body for telephoto.


----------



## Michael Clark (May 31, 2019)

fredtuck said:


> Those were DIGIC 6 processors. The new DIGIC 8 can probably handle the frame rate. As for focus points just reduce the number to the point that the DIGIC 8 can handle it.



It's not that simple. PDAF sensor pixels are MUCH larger than imaging sensor pixels, and are thus more sensitive (and don't have color filter overlays that require demosaicing). It takes multiples of imaging sensor pixels to equal one dedicated PDAF sensor pixel, thus the processing load is much greater for sensor based AF than for dedicated PDAF sensor based AF. Even so, the dual DiG!C 6 processors of the 7D2 are both used for _image processing_. There is a third processor chip roughly equivalent to the DiG!C 5+ that handles AF and iTR (combining mono PDAF sensor data with color data from the RGB+IR metering sensor to track moving subjects).


----------



## Michael Clark (May 31, 2019)

Wy Li said:


> Suppose the EOSR 7D has an AF like the Sony A9. Their mid level A6400 has it now, too. Canon needs to up their game by speeding up the AF in their mirrorless to match or exceed the 7Dmk2 . If Canon dedicates themselves like they do the RF lenses, they would own the mirrorless sports world.



Except that Canon has yet to prove they can make a main imaging sensor that reads out fast enough to do predictive AI Servo AF at anything approaching 10 fps...

Every disappointment Canon has given its customers in the past five years or so can be explained by their inability to increase the readout speed of their sensors.

Every.Single.One.


----------



## AlanF (May 31, 2019)

Michael Clark said:


> The lenses of consequence that the 7D series sells are all 70-200mm and upwards. The attractiveness of an APS-C body with premium telephoto lenses is the pixel density of the cropped 20+ MP sensor that still gives fast frame rates. The 7D Mark II has the same pixel density as the 5Ds, but can go at 10 fps instead of 5 fps, and for many more frames before hitting the limits of the buffer. Much of what is shot with the 7DII is in dim to low light: night sports, gym sports, dawn/early morning or late afternoon/dusk wildlife, etc. Using a TC to remove the need to crop with a low density sensor would cost too much in terms of shutter speed.
> 
> What Canon is going to learn is that instead of moving to the R mount and much more expensive lenses, 7D shooters are going to move to the Nikon 500D and its successors. Or the Olympus E-M1x if that proves successful and Olympus comes up with some impressive fast glass in the 80-320mm range (equivalent to 100-400mm on 1.6X APS-C).
> 
> The only logical explanation for this is that Canon has no idea if they are ever going to be able to develop a sensor with fast enough readout to do AI Servo AF off the main imaging sensor at 10+ fps. This they are conceding the entire market niche filled by the 7D series to Nikon, Olympus, and Sony.


This is an interesting website that promotes mirrorless for bird photography but admits the D500 is the one to beat https://mirrorlesscomparison.com/best/mirrorless-cameras-for-wildlife-and-bird-photography/
For the hell of it, I tried one of the top recommended combinations, the Sony A6400 with their 100-400mm lens. It was awful compared with 400mm on my 5DSR, much poorer AF and IQ. My guess, based on my observations in the field and the equipment and lenses available, is that Nikon will be the winner in the nature/birds area, far ahead of Sony and Olympus. Though I do love my Sony RX10 IV, which has the heft of a Canon DSLR and an amazing performance but iso-restricted by its 1" sensor. Come on Canon, gives us some new bodies and lightweight telephotos!


----------



## Michael Clark (May 31, 2019)

CJudge said:


> This. The solution that canon is bringing in 2019 could simply be a native 1.6x teleconverter for RF. Honestly, what would the downside be?



For most sports and wildlife shooting done in marginal light, the downside would be slower shutter speeds that are unacceptable. There's a huge difference between 1/1000 and 1/400 when shooting sports/action, which is what a 1.6X TC would force.


----------



## Michael Clark (May 31, 2019)

unfocused said:


> When getting ready to release the next model of an existing body or even unveiling a new body, it makes sense to build some suspense. But we are not in that situation.
> 
> Canon has introduced a radical new lens mount and that is creating a lot of uncertainty among their customers. While I'm usually a staunch defender of Canon, I'm no apologist. They really need to provide some clarity because high value customers are confused and uncertain about the future.
> 
> ...



They're all losing customers: Canon, Nikon, Sony, Pentax, Olympus, etc. All of them. Some are being lost to other ILC makers, but many are being lost for good to the computational photography being done by smartphones.


----------



## Michael Clark (May 31, 2019)

Jethro said:


> Speaking as someone who actually owns and uses an EOS R, the AF is not slow at all. Both the EOS R and the EOS RP reused existing DSLR sensors, hence the price-points of both the current R series cameras. If by 'new sensor tech' you actually mean 'new sensors', then undoubtedly we will see those when the next R series cameras are announced/released.




So you are saying your EOS R can do predictive AI Servo AF between each frame at 10+ fps?


----------



## Michael Clark (May 31, 2019)

neuroanatomist said:


> Important to note that the 1D used a CCD sensor, and after that Canon switched to and has remained with CMOS sensors. That CCD sensor is what made the faster shutter speed and Xsync possible, not the fact that it’s an APS-H sensor.
> 
> Sorry, but APS-H is in a coffin with plenty of nails.



That coffin was buried long ago and both it and the APS-H sensor have long returned to the dust of the earth. Ain't nothing short of Gabriel's trumpet going to resurrect it.


----------



## Michael Clark (May 31, 2019)

mb66energy said:


> My experience with DSLR PDAF is that the visualization of the AF spot in the view finder is smaller than the "spot" on the PDAF sensor - the sensor needs some extension to sample data for the AF calculations.
> If the object is not perpendicular to the optical axis of your lens AF chooses the closest focus setting the "spot" can gain. The center of the "spot" is no longer in the focal plane. Does not matter with e.g. 50mm @ f/11 and subject 5m away but affects the AF quality in opposite conditions (longer FL, wide open).
> 
> You can check it if you try to AF some closer tiny objects near the AF spot visualisation: AF finds the object, not the background.
> ...



That picture at TDP shows what the viewfinder shows. The actual AF "points" are even larger.

In my experience with Canon AF over the last decade plus, the camera focuses on the area of greatest contrast within the active AF areas if AF points are manually chosen (with or without surrounding AF assist points). Only when using Zone AF or Auto AF point selection is the nearest thing the one most likely to be chosen by the camera. Here's an old "map" of the original 7D AF system. The top line is what the viewfinder shows (but without the numbers next to each AF point). The middle line shows the physical layout of the PDAF sensor. The various lines do not have to be in the same relative position as the viewfinder due to the microlenses at the entry to the AF sensor that redirect light to the various sets of lines. The bottom line shows the actual areas of sensitivity for each AF "point". The chart to left shows which parts of the AF sensor are active for each AF "point".


----------



## mb66energy (May 31, 2019)

Michael Clark said:


> That picture at TDP shows what the viewfinder shows. The actual AF "points" are even larger.
> 
> In my experience with Canon AF over the last decade plus, the camera focuses on the area of greatest contrast within the active AF areas if AF points are manually chosen (with or without surrounding AF assist points). Only when using Zone AF or Auto AF point selection is the nearest thing the one most likely to be chosen by the camera. Here's an old "map" of the original 7D AF system. The top line is what the viewfinder shows (but without the numbers next to each AF point). The middle line shows the physical layout of the PDAF sensor. The various lines do not have to be in the same relative position as the viewfinder due to the microlenses at the entry to the AF sensor that redirect light to the various sets of lines. The bottom line shows the actual areas of sensitivity for each AF "point". The chart to left shows which parts of the AF sensor are active for each AF "point".
> 
> View attachment 184850



Thanks for the images - I referred to the image of the actual PD AF sensor silicon chip which supports your statements ... which can be found if you search for "diagonal cross" in that page. But your images show the situation much better. AlanF gave me the hint that the 5Div and 5Ds support Spot AF where the AF is much closer to the squares or rectangles in the viewfinder - i think it is the same like the normal and small AF frame in Canons ML cameras: Reduce the spot size, but at the trade off of AF responsivity under low contrast / low light conditions ...


----------



## CJudge (May 31, 2019)

Michael Clark said:


> For most sports and wildlife shooting done in marginal light, the downside would be slower shutter speeds that are unacceptable. There's a huge difference between 1/1000 and 1/400 when shooting sports/action, which is what a 1.6X TC would force.


But this is offset by better high-ISO performance, so it ends up being a wash. Unless the teleconverter has poor light transmission, or otherwise effects focusing speed, in real world usage it shouldn't have any more impact on image quality than using an APS-C sensor would.


----------



## AlanF (May 31, 2019)

CJudge said:


> But this is offset by better high-ISO performance, so it ends up being a wash. Unless the teleconverter has poor light transmission, or otherwise effects focusing speed, in real world usage it shouldn't have any more impact on image quality than using an APS-C sensor would.


As a rule of thumb, a 1.4xTC degrades MTF by 10% and a 2xTC by 20% for a good lens-TC match. My experience bears that out and it is always better to have a sensor with a higher pixel density than a lower density with an equivalent xTC on the same lens. (I am always switching between 1.4x and 2xTCs and between 5DIV and 5DSR bodies with my primes and telephotos and choose the best combinations for the particular situation.)


----------



## Michael Clark (May 31, 2019)

Shutterbug said:


> I can barely afford it. Thus the trepidation. News/Editorial staff have been cut and freelancing takes a while to build up to. I like the Canon glass lineup and the performance/value ratio, just not their bodies (love the UI though, muscle memory at it's best). I also don't want to use their adapter on R bodies and would rather use a native lens. I've concurrently used the 5dmk4 at various events but for outdoor sports, which I'm covering more of, I reach for the 7dmkII.



The "adapter" on the R body is nothing more than a spacer. There are no optics to degrade IQ. There's no f-number penalty. It's not like trying to convert Canon lens protocol to Sony body protocol and vice-versa. The R cameras are EOS cameras. The EF lenses are EOS lenses. They all speak the same language. You don't lose anything the EF lens can do on an EF body when it is used on an R body, except perhaps slower AF due to lower battery capacity. But that is also true when EF lenses are used on EF bodies with smaller batteries - AF speed of the same lens is slower on a Rebel than on a 1D X. When attached to a 7D Mark II it's somewhere in between.


----------



## Michael Clark (May 31, 2019)

CJudge said:


> But this is offset by better high-ISO performance, so it ends up being a wash. Unless the teleconverter has poor light transmission, or otherwise effects focusing speed, in real world usage it shouldn't have any more impact on image quality than using an APS-C sensor would.




But it's never a wash when there are extra optical elements between the lens and the sensor. Especially with night sports, when bright light sources may be in the frame, there's a penalty in terms of contrast and flaring. Sensor pixel density gets more pixels on the same subjects with no additional optics in the light path.

I've shot it both ways: When I finally got frustrated enough with the poor shot-to-shot AF consistency and high ISO noise of the old 7D, I started putting the EF 70-200mm f/2.8 L IS II on the (then new) 5D Mark III and cropping more. When I started using the 7D Mark II, AF and high ISO noise was much better and I get better results using the 7D Mark II than cropping the 5D Mark III down to less than 10 MP. Plus it frees the 5D3 up to be used as my "short" body.


----------



## Michael Clark (May 31, 2019)

unfocused said:


> I think I'd be more likely to believe the earth is flat than "...many 7d2 users have moved onto Sony instead of waiting for Canon to upgrade their 7d2..."



I think the vast majority have just stopped buying anything and kept using what they already have until Canon finally reveals their hand. If this rumor is true that there will be no 7D Mark III, those who have put off both lens and body purchases for the last couple of years will be making decisions about whether to spend thousands upon thousands upon thousands of dollars for higher priced R bodies and lenses, or going elsewhere. To a LOT of them, the D500 will be awfully attractive. There are those who have already moved to the D500, particularly in the amateur birding community.

Canon bases their decisions on what they think will make them the most money, as they well should. They seem, based on their decision to kill the 7D III, to think they can make more money selling R bodies and very expensive glass to semi-pros and amateurs with a lot of money to burn. They're probably right considering how the numbers of true full-time pro sports shooters are rapidly dwindling to near nothing as too many well heeled "semi-pros" are willing to shoot major sporting events for next to nothing just to get sideline access.

Until Canon can produce a mirrorless camera capable of doing AI Servo AF tracking of moving subjects at 10+ fps, most 7D Mark II shooters are not going to jump on the R bandwagon. Even then, if such a mirrorless camera requires a 1-series level investment, many 7D Mark II shooters will be looking elsewhere. Canon seems to be saying to them, "Don't let the door hit you on the way out."


----------



## Michael Clark (May 31, 2019)

YuengLinger said:


> Are we approaching a point where consumers no longer put much faith in the "perceived reach advantages of the 1.6 crop factor," thanks to education and experience?



There's still an advantage when the 5Ds and the 7D Mark II have the same pixel density and one can only burst at 5 fps and the other can burst at 10 fps. When one needs more reach and fast frame rates in marginal light, a camera like the 7D Mark II beats a camera like the 5Ds or 5D mark IV at less than half the price.


----------



## Michael Clark (May 31, 2019)

IslanderMV said:


> I am seeing a silver lining in this conversation. I use the ORIGINAL 7D. I also have a Canon full frame and lots of amazing glass. I use the 7D for wildlife. I live on an island so about 80% my shooting is in a salt water environment. All those years of rugged use are starting take their toll on my ancient 7D . I am looking foreward to picking up a new 7DII at a fire sale price!



I don't know, it might be like the EF 24-70mm f/2.8 L when the EF 24-70mm f/2.8 L II was announced: the price went up several hundred dollars as people scrambled to get one of the last of the old ones before the $1,000+ price increase of the newer model.

You will be amazed at how much better the 7DII AF system is than the original 7D. You will kick yourself for not switching years ago. The 7DII body also has noticeably better build quality and weather sealing than the 7D.


----------



## neuroanatomist (May 31, 2019)

Michael Clark said:


> I've never shot anything shorter than a 70-200 on my 7D Mark II. That's what my 5D Mark III is for.


Many of your comments suggest that you believe you are representative of a typical 7DII owner. Do you really think most 7DII owners also have a FF camera? Seems unlikely.

Edit: I see you acknowledged that your experience is anecdotal. Anecdotes aren’t data.


----------



## Michael Clark (May 31, 2019)

Durf said:


> My 6D MKii actually has Spot AF (and it does actually make a difference in some situations)



On the other hand, the 6D II does not have iTR, nor even AF point manual selection plus four asist points or AF point manual selection plus surrounding assist points. The nine point Zone AF offered by the 6D Mark II does not give priority to the AF point in the center of the zone and tends to always choose whatever is nearest in any of the active AF areas. In contrast, AF point manual selection plus 4 or 8 assist points gives priority to the main point and focuses on the highest contrast, rather than the nearest object, it can find.


----------



## Michael Clark (May 31, 2019)

neuroanatomist said:


> Many of your comments suggest that you believe you are representative of a typical 7DII owner. Do you really think most 7DII owners also have a FF camera? Seems unlikely.



Many of the 7D/7D Mark II owners I know and see at events use FF cameras. Many of them use their personally owned 7D Mark II as a second body to their 1D X/1D X Mark II issued by their employers. I don't see many 7D Mark II owners shooting with a single body. The single body Canon APS-C shooters I see tend to use the 80D. The Rebel owners are in the stands.


----------



## neuroanatomist (May 31, 2019)

Michael Clark said:


> Many of the 7D/7D Mark II owners I know and see at events use FF cameras. Many of them use their personally owned 7D Mark II as a second body to their 1D X/1D X Mark II issued by their employers. I don't see many 7D Mark II owners shooting with a single body. The single body Canon APS-C shooters I see tend to use the 80D.


Your personal observations are necessarily so limited with regard to the global market that they are irrelevant.


----------



## Michael Clark (May 31, 2019)

Kit. said:


> Are you saying that you, an owner of a 5D series body, would not be buying the same lenses if you didn't have a 7D series body?



I'm saying I use each body for different roles. Although I occasionally use my 70-200/2.8 on the 5D3, that lens is almost always attached to the 7D2. If the light is too dim for the 7D2, I put a 135/2 on the 5D3. Otherwise, the lenses I use with the 5D3, both primes and zooms, are, other than the 24-105/4 which is a workhorse when shooting in "hazardous" or "high impact" conditions, less than 70mm. 

When the 7D2 wears out (and mine already has well over 70% of the shutter rating on it), it wouldn't make much of a difference to me to go to the D500 or its successor with the more expensive but better AF-S Nikkor 70-200mm f/2.8E FL ED VR than an inferior "sports" R body while continuing to shoot wide angle stuff with my Canon gear.


----------



## Michael Clark (May 31, 2019)

neuroanatomist said:


> Your personal observations are necessarily so limited with regard to the global market that they are irrelevant.



As are yours. How many pro or semi-pro shooters do you run into at shooting jobs on a weekly basis? Just because my experience doesn't line up with your opinion does not make it any more irrelevant than your uninformed opinion.


----------



## Otara (May 31, 2019)

I have the 7D2, got the R and am pretty happy with it. I use it for my daughters basketball, and for birding.
If frame rate with servo is the main metric then yes it loses. Personally I think the bigger barrier is price.

But there are a lot of things I really like about it, to the point that I now prefer it over my 7D2 even for birding, slower frame rate and all.

I didnt have a full frame for years while I had my 7D/7D2. I think professional shooters using 1DX/1DX2 is (probably) a pretty small subset of 7D2 users....


----------



## Michael Clark (May 31, 2019)

neuroanatomist said:


> Many of your comments suggest that you believe you are representative of a typical 7DII owner. Do you really think most 7DII owners also have a FF camera? Seems unlikely.
> 
> Edit: I see you acknowledged that your experience is anecdotal. Anecdotes aren’t data.



Exactly what authoritative data do you have that shows most 7D Mark II owners do not own a FF camera?


----------



## neuroanatomist (May 31, 2019)

Michael Clark said:


> As are yours. How many pro or semi-pro shooters do you run into at shooting jobs on a weekly basis? Just because my experience doesn't line up with your opinion does not make it any more irrelevant than your uninformed opinion.


Yes, my observations are also irrelevant. Canon has the data, and if their actions do not align with your opinion or mine, the logical explanation is that we are forming opinions without data to support them. 

You can make up stuff like ‘the only logical explanation is that Canon doesn’t know if they can ever do DPAF Servo at 10 fps’ all day long, but it remains uninformed speculation.


----------



## neuroanatomist (May 31, 2019)

Michael Clark said:


> Exactly what authoritative data do you have that shows most 7D Mark II owners do not own a FF camera?


I’m not claiming anything, I’m just saying that your extremely limited and anecdotal observations are anything but ‘authoritative data’. I am certain that Canon has those data, and uses them to drive their product development decisions.

How many of the ~150,000 pro photographers in the US (based on USBLS data) do you interact with regularly, that leads you to imply that your observations are representative of that group, much less the entire global market?


----------



## Otara (May 31, 2019)

Edit: wasn't intending to post the first bit, was half a thought.



Michael Clark said:


> Exactly what authoritative data do you have that shows most 7D Mark II owners do not own a FF camera?



The same kind of data that shows most 7D II owners dont own jumbo jets. 

You are the one claiming an association between two items, its your job to prove it exists.


----------



## slclick (May 31, 2019)

I for one loved the 10-22 on my 7D. True it was the only aps-c glass I used back then but it yielded fantastic results.


----------



## CJudge (May 31, 2019)

AlanF said:


> As a rule of thumb, a 1.4xTC degrades MTF by 10% and a 2xTC by 20% for a good lens-TC match. My experience bears that out and it is always better to have a sensor with a higher pixel density than a lower density with an equivalent xTC on the same lens. (I am always switching between 1.4x and 2xTCs and between 5DIV and 5DSR bodies with my primes and telephotos and choose the best combinations for the particular situation.)



Good to know! I assumed that there was some slight degradation, but I reckoned that when paired with the new RF glass (and this would be an RF native tele-converter) and whatever upcoming sensor tech Canon eventually releases, that the difference could essentially be negligible at that point. Add in the fact that it means any RF mount body can serve double duty, both for long and short needs, and you might have enough to make people happy.

But I have no experience with either the 7D series or using tele-converters, so this was just idle speculation on my part


----------



## Michael Clark (May 31, 2019)

neuroanatomist said:


> I’m not claiming anything, I’m just saying that your extremely limited and anecdotal observations are anything but ‘authoritative data’. I am certain that Canon has those data, and uses them to drive their product development decisions.
> 
> How many of the ~150,000 pro photographers in the US (based on USBLS data) do you interact with regularly, that leads you to imply that your observations are representative of that group, much less the entire global market?



Where have I claimed that my experience was representative of the global market? Or even of the entire U.S. market? In one of my first comments way up above I led off by acknowledging that my personal observations are anecdotal. But at least they are actual observations of a decently large number of shooters, most of whom use at least some Canon gear. 

I run into or interact regularly on social media with roughly 50%, maybe more than that, of the currently working photojournalists within the northern half of my home state. There are also several who once worked here but now work in other markets. I also know more than a few who have been put out to pasture or forced into freelancing via "early retirement" and layoffs. One of those is currently the governor's official photographer and no longer shooting sports. Several others are some of the most active sports/news freelancers in this area. I'm also on a first name basis with many of the sports shooters in this area for the largest scholastic photographic contractor in the US. Their guys shooting HS sports are all using Canon gear for that.


----------



## BillB (May 31, 2019)

Michael Clark said:


> The only logical explanation for this is that Canon has no idea if they are ever going to be able to develop a sensor with fast enough readout to do AI Servo AF off the main imaging sensor at 10+ fps. This they are conceding the entire market niche filled by the 7D series to Nikon, Olympus, and Sony.


Not sure that is the only logical explanation. Canon's thinking may be based on market opportunuties more than performance constraints. As you point out, Nikon, Olympus and Sony are competing in the 7D space. Canon may see more opportunity with a 90D and the R models.


----------



## Michael Clark (May 31, 2019)

Otara said:


> Edit: wasn't intending to post the first bit, was half a thought.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



No, I'm sharing my personal observations which were prefaced way up above with an acknowledgement that they are anecdotal.


----------



## CJudge (May 31, 2019)

Michael Clark said:


> But it's never a wash when there are extra optical elements between the lens and the sensor. Especially with night sports, when bright light sources may be in the frame, there's a penalty in terms of contrast and flaring. Sensor pixel density gets more pixels on the same subjects with no additional optics in the light path.
> 
> I've shot it both ways: When I finally got frustrated enough with the poor shot-to-shot AF consistency and high ISO noise of the old 7D, I started putting the EF 70-200mm f/2.8 L IS II on the (then new) 5D Mark III and cropping more. When I started using the 7D Mark II, AF and high ISO noise was much better and I get better results using the 7D Mark II than cropping the 5D Mark III down to less than 10 MP. Plus it frees the 5D3 up to be used as my "short" body.



There have been massive advances in coatings that reduce flaring and ghosting, which could be implemented here. Also, this would be the first look at an RF tele-converter. There could be other advantages introduced by the decreased flange distance. If it's possible for the IQ impact of the tele-converted to be minimised, then you'd have a winner on your hands. I'm not suggesting that people chuck an EF teleconverter on their EOS R bodies and they should be happy. I'm speculating on an improved optical performance tele specifically for the RF mount, which could effectively bridge the gap between the 5D and 7D series.

Just a thought.


----------



## Michael Clark (May 31, 2019)

CJudge said:


> There have been massive advances in coatings that reduce flaring and ghosting, which could be implemented here. Also, this would be the first look at an RF tele-converter. There could be other advantages introduced by the decreased flange distance. If it's possible for the IQ impact of the tele-converted to be minimised, then you'd have a winner on your hands. I'm not suggesting that people chuck an EF teleconverter on their EOS R bodies and they should be happy. I'm speculating on an improved optical performance tele specifically for the RF mount, which could effectively bridge the gap between the 5D and 7D series.
> 
> Just a thought.



It's a thought that hasn't been borne out in the tens of thousands of frames I've shot with both FF and crop sensors from the sideline and baseline. Canon extenders work best with prime super telephotos.

Look, as far as RF goes, we haven't even seen most of the announced lenses yet. No one knows if the extending barrel RF 70-200/2.8 is going to be optically superior, or even as good as, the current internal zoom/internal focus EF 70-200/2.8 which is a pretty good lens. Maybe they think the selling point will be the compactness when stored at 70mm? Who really knows? Of the next 6-8 EF lenses that Canon has announced they will release in the next year or so, none of them are extenders.

It's really beginning to seem rather comical that most of those arguing here that it's no great loss that Canon has dropped the plans for a 7D Mark III are those who never bought a 7D (as flawed as it was, it was still a usable camera and advanced the state of APS-C cameras in many ways) or 7D Mark II. On the other hand, it seems to me that virtually none of the actual 7D/7D2 owners here agree with many of the reasons the non-owners are offering for why a FF R is somehow going to magically improve, probably for _only_ twice the price, on the advantages the 7D2 offered for certain use cases!


----------



## SecureGSM (May 31, 2019)

CJudge said:


> Good to know! I assumed that there was some slight degradation, but I reckoned that when paired with the new RF glass (and this would be an RF native tele-converter) and whatever upcoming sensor tech Canon eventually releases, that the difference could essentially be negligible at that point. Add in the fact that it means any RF mount body can serve double duty, both for long and short needs, and you might have enough to make people happy.
> 
> But I have no experience with either the 7D series or using tele-converters, so this was just idle speculation on my part


in addition and to support what Alan just said, there is also a noticeable AF performance toll associated with teleconverters that is mostly noticeable in poor light conditions. not so bad in case of x1.4 teleconverter though but still noticeable


----------



## Don Haines (May 31, 2019)

CJudge said:


> Good to know! I assumed that there was some slight degradation, but I reckoned that when paired with the new RF glass (and this would be an RF native tele-converter) and whatever upcoming sensor tech Canon eventually releases, that the difference could essentially be negligible at that point. Add in the fact that it means any RF mount body can serve double duty, both for long and short needs, and you might have enough to make people happy.
> 
> But I have no experience with either the 7D series or using tele-converters, so this was just idle speculation on my part


My experience has been that unless you have a very good lens, that a 1.4 teleconverter should be avoided on crop cameras, and a 2X teleconverter should be avoided.

I find that both work well with FF, but that on a “less than stellar” lens, that the 2X should be avoided.

Of course, these are personal guidelines and there are many cases when I ignore them, and have even been known to stack teleconverters........


----------



## Michael Clark (May 31, 2019)

BillB said:


> Not sure that is the only logical explanation. Canon's thinking may be based on market opportunuties more than performance constraints. As you point out, Nikon, Olympus and Sony are competing in the 7D space. Canon may see more opportunity with a 90D and the R models.



Yeah, I should have probably began that with something like, "It seems to me that the only logical explanation is..."

I do stand by the assertion that pretty much every major disappointment that Canon has been criticized for with regard to camera bodies over the past five years or so can be explained by slow sensor readout speeds.

Part of it is that Dual Pixel CMOS AF increases the data load and processing needed. That has sold a ton of Canon cameras for dual use as stills and video cameras. But it does slow down the sensor readout.

I do find it hard to believe that Canon would so easily cave to the Nikon D500 and others and not even try to compete for that market if they could produce a competitive 7D Mark III camera at even a modest profit. They sold a ton of 7Ds back in the day. They sold a ton of 7D Mark IIs in the first three years or so it was out. Nikon and Sony are also competing in the mirrorless FF space, yet Canon seems willing to fight them there when by all appearances their sensor technology is less competitive to produce a mirrorless "sports" camera in that space than in the high end APS-C DSLR niche that they controlled for so long and are now seemingly abandoning.


----------



## unfocused (May 31, 2019)

AlanF said:


> ...Now please answer the rest of my question about how many bird photography outings do you go on to have any first hand knowledge of the occurrence of the D500 in the field.



Let's back up a bit. You jumped into a conversation where I said that anecdotes were not evidence of the relative popularity of Nikon, Canon and Sony. You responded with your own anecdotes and demanded that I produce anecdotes to counter yours. I'm not interested in an anecdote war. It doesn't matter how many bird outings you go on, it's not actual evidence of anything.


----------



## neuroanatomist (May 31, 2019)

Michael Clark said:


> I do stand by the assertion that pretty much every major disappointment that Canon has been criticized for with regard to camera bodies over the past five years or so can be explained by slow sensor readout speeds.


How have those ‘major disappointments that Canon has been criticized for’ affected Canon’s market share?


----------



## neuroanatomist (May 31, 2019)

SecureGSM said:


> in addition and to support what Alan just said, there is also a noticeable AF performance toll associated with teleconverters that is mostly noticeable in poor light conditions. not so bad in case of x1.4 teleconverter though but still noticeable


Agreed. Canon has stated that there is a 50% drop in AF speed (imposed by the firmware as a trade off for accuracy) with a 1.4x TC, and a 75% drop with a 2x TC. That sounds worse than it is, because Canon is referring to the speed at which the focusing group is moved, but the distance the focusing group needs to move is also reduced with an extender in place, so overall the AF performance hit is not too bad. Still noticeable in my experience, though (in spite of claims from a Canon mouthpiece that it shouldn’t be).


----------



## Durf (May 31, 2019)

neuroanatomist said:


> How have those ‘major disappointments that Canon has been criticized for’ affected Canon’s market share?


 Canon's made a bazzillion dollars the last few years just off of Rebels, Powershots, and even the 80D and 6DMKii's....I don't think they pay much attention to camera forum critics


----------



## slclick (May 31, 2019)

Is the D500 driving Nikon's lens sales at a high rate I wonder?


----------



## neuroanatomist (May 31, 2019)

slclick said:


> Is the D500 driving Nikon's lens sales at a high rate I wonder?


Over the 1 year period after the launch of the D500 (which fortuitously coincides with a Nikon fiscal year), lens sales dropped 22% and Nikon’s share of the global lens market dropped from 27% to 24%. Over the 3 year period since the launch of the D500, lens sales dropped 46% and Nikon’s share of the global lens market dropped from 27% to 19%.


----------



## AlanF (May 31, 2019)

slclick said:


> Is the D500 driving Nikon's lens sales at a high rate I wonder?


Buying the 7D got me into the 7DII and then all those 5D series and big white lenses. Only anecdotal evidence for me. But, I wonder if the Nikon market share would have gone down further but for the D500?


----------



## CJudge (May 31, 2019)

SecureGSM said:


> in addition and to support what Alan just said, there is also a noticeable AF performance toll associated with teleconverters that is mostly noticeable in poor light conditions. not so bad in case of x1.4 teleconverter though but still noticeable



I wonder if this toll remains when using mirrorless bodies and DPAF focusing. Is the limitation caused by the DSLR 's focusing screen?


----------



## CJudge (May 31, 2019)

Michael Clark said:


> It's a thought that hasn't been borne out in the tens of thousands of frames I've shot with both FF and crop sensors from the sideline and baseline. Canon extenders work best with prime super telephotos.
> 
> Look, as far as RF goes, we haven't even seen most of the announced lenses yet. No one knows if the extending barrel RF 70-200/2.8 is going to be optically superior, or even as good as, the current internal zoom/internal focus EF 70-200/2.8 which is a pretty good lens. Maybe they think the selling point will be the compactness when stored at 70mm? Who really knows? Of the next 6-8 EF lenses that Canon has announced they will release in the next year or so, none of them are extenders.
> 
> It's really beginning to seem rather comical that most of those arguing here that it's no great loss that Canon has dropped the plans for a 7D Mark III are those who never bought a 7D (as flawed as it was, it was still a usable camera and advanced the state of APS-C cameras in many ways) or 7D Mark II. On the other hand, it seems to me that virtually none of the actual 7D/7D2 owners here agree with many of the reasons the non-owners are offering for why a FF R is somehow going to magically improve, probably for _only_ twice the price, on the advantages the 7D2 offered for certain use cases!




Don't worry Michael, you'll be glad to hear that I'm not joining this thread from the boardroom's of Canon's product development department.


----------



## Shutterbug (May 31, 2019)

Michael Clark said:


> Those are popular lenses, but I see them on the Rebels and x0D cameras. I don't often see them on the 7D Mark II.


The 17-55 2.8 IS is practically glued onto one of my 7dmkIIs. It's an amazing combo. Lighter than a 5DmkIV and 24-70 2.8 , has IS but minus the weather sealing, performs pretty well. A marriage made in heaven


----------



## Shutterbug (May 31, 2019)

Michael Clark said:


> The "adapter" on the R body is nothing more than a spacer. There are no optics to degrade IQ. There's no f-number penalty. It's not like trying to convert Canon lens protocol to Sony body protocol and vice-versa. The R cameras are EOS cameras. The EF lenses are EOS lenses. They all speak the same language. You don't lose anything the EF lens can do on an EF body when it is used on an R body, except perhaps slower AF due to lower battery capacity. But that is also true when EF lenses are used on EF bodies with smaller batteries - AF speed of the same lens is slower on a Rebel than on a 1D X. When attached to a 7D Mark II it's somewhere in between.


The slower AF is something I'm trying to avoid. As it's hard enough competing with Sony A9 shooters out there. More of them are popping up. That's interesting re: battery capacity and slower AF.


----------



## unfocused (May 31, 2019)

AlanF said:


> Buying the 7D got me into the 7DII and then all those 5D series and big white lenses. Only anecdotal evidence for me. But, I wonder if the Nikon market share would have gone down further but for the D500?


Nikon went nearly seven years between their last D300 and the D500. During the interim, the line was declared dead by almost everyone. (sound familiar?) Something caused them to revisit their decision. While it may not have made much difference to their market share, I don't think its unreasonable to assume that they saw a lucrative niche that was less sensitive to market fluctuations than their lower lines. Of course, seven years equals a lot of pent up demand and that may have helped drive D500 sales.

The 7D rumors are perplexing because from my limited perspective it seems like Canon is making the same mistake Nikon made in 2009. But, I realize the anguish is premature until we actually know what Canon is doing.


----------



## Shutterbug (May 31, 2019)

Michael Clark said:


> I'm saying I use each body for different roles. Although I occasionally use my 70-200/2.8 on the 5D3, that lens is almost always attached to the 7D2. If the light is too dim for the 7D2, I put a 135/2 on the 5D3. Otherwise, the lenses I use with the 5D3, both primes and zooms, are, other than the 24-105/4 which is a workhorse when shooting in "hazardous" or "high impact" conditions, less than 70mm.
> 
> When the 7D2 wears out (and mine already has well over 70% of the shutter rating on it), it wouldn't make much of a difference to me to go to the D500 or its successor with the more expensive but better AF-S Nikkor 70-200mm f/2.8E FL ED VR than an inferior "sports" R body while continuing to shoot wide angle stuff with my Canon gear.



I have similar thoughts but I'm trying not carry bodies from different systems. Maybe if I had a 3rd but with 2 bodies. Having a backup in the same system can be the saving grace in some situations. Same batteries, same mounts, flash coms. So switching systems is an expensive proposition for those trying to travel light (no rolling bags). Locally , I could say have the 2nd Canon body in the car and carry the Fuji around. What I have learnt is that I'm not buying anymore native lights from Canon or Nikon for future purchases. Sticking to a 3rd party as it it's easier to switch systems without also having to sell off speedlights. Nice to have TTL now and then.


----------



## YuengLinger (May 31, 2019)

Michael Clark said:


> Many of the 7D/7D Mark II owners I know and see at events use FF cameras. Many of them use their personally owned 7D Mark II as a second body to their 1D X/1D X Mark II issued by their employers. I don't see many 7D Mark II owners shooting with a single body. The single body Canon APS-C shooters I see tend to use the 80D. The Rebel owners are in the stands.


I don't know any 7D owners without a FF too.


----------



## YuengLinger (May 31, 2019)

degos said:


> Why would we be? A 32MP APS-C sensor in the 90D will still have more 'reach' through density than any other Canon camera, even the fabled 70MP RS.


Marketing delusion?


----------



## Funit (May 31, 2019)

I had been waiting for a 7D mk3 to compliment my 5D mk3. I'll have to wait and see what the 90D ends up being, but I fear it will be a downgrade compared to the 7D mk2, particularly in construction and weather sealing. Perhaps all you 5D mk3 users out there should consider upgrading to the 5D mk4 before Canon decides to discontinue that camera.
I have Zero interest in an R-mount body.


----------



## YuengLinger (May 31, 2019)

Funit said:


> I had been waiting for a 7D mk3 to compliment my 5D mk3. I'll have to wait and see what the 90D ends up being, but I fear it will be a downgrade compared to the 7D mk2, particularly in construction and weather sealing. Perhaps all you 5D mk3 users out there should consider upgrading to the 5D mk4 before Canon decides to discontinue that camera.
> I have Zero interest in an R-mount body.


A 5D IV might be an even better complement.


----------



## AlanF (May 31, 2019)

Funit said:


> I had been waiting for a 7D mk3 to compliment my 5D mk3. I'll have to wait and see what the 90D ends up being, but I fear it will be a downgrade compared to the 7D mk2, particularly in construction and weather sealing. Perhaps all you 5D mk3 users out there should consider upgrading to the 5D mk4 before Canon decides to discontinue that camera.
> I have Zero interest in an R-mount body.


Wait until they discontinue it and buy at a huge discount.


----------



## mattc (May 31, 2019)

I welcome the replacement for the 7D II as long as it is going to perform like the 7D II. Aside from the fact the 7D needs better sensor quality, it is a great camera. If the leaked specs are correct for the 90D, it will not be an alternative for the 7D Mark II.

The 7D Mark II has more autofocus points and a killer autofocus system, which is what wildlife photographers need. I am all for going mirrorless, but they are taking a big gamble with a flagship APS-C camera. In order to be better than the 7D Mark II, the new camera is going to need 14 fps, touch screen LCD, 4K and killer AIServo. I am actually OK leaving the sensor at 20mp if it means increased quality and better ISO performance.


----------



## mattc (May 31, 2019)

docsmith said:


> I think it is very possible that a new 90D is better than the 7DII.
> 
> As for an APS-C version of the R, I agree, it does seem odd. If there is no benefit to the lens size, then the only benefit would be in fps.
> 
> What would be great is if they had a FF EOS-R that had a crop mode that was 12-14 fps and FF was ~8 fps.


Not likely, but I sure hope it is.


----------



## mattc (May 31, 2019)

AlanF said:


> Buying the 7D got me into the 7DII and then all those 5D series and big white lenses. Only anecdotal evidence for me. But, I wonder if the Nikon market share would have gone down further but for the D500?


Possibly, but remember it is only photographers like us who buy the D500. The average consumer drives the big sales on the consumer DSLRs.


----------



## mattc (May 31, 2019)

YuengLinger said:


> Marketing delusion?


I doubt Canon can make a 32mp sensor for the APS-C that doesn't have horrible noise. They would be better off buying Sony APS-C sensors and putting them in that line. But, who knows, maybe they have found a breakthrough.


----------



## YuengLinger (May 31, 2019)

mattc said:


> I doubt Canon can make a 32mp sensor for the APS-C that doesn't have horrible noise. They would be better off buying Sony APS-C sensors and putting them in that line. But, who knows, maybe they have found a breakthrough.


Now would be a nice time to reveal the breakthrough!


----------



## slclick (May 31, 2019)

Far fetched I know in the light of the R system releases but there is another possibility the 7D may be dead but aps-c dslr may not be. A new line? Anything is possible. I am not in the camp that thinks dslr's are waning, I just think there are more choices coming with evolutionary changes...not replacements.


----------



## albron00 (May 31, 2019)

I use to have a lot of great moments with Canon: 500D, two 7Ds, 5Dm3, 760D..
Now I'm happy A7m3 user...
Sorry Canon.


----------



## Michael Clark (May 31, 2019)

neuroanatomist said:


> How have those ‘major disappointments that Canon has been criticized for’ affected Canon’s market share?



That's impossible to definitely answer. Had Canon had fast readout sensor over the last five years, who is to say their market share would not have been much greater than it is?

It's like trying to answer a question about a patient who had unsuccessful brain surgery and died before coming out from under the anesthesia: "How long would the patient have lived if the surgery had not been attempted?" No one knows for sure.

What would have happened if Seattle had ran the ball on second and goal from the half yard line? No one knows for sure, but the overwhelming general consensus is that they would have won the Super Bowl instead of lost it.


----------



## Michael Clark (May 31, 2019)

CJudge said:


> I wonder if this toll remains when using mirrorless bodies and DPAF focusing. Is the limitation caused by the DSLR 's focusing screen?



The DSLR's focusing screen has nothing to do with PDAF. The light that reaches the dedicated PDAF sensor follow a different path and never passes through the focusing screen. The reason Canon slows down AF with extenders is because as light is magnified by an extender it is spread out over a larger area and the intensity per unit area is reduced. The sensels in the PDAF sensor have less light to work with, thus the signal-to-noise ratio goes down and the noise floor increases relative to the signal.


----------



## neuroanatomist (May 31, 2019)

Shutterbug said:


> That's interesting re: battery capacity and slower AF.


It might be interesting if it were true, but it’s not. 



Michael Clark said:


> You don't lose anything the EF lens can do on an EF body when it is used on an R body, except perhaps slower AF due to lower battery capacity. But that is also true when EF lenses are used on EF bodies with smaller batteries - AF speed of the same lens is slower on a Rebel than on a 1D X. When attached to a 7D Mark II it's somewhere in between.


Battery capacity, which is rated in mAh, has nothing to do with AF speed. A properly functioning battery will deliver a consistent voltage during use, and for most current Canon ILC batteries that is 7.2 V DC. That’s the voltage delivered by the LP-E6/N (x0D, xD, R), the LP-E17 (some Rebel/xxxD, M5/6, RP), and LP-E12 (SL1, M50). Battery capacity merely determines how long that battery can continue to deliver the designated voltage. Any differences in AF speed are due to camera firmware differences, not battery capacity. 

The exception are the 1-series bodies, which are able to drive lens AF motors faster because the batteries deliver a higher voltage (11.1 V DC).


----------



## Michael Clark (May 31, 2019)

CJudge said:


> Don't worry Michael, you'll be glad to hear that I'm not joining this thread from the boardroom's of Canon's product development department.



What makes you think what I post here is any kind of appeal to Canon's decision makers? Their choice has fairly obviously been made. What I'm posting here is not an attempt to alter their business strategy. I'm merely making personal observations about what I think may be the possible motivations behind those decisions.

Trying to influence Canon's business plan would be a total waste of time.

Apparently, so is trying to explain to those who do not shoot the use cases for which many have found cameras such as the 7D Mark II very useful why things that many of those non-users think would be just as useful for those use cases aren't actually as useful as they might think.


----------



## Graphic.Artifacts (May 31, 2019)

neuroanatomist said:


> The exception are the 1-series bodies, which are able to drive lens AF motors faster because the batteries deliver a higher voltage (11.1 V DC).



I believe Canon has described the 7D mark II as being capable of delivering the higher voltage as well when attached to a telephoto prime. It may have to ramp up the voltage internally. My 7D2 seemed to focus my 600 faster than a 5D but probably not quite as fast as a 1 series.

edit: according to posters claiming to be quoting Chuck Westfall it's a firmware feature of the 1Dx's and 7D2 but not included in 5D's. Supposedly those bodies provide a 1 sec busrt of addition power to the AF motors to overcome the inertia of the large glass elements in the big whites. After the lenses/AF motors are moving the power drops back to normal. Maintaining the higher power might make focusing unstable. 

It's Canon so I doubt we'll ever know for sure.


----------



## Michael Clark (May 31, 2019)

neuroanatomist said:


> It might be interesting if it were true, but it’s not.
> 
> 
> Battery capacity, which is rated in mAh, has nothing to do with AF speed. A properly functioning battery will deliver a consistent voltage during use, and for most current Canon ILC batteries that is 7.2 V DC. That’s the voltage delivered by the LP-E6/N (x0D, xD, R), the LP-E17 (some Rebel/xxxD, M5/6, RP), and LP-E12 (SL1, M50). Battery capacity merely determines how long that battery can continue to deliver the designated voltage. Any differences in AF speed are due to camera firmware differences, not battery capacity.
> ...



Voltage doesn't do anything. Current (amperage) does. If it's low enough amperage, 5 Megavolts volts going through a body won't do much other than make your hair stand on end.








On the other hand, very low voltage at high current can kill you instantly.

It's a documented fact that the same lenses with heavier AF elements move noticeably more slowly on cameras with lower current available than on cameras with higher current available. It's also a documented fact that as the battery in the same camera, such as a 1D X is depleted, the AF speed slows down.


----------



## Michael Clark (May 31, 2019)

Shutterbug said:


> The 17-55 2.8 IS is practically glued onto one of my 7dmkIIs. It's an amazing combo. Lighter than a 5DmkIV and 24-70 2.8 , has IS but minus the weather sealing, performs pretty well. A marriage made in heaven



I do know one guy that mates a 7D2 with the EF 17-55/2.8 while using a 70-200/2.8 with a 1D X. I also know several dozen that use the 7D2 only with longer lenses and use their FF cameras (mostly 5 or 6 series) with wider lenses. I also know several that use the 1D X/1D X II with big whites, their 7D2 with a 70-200 and a 5D as their "wide" body. There are always exceptions to the general trend.


----------



## Michael Clark (May 31, 2019)

AlanF said:


> Wait until they discontinue it and buy at a huge discount.



Like the EF 24-70 f/2.8 L when it was replaced by the EF 24-70mm f/2.8 L II?

The going price of the original rose from about $1,300 to around $1,800 for the few that were still available when the II was introduced at $2,300. For the most part they all sold out just before Tamron announced the SP 24-70mm Di VC at $1,200 and the used price for a fairly pristine copy of the original EF 24-70mm f/2.8 L that had just been selling for $1,800 new plunged to less than $800.


----------



## Michael Clark (May 31, 2019)

YuengLinger said:


> Now would be a nice time to reveal the breakthrough!



Several years ago would have been an even nicer time to reveal such a breakthrough.


----------



## neuroanatomist (May 31, 2019)

Michael Clark said:


> That's impossible to definitely answer. Had Canon had fast readout sensor over the last five years, who is to say their market share would not have been much greater than it is?
> 
> It's like trying to answer a question about a patient who had unsuccessful brain surgery and died before coming out from under the anesthesia: "How long would the patient have lived if the surgery had not been attempted?" No one knows for sure.


You’re right, the question, “How has it affected market share?,” cannot be definitively answered. 

Let me rephrase the question in a way that reflects my intent when I posed it. Has the slow sensor readout that you claim is responsible for all the disappointments over the past five years _resulted in a loss _of market share for Canon? That can be definitively answered, because Canon has not lost market share over the past five years, rendering any cause moot. The logical conclusion from these ‘disappointments’ not having a negative effect on market share is that, despite the disappointment of critics, they had no meaningful impact in the real world. (Feel free to woulda-shoulda-coulda about market share Canon could have gained from a faster sensor readout, it’s just empty speculation whereas the facts above are just that – fact.)


----------



## Michael Clark (May 31, 2019)

YuengLinger said:


> A 5D IV might be an even better complement.



That all depends upon the use case. The 5D IV is a great camera for a lot of things, but it is not better at _everything_ than a 7D2 is. Personally, I'd love to be able to replace my aging 5D3 with a 5D4, but the numbers just don't add up for it right now.


----------



## Michael Clark (May 31, 2019)

neuroanatomist said:


> You’re right, the question, “How has it affected market share?,” cannot be definitively answered.
> 
> Let me rephrase the question in a way that reflects my intent when I posed it. Has the slow sensor readout that you claim is responsible for all the disappointments over the past five years _resulted in a loss _of market share for Canon? That can be definitively answered, because Canon has not lost market share over the past five years, rendering any cause moot. The logical conclusion from these ‘disappointments’ not having a negative effect on market share is that, despite the disappointment of critics, they had no meaningful impact in the real world. (Feel free to woulda-shoulda-coulda about market share Canon could have gained from a faster sensor readout, it’s just empty speculation whereas the facts above are just that – fact.)



One can just as easily say that Canon has seen declining sales during this period and be just as factually correct. One can also say that Canon _has_ lost market share in the FF camera segment, which is admittedly a fairly small portion of overall ILC sales. But it is also a segment that is shrinking at less than the overall rate of ILC sales.

You can spin it however you want, but it is still very, very likely that Canon would have sold more cameras between circa 2014 and 2019 if their sensors performed at the same level in terms of readout speed as their competitors' do and Canon had leveraged that performance to offer things such as uncropped and higher frame rate high resolution video. It's also a near certainty that Canon could have sold more 7D Mark III units over the last 18-24 months or so than the number of 7D Mark II units they have sold if the only real improvement had been putting the 80D sensor in the 7D body.


----------



## Michael Clark (May 31, 2019)

Graphic.Artifacts said:


> I believe Canon has described the 7D mark II as being capable of delivering the higher voltage as well when attached to a telephoto prime. It may have to ramp up the voltage internally. My 7D2 seemed to focus my 600 faster than a 5D but probably not quite as fast as a 1 series.
> 
> edit: according to posters claiming to be quoting Chuck Westfall it's a firmware feature of the 1Dx's and 7D2 but not included in 5D's. Supposedly those bodies provide a 1 sec busrt of addition power to the AF motors to overcome the inertia of the large glass elements in the big whites. After the lenses/AF motors are moving the power drops back to normal. Maintaining the higher power might make focusing unstable.
> 
> It's Canon so I doubt we'll ever know for sure.



RIP Chuck. He was a great guy on so many different levels.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Jun 1, 2019)

Michael Clark said:


> Voltage doesn't do anything. Current (amperage) does. If it's low enough amperage, 5 Megavolts volts going through a body won't do much other than make your hair stand on end.
> 
> On the other hand, very low voltage at high current can kill you instantly.
> 
> It's a documented fact that the same lenses with heavier AF elements move noticeably more slowly on cameras with lower current available than on cameras with higher current available. It's also a documented fact that as the battery in the same camera, such as a 1D X is depleted, the AF speed slows down.


The key factor is power, not current or voltage. Constant current with higher voltage means more power. Thus the increased AF motor drive speed with the 1-series. Regardless, your statement about capacity was manifestly incorrect. Capacity includes a time factor (the h in mAh), and is irrelevant in terms of lens focus speed.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Jun 1, 2019)

Michael Clark said:


> One can just as easily say that Canon has seen declining sales during this period and be just as factually correct.


So Canon’s slow sensor readout is responsible for the decline of the ILC market? *LOL. *


----------



## Graphic.Artifacts (Jun 1, 2019)

Michael Clark said:


> RIP Chuck. He was a great guy on so many different levels.


I never met him personally but he was generally well regarded and always seemed a decent sort. I forgot that he has passed. I seem to do that alot these days.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Jun 1, 2019)

Graphic.Artifacts said:


> I believe Canon has described the 7D mark II as being capable of delivering the higher voltage as well when attached to a telephoto prime. It may have to ramp up the voltage internally. My 7D2 seemed to focus my 600 faster than a 5D but probably not quite as fast as a 1 series.
> 
> edit: according to posters claiming to be quoting Chuck Westfall it's a firmware feature of the 1Dx's and 7D2 but not included in 5D's. Supposedly those bodies provide a 1 sec busrt of addition power to the AF motors to overcome the inertia of the large glass elements in the big whites. After the lenses/AF motors are moving the power drops back to normal. Maintaining the higher power might make focusing unstable.
> 
> It's Canon so I doubt we'll ever know for sure.


Interesting, thanks. I doubt it’s a firmware feature, firmware can’t store power. There would have to be a capacitor in bodies with that feature, which is possible.


----------



## Graphic.Artifacts (Jun 1, 2019)

Yes I expect here would have to be some electronic support for delivering the extra power. I doubt if Canon is going to be too forthcomming on how they get quick AF on their super tele's. Makes sense as a thought experiment though. Crank up the power to get things moving and then lower the gain to prevent jittery final focus. 

At the time, Canon was trying to position the 7D2 as a mini-1DX so they might have been willing to share more than usual about the 7D2'/1Dx's AF in order to highlight the similarities. None of the info I've been able to track down seems all that accurate or reliable.


----------



## Otara (Jun 1, 2019)

Michael Clark said:


> You can spin it however you want, but it is still very, very likely that Canon would have sold more cameras between circa 2014 and 2019 if their sensors performed at the same level in terms of readout speed as their competitors' do and Canon had leveraged that performance to offer things such as uncropped and higher frame rate high resolution video. It's also a near certainty that Canon could have sold more 7D Mark III units over the last 18-24 months or so than the number of 7D Mark II units they have sold if the only real improvement had been putting the 80D sensor in the 7D body.



This is a bit meaningless in that its like saying if Canon could have made a camera that had 8K video and could shoot at 40FPS for the same price point they would have sold more. Its true but it assumes their main concern is sales and technical superiority, rather than profitability.

As a result its _not_ a 'near certainty' that it was worth it to them to release a 7DIII with an 80D sensor, as the market in recent years is very different to when the 7D came out. The D500 has been very well received in enthusiast areas but whether its a great moneymaker is a whole different story. I think this whole area might be moving a bit into the APS-H area, where it will be sorely missed by some groups, but not what works well in todays market. 

I mean you could be right too. But to me its all guessing in the end.


----------



## Dantana (Jun 1, 2019)

I think this is another one of those instances where the 7D/D500 toting crowd makes up a bigger part of this type of forum than it does real world camera users. 

Canon is in the business of making money. If they think there is profit in a 7D 3, I’m sure they will make it. If not, well...


----------



## CJudge (Jun 1, 2019)

Michael Clark said:


> What makes you think what I post here is any kind of appeal to Canon's decision makers? Their choice has fairly obviously been made. What I'm posting here is not an attempt to alter their business strategy. I'm merely making personal observations about what I think may be the possible motivations behind those decisions.
> 
> Trying to influence Canon's business plan would be a total waste of time.
> 
> Apparently, so is trying to explain to those who do not shoot the use cases for which many have found cameras such as the 7D Mark II very useful why things that many of those non-users think would be just as useful for those use cases aren't actually as useful as they might think.



Whoosh.

Have a nice weekend, Michael.


----------



## Gallenulenoir (Jun 1, 2019)

Dantana said:


> I think this is another one of those instances where the 7D/D500 toting crowd makes up a bigger part of this type of forum than it does real world camera users.
> 
> Canon is in the business of making money. If they think there is profit in a 7D 3, I’m sure they will make it. If not, well...



It is probably true - but in terms of high margin lens sales (for high performance lenses) - it’s the prosumers and pros that I suspect disproportionally fork out - and they probably have 7Ds, 5Ds and 1Dx’s. As a 7Dii and 5Diii owner (and 5 L series lenses) - I am pretty confused by the next options. Hopefully all will come clear soon. 

I don’t envy the job of the Canon product managers right now.


----------



## Ozarker (Jun 1, 2019)

Dantana said:


> I think this is another one of those instances where the 7D/D500 toting crowd makes up a bigger part of this type of forum than it does real world camera users.
> 
> Canon is in the business of making money. If they think there is profit in a 7D 3, I’m sure they will make it. If not, well...


Exactly right!


----------



## wsmith96 (Jun 1, 2019)

Lurker said:


> Doesn't make sense to kill the 7D badge in favor of the n0D name. What happens after 90D, 100D is already taken, 91D?
> Doesn't make sense to kill an open ended name like 7D in favor of n0D which has nowhere to go. Might as well kill both now and move on.



What happens next is the grave for the 7d and xxd lines in favor of mirrorless.


----------



## wsmith96 (Jun 1, 2019)

Shutterbug said:


> I'm just waiting to click the buy button on two lenses for the 2x 7DmkIIs I have or, start moving to a new platform from another vendor. Other than just going cold turkey and switching to the Sony A9 or a Nikon D850 , there are not many options left. Waiting for the 1dxmk3 release for a better used market price on the 1dxmk2 isn't one of them as my trust in Canon is dwindling. The current R line is not ready and I'm hesitant to spend on the new mount before any reliable sports (and general all around) mirrorless cam is released. It's too soon to drop the 7D line. Let's see if the 90D specs are better than rumors project them to be.



I think you are pretty safe to click that buy button. These changes take years and the equipment you have today doesn’t stop working when a new product comes out. If the concern is over supportability, look at what canon covers on their cps page for repairs. They still have the 5d Mark II there and many old lenses.


----------



## BillB (Jun 1, 2019)

Dantana said:


> I think this is another one of those instances where the 7D/D500 toting crowd makes up a bigger part of this type of forum than it does real world camera users.
> 
> Canon is in the business of making money. If they think there is profit in a 7D 3, I’m sure they will make it. If not, well...


Putting it another way, how many new camera types is Canon going to make with high pixel density sensors to cover both aps-c and fullframe and what AF specs will they have?


----------



## masterpix (Jun 1, 2019)

bergstrom said:


> so canon's idealogy is, listen to what your customers would like and then don't give it to them or give them something else.


Unfortunately I have to admit that it sure sound like that. Most 7D users liked to see a new 7D in the horizon and not a mirrorless replica, which, in my opinion, is a wired hybrid which don't really answer any of their needs and also stumble over the M series.


----------



## Shutterbug (Jun 1, 2019)

wsmith96 said:


> I think you are pretty safe to click that buy button. These changes take years and the equipment you have today doesn’t stop working when a new product comes out. If the concern is over supportability, look at what canon covers on their cps page for repairs. They still have the 5d Mark II there and many old lenses.


The concern is more of staying within the playing field of the Sony A9, Nikon 850 and the like. Competitors are getting cleaner files at higher ISOs. I'd like to keep my Canon lenses but the 1dxII isn't something I can afford at the moment. Even when the 1dxIII is released and the used II market opens up, my trust in Canon would have dwindled by then. The 5dmkIV files are beautiful compared to the 7DmkIIs (which is showing it's age) but for sports , the 5D lacks a bit.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Jun 1, 2019)

masterpix said:


> Unfortunately I have to admit that it sure sound like that. Most 7D users liked to see a new 7D in the horizon and not a mirrorless replica...


Belated congratulations!! Sorry, I guess I missed the global election where you were chosen to represent ‘most 7D users’.


----------



## unfocused (Jun 1, 2019)

masterpix said:


> Unfortunately I have to admit that it sure sound like that. Most 7D users liked to see a new 7D in the horizon and not a mirrorless replica, which, in my opinion, is a wired hybrid which don't really answer any of their needs and also stumble over the M series.


I think it's a bit premature. This is a rumors site and Canon has announced nothing yet. True, manufacturers never give each and every customer exactly what they want. But, successful companies (and Canon is one of the most successful) find a way to check off enough boxes to entice the majority of customers. Let's see what happens before the hand wringing begins.


----------



## masterpix (Jun 1, 2019)

neuroanatomist said:


> Belated congratulations!! Sorry, I guess I missed the global election where you were chosen to represent ‘most 7D users’.





neuroanatomist said:


> Belated congratulations!! Sorry, I guess I missed the global election where you were chosen to represent ‘most 7D users’.


you can read the posts and get the notion...


----------



## neuroanatomist (Jun 1, 2019)

masterpix said:


> you can read the posts and get the notion...


So it’s your notion that forum posters represent the majority of 7D buyers? LOL.


----------



## Del Paso (Jun 1, 2019)

AlanF said:


> Once you have had it, you can't go back.


Went to Italy 1 week ago, to hike in the alps. My bag was heavy, from EF 14 prime to 100/ 400 mm zoom.2 Bodies, 5 d IV plus Leica M.
In the end, for 90% of the pictures, only 2 lenses were used: Summilux ASPH 35 mm and EF 100/400 IS II, the lens I hesitated to take along. 
THE indispensable lens !!!! Sharp, rugged , from near macro up to tele, a wonderful lens.


----------



## Otara (Jun 1, 2019)

neuroanatomist said:


> Belated congratulations!! Sorry, I guess I missed the global election where you were chosen to represent ‘most 7D users’.



I think the real problem is more that its not about 'most 7D users' even if it were true, its a stage in the market where its about 'most users', and where a 7D2 followup fits into that.


----------



## wyotex43n (Jun 1, 2019)

neuroanatomist said:


> Struggling with the idea of an APS-C EOS R – would there be an RF-S mount (a _fifth_ mount for current Canon cameras)? If not, lenses are needlessly large (e.g. the patented 17-70mm f/3.5-5.6 lens would be great for APS-C, but it has a FF image circle and could be significantly smaller with a smaller image circle). Does Canon expect users of an APS-C EOS R would just adapt EF-S lenses? Defeats the purpose of a small body, IMO.
> 
> I can certainly see Canon merging the xxD and 7D lines into a 90D that looks a lot like the current 7DII, perhaps with a video feature upgrade, enhanced AF and 12 fps.


I am very late on this reply. I too can't see a 5th mount. Even 4 mounts makes it hard to imagine Canon's strategy. 


So here are some thoughts but feel free to enlighten me. 
I understand why Nikon changed mounts. They were losing the war and had ties to a legacy mount that was making it hard to keep up. 
Sony has the E mount that works for both FF and APS C . The A mount has lost the internal battle at Sony. 

Now Canon brings out the R mount. It seems that it would have been safer to make a mirrorless EF with some added new contacts. The new lenses could have been backwards compatible to all EF cameras but with enhanced capabilities on a mirrorless body. I think they could have done that. So I don't fully understand the R mount from a marketing standpoint. 
Does the R mount allow them to compete with medium format? Would they bother to put a APS-C sensor in an R body. 
Do they see the market needing two mounts? Do they think most EF-S users will go to the M with the exception of 7D users. It seems they want to force the EF-s lens owners to choose M or R. Please help me because I can't read these tea leaves.


----------



## wsmith96 (Jun 1, 2019)

Shutterbug said:


> The concern is more of staying within the playing field of the Sony A9, Nikon 850 and the like. Competitors are getting cleaner files at higher ISOs. I'd like to keep my Canon lenses but the 1dxII isn't something I can afford at the moment. Even when the 1dxIII is released and the used II market opens up, my trust in Canon would have dwindled by then. The 5dmkIV files are beautiful compared to the 7DmkIIs (which is showing it's age) but for sports , the 5D lacks a bit.



I can see your point. I agree with you on the 5D Mark IV files also. I shoot a lot of indoor high school volleyball and needed a camera that could do well in poorly lit gyms. I sold my 80D and upgraded to the Mk4. I've never had a fast camera (10fps+) so I've always had to time my shots when shooting sports. The 5D doesn't do bad at all at action shots. I haven't tried it yet, but there's also that 8Mpix 4k video stills mode that captures at 30 fps on the Mk 4. Maybe that would work for you depending what you are shooting.

Have you considered a used 1DX? Maybe that can hit your price point and it's been a workhorse for professional sports photographers for some time. It's not the latest and greatest, but the image quality is still quite good.


----------



## unfocused (Jun 2, 2019)

wyotex43n said:


> ...I too can't see a 5th mount. Even 4 mounts makes it hard to imagine Canon's strategy...
> Do they see the market needing two mounts? Do they think most EF-S users will go to the M with the exception of 7D users. It seems they want to force the EF-s lens owners to choose M or R. Please help me because I can't read these tea leaves.



My personal view – I am not inclined to buy anything but EF mount lenses. 

I rented an R a month ago. I have another job coming up in September where the R would be a good choice (I need something quieter than the 1DxII to pair with my 5DIV. ) I might go ahead and buy an R if there are good deals at the time, or if Canon has announced something better, I may hold off and rent again. Even though my GAS would push me toward an RF lens, it just doesn't make sense for me. I need lenses that can pair with both bodies. I don't want to carry around two 24-105 lenses or two 70-200 lenses (my most used lenses).

Same with any other RF lens. I routinely carry two bodies, one with the 24-105 and one with the 70-200. I need the lenses and bodies to be interchangeable, so that means EF lenses. Fortunately, the adapter works great. Canon has said the EF mount isn't going anywhere. So, as long as I own at least one DSLR body, I will be buying EF lenses. 

Unless you are ready to completely drop DSLRs and use only R bodies, I don't think RF lenses are a good investment. I'm not interested in the M series. Maybe if Canon made a 7D style body in the M mount I would consider it, but I doubt that will happen.

Right now, only one mount fits everything and that is EF. I expect that within a few years, if Canon doesn't do it, someone is going to reverse engineer the RF mount and come out with an adapter that lets people mount RF lenses to EF bodies. There are those on this forum that say it's impossible. Maybe they are right, but in my experience those kinds of claims are often superseded by reality. I think Canon may do it, because they may find they have a whole series of cool R lenses that no one buys because they can't use them on their DSLRs. 

Just my opinion, but my opinion is the safest route is to stick with EF mount lenses.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Jun 2, 2019)

unfocused said:


> ...someone is going to reverse engineer the RF mount and come out with an adapter that lets people mount RF lenses to EF bodies. There are those on this forum that say it's impossible. Maybe they are right, but in my experience those kinds of claims are often superseded by reality. I think Canon may do it, because they may find they have a whole series of cool R lenses that no one buys because they can't use them on their DSLRs.


An RF to EF adapter is certainly possible, but making one without optical elements is impossible. The question is, would people use a 3rd party optic likely to degrade IQ to mount an expensive, high-quality RF lens on a FF DSLR? Maybe...there’s probably one or two people out there with a Fotodiox TC behind a big white lens. 

Canon likely could make one with good IQ (the FD-to-EOS adapter was high IQ, basically a very good ~1.25x TC), but I really can’t see them coming out with one, ever.


----------



## flip314 (Jun 2, 2019)

unfocused said:


> Right now, only one mount fits everything and that is EF. I expect that within a few years, if Canon doesn't do it, someone is going to reverse engineer the RF mount and come out with an adapter that lets people mount RF lenses to EF bodies. There are those on this forum that say it's impossible. Maybe they are right, but in my experience those kinds of claims are often superseded by reality. I think Canon may do it, because they may find they have a whole series of cool R lenses that no one buys because they can't use them on their DSLRs.



It's not impossible, but it would require optical elements. You can check out the reviews of the many 3rd party FD to EF lens converters, and you will very quickly see that it's nowhere near a free lunch. You'll likely lose the entire benefit of RF to begin with.


----------



## Ozarker (Jun 2, 2019)

Michael Clark said:


> Voltage doesn't do anything. Current (amperage) does. If it's low enough amperage, 5 Megavolts volts going through a body won't do much other than make your hair stand on end.


Strictly speaking, voltage doesn't go through anything. Voltage is a measure of potential difference across a circuit or two points. Current is what flows through.  1/10 of an amp can kill (A/C)https://www.asc.ohio-state.edu/physics/p616/safety/fatal_current.html


----------



## allanP (Jun 2, 2019)

Canon Rumors Guy said:


> Continue reading...


Pity. That's was. Rest well Canon @all


----------



## scyrene (Jun 2, 2019)

Shutterbug said:


> The concern is more of staying within the playing field of the Sony A9, Nikon 850 and the like.



Surely what matters is choosing the camera that best suits your needs, who cares what a different body can do (and if it does better what you care about, get that?).



Shutterbug said:


> Competitors are getting cleaner files at higher ISOs.



This is absolutely incorrect.


----------



## Shutterbug (Jun 2, 2019)

scyrene said:


> Surely what matters is choosing the camera that best suits your needs, who cares what a different body can do (and if it does better what you care about, get that?).
> 
> This is absolutely incorrect.


I like my kit but I've been finding myself needing more. Under 1600 it's acceptable , at 1600 to 3200, no comparison. Have you tried covering runners training close to sunset or dog agility competitions set in a dimly lit arena and have to deliver the original high res files? Once the editor/screener is used to looking at files from the A9 , submitting certain files feels embarrassing. 7DmkII vs A9 or D500? Have a look: https://www.dpreview.com/reviews/im...1&x=-0.4581907707846727&y=-0.8133701174859886


----------



## scyrene (Jun 2, 2019)

Shutterbug said:


> I like my kit but I've been finding myself needing more. Under 1600 it's acceptable , at 1600 to 3200, no comparison. Have you tried covering runners training close to sunset or dog agility competitions set in a dimly lit arena and have to deliver the original high res files? Once the editor/screener is used to looking at files from the A9 , submitting certain files feels embarrassing. 7DmkII vs A9 or D500? Have a look: https://www.dpreview.com/reviews/im...1&x=-0.4581907707846727&y=-0.8133701174859886



You mentioned "the Sony A9, Nikon 850 and the like". I can believe the 7D2 lags the newer cameras (but is it fair to compare different generations?) but your post that I was replying to didn't mention that camera.

If those competitors' cameras better suit your needs, you should buy one of them.


----------



## AlanF (Jun 2, 2019)

Shutterbug said:


> I like my kit but I've been finding myself needing more. Under 1600 it's acceptable , at 1600 to 3200, no comparison. Have you tried covering runners training close to sunset or dog agility competitions set in a dimly lit arena and have to deliver the original high res files? Once the editor/screener is used to looking at files from the A9 , submitting certain files feels embarrassing. 7DmkII vs A9 or D500? Have a look: https://www.dpreview.com/reviews/im...1&x=-0.4581907707846727&y=-0.8133701174859886



I have substituted the 5DSR for the D850 in your comparison. The A9 and and D500 are embarrassing in comparison - see link below.






Studio shot comparison: Digital Photography Review


Expert news, reviews and videos of the latest digital cameras, lenses, accessories, and phones. Get answers to your questions in our photography forums.




www.dpreview.com


----------



## Shutterbug (Jun 2, 2019)

scyrene said:


> You mentioned "the Sony A9, Nikon 850 and the like". I can believe the 7D2 lags the newer cameras (but is it fair to compare different generations?) but your post that I was replying to didn't mention that camera.
> 
> If those competitors' cameras better suit your needs, you should buy one of them.



I mentioned those in my original post. Anyway...

The point is , photogs want to stay with Canon but with no new midrange pro sports camera on the horizon, we are put in a tough situation. I like everything about the 7DmkII except the sensor (and how Canon's built in video codec "smushes" detail) and with mistakenly high hopes , was hoping a 7dmkIII option would've been known by now. Even putting aside a few lens purchases for as long as possible and renting where need be to see where they would be headed. The 90D specs don't look too appealing, the R isn't a solution and the 1dxII is $4k on the used market. Some folks have to make a decision within a month or two. Would be nice to know before used gear prices plummet further.


----------



## wyotex43n (Jun 2, 2019)

I have something of a time crunch. I damaged my 7Dmkll. I love my canon lenses. I don't want to buy 3/5 year old technology. If a 90D has a high frame rate and auto focus as good or better than my camera, with a new sensor great. If they bring out an R mount that will out perform a 7DmKll when it comes to image quality, frame rate and auto focus, also great. I just wish they would get on with. I can limp for another 4-6 months but if there is not a clear path by late fall, I might have to change brands.


----------



## Shutterbug (Jun 2, 2019)

AlanF said:


> I have substituted the 5DSR for the D850 in your comparison. The A9 and and D500 are embarrassing in comparison - see link below.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Dude, you sold your 7dmkII  The D850 is rated at 7-9fps(with battery grip) vs the 5DSR's 5fps. For a photojournalist, there's the more multipurpose 5dmkiv.


----------



## Shutterbug (Jun 2, 2019)

wyotex43n said:


> I have something of a time crunch. I damaged my 7Dmkll. I love my canon lenses. I don't want to buy 3/5 year old technology. If a 90D has a high frame rate and auto focus as good or better than my camera, with a new sensor great. If they bring out an R mount that will out perform a 7DmKll when it comes to image quality, frame rate and auto focus, also great. I just wish they would get on with. I can limp for another 4-6 months but if there is not a clear path by late fall, I might have to change brands.


Copy that. I'm in time crunch as well, which is why this wait is annoying. But if I needed to , I'd buy a used 7dmkII or 5mkIV to buy me some time till early Sept. Many here are in different boats. Those who cover/shoot sports for the wire, for the paper to those who take photos for themselves and don't have to send high res pics out to anyone or don't print. The 7D filled the swiss army knife role in Canon's lineup. We don't want anything less than that but not asking for a whole lot more.


----------



## AlanF (Jun 2, 2019)

Shutterbug said:


> Dude, you sold your 7dmkII  The D850 is rated at 7-9fps(with battery grip) vs the 5DSR's 5fps. For a photojournalist, there's the more multipurpose 5dmkiv.


The 100-400mm II doesn't fit on the D850!


----------



## Shutterbug (Jun 2, 2019)

AlanF said:


> The 100-400mm II doesn't fit on the D850!


Indeed! That's why this is so sad and maddening. The 5DSR is a good cam and I was going to rent one for a specific assignment but it's not the body for the majority of my work. If I never had to use an iso over 800 , I would be sitting here happy and would wait another year. But a few assignments have been popping up that require it and there will hopefully be more. Amassing a mix of lenses over 6 years and then to have to sell and buy them in a smaller time span to switch systems isn't easy for many, Canon knows this.


----------



## scyrene (Jun 2, 2019)

Shutterbug said:


> Some folks have to make a decision within a month or two.



Fair enough. Genuine question though - why so soon?


----------



## jtf (Jun 3, 2019)

Shutterbug said:


> Copy that. I'm in time crunch as well, which is why this wait is annoying. But if I needed to , I'd buy a used 7dmkII or 5mkIV to buy me some time till early Sept. Many here are in different boats. Those who cover/shoot sports for the wire, for the paper to those who take photos for themselves and don't have to send high res pics out to anyone or don't print. The 7D filled the swiss army knife role in Canon's lineup. We don't want anything less than that but not asking for a whole lot more.



I'm not a pro photographer. Just a retired network operations manager who has been photographing sports and wildlife for decades and wants to see the 90D or even better the EOS R sports camera as soon as possible because I'm impatient and have been waiting for a couple of years.


----------



## Pape (Jun 3, 2019)

Dont give up yet guys ,wait half year more 
you know shock effect ,if canon warns bomb is coming ,there wont be shock effect. Other brands and buyers can prepare to it.
Now if they played dead last 10 year to preparing mirrorless time ,its sensible not reveal road maps.
Catch me if you can game been rolling 10 year .other brands tooked risk to catch canon and they did.
but what happens now if canon releases cheap superior crop camera and superior sport R with total suprice.
I would think canon competitors wont sell many camera untill they catch canon technologically.Many of them are on edge of cliff already.
I hope canon just playing dead 
Or fear ,canon monopoly may not be good thing.


----------



## SecureGSM (Jun 3, 2019)

jtf said:


> I'm not a pro photographer. Just a retired network operations manager who has been photographing sports and wildlife for decades and wants to see the 90D or even better the EOS R sports camera as soon as possible because I'm impatient and have been waiting for a couple of years.


7d II is hardly a sports oriented camera. More likely a wildlife camera for people that cannot afford the price and / or heft of a Full Frame pro bodies and lenses. The important parameter to watch is low light sensitivity more than anything else. 
Indoor and outdoor night sports assignments will see you cranking up ISO levels in ISO 6400 territories. Just a a thought for you.


----------



## Ozarker (Jun 3, 2019)

Shutterbug said:


> I like my kit but I've been finding myself needing more. Under 1600 it's acceptable , at 1600 to 3200, no comparison. Have you tried covering runners training close to sunset or dog agility competitions set in a dimly lit arena and have to deliver the original high res files? Once the editor/screener is used to looking at files from the A9 , submitting certain files feels embarrassing. 7DmkII vs A9 or D500? Have a look: https://www.dpreview.com/reviews/im...1&x=-0.4581907707846727&y=-0.8133701174859886


Comparing noise from a crop sensor 7D mark II ($1,399 after $250 rebate/ Releasedf 2014) to that of a Full Frame Sony A9 ($3,500 after $1,000 rebate/ Released 2017) at higher ISO seems fair.  All the varied framing does too. I'd be embarrassed too. Now I am starting to also wonder why so many of the charts are out of focus and what lenses were used and at what f/stops/shutter speeds. Don't know whether that would make any difference or not. Very scientific, if you ask me. 

Seriously, I don't know what you have. I assume it is the 7D Mark II because of the link you posted. I wouldn't compare that to the A9. The word "daylight" is in the link. I have to wonder if that means the photos were taken in natural light? If so, what were the measurements of that light on the days (and times) the shots were taken? If not natural light, how do we even know the light was exactly the same (Measured with a calibrated instrument!) for each chart shot probably taken years apart? We don't, and that is important. Too many possible and unaccounted for variables.


----------



## JoFT (Jun 3, 2019)

masterpix said:


> Only problem is that the specs mentioned, are 1D replacement. Why put APS-C sensor when you can put FF sensor and get a much better result? Mirrorless cameras are all about the electronics. So is you have a 30MP FF or 30MP APS-C sensor, it is (as far for anything else) the same electronic solution (design). So why taking the R camera, and place an APS-C sensor it in for? you already have the R camera with 30MP sensor in it.
> 
> To satisfy the 7D customers, you only need to make 7Dmark3, not downgrade the R to APS-C sensor. People (as me for example) bought the 7D not because we like APS-C sensor, we bought it cause we wanted PRO camera and we could not afford the 1Dx (which is about three times as much). The lenses people having the 7D's are mostly L lenses, not EF-S. So the whole concept of R system with APS-C sensor seems a bit wired to me.



I do not get your point....The R mount is the future! And each new R mount body makes the transition quicker. I love my R and I would not even want a 7D3 at all -anymore after shooting the R for half a year....

A 7D MkIII performance in an EOS-R body would make perfectly sense.... 24 MP would be sufficient but let's say 14 fps, a remarkably quick aoutofocus and all the other R-mount features.... I would buy that one....

DSLR is deal


----------



## NetMage (Jun 3, 2019)

But 24MP FF in an R wouldn’t come close to 7DII reach.


----------



## tron (Jun 3, 2019)

NetMage said:


> But 24MP FF in an R wouldn’t come close to 7DII reach.


+1
Exactly. 24MP FF is below 5DIV,EOS R, 5DsR and 7DII reach! So that response was out of context. This would make it a 1DXII like R type camera which is something completely different and not the topic of this thread.


----------



## Otara (Jun 3, 2019)

SecureGSM said:


> 7d II is hardly a sports oriented camera. More likely a wildlife camera for people that cannot afford the price and / or heft of a Full Frame pro bodies and lenses. The important parameter to watch is low light sensitivity more than anything else.
> Indoor and outdoor night sports assignments will see you cranking up ISO levels in ISO 6400 territories. Just a a thought for you.



You could say the same for wildlife, which is often done in lower light conditions as well.


----------



## stevelee (Jun 3, 2019)

I remember a few years back at a Kelby workshop I was seated near a bunch of parents of high school football players. The 7D was the camera they each already had or were aspiring to. They all thought it was a fine camera for shooting games under the lights.


----------



## tron (Jun 3, 2019)

Otara said:


> You could say the same for wildlife, which is often done in lower light conditions as well.


Except the 20Mpixel 1DxII needs the 1.4XIII to come close to 7DII reach which means the loss of 1 stop. So if someone is FL limited it is (more or less) a wash at least for bright conditions. Sports photography is a different thing I believe there 1DXII and 1DX are the best!


----------



## unfocused (Jun 3, 2019)

SecureGSM said:


> 7d II is hardly a sports oriented camera. More likely a wildlife camera for people that cannot afford the price and / or heft of a Full Frame pro bodies and lenses. The important parameter to watch is low light sensitivity more than anything else.
> Indoor and outdoor night sports assignments will see you cranking up ISO levels in ISO 6400 territories. Just a a thought for you.


Not all sports are shot indoors or at night. You can certainly shoot the 7DII at 6400. Not as clean as the 1DxII or the 5DIV, but close to the 5DIII. Results are certainly acceptable.


----------



## AlanF (Jun 3, 2019)

Otara said:


> You could say the same for wildlife, which is often done in lower light conditions as well.


There is a big difference: wild life photography is often "reach limited", which is why the 7DII is popular. So, FF often has to be cropped down to the size of the 7DII's image, negating the the advantage of the larger area of the FF sensor or alternatively the 7DII image can be downsized to the resolution of FF, regaining S/N at the expense of resolution.


----------



## SecureGSM (Jun 3, 2019)

unfocused said:


> Not all sports are shot indoors or at night. You can certainly shoot the 7DII at 6400. Not as clean as the 1DxII or the 5DIV, *but close to the 5DIII*. Results are certainly acceptable.


nope, not even close:



Photographic Dynamic Range versus ISO Setting




Canon EOS 7D Mark II

Low light ISO: 1901

Canon EOS 5D Mark III

Low light ISO: 3652

5D III at iso6400 is as good as 7DII at iso 3600

acceptability is a relevant term. i would not call 7d ii iso 6400 files being acceptable but each to its own..


----------



## tron (Jun 3, 2019)

SecureGSM said:


> nope, note even close:
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Agreed but to get the reach of 7DII 5DIII needs a 1.4X teleconverter which makes it lose 1 stop so eventually when we need ISO 3200 for 7DII we get ISO 6400 for 5D3 hence the equivalence.

But these apply when we are FL limited.

In all other cases the 5D3 wins with a difference.


----------



## SecureGSM (Jun 3, 2019)

tron said:


> Agreed but to get the reach of 7DII 5DIII needs a 1.4X teleconverter which makes it lose 1 stop so eventually when we need ISO 3200 for 7DII we get ISO 6400 for 5D3 hence the equivalence.
> 
> But these apply when we are FL limited.
> 
> In all other cases the 5D3 wins with a difference.


absolutely!! but premise remains: I would not use it unless:
I am cash limited and cannot afford a nice super white tele. otherwise, just don't use a x1.4 teleconverter, grab a longer glass instead.
or
cannot afford hiking around a hefty FF setup for one or another reason and need something lighter instead.

So.. In either case 7D II is a compromise. I have not seen much of these cameras on sidelines. I have seen some at airshows where light is abundant.


----------



## AlanF (Jun 3, 2019)

SecureGSM said:


> absolutely!! but premise remains: I would not use it unless:
> I am cash limited and cannot afford a nice super white tele. otherwise, just don't use a x1.4 teleconverter, grab a longer glass instead.
> or
> cannot afford hiking around a hefty FF setup for one or another reason and need something lighter instead.
> ...


It is not an either or situation. You can use the same super white tele on a 7DII as you do on a FF. Glenn Bartley who is a professional bird photographer and posts excellent shots on CR uses a 7DII and a Canon 600mm f/4 II. I happen to prefer a 5DSR as it is has the same resolution but better IQ at the expense of lower fps, and I like the wider fov. But, there is no fundamental difference between hiking around an APS-C or a FF. In good light, the high resolution FF or the APS-C gives you more reach with the same lens as on a lower mpxel FF, and as the light deteriorates, they converge.


----------



## unfocused (Jun 3, 2019)

SecureGSM said:


> nope, not even close:
> 
> 
> 
> ...



My assessment is based on my own experience using the two side by side in real world shooting. I was able to get publishable images for indoor sports using the 7DII at 6400. When compared side by side with the 5DIII, the two were very similar, with the very slightly better noise of the 5DIII offset by the many sports-oriented feature advantages of the 7DII. 

In addition, the quality of the noise from the 7DII was much more pleasing and filmlike, than previous generation of the APS-C sensors. I didn't like shooting the original 7D at anything above 800 because of the noise, which in my opinion, had a very electronic look to it, while the 7DII noise looks to me more like the grain of 35mm film. 

Ultimately, I moved to the 1DX II, which has all the usage advantages of the 7DII and better high ISO performance than either body. I find the high ISO performance of the 5DIV to be comparable to the 1Dx II. The files coming from both are much easier to post-process than earlier generations. 

Different people get different results. Shooting style and post processing can have a lot to do with that. I have seen some high ISO images shot with the 7DII posted to this site that are stunning.


----------



## AlanF (Jun 3, 2019)

SecureGSM said:


> nope, not even close:
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Those figures are for an image that occupies the full-frame. If the image on the FF does not fill the frame and is small enough to fill the same area on an APS-C, both will have similar similar S/N. Go to photonstophotos.net, and you will see that Nikons where you can use just the APS-C part of full frame (DX) have DR for the DX appropriately less than that for FF, and similar to an APS-C: e.g. the D850 vs D850 DX vs D500 http://www.photonstophotos.net/Charts/PDR.htm#Nikon D500,Nikon D850,Nikon D850(DX)


----------



## tron (Jun 3, 2019)

SecureGSM said:


> absolutely!! but premise remains: I would not use it unless:
> I am cash limited and cannot afford a nice super white tele. otherwise, just don't use a x1.4 teleconverter, grab a longer glass instead.
> or
> cannot afford hiking around a hefty FF setup for one or another reason and need something lighter instead.
> ...


The last 2 years I have used 5DsR which has similar pixel density with the 7DII (but loses in speed and buffer) and it has lower noise thah 7DII at low ISOs just like AlanF mentioned. (Thanks AlanF).
I do have big white lenses up to 500mm but one must put a limit somewhere. Even a bigger white tele could give more reach with a 7DII and/or a 5DsR.


----------



## koketso (Jun 3, 2019)

neuroanatomist said:


> Struggling with the idea of an APS-C EOS R – would there be an RF-S mount (a _fifth_ mount for current Canon cameras)? If not, lenses are needlessly large (e.g. the patented 17-70mm f/3.5-5.6 lens would be great for APS-C, but it has a FF image circle and could be significantly smaller with a smaller image circle). Does Canon expect users of an APS-C EOS R would just adapt EF-S lenses? Defeats the purpose of a small body, IMO.
> 
> I can certainly see Canon merging the xxD and 7D lines into a 90D that looks a lot like the current 7DII, perhaps with a video feature upgrade, enhanced AF and 12 fps.


There's two problems with this approach...

1: A 90D needs to have a vari angle touchscreen, otherwise 80D owners don't have an upgrade. But having that vari-angle screen automatically means the 90D wouldn't be as durable as a 7DMk2 - wildlife / sports shooters value durability as much as the FPS.

2: A 90D needs that headphone jack. The 80D is the only APS-C DSLR Canon makes that has one. I still insist that Canon need to make the M5 Mk2 have the headphone jack, or alternatively make a new, larger M7 body to fill in the video gap a headphone-jackless 90D would have. This would drive uptake of EF-M for enthusiasts and vloggers especially considering the flood of new EF-M lens patents which should translate to new EF-M glass.

UNLESS CANON IS REDEFINING THEIR PORTFOLIO TO...
A: EF = Professionals, in FF, for DSLR
B: RF = Professionals + Enthusiasts , in both FF and APS-C, for mirrorless
C: EF-M = Enthusiasts + Beginners, in APS-C, for mirrorless
D: EF-S = Enthusiasts + Beginners, in APS-C, for DSLR

...this sort of portfolio would kill off the 7D and 6D, replacing both with RF cameras. This is what I think Canon's direction is since there's no M7 on the rumour mill.
One could be in the EF-S and EF-M camp, where you can start of with an M50 and upgrade to a 90D.
Or, be in the EF and RF camp, starting off with the RP, then upgrading to a 5D.
Both of these let you start adapting and purchasing EF-S or EF lenses early before upgrading your body.


----------



## unfocused (Jun 3, 2019)

koketso said:


> There's two problems with this approach...
> 
> 1: A 90D needs to have a vari angle touchscreen, otherwise 80D owners don't have an upgrade. But having that vari-angle screen automatically means the 90D wouldn't be as durable as a 7DMk2 - wildlife / sports shooters value durability as much as the FPS.
> 
> 2: A 90D needs that headphone jack. The 80D is the only APS-C DSLR Canon makes that has one. I still insist that Canon need to make the M5 Mk2 have the headphone jack, or alternatively make a new, larger M7 body to fill in the video gap a headphone-jackless 90D would have. This would drive uptake of EF-M for enthusiasts and vloggers especially considering the flood of new EF-M lens patents which should translate to new EF-M glass.



Durability isn't the issue with the vari-angle screen. The problem is that the size of the screen restricts the ability to offer a joystick and other controls. There is no evidence that a vari-angle screen is less durable. 

The 7D II also has a headphone jack. 



koketso said:


> UNLESS CANON IS REDEFINING THEIR PORTFOLIO TO...
> A: EF = Professionals, in FF, for DSLR
> B: RF = Professionals + Enthusiasts , in both FF and APS-C, for mirrorless
> C: EF-M = Enthusiasts + Beginners, in APS-C, for mirrorless
> ...



I think it's premature to impute some type of grand restructuring of Canon's camera body portfolio. We will know better in a year or so, but right now, I think it is way too early to predict. To the best of my knowledge, Canon's only public statements have been to reassure customers that the EF lens system isn't going anywhere. I do not believe Canon is trying to direct the marketplace. Instead, I think they are positioning themselves to succeed, regardless of where the DSLR/Mirrorless market takes them.


----------



## unfocused (Jun 3, 2019)

SecureGSM said:


> absolutely!! but premise remains: I would not use it unless:
> I am cash limited and cannot afford a nice super white tele. otherwise, just don't use a x1.4 teleconverter, grab a longer glass instead.
> or
> cannot afford hiking around a hefty FF setup for one or another reason and need something lighter instead.
> ...



Of course the 7DII was a compromise. Canon made it very clear when it was introduced that it was a compromise that offered many of the features of the flagship 1Dx at a fraction of the cost. 

Not everyone is a member of the 1% and can afford a big white telephoto. If Canon were only making products for those who could afford big whites and 1Dx's they would be a much smaller company, if they even existed at all. 

Your sidelines comment is interesting. I wonder how much time you have spent on the sidelines of club, high school and small college events. Do you think the only people who shoot sports are on the sidelines of professional and major college sports? That's just a tiny fraction of the people shooting sports. Forum participants tend to have a really skewed sense of reality. We aren't representative of Canon's customer base.


----------



## Michael Clark (Jun 4, 2019)

neuroanatomist said:


> The key factor is power, not current or voltage. Constant current with higher voltage means more power. Thus the increased AF motor drive speed with the 1-series. Regardless, your statement about capacity was manifestly incorrect. Capacity includes a time factor (the h in mAh), and is irrelevant in terms of lens focus speed.



Electrical power _is_ current times voltage and _always_ includes a time component because power/work is measured in terms of how much work is done over time. Horsepower, for example, is a unit of power equal to 550 foot-pounds per second (745.7 watts). Likewise, an ampere (Amp) is a unit of measure of the rate of electron flow or current in an electrical conductor. *One ampere* of current is *one* coulomb of electrical charge (6.24 x 10^18 charge carriers) moving past a specific point in *one* second.

It is true that constant current with higher voltage means more power. It is equally true that constant voltage with higher current means more power.

That's not to say that battery _capacity_ equals current as you are pretending I said.

It does not and that is not what I said above. Battery capacity (mAh) includes an additional time component of how long a particular flow of electrical current at a specific rate may be maintained. It is similar to acceleration that also includes a time component multiplied by another time component: how many feet per second per second a body is accelerating.


----------



## Michael Clark (Jun 4, 2019)

neuroanatomist said:


> So Canon’s slow sensor readout is responsible for the decline of the ILC market? *LOL. *



Keep pretending I said something else I did not if you think that somehow makes you look more intelligent. It actually makes your reading comprehension appear suspect.


----------



## Michael Clark (Jun 4, 2019)

neuroanatomist said:


> Interesting, thanks. I doubt it’s a firmware feature, firmware can’t store power. There would have to be a capacitor in bodies with that feature, which is possible.


 Firmware can control a solid state voltage regulator.


----------



## BillB (Jun 4, 2019)

Gallenulenoir said:


> It is probably true - but in terms of high margin lens sales (for high performance lenses) - it’s the prosumers and pros that I suspect disproportionally fork out - and they probably have 7Ds, 5Ds and 1Dx’s. As a 7Dii and 5Diii owner (and 5 L series lenses) - I am pretty confused by the next options. Hopefully all will come clear soon.
> 
> I don’t envy the job of the Canon product managers right now.


Anything that helps keep my GAS under control can't be all bad.


----------



## SecureGSM (Jun 4, 2019)

AlanF said:


> Those figures are for an image that occupies the full-frame. If the image on the FF does not fill the frame and is small enough to fill the same area on an APS-C, both will have similar similar S/N. Go to photonstophotos.net, and you will see that Nikons where you can use just the APS-C part of full frame (DX) have DR for the DX appropriately less than that for FF, and similar to an APS-C: e.g. the D850 vs D850 DX vs D500 http://www.photonstophotos.net/Charts/PDR.htm#Nikon D500,Nikon D850,Nikon D850(DX)


All valid points but that was not what was aiming at. Let’s try again: I do not like files coming out of 7DII beyond iso 1800. Sure, when downsampled they look better. 
I do not like vanilla 5D III files past iso 3200-3600.... I do not like 5D IV vanilla files past Iso 5000-6000. 
My personal Non authoritative opinion only.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Jun 4, 2019)

Michael Clark said:


> That's not to say that battery _capacity_ equals current as you are pretending I said.
> 
> It does not and that is not what I said above. Battery capacity (mAh) includes an additional time component of how long a particular flow of electrical current at a specific rate may be maintained. It is similar to acceleration that also includes a time component multiplied by another time component: how many feet per second per second a body is accelerating.


You stated that a lower battery capacity results in slower AF. That's factually incorrect. Period.



Michael Clark said:


> You don't lose anything the EF lens can do on an EF body when it is used on an R body, except perhaps *slower AF due to lower battery capacity*.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Jun 4, 2019)

Michael Clark said:


> Keep pretending I said something else I did not if you think that somehow makes you look more intelligent. It actually makes your reading comprehension appear suspect.


Your contention is that if Canon sensors had a faster readout speed, they'd have sold more of them. You could just as easily speculate that if they all came in the color blue, they'd have sold more of them. Neither speculation has a shred of data to support it. I'd recommend you just stick to the facts, but you've shown a poor aptitude for doing so already, so that would be a pointless suggestion.


----------



## AlanF (Jun 4, 2019)

SecureGSM said:


> All valid points but that was not what was aiming at. Let’s try again: I do not like files coming out of 7DII beyond iso 1800. Sure, when downsampled they look better.
> I do not like vanilla 5D III files past iso 3200-3600.... I do not like 5D IV vanilla files past Iso 5000-6000.
> My personal Non authoritative opinion only.


Fair enough. The choice of RAW converter and noise reduction can make a huge difference. I found that DxO PL was particularly good on the 7DII and now the 5DSR.


----------



## AlanF (Jun 4, 2019)

Michael Clark said:


> Electrical power _is_ current times voltage and _always_ includes a time component because power/work is measured in terms of how much work is done over time. Horsepower, for example, is a unit of power equal to 550 foot-pounds per second (745.7 watts). Likewise, an ampere (Amp) is a unit of measure of the rate of electron flow or current in an electrical conductor. *One ampere* of current is *one* coulomb of electrical charge (6.24 x 10^18 charge carriers) moving past a specific point in *one* second.
> 
> It is true that constant current with higher voltage means more power. It is equally true that constant voltage with higher current means more power.
> 
> ...


You are confusing work and power. They are quite different. Power is defined as work per unit time. Work is power x time. 
A sufficiently charged camera battery has enough capacity to power a lens through 100s of cycles. Power is given by amps x volts. But, by Ohm's law, the current I is related to the voltage V and the resistance of the circuit by V = IR. Accordingly, the power is given by V^2/R, and it is the voltage that determines the power in that way.


----------



## SecureGSM (Jun 4, 2019)

AlanF said:


> Fair enough. The choice of RAW converter and noise reduction can make a huge difference. I found that DxO PL was particularly good on the 7DII and now the 5DSR.


that is the one I am using and almost exclusively (highly recommend..) for number of years... and still.. 1DX II is the king


----------



## bichex (Jun 4, 2019)

A few pictures of my recent trip to Ecuador. The 7D II with the 100-400 II is still a great tool for those who can not spend a fortune. In times of contraction of the market I think it's a bad idea not to take care of what works and to disappoint the customers having a lot of competition can be dangerous.


----------



## AlanF (Jun 4, 2019)

bichex said:


> A few pictures of my recent trip to Ecuador. The 7D II with the 100-400 II is still a great tool for those who can not spend a fortune. In times of contraction of the market I think it's a bad idea not to take care of what works and to disappoint the customers having a lot of competition can be dangerous.


Superb shots! We are off to Ecuador in August and hope to do as well as that.


----------



## bichex (Jun 4, 2019)

AlanF said:


> Superb shots! We are off to Ecuador in August and hope to do as well as that.



Thank you. Ecuador is a great place to photograph birds. Good luck


----------



## StoicalEtcher (Jun 4, 2019)

bichex said:


> A few pictures of my recent trip to Ecuador. The 7D II with the 100-400 II is still a great tool for those who can not spend a fortune. In times of contraction of the market I think it's a bad idea not to take care of what works and to disappoint the customers having a lot of competition can be dangerous.


Fantastic shots Bichex - looks like you had a great tour!

Out of interest, what len/lens were your go-to's for most shots?

Stoical.


----------



## bichex (Jun 4, 2019)

[QUOTE = "StoicalEtcher, post: 778548, miembro: 380158"]
Fotos fantásticas de Bichex. ¡Parece que tuviste una gran gira!

Fuera de interés, ¿qué len / lens fueron para la mayoría de los disparos?

Estoico.
[/ CITAR]
Al aire libre
100-400 II.


----------



## Michael Clark (Jun 5, 2019)

scyrene said:


> You mentioned "the Sony A9, Nikon 850 and the like". I can believe the 7D2 lags the newer cameras (but is it fair to compare different generations?) but your post that I was replying to didn't mention that camera.
> 
> If those competitors' cameras better suit your needs, you should buy one of them.



Well, the α9 and D850 are 36x24 mm FF cameras, while the 7D Mark II _is_ a 1.6X APS-C 22.5x14.9 mm cameras...


----------



## Michael Clark (Jun 5, 2019)

wsmith96 said:


> I think you are pretty safe to click that buy button. These changes take years and the equipment you have today doesn’t stop working when a new product comes out. If the concern is over supportability, look at what canon covers on their cps page for repairs. They still have the 5d Mark II there and many old lenses.



In general, Canon Service supports discontinued products for about seven years from the time they were officially discontinued. The EOS 5D Mark II was replaced by the EOS 5D Mark III in March 2012, but the 5D Mark II was not officially discontinued until December 2012. I would be very surprised if the 5D Mark II is still supported after the beginning of 2020.

Look at the EF 70-200mm f/2.8L series. The EF 70-200mm f/2.8L IS was replaced by the EF 70-200mm f/2.8L IS II in March of 2010. The EF 70-200mm f/2.8L (non-IS) hasn't been on the CPS service list since 2017. The EF 70-200mm f/2.8L (non-IS), introduced in 1995 but sold new until a few years ago is no longer on the CPS repair list, and it does not seem to have ever been officially announced as discontinued. As early as 2013 some owners of the older lens reported Canon said they were out of certain needed spare parts to repair that particular lens. At that time, many authorized Canon dealers still had new copies of the EF 70-200mm f/2.8L (non-IS) in stock and for sale. (When Canon officially discontinues a product, they only allow dealers a short time period to sell remaining stock or return it to Canon.)



unfocused said:


> My assessment is based on my own experience using the two side by side in real world shooting. I was able to get publishable images for indoor sports using the 7DII at 6400. When compared side by side with the 5DIII, the two were very similar, with the very slightly better noise of the 5DIII offset by the many sports-oriented feature advantages of the 7DII.
> 
> In addition, the quality of the noise from the 7DII was much more pleasing and filmlike, than previous generation of the APS-C sensors. I didn't like shooting the original 7D at anything above 800 because of the noise, which in my opinion, had a very electronic look to it, while the 7DII noise looks to me more like the grain of 35mm film.
> 
> ...



There are a couple of small newspapers whose photogs I know that use 7D Mark IIs as their primary "long" body when shooting high school sports. The advantages of "flicker reduction" make it a no brainer compared to the 5D Mark III, which does not have the feature and which some of them use for other assignments and as a "wide" body for sports. Buying the 7D2 instead of a 5D4 or 1D X Mark II (which do offer 'flicker reduction') also allows 70-200mm f/2.8 lenses to have the same reach as 300mm f/2.8 lenses do on FF bodies with similar total MP. The price difference between a 1D X (even used) plus a 300/2.8 (even used) and a 7D2 plus 70-200/2.8 is enough for a small paper to pay a freelancer to shoot an entire high school football season and keep the (yes, "the" as in "the only") full time staff photog out of overtime for 10-12 consecutive weeks. Maybe the economics are different in larger/different markets.

Since the shutter release is timed at the peak of the lights' cycle, not only do you get more consistent color and exposure from shot-to-shot, you also get _brighter_ exposure than if you set the camera for the average between the peak and the trough of the lights. In stadiums where I was shooting ISO 3200, f/2.8, 1/500-1/640 with the 7D or 5D3, the 7D2 allows me to use ISO 3200, f/2.8, 1/800 or 1/1000 and get the same brightness. That's 2/3 of a stop faster without the photos getting any darker! No more "brown out" frames! No more frames with jerseys from the same team two different colors on opposite sides of the frame (not to mention the grass)!

Mid-level and above colleges and most pro venues have lights that don't flicker or are set up with each bank containing equal numbers of lights on each phase of the AC supplying the power. But at smaller colleges and high schools, the difference between the darkest and brightest frames due to the effect of flicker from AC lights is greater than the difference between FF and APS-C in non-flickering light. It's often about two stops from peak to trough, and the peak is also much fuller spectrum than the trough.



neuroanatomist said:


> You stated that a lower battery capacity results in slower AF. That's factually incorrect. Period.



Chuck Westfall went on record a number of times stating that cameras that could supply higher power will AF faster with the same lens. The models he specifically mentioned included both 1-series bodies with higher voltage batteries _and_ other models (such as the 7D and 7D2) with 7.4V LP-E6 batteries.

Apparently Canon uses power control technology which allows some cameras to supply more power (i.e. work over time) momentarily when needed for fast AF than they allow other cameras that use smaller capacity 7.4V batteries. Based on Canon's emphasis on the overall user experience and consistency in performance over varying conditions, one might guess that they limit the cameras using lower capacity 7.4V batteries to preserve battery life performance.



AlanF said:


> Fair enough. The choice of RAW converter and noise reduction can make a huge difference. I found that DxO PL was particularly good on the 7DII and now the 5DSR.



Many of those I know who shoot high school sports are going straight to JPEG in camera, because their deadline for the next day's edition is usually only a few minutes after the game will be expected to end. Most newspaper folks I know only shoot the first half of Friday night football games and have already submitted their photos and are home by the end of the game. If they're covering two different games in the same area they'll shoot the first 8-10 minutes of the first quarter at one (high school football has four 12 minute quarters) and then go to the other game and shoot until halftime. Those shooting for yearbook/sports stock agencies tend to stay the whole game, but the sheer number of frames they shoot (they're generally covering different teams each week and need as many shots per game as they can get of any specific team) means most of those guys also shoot straight to JPEG.



AlanF said:


> Power is defined as work per unit time. Work is power x time.



If:
power = work/time

and

work = power * time

Then:

power = (power * time)/time

which can be reduced to:

power = power

That seems like a fairly circular argument to me.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Jun 5, 2019)

Michael Clark said:


> neuroanatomist said:
> 
> 
> > You stated that a lower battery capacity results in slower AF. That's factually incorrect. Period.
> ...


Apparently you are unable to simply admit that you were wrong. Quite frankly, that's pathetic.



Michael Clark said:


> Apparently Canon uses power control technology which allows some cameras to supply more power (i.e. work over time) momentarily when needed for fast AF than they allow other cameras that use smaller capacity 7.4V batteries. Based on Canon's emphasis on the overall user experience and consistency in performance over varying conditions, one might guess that they limit the cameras using lower capacity 7.4V batteries to preserve battery life performance.


One might guess that, but if _you_ guess that, you would again be wrong. The 7D and 7DII both use the LP-E6/LP-E6N battery. Those exact same battery models are used by the 60D, 70D, 80D, 6D, 6DII, 5DII, 5DIII, 5Ds/R, 5DIV...*and the EOS R*. Of those, you indicate that Chuck Westfall had stated specifically the 7-series was capable of faster AF (as was earlier stated by @Graphic.Artifacts). 

Back at the start of this discussion, your claim was that the AF on the EOS R was slower than the 1-series and the 7DII due to a lower battery capacity. Since the 7DII and the EOS R use the exact same battery models, your claim is clearly absurd.


----------



## unfocused (Jun 5, 2019)

Michael Clark said:


> There are a couple of small newspapers whose photogs I know that use 7D Mark IIs as their primary "long" body when shooting high school sports... Buying the 7D2 instead of a 5D4 or 1D X Mark II (which do offer 'flicker reduction') also allows 70-200mm f/2.8 lenses to have the same reach as 300mm f/2.8 lenses do on FF bodies with similar total MP. The price difference between a 1D X (even used) plus a 300/2.8 (even used) and a 7D2 plus 70-200/2.8 is enough for a small paper to pay a freelancer to shoot an entire high school football season and keep the (yes, "the" as in "the only") full time staff photog out of overtime for 10-12 consecutive weeks. Maybe the economics are different in larger/different markets.



Off topic, but it is also worth noting that at those smaller newspapers that still employ a photographer it is usually the photographer's responsibility to supply his or her own equipment if he or she wants to use anything more sophisticated than a T3i that the paper bought seven years ago. And, at the near minimum wage rates that most newspapers pay, the cost and reach advantages of a 7DII far outweigh the disadvantages.


----------



## scyrene (Jun 5, 2019)

Michael Clark said:


> Well, the α9 and D850 are 36x24 mm FF cameras, while the 7D Mark II _is_ a 1.6X APS-C 22.5x14.9 mm cameras...



I know...


----------



## AlanF (Jun 5, 2019)

Michael Clark said:


> If:
> power = work/time
> 
> and
> ...



The crucial point of my post is that as simply derived from Ohm's law, power is given by V^2/R where V is the voltage of the battery and R is the resistance of the circuit. That is, it is the voltage of the battery that determines the power it produces to focus a lens, not the capacity of the battery.

As an aside, you were confusing the work done to charge a battery, which is related to its capacity, with its power. Nothing circular about that.


----------



## tron (Jun 5, 2019)

AlanF said:


> The crucial point of my post is that as simply derived from Ohm's law, power is given by V^2/R where V is the voltage of the battery and R is the resistance of the circuit. That is, it is the voltage of the battery that determines the power it produces to focus a lens, not the capacity of the battery.
> 
> As an aside, you were confusing the work done to charge a battery, which is related to its capacity, with its power. Nothing circular about that.


I have a question: Since there is no power derived from nothing if Canon introduced a circuit to boost voltage then shouldn't this be done at the expense of maximum current allowed?

Otherwise they could lower the resistance of internal circuitry that drives the lens - assuming it does have a significant resistance of course - since the total resistance that determines the current is the internal resistance of the battery plus the driving circuitry's resistance plus the lens' motor resistance.


----------



## Michael Clark (Jun 6, 2019)

neuroanatomist said:


> Apparently you are unable to simply admit that you were wrong. Quite frankly, that's pathetic.
> 
> 
> One might guess that, but if _you_ guess that, you would again be wrong. The 7D and 7DII both use the LP-E6/LP-E6N battery. Those exact same battery models are used by the 60D, 70D, 80D, 6D, 6DII, 5DII, 5DIII, 5Ds/R, 5DIV...*and the EOS R*. Of those, you indicate that Chuck Westfall had stated specifically the 7-series was capable of faster AF (as was earlier stated by @Graphic.Artifacts).
> ...



Has the possibility ever crossed your mind that none of Canon's cameras allow voltage to move directly from the batteries to the lens? They all have voltage regulators in the camera. The 'VBAT' pin in the EF camera/lens interface carries 6.0 volts, regardless of the battery involved. That's the pin that supplies power to AF motors in the lens. Each camera model can control the power from the same batteries differently. Please re-read my comment above again. I've never said the actual battery capacity in terms of mAh is the determining factor in AF speed. What I've said is that Canon allows _some_ cameras with larger battery capacity to supply more power to the AF motor in the lens.


----------



## Michael Clark (Jun 6, 2019)

unfocused said:


> Off topic, but it is also worth noting that at those smaller newspapers that still employ a photographer it is usually the photographer's responsibility to supply his or her own equipment if he or she wants to use anything more sophisticated than a T3i that the paper bought seven years ago. And, at the near minimum wage rates that most newspapers pay, the cost and reach advantages of a 7DII far outweigh the disadvantages.



The handful of full time staffers I know who are using a 7D Mark II for sports are supplied the camera by the newspaper. Those same papers require their part-time freelancers to supply most of their own gear but usually allow them to use company owned equipment (mostly lenses or light kits) when the staffer isn't currently using it. I don't doubt there are other small papers where this is different, but most small papers no longer have any full-time staffers taking photos (unless you count the reporters/writers that are now also taking photos with anything from a phone to a pro body to support their own stories).


----------



## Michael Clark (Jun 6, 2019)

AlanF said:


> The crucial point of my post is that as simply derived from Ohm's law, power is given by V^2/R where V is the voltage of the battery and R is the resistance of the circuit. That is, it is the voltage of the battery that determines the power it produces to focus a lens, not the capacity of the battery.
> 
> As an aside, you were confusing the work done to charge a battery, which is related to its capacity, with its power. Nothing circular about that.



Again, I never said the _capacity_ of the battery directly determines how fast a lens AFs. What I said is that Canon allows _some_ cameras with higher capacity batteries to supply more power to the AF motor in the lens.

Since every Canon ILC of which I am aware uses batteries that are greater than 6.0V, it should be patently obvious that the cameras themselves have voltage regulators, since the pin on the camera/lens interface that supplies voltage to the lens is 6V. Thus, the resistance observed by Ohm's law, as far as the battery is concerned, is controlled by the camera's voltage regulator, not the lens' AF motor.


----------



## Michael Clark (Jun 6, 2019)

tron said:


> I have a question: Since there is no power derived from nothing if Canon introduced a circuit to boost voltage then shouldn't this be done at the expense of maximum current allowed?
> 
> Otherwise they could lower the resistance of internal circuitry that drives the lens - assuming it does have a significant resistance of course - since the total resistance that determines the current is the internal resistance of the battery plus the driving circuitry's resistance plus the lens' motor resistance.



It seems to be more the case that Canon doesn't _limit_ or _reduce_ the power supplied to the lens in the faster AF cameras as much as it does in the slower ones. The VBat pin on the EF interface between camera/lens nominally supplies 6V. The batteries that cameras with EF lens mounts use are all rated 7.2V or more.


----------



## BillB (Jun 6, 2019)

Say a DSLR and a mirrorless camera have the same size battery. The battery of the mirrorless powers the EVF. Would this mean that the mirrorless would AF more slowly than the DSLR?


----------



## unfocused (Jun 6, 2019)

Michael Clark said:


> The handful of full time staffers I know who are using a 7D Mark II for sports are supplied the camera by the newspaper. Those same papers require their part-time freelancers to supply most of their own gear but usually allow them to use company owned equipment (mostly lenses or light kits) when the staffer isn't currently using it. I don't doubt there are other small papers where this is different, but most small papers no longer have any full-time staffers taking photos (unless you count the reporters/writers that are now also taking photos with anything from a phone to a pro body to support their own stories).


Yeah, wasn't disputing anything, just adding to it. It varies by employer and, yes, most small papers these days have cut their photography staffs.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Jun 6, 2019)

Michael Clark said:


> I've never said the actual battery capacity in terms of mAh is the determining factor in AF speed. What I've said is that Canon allows _some_ cameras with larger battery capacity to supply more power to the AF motor in the lens.





Michael Clark said:


> Again, I never said the _capacity_ of the battery directly determines how fast a lens AFs.



Oh, you never said battery capacity determines AF speed? Really? Let’s look, shall we?



Michael Clark said:


> You don't lose anything the EF lens can do on an EF body when it is used on an R body, except perhaps *slower AF due to lower battery capacity*.



So in fact, that’s exactly what you said. No amount of weaseling, tangential arguments or red herrings you toss out will change the reality that you were wrong. The fact that you lack the maturity to simply admit it is truly pathetic.

I’m sure you’ll just deny it again, claim you ‘meant’ something else, point out that you used the word ‘perhaps’, or rely on ‘alternative facts’...typical tactics for people too cowardly and weak to admit their mistakes. The truth is right there for all to see, in your own words.

Regardless, I will not continue responding to your lies.


----------



## unfocused (Jun 6, 2019)

Canon must be doing something right if forum participants are reduced to fighting over batteries.


----------



## Michael Clark (Jun 6, 2019)

neuroanatomist said:


> Oh, you never said battery capacity determines AF speed? Really? Let’s look, shall we?
> 
> 
> 
> ...



I'll admit that the way I said it there could have been taken to mean what you seem obsessed to insist is the only possible interpretation. I'm willing to correct that.

You don't lose anything the EF lens can do on an EF body when it is used on an R body, except perhaps slower AF (because Canon limits the amount of power some cameras allow to pass through to the lens' AF motor, probably) due to lower battery capacity (or increased power requirements of certain cameras, such as mirrorless models, or both, in order to extend battery life).




neuroanatomist said:


> Regardless, I will not continue responding to your lies.



Promises, promises...


----------



## AlanF (Jun 6, 2019)

BillB said:


> Say a DSLR and a mirrorless camera have the same size battery. The battery of the mirrorless powers the EVF. Would this mean that the mirrorless would AF more slowly than the DSLR?


I don’t think the battery size is the important factor in determining the difference in AF speed between mirrorless and DSLR. The EVF current will certainly cause the battery to drain faster. The AF speed difference is due mainly to Canon having a much larger number of data points from the DPAF in mirrorless having to be processed and analysed.


----------



## AlanF (Jun 6, 2019)

Michael Clark said:


> I'll admit that the way I said it there could have been taken to mean what you seem obsessed to insist is the only possible interpretation. I'm willing to correct that.
> 
> You don't lose anything the EF lens can do on an EF body when it is used on an R body, except perhaps slower AF (because Canon limits the amount of power some cameras allow to pass through to the lens' AF motor, probably) due to lower battery capacity (or increased power requirements of certain cameras, such as mirrorless models, or both, in order to extend battery life).
> 
> ...


You are continuing to confuse work and power. It costs the same amount of work ie battery capacity to move the AF elements from A to B slowly as it does rapidly unless there is a velocity dependent drag. If you put in twice the power, you will do it in half the time, but it will use up the same amount of battery capacity since work done = power multiplied by time. Twice the power multiplied by half the time is the same as half the power times twice the time. But, maybe there other factors.


----------



## Durf (Jun 6, 2019)

unfocused said:


> Canon must be doing something right if forum participants are reduced to fighting over batteries.



 The battery powers the camera so you can take photos! That's all you need to know!!!! LOL


----------



## tron (Jun 6, 2019)

On a practical side I wish for a battery pack that not only gets 2 batteries but it uses them with many combinations like:


The ability to drive big teles faster (like the 11V battery of EOS 1 series).
The ability to replace only one of the two while camera is continuously ON like during a time lapse.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Jun 6, 2019)

Durf said:


> The battery powers the camera so you can take photos! That's all you need to know!!!! LOL


That’s one viewpoint, personally I prefer to understand how the things I use work. I suppose that may have something to do with my reasons for becoming a scientist...


----------



## koenkooi (Jun 6, 2019)

tron said:


> On a practical side I wish for a battery pack that not only gets 2 batteries but it uses them with many combinations like:
> 
> 
> The ability to drive big teles faster (like the 11V battery of EOS 1 series).
> The ability to replace only one of the two while camera is continuously ON like during a time lapse.



I wish the USB-C port could be used to do that. I suspect Canon isn't doing that for thermal reasons.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Jun 6, 2019)

koenkooi said:


> I wish the USB-C port could be used to do that. I suspect Canon isn't doing that for thermal reasons.


Agreed on both. Else, would be a great option for using an external battery for time lapse.


----------



## AlanF (Jun 6, 2019)

neuroanatomist said:


> That’s one viewpoint, personally I prefer to understand how the things I use work. I suppose that may have something to do with my reasons for becoming a scientist...


I always wanted to know how things work even before I knew what a scientist was. Nice to have been subsequently paid for finding out how things work. I can recommend science as a career. Curiosity is an essential element of being a scientist as well as wanting to communicate what you have learned.


----------



## Shutterbug (Jun 6, 2019)

Michael Clark said:


> The handful of full time staffers I know who are using a 7D Mark II for sports are supplied the camera by the newspaper. Those same papers require their part-time freelancers to supply most of their own gear but usually allow them to use company owned equipment (mostly lenses or light kits) when the staffer isn't currently using it. I don't doubt there are other small papers where this is different, but most small papers no longer have any full-time staffers taking photos (unless you count the reporters/writers that are now also taking photos with anything from a phone to a pro body to support their own stories).


I have to have my own full set of gear (inc. taking care of backups) as a freelancer and don't have access to staffer's gear. AFAIK I don't think our paper even has a photog staffer anymore. The writers aren't usually carrying a full set of gear and would use their phone. The NY Daily News fired all their photographers on staff. The NYPost might have a few left. Of the 10+ local PJ's I know, everyone has to take care of their own gear. AP does gear up their staffers. NYTimes might be different, don't know.


----------



## Michael Clark (Jun 7, 2019)

AlanF said:


> You are continuing to confuse work and power. It costs the same amount of work ie battery capacity to move the AF elements from A to B slowly as it does rapidly unless there is a velocity dependent drag. If you put in twice the power, you will do it in half the time, but it will use up the same amount of battery capacity since work done = power multiplied by time. Twice the power multiplied by half the time is the same as half the power times twice the time. But, maybe there other factors.



Where have I said that focusing faster uses more total energy (work) than focusing slower? What I said was that Canon seems to restrict some cameras to focusing slower to extend battery life. If it takes twice as long to move the the AF elements, then that camera can't be drawing more energy to move them again until the first move has been completed. The camera with the faster AF can move the focusing elements twice as far (or 'out and back') in the same timespan. Moving them twice as far takes twice as much work, thus uses twice as much energy in the same amount of time.


----------



## BillB (Jun 7, 2019)

Michael Clark said:


> Where have I said that focusing faster uses more total energy (work) than focusing slower? What I said was that Canon seems to restrict some cameras to focusing slower to extend battery life. If it takes twice as long to move the the AF elements, then that camera can't be drawing more energy to move them again until the first move has been completed. The camera with the faster AF can move the focusing elements twice as far (or 'out and back') in the same timespan. Moving them twice as far takes twice as much work, thus uses twice as much energy in the same amount of time.


So how does it extend battery life if the same amount of energy is required to focus the lens whether it happens quickly or more slowly? Either way the same amount of energy is expended to focus the lens.


----------



## Michael Clark (Jun 7, 2019)

Shutterbug said:


> I have to have my own full set of gear (inc. taking care of backups) as a freelancer and don't have access to staffer's gear. AFAIK I don't think our paper even has a photog staffer anymore. The writers aren't usually carrying a full set of gear and would use their phone. The NY Daily News fired all their photographers on staff. The NYPost might have a few left. Of the 10+ local PJ's I know, everyone has to take care of their own gear. AP does gear up their staffers. NYTimes might be different, don't know.



I'm not talking about major, corporate newspapers in metropolises. I'm talking about small town newspapers that are typically locally owned. I'm talking about the (Talladega, AL) 'Daily Home.' The Anniston (AL) Star. The Decatur (AL) Daily. The (Florence/Muscle Shoals/Tuscumbia/Sheffield, AL) Times-Daily. The Moulton (AL) Advertiser. The Hartselle (AL) Enquirer, The Tuscaloosa (AL) News, and similar papers. They each have (at least until Friday - you never know right now), respectively, 1, 2, 2, 0, 0, 1 full-time staffers. Most had (and many still have) enough company owned gear for staffs of, respectively, 3, 4, 4?, 1, 2, 5 staffers that they have employed within the past 2-3-4 years. Most of those with staffers left (maybe all?) also use part-time freelancers. The ones with no staffers use some p/t freelancers but mostly rely on their reporters for local photos and the wires for statewide stories. The last time I saw the weekend p/t guy from the Decatur Daily about three weeks ago, he was using a 1D X he'd recently been assigned that had been previously assigned to a staffer at the Times-Daily (the same local family/company owns both papers) before she left for another job and was not replaced a little over a year ago. His other body was his personal 7D Mark II. I know not who owned the 70-200 lens (it looked from a brief glance like the original f/2.8 IS) on the 1D X. He owns the EF-S 17-50mm f/2.8 that was on his 7D2. Before he was issued the 1D X, he was using the 7D2 with a third party 70-200/2.8 and his "short" body was a personally owned Sony α6000.

The two largest cities in the region, Huntsville and Birmingham, no longer have any staffers. They get their local coverage via AL.com freelancers from all over the state. The last full-time AL.com staffer retired in September and was not replaced. After he retired, he now freelances (sports only during the fall plus state basketball tournaments) for AL.com. He had been a long-time staffer at the Huntsville Times for most of his career.

AL.com, and their holdings: The Huntsville Times, The Birmingham News, The Mobile Press-Register, The Mississippi Press, and several advertising/media companies, are owned by Advance Local Media, LLC. Advance Media owns similar statewide companies in many U.S states.

As far as the reporters go, most of them do use phones. But there are some notable exceptions in my area.

The Decatur Daily has a long-time reporter that has also done local youth sports photography on the side for a number of years and he now sometimes shoots with "real" gear. I know not if it is his or The Daily's, but it is Nikon gear and they are a Nikon shop (other than the freelancer who shoots Canon and got a Canon body from the Times-Daily that has been a Canon shop since long before the Sheltons who started the DD in around 1915 bought the T-D a few years ago). There's also a retired reporter from the DD that has long been a photo enthusiast who now writes p/t for the Moulton weekly and shoots with (his personally owned) Pentax gear to support his own stories.


----------



## Michael Clark (Jun 7, 2019)

BillB said:


> So how does it extend battery life if the same amount of energy is required to focus the lens whether it happens quickly or more slowly? Either way the same amount of energy is expended to focus the lens.



Because in the same amount of time you're not able to move the lens as much or take as many frames in burst mode because you're waiting longer on AF between each frame. When shooting sports/action, your handling speed will affect how many total shots you wind up taking.


----------



## AlanF (Jun 7, 2019)

Michael Clark said:


> Because in the same amount of time you're not able to move the lens as much or take as many frames in burst mode because you're waiting longer on AF between each frame. When shooting sports/action, your handling speed will affect how many total shots you wind up taking.


You are now defining battery life as how many hours it will last, not how many shots. In both cases you are taking as many shots but in one case it can do it in a shorter time. The figures quoted by manufacturers and reviewers for battery life, however, are always based on the Cipa or their own tests for the number of shots, not the time it takes it takes to run down a battery.


----------



## SecureGSM (Jun 7, 2019)

Alan,
Jus something that I would like to point out. 
It seems that you are making valid point but only if we look at a perfect battery that is able to converter 100% of stored energy into electrical output. 
In reality some battery generate a lot of heat during rapid charging or power extraction. 
A lot of it. 
Please consider: some batteries are able to draw as much as twice more current oer time unit than others. (Chemistry, electronics, capacity, etc.)
I read somewhere (unconfirmed) that 1DX II battery voltage is slightly higher than 5D IV battery. And, 1DX II draws current form both of its batteries simultaneously whether 5D body equipped with battery grip is able to utilise only a single battery at a time. 
It sounds to me like a” higher voltage and higher current” capabilities for 1DX II. 
Higher watts / second facilities. 
I hope it makes sense.


----------



## tron (Jun 7, 2019)

SecureGSM said:


> Alan,
> Jus something that I would like to point out.
> It seems that you are making valid point but only if we look at a perfect battery that is able to converter 100% of stored energy into electrical output.
> In reality some battery generate a lot of heat during rapid charging or power extraction.
> ...


1DXII has one battery, not two. And watts /second has no meaning since watt embeds the /second component already.


----------



## SecureGSM (Jun 7, 2019)

tron said:


> 1DXII has one battery, not two. And watts /second has no meaning since watt embeds the /second component already.


Watt= Amp x Voltage. there is no "seconds" component. Just FYI.
watts per hour per minute whatever is perfectly correct term to use.


1DXII has one battery, not two. - you are correct, I am incorrect. one large battery capable of fast charge / discharge.

now:

5D IV battery:
*Canon* LP-E6N Specifications. 

*Voltage*:7.2V DC

1DX II battery:

Canon LP-E19 Specifications .

*Voltage*:10.8V DC

provided that both cameras draw a similar current (Amps), 1DX II battery provides at least 50% more power / per unit of time.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Jun 7, 2019)

SecureGSM said:


> Watt= Amp x Voltage. there is no "seconds" component. Just FYI.
> watts per hour per minute whatever is perfectly correct term to use.


The 'watt' is the SI unit of power, and it's defined as one joule *per second*. In your definition of electrical power (P=IV), 'I' is current, which is measured in amperes, and an ampere is defined as 1 coulomb *per second*. Just FYI.


----------



## takesome1 (Jun 7, 2019)

I just read several pages of people tearing each other apart over batteries.
Batteries?? It really is getting slow on the forums lately.


----------



## stevelee (Jun 7, 2019)

tron said:


> 1DXII has one battery, not two. And watts /second has no meaning since watt embeds the /second component already.


Maybe the battery accelerates.


----------



## unfocused (Jun 7, 2019)

takesome1 said:


> I just read several pages of people tearing each other apart over batteries.
> Batteries?? It really is getting slow on the forums lately.


The lower the stakes the more bitter the dispute


----------



## SecureGSM (Jun 7, 2019)

neuroanatomist said:


> The 'watt' is the SI unit of power, and it's defined as one joule *per second*. In your definition of electrical power (P=IV), 'I' is current, which is measured in amperes, and an ampere is defined as 1 coulomb *per second*. Just FYI.


Neuro, you realise that you are entering a circular conversation where By your own definition watts per second can be defined as :
Coulomb x volts/ seconds to the power of two. 
Perfectly sensible equation. 
But keep the good work.


----------



## tron (Jun 7, 2019)

SecureGSM said:


> Watt= Amp x Voltage. there is no "seconds" component. Just FYI.
> watts per hour per minute whatever is perfectly correct term to use.
> 
> 
> ...


Noone said differently about the difference in this one battery. Also I was about to describe the watt embedding already the /second = time component already but Neuro covered me there.

EDIT: That's why I expressed the wish in a previous post for a battery pack that uses the combination of two batteries to achieve the 1DxII effect. Wishes...


----------



## SecureGSM (Jun 7, 2019)

tron said:


> Noone said differently about the difference in this one battery. Also I was about to describe the watt embedding already the /second = time component already but Neuro covered me there.
> 
> EDIT: That's why I expressed the wish in a previous post for a battery pack that uses the combination of two batteries to achieve the 1DxII efect. Wishes...


Got it makes sense. For simplicity let’s accept a simple thesis here:
1dx II battery is better positioned to drive AF motor of long and heavy super Tele lenses than 5D iV one. Solved.


----------



## tron (Jun 7, 2019)

takesome1 said:


> I just read several pages of people tearing each other apart over batteries.
> Batteries?? It really is getting slow on the forums lately.


The timing of this conversation is close to my 2.5-day short trip (in 8 days from now) where I will go to birding areas via bus - it's an organized excursion - which means not necessarily the heaviest lens (= not the 500 f/4 II) so it is either the 400 DO II or the 100-400. And a choice between 5DsR and 7DII. They both have the same pixel size => same magnification, the 5DsR has better quality in the lower ISOs but the 7DII focuses easier on very small targets and has a better buffer and frame rate. All these without taking into account the supposedly faster white lens drive and .... I am confused!  Of course were I to use my car I would load much more equipment.

Slightly off topic but for the 7DII reference


----------



## jayphotoworks (Jun 7, 2019)

takesome1 said:


> I just read several pages of people tearing each other apart over batteries.
> Batteries?? It really is getting slow on the forums lately.



Considering battery design and capacity is irrelevant without taking into consideration the equipment's battery economy. Most current systems (including mirrorless) are more than sufficient without "getting in the way." For hybrids shooting stills, DSLRs will always have an advantage without having to power an EVF/LCD continuously, but for video, I can get through a 13 hour day shooting 4K video (with the camera on and off between clips and not continuously) on my Sony bodies and burn through just 2 FZ100 (~33WH) batteries. I believe Canon is similar for the most part since it too has to power the lcd continuously in video mode. Canon's cine cameras are also comparatively great on battery economy. The C200 I shot on had an A30 and A60 battery (135WH total) which lasted me through a 12 hour day too. At least it's a far cry from my RED body that draws 50W-60W and burns through 90WH V-Mounts in an hour and a half regardless of recording or not. Anyhow, I don't think I'm going to sit around and try to hypothesize if the battery capacity is going to let me AF faster or not, as I'm more worried about how many battery changes or extras I need...


----------



## takesome1 (Jun 7, 2019)

tron said:


> The timing of this conversation is close to my 2.5-day short trip (in 8 days from now) where I will go to birding areas via bus - it's an organized excursion - which means not necessarily the heaviest lens (= not the 500 f/4 II) so it is either the 400 DO II or the 100-400. And a choice between 5DsR and 7DII. They both have the same pixel size => same magnification, the 5DsR has better quality in the lower ISOs but the 7DII focuses easier on very small targets and has a better buffer and frame rate. All these without taking into account the supposedly faster white lens drive and .... I am confused!  Of course were I to use my car I would load much more equipment.
> 
> Slightly off topic but for the 7DII reference




Easy decision. I have both and would prefer the 5DsR.
But if you want speed take the 7D II, otherwise stick with the 5DsR.


----------



## Kit. (Jun 7, 2019)

neuroanatomist said:


> and an ampere is defined as 1 coulomb *per second*. Just FYI.


Oh, lol, just 20 days ago this statement would have been wrong.


----------



## takesome1 (Jun 7, 2019)

jayphotoworks said:


> Anyhow, I don't think I'm going to sit around and try to hypothesize if the battery capacity is going to let me AF faster or not, as I'm more worried about how many battery changes or extras I need...




I have owned 1D's in the past and still have a 1D IV. On the big white sueprtele's the 1D's focus noticeably faster than the 7D and 5D. I have timed acquired focus time in the past. On small lenses it is not consequential. Better camera AF system? or More powerful battery? 

It really wouldn't matter if it is the battery, the 1D's battery will not fit in my 7D II.


----------



## tron (Jun 7, 2019)

takesome1 said:


> Easy decision. I have both and would prefer the 5DsR.
> But if you want speed take the 7D II, otherwise stick with the 5DsR.


 I also prefer the IQ of 5DsR (for the millionth time thanks AlanF for your impressions on 5DsR) but in some cases 7DII will have the focusing/speed advantage (in a boat) and in others (more static shooting) the 5DsR.


----------



## AlanF (Jun 7, 2019)

tron said:


> The timing of this conversation is close to my 2.5-day short trip (in 8 days from now) where I will go to birding areas via bus - it's an organized excursion - which means not necessarily the heaviest lens (= not the 500 f/4 II) so it is either the 400 DO II or the 100-400. And a choice between 5DsR and 7DII. They both have the same pixel size => same magnification, the 5DsR has better quality in the lower ISOs but the 7DII focuses easier on very small targets and has a better buffer and frame rate. All these without taking into account the supposedly faster white lens drive and .... I am confused!  Of course were I to use my car I would load much more equipment.
> 
> Slightly off topic but for the 7DII reference


Currently away on a 3-day trip to the Farne Islands on a Puffin photographic trip. We have taken both the 5DSR + 100-400mm II (which my wife monopolises) and the 5DIV + 400mm DO II for me, ok the 5DIV is not the 7DII, but there are some parallels. The 5DSR wins for static shots and slow BIF. But, the 5DIV has been fantastic for the Puffins and other small birds flying like rockets. The 5DSR focuses pretty well on the central 9 points but the 5DIV is faster and works on the lot. The 7DII doesn't focus as fast as the 5DIV but has close to the reach of the 5DSR. So, if you are mainly on the static stuff, I would go for the 5DSR because of its wider fov and better IQ, and I would take the zoom because of its greater versatility and shorter mfd. But, if you are into flying Puffins etc, it's the 7DII.

Edit: Oops Tron, you posted your mail while I was writing my response, which is now partly redundant. The bare 100-400mm II is pretty close to thje 400mm DO II in terms of IQ, and very fast AF.


----------



## AlanF (Jun 7, 2019)

unfocused said:


> The lower the stakes the more bitter the dispute


Unfortunately, the discussion here parallels that of climate change; the scientists trying to explain the facts, which are being disputed. But the climate change stakes are rather much higher and the bitterness far greater to say the least.


----------



## tron (Jun 7, 2019)

AlanF said:


> Currently away on a 3-day trip to the Farne Islands on a Puffin photographic trip. We have taken both the 5DSR + 100-400mm II (which my wife monopolises) and the 5DIV + 400mm DO II for me, ok the 5DIV is not the 7DII, but there are some parallels. The 5DSR wins for static shots and slow BIF. But, the 5DIV has been fantastic for the Puffins and other small birds flying like rockets. The 5DSR focuses pretty well on the central 9 points but the 5DIV is faster and works on the lot. The 7DII doesn't focus as fast as the 5DIV but has close to the reach of the 5DSR. So, if you are mainly on the static stuff, I would go for the 5DSR because of its wider fov and better IQ, and I would take the zoom because of its greater versatility and shorter mfd. But, if you are into flying Puffins etc, it's the 7DII.
> 
> Edit: Oops Tron, you posted your mail while I was writing my response, which is now partly redundant. The bare 100-400mm II is pretty close to thje 400mm DO II in terms of IQ, and very fast AF.


hello Alan, I totally agree about the 100-400 and in fact If I get that I will strictly combine it with 5DsR so as to use it for landscapes, flowers in addition to birds. In that case I would have room in my bag for 5D4 with a 16-35 lens. Somehow I never had huge success with birds and 5DIV (at least with a big lens and teleconverters) although it is fantastic for low light photography (and with my 500II for some specific shots on a tripod). The excursion will cover a broad areas like a boat, walking on a hill to watch the area, in a forest, close to a small river. etc.

Do you still use teleconverters with the 400DO II on your 5DIV?


----------



## tron (Jun 7, 2019)

And AF microadjusting 400 or 500 with teleconverts is not practical as they require at least a distance of 20X the focal length...


----------



## AlanF (Jun 7, 2019)

tron said:


> hello Alan, I totally agree about the 100-400 and in fact If I get that I will strictly combine it with 5DsR so as to use it for landscapes, flowers in addition to birds. In that case I would have room in my bag for 5D4 with a 16-35 lens. Somehow I never had huge success with birds and 5DIV (at least with a big lens and teleconverters) although it is fantastic for low light photography (and with my 500II for some specific shots on a tripod). The excursion will cover a broad areas like a boat, walking on a hill to watch the area, in a forest, close to a small river. etc.
> 
> Do you still use teleconverters with the 400DO II on your 5DIV?


For fast BIF no. I need the larger fov to keep them in frame, and I think the AF is slightly faster. For static shots, I do use the 2xTC with the 400mm DO II when there is enough light. But, not on the 5DSR where I stick to a 1.4xTC if I need one.

I'll be posting the Puffin shots soon -watch out!


----------



## AlanF (Jun 7, 2019)

tron said:


> And AF microadjusting 400 or 500 with teleconverts is not practical as they require at least a distance of 20X the focal length...


My garden is fortunately long enough. I tend to AF at 12m with FoCal and I do check at 20m. But, I find AFMA at 800mm f/8 a horrible process.


----------



## tron (Jun 7, 2019)

2.5 years ago (Dec 2016) I took some wonderful pictures with 5DIV + 500mmII + 2XII but all these were static ones with the whole setup being held on my car's window. But I failed miserably even trying to shoot flying birds!

Also some combinations seem to be working better for me:
5DsR+ 400DO II needed lately a -9 AF 7DII + 400DOII seems OK. So both are OK for immediate use.
5DsR + 500II It's between =2 and 0 (... I guess!) But handholding is difficult.
I used to add teleconverters to that combination only when I could use a tripod.
On the other hand the 400DOII is super handholdable. This 1.1Kg less weight from the 500II makes all the difference for handholding (that and its good IS ofcourse). It is the fact that the subjects will be of a wide variety which makes the decision a little difficult...

P.S Back in the past when I did not have a 5DsR I had pretty good success with 7DII + 400DOII + 1.4XII too. I will try that too and I will try to AFMA the 5DSR with 400II + 1.4XIII.


----------



## jayphotoworks (Jun 7, 2019)

takesome1 said:


> I have owned 1D's in the past and still have a 1D IV. On the big white sueprtele's the 1D's focus noticeably faster than the 7D and 5D. I have timed acquired focus time in the past. On small lenses it is not consequential. Better camera AF system? or More powerful battery?
> 
> It really wouldn't matter if it is the battery, the 1D's battery will not fit in my 7D II.



I think I can agree with you, in the past, the 1Ds I've shot on in the past definitely feel like they focus faster, but I only had brief excursions with a 300 2.8 and 200 2 white lenses, but even lenses like the 85 1.2 felt faster. For years, I went with old school logic from Nikon since some of the screw-drive lenses would definitely rack faster with a larger battery or a grip, but obviously that has no bearing on fully electronic lenses like Canon so I'm not sure how much of it can be attributed to a higher voltage battery vs a better AF system in contrast to the 7D or 5D. But like you said, since you can't use a LP-E19 in your 5D/7D, it doesn't really matter anyways. Those that want maximum performance will have to spring for the flagship..


----------



## Quirkz (Jun 7, 2019)

YuengLinger said:


> I don't know any 7D owners without a FF too.



The only 7D owners I know have only the 7D. Probably difference between semi-pros and enthusiasts vs casual hobbyists. That’s the problem with anecdotal evidence. They’re limited in perspective. (‘full disclosure, I know only 2 7D owners, so my observations are pretty useless  )


----------



## takesome1 (Jun 7, 2019)

AlanF said:


> Unfortunately, the discussion here parallels that of climate change; the scientists trying to explain the facts, which are being disputed. But the climate change stakes are rather much higher and the bitterness far greater to say the least.



Since it is June I have less of an opinion.
But if you had asked me in January about global warming, I would have said I am all for it.

Overall with climate change the scientific facts have little impact on the discussion, the fact that matter is that many / most people are greedy and self centered and reluctant to give up any creature comfort.


----------



## unfocused (Jun 7, 2019)

takesome1 said:


> Overall with climate change the scientific facts have little impact on the discussion, the fact that matter is that many / most people are greedy and self centered and reluctant to give up any creature comfort.



...but only too happy to deny creature comfort to others...especially if the others are non-white residents of third world countries who would like to enjoy some of those creature comforts themselves. 

To be candid though, none of us on this forum should point any fingers (myself included). Not when we are lugging around cameras that surpass the annual incomes of most of the world or jet around in pursuit of exotic sights, birds and animals, oblivious to the harm we do to the environment, in pursuit of our own personal picture of some unusual critter or landscape. These issues are complicated, but images like the recent "conga line" shots of Everest or the National Geographic cover story on wildlife tourism, make me increasingly convinced that I need to begin by looking at my own personal habits. [/soapbox]


----------



## neuroanatomist (Jun 7, 2019)

SecureGSM said:


> Neuro, you realise that you are entering a circular conversation where By your own definition watts per second can be defined as :
> Coulomb x volts/ seconds to the power of two.
> Perfectly sensible equation.
> But keep the good work.


No, it's not sensible at all. But that's because your original statement that, "...watts per hour per minute whatever is perfectly correct term to use," is not sensible. If you want to add irrelevant terms to an equation then call it circular, you go right ahead. 

Perhaps you're confusing power with energy, which shows up on your monthly electric bill in units of kWh. In SI units, that's written as kW⋅h, that little ⋅ in there denotes multiplication (i.e. a kilowatt of power sustained for one hour). Your invention of the term 'watts per second' is using time as a divisor when it should be a multiplier. You can rearrange a non-sensible equation all you like, but it still won't become sensible.


----------



## Michael Clark (Jun 7, 2019)

tron said:


> 1DXII has one battery, not two. And watts /second has no meaning since watt embeds the /second component already.



Pretty much all Li-Ion batteries are made by using multiple 3.6V cells.

LP-E6 series batteries each have two cells.

The LP-E4 and LP-E19 batteries used by the 1-series each have three cells.

Cameras that use LP-E6 batteries draw off only the two cells in either one or the other battery at any particular time when two batteries are placed in a grip.

Cameras that use LP-E4/LP-E19 batteries (they're backward/forward compatible) can draw off all three cells in the single battery at once.




AlanF said:


> You are now defining battery life as how many hours it will last, not how many shots. In both cases you are taking as many shots but in one case it can do it in a shorter time. The figures quoted by manufacturers and reviewers for battery life, however, are always based on the Cipa or their own tests for the number of shots, not the time it takes it takes to run down a battery.



Where did I ever say I was defining battery life in terms of number of shots? Where have I said I was defining it in terms of CIPA?

This discussion started within the context of AF speed during high speed continuous shooting using 'AI Servo AF'. When shooting sports/action, one very often _does_ take fewer shots of the same play that lasts a limited amount of time if the camera's frame rate is slower. When shooting with continuous predictive focus in 'AI Servo AF' slower AF speed can result in slower frame rates, particularly with lenses that have heavy focusing elements to move.

For whatever technological explanation, Canon has indicated that higher capacity batteries can increase the frame rate of the same camera. Chuck Westfall in the this interview covering the introduction of the EOS 1D X Mark II and LP-E19 battery:

"The new LP-E19 battery pack is a 2700 mAH device running at 10.8 volts. In addition to the LP-E19, the EOS-1D X is also compatible with existing Canon LP-E4N and LP-E4 battery packs; However, maximum continuous shooting speeds are reduced to 12 fps through the viewfinder and 14 fps with the mirror locked up when using the older batteries (versus 14 fps and 16 fps respectively using the LP-E19). "

This is the case even when the mirror is locked up and no AF is happening between each frame.

The only difference between the LP-E19 and the older LP-E4n is the capacity: 2700 mAh vs. 2450 mAh.

You can also read it at Canon USA's information page for the LP-E19 battery pack.

So I guess Canon are among the "deniers" about how battery capacity relates, in some way or another, to the amount of power available for AF and moving the mirror?

Chuck also wrote the following in response to an inquiry from Bryan Carnathan at The-Digital-Picture regarding the differences in the AF systems of the (then newly introduced) 1D X Mark II, 7D Mark II, and (then current) 5D Mark III that is published here:



> There are two distinct aspects to AF Speed that need to be compared individually: AF calculation vs. lens drive speed. Both of these parameters have a bearing on total system speed.
> 
> AF calculation speeds will vary with all three cameras based on the number of active focusing points, ambient light levels, subject contrast, subject distance, lens focal length, maximum aperture, etc. But when all else is equal, all three cameras are virtually equal in terms of AF calculation speed because they all use a similar if not identical AF processor.
> 
> Similarly, lens drive speeds will vary with all three cameras based on differences in optical formulas (for example, rear-focusing vs. full optical system extension, etc.). However, when all else is equal, the EOS-1D X and EOS 7D Mark II are capable of driving EF super-telephoto lenses faster than the EOS 5D Mark III, specifically during the first second of lens drive. This is due to differences in the circuitry of the camera body and these select lenses.


----------



## tron (Jun 8, 2019)

Michael Clark said:


> Pretty much all Li-Ion batteries are made by using multiple 3.6V cells.
> 
> LP-E6 series batteries each have two cells.
> 
> ...


The battery is ONE like it or not. No one said they are the same inside. 
I know about the 3.6 elements, in fact I use some for torches and some card copying devices (but not for smoking). I also wish for a pack that takes 4 of these and in combination
with a DC adapter to provide ample power to a 5D type camera for timelapses. But I don't want to risk it (the lanpart pack has been known to burn one camera). Maybe with Canon's own DC adapter but still....

I had seen this article many years ago but is very outdated. I would like to see a similar paper comparing the AF systems of 1DxII, 5DIV, 5DsR and 7DII.

Although I guess the results 1DxII and 5DIV focusing at f/8 with many points and 1DxII faster than 5DIV of course and 5DsR focusing system being on a par with 5DIII.

P.S A question is how much faster is focusing with 7DII vs 5Dxx? There are no measurements available. 5%, or 50% for example? The first is negligible, the second is substantial.


----------



## Quirkz (Jun 8, 2019)

Michael Clark said:


> If:
> power = work/time
> 
> and
> ...



Not circular, just a solid bit of math. I’d have been worried if it turned out that power DIDNT equal power


----------



## SecureGSM (Jun 8, 2019)

neuroanatomist said:


> No, it's not sensible at all. But that's because your original statement that, "...watts per hour per minute whatever is perfectly correct term to use," is not sensible. If you want to add irrelevant terms to an equation then call it circular, you go right ahead.
> 
> Perhaps you're confusing power with energy, which shows up on your monthly electric bill in units of kWh. In SI units, that's written as kW⋅h, that little ⋅ in there denotes multiplication (i.e. a kilowatt of power sustained for one hour). Your invention of the term 'watts per second' is using time as a divisor when it should be a multiplier. You can rearrange a non-sensible equation all you like, but it still won't become sensible.



Nope, I am not confusing kWh x(times) hours with kW/hour. 

I will give you hint and see if that may ring the bell for you:

You are surely use rechargeable batteries in your flash. 
With a smart charger you can set current to an arbitrary value. As you know. If you charge too fast you can cause batteries overheating. the higher the current the higher is the mW per unit of time intake by your batteries. In extreme situation you can cause a damage to your batteries. 
Recommended charge correct is typically 1/10 of the batteries capacity. Yes, you can go 1/5, etc. 
Now to further explain watts/unit of time relevance:
Some batteries sustain a high current fast discharge better than others. 
Some batteries cause flash unit overheating as they run really hot. You know that of course. 
They are not well suited for a rapid discharge. Not able to provide a sufficiently fast current required. 
Even large gel AGM car batteries are affected by the same issue: a car AGM (gel) battery typically are good to be charged with battery chargers at around 10A. If charged with 20A charger, you are risking gel to be permanently damaged it. Gel goes literary bubbles and capacity of the battery will be greatly diminished. 

Both examples clearly demonstrates that A/unit of time or W/unit of time are a relevant and make sense. 
Anyway, you get the gist.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Jun 8, 2019)

SecureGSM said:


> Nope, I am not confusing kWh x(times) hours with kW/hour.
> 
> I will give you hint and see if that may ring the bell for you:
> 
> ...


Here again I see your tendency to make an incorrect statement then perseverate on it and even compound it. Obviously, your bells are silent and you clearly don't 'get the gist'. "_The higher the current the higher is the mW per unit of time intake by your batteries_." No. Current ≠ power (watts are units of power). Current is charge per unit of time, specifically coulombs (a unit of electric charge) per second. A higher current means more charge transferred per unit time. Please carefully read your statements and examples above – you state that on a smart charger you can set the _current_ to an arbitrary value, and too high a value can damage batteries. You state, "_Some batteries sustain a high current fast discharge better than others_," which is true – a high current means a fast discharge, more charge transferred per unit time. You state that car batteries should be charged at 10 A, and that using a 20 A charge can damage them – higher _current_, more charge (too much) transferred per unit time. The term current already includes the time factor. You are perseverating on the claim that 'current per unit time' is relevant and makes sense, and that is just plain wrong...it is neither.

It's clear you are struggling with this concept, perhaps an analogy would help you. Charge is a time-independent value, measured in coulombs (C). Consider it analogous to distance, a time-independent value measured in meters (m). Velocity is a measure of change in position per unit time, the SI unit is m/s (velocity is really a vector, but we'll ignore the directional component for this analogy). Velocity is plotted as a linear function, and if you cover more distance per unit time, the slope of that line increases.







That is analogous to current, C/s. If you transfer more charge per unit time, that's a higher current (and as you point out, too high a current when charging batteries can damage them).

A change in velocity per unit time is acceleration, the units are m/s^2, and it's plotted as an exponential function:






Your concept of 'current per unit time' is flawed because it's like acceleration – a _change in the rate_ of charge transferred over time. Current per time per time. That would be like starting your smart charger at 1 A, then every second increasing it by 1 A...a minute later you'd be charging at 60 A and your batteries would all be melting down.

Hopefully the above examples and illustrations will enable you to understand these concepts which so far have eluded you. The take-away point is, the term 'current' itself already incorporates the 'per time' component – 'current per time' include the time component twice, and thus is an irrelevant and useless concept.


----------



## SecureGSM (Jun 8, 2019)

got it. back to the purpose of my initial post and on your terms: I suggest that 1DX II battery is capable of providing a higher current on demand than 5D IV battery, which results in long tele faster AF motor response and acceleration. now, back to fiddling around with my Sony TV, the little bugger developed a fault (3 years old tv). Main board requires replacement. Sony has no stock of spare parts and told me where to go. Never Sony again


----------



## Ozarker (Jun 8, 2019)

SecureGSM said:


> got it. back to the purpose of my initial post and on your terms: I suggest that 1DX II battery is capable of providing a higher current on demand than 5D IV battery, which results in long tele faster AF motor response and acceleration. now, back to fiddling around with my Sony TV, the little bugger developed a fault (3 years old tv). Main board requires replacement. Sony has no stock of spare parts and told me where to go. Never Sony again


The supplied current is dependent upon load. If the voltage is constant (it is until the battery draws down), then the amount of current draw from the battery depends upon the load (resistance) of the circuit. So if the load is the same, and the battery voltage is the same. the current draw will be the same. E=IR. It is the load that "pulls" current from the battery. How long a battery will last under a specific load is another story. That is a capacity issue.  Anyway, my electronics / instrumentation days ended nearly 20 years ago. So I may be forgetting something. I do that a lot lately.  It very well could be that the circuitry and processors in the two cameras are different. So the load may be different. Just saying the difference between the two cameras might involve more than just the batteries. A good control would be rigging the 1DX II battery to power a 5D IV and checking response times that way. However, how does one accurately time such a thing when using a finger to press the button? We cannot. Lot's of uncontrolled variables. Are the differences that big? I wouldn't know. We are probably talking milli seconds. _not disputing what you say, my friend_


----------



## Kit. (Jun 8, 2019)

CanonFanBoy said:


> A good control would be rigging the 1DX II battery to power a 5D IV and checking response times that way.


Such abuse is definitely not covered by any warranty or insurance.


----------



## Ozarker (Jun 8, 2019)

Kit. said:


> Such abuse is definitely not covered by any warranty or insurance.


Not the point.


----------



## tron (Jun 8, 2019)

If 5DMkIV has a voltage regulator that for example lowers the voltage to the lens to 6V then even if supplied with more than 7.2 to 8.4V and assuming it will not be fried the result will be the same: 6V! Also: Maybe trying everything on a cheaper camera would lessen the damage should it occur.


----------



## AlanF (Jun 8, 2019)

CanonFanBoy said:


> Not the point.


The point has long gone from much of this thread,


----------



## SecureGSM (Jun 9, 2019)

CanonFanBoy said:


> The supplied current is dependent upon load. If the voltage is constant (it is until the battery draws down), then the amount of current draw from the battery depends upon the load (resistance) of the circuit. So if the load is the same, and the battery voltage is the same. the current draw will be the same. E=IR. It is the load that "pulls" current from the battery. How long a battery will last under a specific load is another story. That is a capacity issue.  Anyway, my electronics / instrumentation days ended nearly 20 years ago. So I may be forgetting something. I do that a lot lately.  It very well could be that the circuitry and processors in the two cameras are different. So the load may be different. Just saying the difference between the two cameras might involve more than just the batteries. A good control would be rigging the 1DX II battery to power a 5D IV and checking response times that way. However, how does one accurately time such a thing when using a finger to press the button? We cannot. Lot's of uncontrolled variables. Are the differences that big? I wouldn't know. We are probably talking milli seconds. _not disputing what you say, my friend_


Thank for the write up. Yes differences between the 1DXII AF responsiveness and 5DIV one when long and heavy tele lenses attached is quite noticeable.it feels as though 1DX II drives heavy auto focusing groups and deliver them in “position” nearly instantly where 5D IV exhibits a bit of a hesitation. Still usable but not as snappy action.


----------



## unfocused (Jun 9, 2019)

AlanF said:


> The point has long gone from much of this thread,


Making what is likely to be a futile attempt to break off from the battery wars...

The 1Dx II is in the shop (went in for a clean and check. Canon says it's time for a new shutter. No surprise as I use it mostly for shooting sports) While it's in the shop I've been using the 7DII as a second body, paired with the 5D IV.

Point is, I haven't really used the 7DII that much for the past year, mostly limiting it to bird outings in good light. But, this has given me a chance to reconnect with the body and use it under less than ideal light. I'm actually surprised the high ISO performance is a lot better than I remembered it being. In fact, when processing the images, I have to remind myself which were shot with the 5D IV and which with the 7DII.

All in all, I realize I've underappreciated the camera and almost forgotten what a great camera it is. I still hope Canon releases a 7DIII, but if they don't, I will be hanging on to the 7DII and expect to use it more. Yeah, there are things I'd like to have on a 7DIII. But, if this is the last of the series, its a solid offering to finish the series out with and will be a valuable tool for me for many years to come.


----------



## Ozarker (Jun 9, 2019)

SecureGSM said:


> Thank for the write up. Yes differences between the 1DXII AF responsiveness and 5DIV one when long and heavy tele lenses attached is quite noticeable.it feels as though 1DX II drives heavy auto focusing groups and deliver them in “position” nearly instantly where 5D IV exhibits a bit of a hesitation. Still usable but not as snappy action.


You would know. Those who don't own or haven't tried both with long tele lenses ought not even argue the point. I won't have the luxury of owning either one, but I am very happy for those who do.  I do buy a lottery ticket now and then though, so who knows?


----------



## AlanF (Jun 9, 2019)

unfocused said:


> Making what is likely to be a futile attempt to break off from the battery wars...
> 
> The 1Dx II is in the shop (went in for a clean and check. Canon says it's time for a new shutter. No surprise as I use it mostly for shooting sports) While it's in the shop I've been using the 7DII as a second body, paired with the 5D IV.
> 
> ...


The 7DII still is a very capable camera. It would not take that much effort to put in a more modern sensor, preferably for me, but not for all, one without an AA-filter, and the AF system from the 1DX II. I would rush to buy one, especially if accompanied by a lightweight telephoto to compete with Nikon.


----------



## digigal (Jun 9, 2019)

AlanF said:


> The 7DII still is a very capable camera. It would not take that much effort to put in a more modern sensor, preferably for me, but not for all, one without an AA-filter, and the AF system from the 1DX II. I would rush to buy one, especially if accompanied by a lightweight telephoto to compete with Nikon.


Would love that too! We leave in10 days for Farne Is to spend a week shooting the puffins and other sea birds including the Gannets on Bass Rock and then will go on to Grimsey Is north of Iceland for another week of more of the same. Maybe I'll be "puffined out" by then! I'm taking my brand new 7DMII (my other one had 360,000 clicks and I was afraid to risk taking it) and my EOS R. Will have the 100-400 II, the 24-105, 70-200/4 II and my 1.4 TC. Hoping for decent weather.


----------



## AlanF (Jun 9, 2019)

digigal said:


> Would love that too! We leave in10 days for Farne Is to spend a week shooting the puffins and other sea birds including the Gannets on Bass Rock and then will go on to Grimsey Is north of Iceland for another week of more of the same. Maybe I'll be "puffined out" by then! I'm taking my brand new 7DMII (my other one had 360,000 clicks and I was afraid to risk taking it) and my EOS R. Will have the 100-400 II, the 24-105, 70-200/4 II and my 1.4 TC. Hoping for decent weather.


What a coincidence, we returned last night from Farne with some very satisfying shots of puffins and sand eels as well as terns, guillemots etc! There are two boat companies who go from Seahouses to the islands. We have used both and can say that Serenity is by far the better - the crew are great and really helpful, the boat is far better (more stable and less cramped when full) and you don't have to clamber over the benches. As well as the all day trip to Staple and Inner Farne Island, the evening tour is worthwhile. Of course, it is the islands themselves that are the attractions, and the boat journey to them incidental. I'll start a Puffin thread to get things going and encourage others to post in.


----------



## tron (Jun 10, 2019)

Alan I would love to see these Puffins please let us know!


----------



## Valvebounce (Jun 10, 2019)

Hi Tron. 
It is already live in the animal kingdom threads. 




__





Puffins, Guillemots and Razorbills


The Auks, like Puffins, are fun birds. They congregate in large numbers on cliffs and islands, skim across the water or fly higher like rockets, and carry fish to their chicks. They are a treat to watch and photograph. So, I thought to start a thread dedicated to them, beginning with some shots...




www.canonrumors.com





Cheers, Graham.


----------



## tron (Jun 10, 2019)

Valvebounce said:


> Hi Tron.
> It is already live in the animal kingdom threads.
> 
> 
> ...


Many thanks Graham!


----------



## tron (Jun 10, 2019)

unfocused said:


> Making what is likely to be a futile attempt to break off from the battery wars...
> 
> The 1Dx II is in the shop (went in for a clean and check. Canon says it's time for a new shutter. No surprise as I use it mostly for shooting sports) While it's in the shop I've been using the 7DII as a second body, paired with the 5D IV.
> 
> ...


How many shots did you make with 1DxII that requires a new shutter? I vaguely remember a 1DxII setting that accellerates the shutter wear many times! But I will have to search for it. If I find anything I will update.


----------



## unfocused (Jun 10, 2019)

tron said:


> How many shots did you make with 1DxII that requires a new shutter? I vaguely remember a 1DxII setting that accellerates the shutter wear many times! But I will have to search for it. If I find anything I will update.


I'm actually not sure, as I didn't check it before I sent it in. If I remember correctly CPS told me that it had somewhere around 420,000 on it and they were recommending a replacement. I see they are rated for 400,000 so I imagine they just figured it was about time and I figured it was better to have it done now than to have it die in the middle of a game.

FWIW, the shutter was $243 and the labor was $219. With the 20% CPS discount it came to $370. The discount pretty much covers my annual CPS membership. The shutter count really didn't surprise me, as it represents a couple of years' worth of shooting volleyball, basketball, soccer, track, baseball, etc., for a small college.


----------



## tron (Jun 10, 2019)

unfocused said:


> I'm actually not sure, as I didn't check it before I sent it in. If I remember correctly CPS told me that it had somewhere around 420,000 on it and they were recommending a replacement. I see they are rated for 400,000 so I imagine they just figured it was about time and I figured it was better to have it done now than to have it die in the middle of a game.
> 
> FWIW, the shutter was $243 and the labor was $219. With the 20% CPS discount it came to $370. The discount pretty much covers my annual CPS membership. The shutter count really didn't surprise me, as it represents a couple of years' worth of shooting volleyball, basketball, soccer, track, baseball, etc., for a small college.


I just found what I was talking about and in fact in this very site!
Not the same, and I do not know about your settings of course it is just that your post reminded me of something like the above and I thought to search about it. Here it is:





__





1DX Mark II dead at 200k


Well it finally happened and far earlier than expected. The mirror failed on my 1DX Mark II with 202k shutter clicks (rated for 400k). The mirror is totally out of alignment and thus not sending the image to the AF sensors. I can still shoot in MF. Hopefully CPS can turn this around quick as...




www.canonrumors.com





Viggo Jan 21,2019

One thing not all people might know is that when activating “shortened shutter lag” your also shortening the life span of the shutter.


----------



## Valvebounce (Jun 10, 2019)

Hi Tron.
I seem to recall the setting that could shorten the shutter life was “Shortened shutter release time lag.” I think it was something about some checks and balances being ignored or given reduced priority putting the mechanism at risk of increased wear?
This is all from a flakey memory bank so might be worth less than tuppence! 

Cheers, Graham.
Edit, you found it while I was typing! 



tron said:


> How many shots did you make with 1DxII that requires a new shutter? I vaguely remember a 1DxII setting that accellerates the shutter wear many times! But I will have to search for it. If I find anything I will update.


----------



## unfocused (Jun 10, 2019)

Interesting. I had never heard of "shortened shutter lag." Appears to be a custom function setting. I have never used that setting, but as I said, my shutter had actually gone over the estimated life cycle, so no complaints.


----------



## canonmike (Jun 10, 2019)

neuroanatomist said:


> How much did they spend? What other undisclosed budget information do you have access to?


Good thought. Maybe Canon didn't spend anything. Not affected by what Sony was doing and unwilling to spend money on R&D, they just froze funds in the bank and decided to just let things happen as they may. Quite accidentally, they just put a 5D IV and an M body behind locked doors, gave the gene pool a little time, the result of which was a new R body.


----------



## Don Haines (Jun 10, 2019)

canonmike said:


> Good thought. Maybe Canon didn't spend anything. Not affected by what Sony was doing and unwilling to spend money on R&D, they just froze funds in the bank and decided to just let things happen as they may. Quite accidentally, they just put a 5D IV and an M body behind locked doors, gave the gene pool a little time, the result of which was a new R body.


Perhaps they spent nothing on R&D, yet still managed to file more patents than anyone else in the camera business......


----------



## canonmike (Jun 10, 2019)

Don Haines said:


> Perhaps they spent nothing on R&D, yet still managed to file more patents than anyone else in the camera business......


Indeed.


----------



## SaP34US (Jun 10, 2019)

Maybe so.


----------



## Don Haines (Jun 11, 2019)

Trying to get back on topic here....

The 7D2 is a mini 1DX. Fast, great AF, dual processors, and physically tough. An 80D is a different beast.

There is no comparable camera in the Canon lineup, yet there still remains a market for the camera despite its age. If the line is to end, there should be a replacement. Nobody says that the replacement can not be an R series camera. For all we know, Canon is about to come out with a high end crop R camera with an IBIS crop sensor and dual quad processors, something with enough computing power to do some serious tricks....

The thing is, we don’t know, so right about now, any thing is possible


----------



## tron (Jun 21, 2019)

Sharlin said:


> Maybe now it's the time to resurrect APS-H?


It is not going to happen but let's say for fun that it could happen. A 1DMkV with 35 to 40 Mpixels and 10 to 12fps would get my attention  Of course the price would have nothing to do with the price of 7DII but allow me to remind that I mentioned "for fun" before. That kind of body would also drive fast the big whites....


----------



## tron (Jun 21, 2019)

I "resurrected" this thread because I just returned from a 3-day excursion where I used my 7DII (about 5000 clicks) and I had an issue that made me seek service. The main wheel was not always working. Fortunately it worked for 90% of the time. I was choosing the shutter speed with it and I didn't have to change it constantly. Of course I would have it serviced - with the repair cost being about 150 euros - but this reminded me of its possible succession. Its shutter count however must be below 80K so a lot of life there. I will ask them to let me know.


----------



## Hjalmarg1 (Jul 4, 2019)

Will the Canon's APS-C mirrorless version will be another R-type format or a revamped EOS-M?
Canon 7D series was one of the best-selling cameras.


----------



## Keith_Reeder (Jul 4, 2019)

Hjalmarg1 said:


> Will the Canon's APS-C mirrorless version will be another R-type format or a revamped EOS-M?


We'll know when Canon lets us know. Right now, it's anybody's guess.


----------

