# Any chance for a 7D Mark 'II+'?



## benkam (Nov 15, 2016)

Not the 7D Mark III but let's call it a Mark "II+" with two minor but noticeable and doable improvements Canon could make in the very near future, talking early 2017, features which should've been there in the first place.

1) a touchscreen! -- Once you've used one, it's hard to go back. Dual pixel AF deserves a touchscreen; also for pinch to zoom, swipe to review, to navigate menus. The 70D/80D and most recent Rebels have one, even the SL1/100D has a fixed touchscreen, why not the top-end 7D2?

2) built-in wi-fi -- Sure there's a quite cheap adapter available but it has meant giving up the SD slot and thus the dual card feature, so just put it in there.

Make this hypothetical 7D2+ available while they do R&D on wish list specs like a new sensor, maybe a faster drive that goes up to 12 fps, putting 4K in there, and all that for a full-blown Mark III. If Canon are planning a 7D3 release earlier than expected, then great. But, going by release cycles, as the 7D2 was released fairly recently (by Canon standards) in late 2014, with the original 7D in 2009, a Mark III could come as late as 2019, or at least late 2018. So in the meantime, just those two changes would make a 7D2+ a bit more future-proofed.


----------



## Mikehit (Nov 15, 2016)

I don't think they'd put all the development work into a new model just to give it a touch screen and wifi especially as (in your own words) it would be 'a bit more future proofed'. If they are getting a MkIII then development will already be well advanced now and rushing something to market just for those enhancements would be a distraction. It is not a simple case of 'while we develop the full 7D3 we'll just throw out 7D2 MkII to keep the punters happy' - it is a major undertaking. 
The reason 80D has a touch/pinch screen and the 7D2 does not is that the 80D was released about 18 months later. 

If the 7D2 was anything to go by, the 7D3 will be ready when they have a clutch of significant things to put in it. 
I suspect it will be mid to late 2018 (the 7D2 came out 2 and bit years after the 5D3).

If lack of a touch screen and wifi are the only thing wrong with the 7D2 it must be a bloody good camera.


----------



## AlanF (Nov 15, 2016)

What it needs most is a new sensor. The present one isn't bad, and can give great results. But, a crop from the 5DS R is better in terms of sharpness and noise. Personally, I would not upgrade until they put in a new sensor without a low-pass filter. The filter is too aggressive on these pixel dense sensors, far more so than on the FF 5DIV and 5DIII.


----------



## j-nord (Nov 15, 2016)

AlanF said:


> What it needs most is a new sensor. The present one isn't bad, and can give great results. But, a crop from the 5DS R is better in terms of sharpness and noise. Personally, I would not upgrade until they put in a new sensor without a low-pass filter. The filter is too aggressive on these pixel dense sensors, far more so than on the FF 5DIV and 5DIII.



Agreed the biggest issue with the 7DII, as a sports and wildlife body, is the sensor. Plenty of room to improve here when compared to newer Canon sensors. More m-pix, better ISO, better DR, and NOOO AA filter.


----------



## benkam (Nov 15, 2016)

j-nord said:


> AlanF said:
> 
> 
> > What it needs most is a new sensor. The present one isn't bad, and can give great results. But, a crop from the 5DS R is better in terms of sharpness and noise. Personally, I would not upgrade until they put in a new sensor without a low-pass filter. The filter is too aggressive on these pixel dense sensors, far more so than on the FF 5DIV and 5DIII.
> ...



A new sensor is a Mark III-level upgrade. That'll be late 2018, possibly 2019, based on Canon's full version upgrades.


----------



## Sabaki (Nov 15, 2016)

If anything, I'd put the AF system as the number 1 priority for a 7D mark iii. 

Questions I would like answered is:
* Should a dedicated microchip handle ITR and other tracking aspects like colour/shape recognition
* Is a drag-n-drop of the full frame 61 point focus system really delivering or should they look at an APSC specific configuration
* Is more powerful battery needed to drive the lenses for optimum performance
* Auto focus points at f/8.0

Things like sensors, weather sealing and similar naturally improve from 1 generation to the next but it's the AF system that makes this the 1DX mini we all crave. There's just way too much proof out there showing the 7Dii's AF system is not as good as it should be. 
Some of those who are not fans of the AF system include 1DX users who produce magnificent images with that body, yet struggle with their copy of the 7Dii


----------



## benkam (Nov 15, 2016)

Mikehit said:


> I don't think they'd put all the development work into a new model just to give it a touch screen and wifi especially as (in your own words) it would be 'a bit more future proofed'. If they are getting a MkIII then development will already be well advanced now and rushing something to market just for those enhancements would be a distraction. It is not a simple case of 'while we develop the full 7D3 we'll just throw out 7D2 MkII to keep the punters happy' - it is a major undertaking.


A new sensor, faster drive, integrating new Digic processors, 4K, just any *one* of those would be a major undertaking but I'm not asking for any of those in a "7D2+". Just that Canon-staple 3" 1.04M-dot touchscreen that has for a years been on all their other APS-C bodies except the top-end 7D2 and bottom-end 1200D/1300D. Plus throw in built-in wi-fi too, but the touchscreen foremost.



Mikehit said:


> The reason 80D has a touch/pinch screen and the 7D2 does not is that the 80D was released about 18 months later.


The earlier 70D already had a touchscreen, released over a year before the 7D2. The entry-level SL1/100D and the t5i/700D were also released a year before and likewise came with touchscreens.

Now that the 5D4 has come with a touchscreen, Canon's engineers are out of excuses that they can't put a touchscreen in a weather-sealed body in 2017.



Mikehit said:


> If lack of a touch screen and wifi are the only thing wrong with the 7D2 it must be a bloody good camera.


Oh yes, it is bloody good. Just with two annoyingly small but noticeable omissions, which if addressed would make it fully current as Canon's top-end crop body for the expected next couple more years while it's developing a Mark III.

Maybe a 7D Mark "II+" (again, not a full Mark III) patch upgrade in 2017 isn't so far-fetched as I now recall Canon when it made the change from the 650D to 700D, the biggest thing it added really was a touchscreen.


----------



## Josh Denver (Nov 15, 2016)

650D to 700D upgrade was actually new body texture and a 360 degree spinning top dial plus live review of creative filters. So yes, Canon have made incredibly small updates as NEW models. The touchscreen was on the rebels since the 650D. It was the first Canon or DSLR to get it. An entry level feature that pros liked so it was scaled up the chain to 70D, 5D, 1D, 

I didn't expect the 7DII to be the only line skipped, it should have been there since now it's on Canon's entire line up. 100D, 700d, 750D/760D, 80D, 5DIV, 1DXII. 

If the camera lacked DPAF or had crappy video performance it'd have been fine by me. But that camera really needs DPAF touch, the 1080p on it is a lot cleaner than the newer 80D, 5DIV, 760D, which all have a stop more digital sharpening and aliasing, which is completely absent on the 7DII 1080p footage. It's really quite a great video camera and the only one in the price range that can be taken under harsh conditions and get any footage. Just needs touch AF to make a huge leap in a small upgrade. 

Of course I do want it to have full sensor 4K DCI 422 Mjpeg and 1080p 120p but I know I'll have to wait for the 7D MKIII to get those.


----------



## Mikehit (Nov 15, 2016)

benkam said:


> A new sensor, faster drive, integrating new Digic processors, 4K, just any *one* of those would be a major undertaking but I'm not asking for any of those in a "7D2+". Just that Canon-staple 3" 1.04M-dot touchscreen that has for a years been on all their other APS-C bodies except the top-end 7D2 and bottom-end 1200D/1300D. Plus throw in built-in wi-fi too, but the touchscreen foremost.



So no real improvement than adding a touch screen all because you prefer it to spinning a couple of dials? 



Mikehit said:


> The earlier 70D already had a touchscreen, released over a year before the 7D2. The entry-level SL1/100D and the t5i/700D were also released a year before and likewise came with touchscreens.


Fair enough. But again, but it also comes down to which features to add within a price bracket. The 7D2 had a far superior AF system to the 70D and I know which I would prefer.
If it had been as simple as you make out, you have to ask 'so why didn't they?'. The argument about protecting product lines does not wash because the 1Dx and 5D3 at that time did not have a touch screen and if the market sector had said it would be a great idea they may well have done it. 




Mikehit said:


> Now that the 5D4 has come with a touchscreen, Canon's engineers are out of excuses that they can't put a touchscreen in a weather-sealed body in 2017.


Who is saying they can't. My point was that re-engineering the 7D2 to have a touchscreen is not improvement enough to justify a new model. Are you even aware of what is involved with changing something as fundamental as the LCD screen?
Just suppose they do have a 7DMk3 in early 2019 as you predict. They have not even announced a 7D2 with touchscreen so even if they announce it early 2017, are you suggesting that they bring that in mid 2017 and barely a year later have another new model? Who would buy it knowing that in barely a year they will have the option of full-fat 7D3 with other improved specifications? I wouldn't. 


I am not saying a touch screen is not feasible (it clearly is). Nor am I saying I would not find a touch screen useful (I would). I just don't see them bringing out an interim 7D2 upgrade and I don't think it makes sense to do so.


----------



## benkam (Nov 15, 2016)

Mikehit said:


> Just suppose they do have a 7DMk3 in early 2019 as you predict. They have not even announced a 7D2 with touchscreen so even if they announce it early 2017, are you suggesting that they bring that in mid 2017 and barely a year later have another new model? Who would buy it knowing that in barely a year they will have the option of full-fat 7D3 with other improved specifications? I wouldn't.



Are you saying nobody would buy a "7D2+" with touchscreen if Canon somehow came out with it in 2017 because a 7D3 is expected in 2019? If so, in effect, you're also saying expect no sales for the 7D2 as-is, without touchscreen, because of the same anticipation.

We realistically expect the 7D2 as-is to continue selling some next year, so give it that small but noticeable improvement and why should people suddenly stop buying it? On the contrary, more people would probably buy a "7D2+" patch upgrade because not everybody who wants a camera like it can wait two more years for the 7D3.


----------



## tron (Nov 15, 2016)

benkam said:


> Mikehit said:
> 
> 
> > Just suppose they do have a 7DMk3 in early 2019 as you predict. They have not even announced a 7D2 with touchscreen so even if they announce it early 2017, are you suggesting that they bring that in mid 2017 and barely a year later have another new model? Who would buy it knowing that in barely a year they will have the option of full-fat 7D3 with other improved specifications? I wouldn't.
> ...


It will be a most useless upgrade mainly since there is already a cheap canon wifi card and you can always use a very high capacity/good quality Compact flash so there is no urgent reason for an sd card.

If there is a need for 7D2 is an upgrade of the sensor and the new f/8 AF system. Anything else is practically cosmetics... 

Which means a new 7D3 would be more than welcome as soon as possible  In the meantime 7D2 will do...


----------



## runtmms (Nov 15, 2016)

I'm one of the ones really hoping for a 7D2 update sooner rather than later - be it a refresh or a full Mark III. While the current camera looks to be a great camera, spec wise it feels a little dated to be the 'top of the line crop sensor camera.' If you're someone who upgrades infrequently that is a bit of a tough sell. 

The long product cycle is fine if there aren't big advancements. But it seems like that timeline should be evaluated based on the product advancements out there. Sensor quality has made a jump, AF, touch screens are fairly standard, as well as built in wi-fi. (The wi-fi card is a band-aid at best.) Not to mention everything else people have already listed in this thread. It starts adding up to a lot of little compromises now - can't imagine what it'll look like in 2 years. It seems more positioned as a sideways step when compared to the 80D, not a definitive step up.

Then consider the Nikon D500. Is Canon really going to let that go unanswered for another couple years?

I haven't been watching it very long, but it seems like there have been a lot of rebates and price fluctuations - any chance that is stock reduction to make room for the next flavor of 7D - or is it always like that?

I know it seems unlikely, but I'm going to keep my fingers crossed.


----------



## Mikehit (Nov 15, 2016)

benkam said:


> Are you saying nobody would buy a "7D2+" with touchscreen if Canon somehow came out with it in 2017 because a 7D3 is expected in 2019? If so, in effect, you're also saying expect no sales for the 7D2 as-is, without touchscreen, because of the same anticipation.
> 
> We realistically expect the 7D2 as-is to continue selling some next year, so give it that small but noticeable improvement and why should people suddenly stop buying it? On the contrary, more people would probably buy a "7D2+" patch upgrade because not everybody who wants a camera like it can wait two more years for the 7D3.



The 7D2 has been through its drop in price, from 1600 GBP at launch to recent price of 1200 GBP. The 7D3 will probably launch at 1800 (maybe a bit more). If the 7D2+ as you suggest were to be launched it would have to be closer to the 1800 than 1200 with it being a new camera. That is quite a different proposition. 
So not only do you have a price advantage of the 7D2 but psychologically, buying an existing body in 2017 knowing we are 18-24months from a new version is quite different from buying a new body design (refreshed or not) knowing that barely 2y later you will have a new one to choose from. 
And the 7D2 will sell with or without the 'patch upgrade' so why would Canon do it? 

How many people do you seriously think will sell their 7D2, losing money on it then for out for a new camera (probably an overall layout of several hundred pounds/dollars) simply to have a touch screen and WiFi? 

Canon has enough problem from people whining about how their new bodies are not true advancements (including you if I recall your comments about the 5DIV) without pulling stunts like this.


----------



## Mt Spokane Photography (Nov 15, 2016)

Don't hold your breath. New models come out when one or both of the following has happened:

1. Sales has slowed to the point where it will pay back to introduce a upgrade.

2. Canon has advanced the technology enough to justify the huge cost of upgrading it. It is not just the cost to design and produce, but to advertise, stock, and risk buyer backlash for bumping the price for a minor upgrade.

The next model will follow the usual Canon formula, new sensor, new processor, new firmware with a few features thrown in. A new higher price as well.


----------



## unfocused (Nov 15, 2016)

Yeah, this ain't happening.

The 70D already had a touch screen when the 7DII was introduced, and the 1DX II has very limited touch screen capability. Canon could have put a full featured touch screen in both bodies but chose not to. If they feel it was a mistake, we'll likely see a firmware upgrade for the 1DX II before we see a 7D 2.1, but I'm not holding out for either.

Canon gave the 7DII wireless capability with the new SD card, which is an admission of their mistake on that front and a recognition that they needed to do something. 

Neither of those changes are sufficient to justify a new body no matter what it is called. 

From what I've read, the 7DII sensor performs at higher ISOs just as well as the 80D sensor and since high ISO is the important thing for an action camera like the 7DII, I would think/hope that they will wait until they have a new sensor that performs slightly better at ISO 1600 and above. 

As for autofocus, while I expect some improvement, I am confused by those who denigrate the autofocus capabilities of the 7DII. I've never had a problem with the 7D autofocus and just came back from a weekend of shooting the 7D II and the 1D X II side by side and autofocus is definitely not where the differences come into play.

What are the differences? Well, obviously noise is a bit better on the 1D X II and once you gotten used to 14 fps, 10 frames seem painfully slow (I know that sounds ridiculous, but it's true.)

However, I thinks it's a mistake to look at the incredibly long time between the 7D I and 7D II and assume a similar refresh period for the 7D III. There were unusual circumstances that delayed any upgrade. I would not be at all surprised to see a 7DIII near the end of 2017 or early in 2018. 

My dream 7DII would not use the 24mp 80D sensor, but instead use an improved 20-24 mp sensor for better high ISO performance, crank up the frame rate to 12 fps, and have all the usual incremental improvements in focusing and weather sealing, along with a touchscreen, built in wifi/NFC and a few other new bells and whistles. If I need to wait awhile longer for sensor improvements, I can live with that.


----------



## benkam (Nov 15, 2016)

Josh Denver said:


> 650D to 700D upgrade was actually new body texture and a 360 degree spinning top dial plus live review of creative filters. So yes, Canon have made incredibly small updates as NEW models.



I stand corrected. Those are even smaller modifications than putting a new touchscreen and show Canon do make patch upgrade versions.

I've suggested Canon call this hypothetical touchscreen- and built-in wifi-enabled version a "Mark II+" instead of "Mark III" to temper expectations that it's not a full upgrade.



Josh Denver said:


> If the camera lacked DPAF or had crappy video performance it'd have been fine by me. But that camera really needs DPAF touch, the 1080p on it is a lot cleaner than the newer 80D, 5DIV, 760D, which all have a stop more digital sharpening and aliasing, which is completely absent on the 7DII 1080p footage. It's really quite a great video camera and the only one in the price range that can be taken under harsh conditions and get any footage. Just needs touch AF to make a huge leap in a small upgrade.



Agreed. DPAF deserves a touchscreen.


----------



## unfocused (Nov 15, 2016)

benkam said:


> Josh Denver said:
> 
> 
> > 650D to 700D upgrade was actually new body texture and a 360 degree spinning top dial plus live review of creative filters. So yes, Canon have made incredibly small updates as NEW models.
> ...



You can't compare Rebel refresh versions to XD models. Canon has to change up the Rebels on a continuous basis so that entry level consumers feel they are getting the "newest" models, even if there isn't much a difference.


----------



## benkam (Nov 15, 2016)

Mikehit said:


> The 7D2 has been through its drop in price, from 1600 GBP at launch to recent price of 1200 GBP. The 7D3 will probably launch at 1800 (maybe a bit more). If the 7D2+ as you suggest were to be launched it would have to be closer to the 1800 than 1200 with it being a new camera. That is quite a different proposition.



That's stacking the price argument a bit. 

I'd look at it this way: I see the 7D2 is currently GBP 1380 at major UK retailers. Now, the 5D4 launched the same as the 5D3, so it would be reasonable to expect an interim update to the 7D2, being not even a 7D3, would at most top off at the 7D2's launch price of 1600 GBP. So there's the comparison for buyers: the 7D2 no touch, no wifi at 1380 GBP or a "7D2+" with touchscreen and wifi at 1600 GBP. Me personally and maybe some other would rather spend the extra 200 quid for the latter instead of never ever having a touchscreen and paying another 50 for a wifi adapter while losing the SD slot. YMMV.

If Canon do this in 2017, I'd expect them to try to clear stocks on the 7D2 and shift production to this "7D2+" until they release the 7D3 in late 2018 or even 2019.


----------



## Mikehit (Nov 15, 2016)

benkam said:


> Mikehit said:
> 
> 
> > The 7D2 has been through its drop in price, from 1600 GBP at launch to recent price of 1200 GBP. The 7D3 will probably launch at 1800 (maybe a bit more). If the 7D2+ as you suggest were to be launched it would have to be closer to the 1800 than 1200 with it being a new camera. That is quite a different proposition.
> ...



Canon will not upgrade just for the touch screen. Even the 650D to 700D had a different sensor but the 7D is aimed at a far more discerning market - bringing in a new model whose only difference is a touch screen will be (rightly IMO) panned. Are you able to point to any manufacturer whose only reason to upgrade has been touchscreen facility? I very much doubt it. 

You've made it quite clear in other discussions that you find flip-screens and touch screens to be a major issue for you. What you don't get is that others place those down the list of priorities and Canon do as well. I am pretty sure the 7D3 will have a touch screen but that will be an addition to other, more significant, upgrades. The way their sensors have developed I go with comments by unfocused that the 7D3 development cycle will be quicker than for the 7D2: if rumours at the time were correct, the 7D2 was actually delayed 8-9 months to introduce a better AF system and iron out other bugs so if you look at it that way the 7D3 could be much quicker than 2019.


----------



## timmy_650 (Nov 15, 2016)

I can't think of any model where canon has done this before Nikon has done it a bunch. So I think the chance is low seeing how it would be a canon Dslr first. I think you can make a good argument for it. That is why it is done by Sony and Nikon.


----------



## greger (Nov 15, 2016)

Instead of a 7Dii+ Canon could release a firmware update like they did to the 7D in August 2012. That would give the 7Dii a longer lifespan until a vs 3 is released in a year or two. This keeps everyone happy! If they include the new wifi sd card in the 7Dii package when you buy. The only people upset are the people who bought the 7Dii before the card became available. A $50 or $60 add on is not really upsetting as a 7Dii+ might be. To come out with an update to a product without releasing a new version model is not a good customer service plan. This would only create bad will.


----------



## Deleted member 91053 (Nov 15, 2016)

Given that this is a sort of wish list thread, do you think that Canon would make me a 7D2+/7D3 with a fixed screen without the "Touch" facility, no Wi Fi, no GPS, no Dual Pixel AF, no video etc etc?

I don't mind paying a little extra to keep these "Features" out of my cameras.


----------



## Mikehit (Nov 15, 2016)

Why would you pay more to *not *have a feature?
Just turn it off.


----------



## Pascal Parvex (Nov 16, 2016)

*Firmware update*

What Canon could do is some Firmware update love. I once stated, that they will add 4K to the 7DII, to stay competitive with the D500 from Nikon. It has Dual Digic 6 processors, so the raw power is there. 4K recordings would be limited to five minute clips as on the D500, to keep overheating under control.


----------



## benkam (Nov 16, 2016)

Mikehit said:


> benkam said:
> 
> 
> > Mikehit said:
> ...



The 650D and 700D have the same sensor, don't they? I can point to Canon itself as one manufacturer that upgraded a version for *less* than just putting a touchscreen: the aforementioned 650D to 700D they just tweaked a dial, put in a new "texture". A touchscreen concerns something so basic as interacting with a camera -- whether that's navigation or reviewing images or taking full advantage of DP AF -- that adding it would be a small but certainly noticeable change. Secondary to this, built-in wi-fi lets you recover that SD slot. 

Again, if Canon called a 7D2 with touchscreen and built-in wi-fi a Mark III, then they'd be rightly panned. That's why, I'd suggest such a hypothetical patch upgrade should be a "Mark II+". 



Mikehit said:


> You've made it quite clear in other discussions that you find flip-screens and touch screens to be a major issue for you. What you don't get is that others place those down the list of priorities and Canon do as well. I am pretty sure the 7D3 will have a touch screen but that will be an addition to other, more significant, upgrades. The way their sensors have developed I go with comments by unfocused that the 7D3 development cycle will be quicker than for the 7D2: if rumours at the time were correct, the 7D2 was actually delayed 8-9 months to introduce a better AF system and iron out other bugs so if you look at it that way the 7D3 could be much quicker than 2019.



It's not just me, mate. You yourself said you'd appreciate a touchscreen if it was there. As I said at the start, if the 7D3 is coming out soon, as in 2017, then that's it, brilliant, obviously no need for this patch upgrade. 

But, if Canon are holding out until 2019 or late 2018 if their product cycles are to go by, then Canon would be doing potential 7D2 buyers in 2017 not a disservice, but a favor if they came out with a 7D2+ with touchscreen and wifi. Nobody will be forced to buy anything anyway, right? So it would be good, not bad, to have that choice.


----------



## Deleted member 91053 (Nov 16, 2016)

Mikehit said:


> Why would you pay more to *not *have a feature?
> Just turn it off.



Some "features" may require more sophisticated (and harder to run) firmware and may still impact on processor speed even when they are off. If they are not there then they will not! There are also impacts on camera and body design (eg. plastic tops to cameras for GPS), internal volume occupied be sensors etc etc. If they are not fitted in the first place then there is no impact on design/construction.

I don't mind paying a little more for fewer compromises and peace of mind.

Please bear in mind that I am something of an eccentric as regards photography, in that I buy my cameras to take still images. I know that is a little weird these days, but these are a lot of us out there!


----------



## Josh Denver (Nov 16, 2016)

Mikehit said:


> benkam said:
> 
> 
> > Mikehit said:
> ...



650D (T4i) and 700D (T5i) have the same imaging sensor. An 18 Megapixels Canon-made 1.6x sensor with In-chip phase detection AF pixels. 

(The phase detection AF pixels are the only difference from the sensor in the 2009 7D, 550D, 600D, 60D, 100D, M1, M2, M10, 1200D, 1300D, I can go on)

There are speculations that Canon upgraded the 650D due to the pealing of the grip leather that some users experienced, especially since the 700D few upgrades include and I qoute "upgraded finish for a luxurious feel", and indeed the 700D has a stronger texture and feels more secure from an extremely dense leather texture on the grip, more than on the 7DII. So it might have been the entire reason. 

But this is all simple speculation. No one knows for sure. The D600 Nikon and D610 share a similar speculation.


----------



## tron (Nov 16, 2016)

I believe the short answer to this question is no and the long answer is no way! It is much better to put resources to introduce a new 7D sooner rather than spending them on insignificant upgrades...


----------



## Aussie shooter (Dec 7, 2016)

Def no chance of a 7d2+. so the question remains. When will the 7d3 appear and more importantly, when? I am guessing that as I am about to fork out for a 7d2 it will be about 6months after that 8)


----------



## tron (Dec 7, 2016)

Aussie shooter said:


> Def no chance of a 7d2+. so the question remains. When will the 7d3 appear and more importantly, when? I am guessing that as I am about to fork out for a 7d2 it will be about 6months after that 8)


Since I am in a hurry to upgrade my not so ... bad 7DII I would like to ask politely that you get one as soon as possible. 6 months later I will be able to upgrade my 7DII to 7DIII ;D ;D ;D


----------



## Don Haines (Dec 7, 2016)

tron said:


> I believe the short answer to this question is no and the long answer is no way! It is much better to put resources to introduce a new 7D sooner rather than spending them on insignificant upgrades...



You MIGHT see a new firmware with a couple of new functions (something developed for the 7D3?) and that would be about as much as possible..... but even then, I doubt it.


----------



## tron (Dec 7, 2016)

Don Haines said:


> tron said:
> 
> 
> > I believe the short answer to this question is no and the long answer is no way! It is much better to put resources to introduce a new 7D sooner rather than spending them on insignificant upgrades...
> ...


Me too. The last firmware update was the wifi card support update which finds me indifferent. Anyway I cannot think of a firmware upgrade that would seriously improve 7D2. Even buffer depth is decent already.


----------



## reef58 (Dec 27, 2016)

Not interested in upgrading for a touchscreen and wifi. Would upgrade immediately for a less noisy sensor.


----------



## tron (Dec 27, 2016)

reef58 said:


> Not interested in upgrading for a touchscreen and wifi. Would upgrade immediately for a less noisy sensor.


+1


----------



## Ozarker (Dec 28, 2016)

benkam said:


> Mikehit said:
> 
> 
> > I don't think they'd put all the development work into a new model just to give it a touch screen and wifi especially as (in your own words) it would be 'a bit more future proofed'. If they are getting a MkIII then development will already be well advanced now and rushing something to market just for those enhancements would be a distraction. It is not a simple case of 'while we develop the full 7D3 we'll just throw out 7D2 MkII to keep the punters happy' - it is a major undertaking.
> ...



Patch upgrade? Ya ain't gonna get a patch for a touch screen or built in wifi.


----------



## xps (Dec 28, 2016)

greger said:


> Instead of a 7Dii+ Canon could release a firmware update like they did to the 7D in August 2012. That would give the 7Dii a longer lifespan until a vs 3 is released in a year or two. This keeps everyone happy! If they include the new wifi sd card in the 7Dii package when you buy. The only people upset are the people who bought the 7Dii before the card became available. A $50 or $60 add on is not really upsetting as a 7Dii+ might be. To come out with an update to a product without releasing a new version model is not a good customer service plan. This would only create bad will.



Personally I hope there will be no "lifespan" update via firmware. Maybe you can fix some problems or introduce some options. Maybe an better noise algorithm. But an firmware upgrade will not change the hardware shortcomings (compared to D500 or other competitors). Like other brands change their porducts quite more frequently (e.g. 6300/6500 from Sony), I hope Canon will implement new technology to the Mk III and this body will appear some month earlier than planned. 
But:
Yes, the noise of the D500 is (much/visibly) lesser above Iso3200, but who shoots at this Isos, if he is interested in an good IQ? This was the answer from an Canon salesman at Cologne this year. Sophisticated photographers use 5DIV or most frequently the 1DX series. So, I do not believe Canon will react on the newer competitors as they sell the 7DII still quite well (Germany) - it is cheap and fast. The users who buy this body know the shortcomings and I fear they accept them - otherwise the sales would have gone down.


----------



## tron (Dec 28, 2016)

I have no need for wifi or gps (not saying they shouldn't exist just I do not care for them and would leave them to off). If only they could keep the same number of mpixels in the next iteration and focused on improving IQ they would make a super tool for wildlife. As it is now it comes close to being one. So improving IQ even a little would make the ultimate wildlife camera.


----------



## Deleted member 91053 (Dec 28, 2016)

tron said:


> I have no need for wifi or gps (not saying they shouldn't exist just I do not care for them and would leave them to off). If only they could keep the same number of mpixels in the next iteration and focused on improving IQ they would make a super tool for wildlife. As it is now it comes close to being one. So improving IQ even a little would make the ultimate wildlife camera.



I too would like to see the next generation of all Canon cameras keeping the Pixie level where it is now. Every time they make advances in sensor technology they (Nikon/Canon etc etc) insist on banging up the MP count at the cost of other, more important, aspects of sensor performance.

I am reasonably happy that my 1DX is 18mp (Do NOT want any more!) but my 7D2 is crippled (though still a very good camera) by it's 20 Mp. If they had kept it to 10/12 Mp with current sensor technology then it would have been a far better camera for my wildlife/birding uses.

As to WiFi, GPS, Video etc etc? I am happy to pay more for a camera/sensor that isn't compromised in any way to allow these features(???).


----------



## greger (Dec 31, 2016)

I have been reading lots of web pages about what and when the 7Dlll will be. It may end up being a camera with a lll badge and ll+ specs.


----------



## Mikehit (Jan 1, 2017)

Isn't that like saying the 1Dx2 has a II badge and 1Dx+ specs?


----------



## greger (Jan 1, 2017)

Mikehit, you may be right. I don't know the specs of both 1Dx's. I was reading that the 7Dlll would probably have Digi 6+. While the 7Dll has Digi 6. I thought this would not be a full upgrade. Digi 7 would be a full upgrade. If I had the new 1Dxll I could stop wanting the yet to be released 7Dlll. Maybe a + in processor speed is enough to increase the capabilities of a camera to be included in a full upgrade.


----------



## ahsanford (Jan 1, 2017)

Firmware refresh with new functionality? Sure. That's a strong mid-cycle move for what might turn out to be another 5 year lifecycle product. Recall they did they exact same thing with the original 7D.

But new hardware of any sort -- even if it can leverage a ton of existing components and manufacturing processes -- is a new SKU, new catalog item, new excess / obsolescence burden, etc. Even if it's a very very very small change, it's an altogether 'new body' that needs to go through all the embryo-to-final-product work at Canon: pilot production, initial testing, final production, FCC clearance, a new manual, new marketing collaterals, etc. I just don't see Canon going to all that trouble unless:

a) It's a full-blooded sequel, i.e. it's not a refresh but it's actually the 7D3, or 

b) It's the once in a blue moon specialty rig for astro, a '7D2a' or equivalent

- A


----------



## ahsanford (Jan 1, 2017)

Aussie shooter said:


> Def no chance of a 7d2+. so the question remains. When will the 7d3 appear and more importantly, when? I am guessing that as I am about to fork out for a 7d2 it will be about 6months after that 8)



If past is prologue, the 7D3 shouldn't drop until 2019 -- we're only 2.5 years into its (presumed?) 5 year journey. 

See attached. It's not a rocksolid indicator of product lifecycles, but it shows a few key trends:

1) Product lines never seem to accelerate over prior models. If anything, they seem to be slowing down with the contraction of the industry (point and shoot sales are getting decimated). Even Canon's cash cow, the Rebel line, is on a 2 year refresh cycle now when it was an annual update in years' past.

2) Canon has been focusing on delivering new product lines (SL1, 5DS, EOS M, Cinema line, XC10, etc.) rather than simply rinse and repeat all their current lines as fast as possible. 

So my guess is that the 7D2 is on a 'similar' 7D1 five year lifecycle, and that would put the 7D3 out around 2019. It could certainly move up in time if Canon's internal data is showing that the Nikon D500 + that uber-inexpensive 200-500 f/5.6 VR is stealing their enthusiast wildlifers, but the public would have little way of seeing that information.

But I could see Canon pulling a 7D1 with the 7D2 and unlocking some nice features in firmware in the next year.

- A


----------



## unfocused (Jan 1, 2017)

ahsanford said:


> ...we're only 2.5 years into its (presumed?) 5 year journey...It's not a rocksolid indicator of product lifecycles, but it shows a few key trends...



I disagree.

The 7DI had an unusually long life cycle that I doubt will be repeated. Several unique situations contributed to the life of the original 7D.

1) The 18 mp sensor used in the original 7D had an unusually long life cycle. For whatever reasons, Canon kept reusing the sensor in model after model, moving it downstream to the 60D, then the Rebels and even the SL1. Others who know more about this than I do, say that was because Canon was moving to new sensor manufacturing technology that was not ready until the birth of the 70D and 5DSr models. Those sensors, which are also the sensor used in the 7DII, showed significant improvements over the original 7D. Canon has now moved to even newer sensor manufacturing technology with the 80D, 1DX II and 5D IV. So, it's sort of a chicken and the egg question: was it the 7D that had a long life cycle?, or was it really the 18 mp sensor that had a long life cycle? 

2) Nikon abandoned the high end crop sensor market until 2016 and then surprised everyone by jumping back in, in a very big way.For most of the 7D and 7DII life cycles, there was zero competition. That's no longer the case.

3) Canon has finally started including features like touch-screen and wifi in their higher end models. The fact that Canon introduced the SD card work-around for wifi indicates that Canon realized they have a competitive disadvantage against Nikon on connectivity. No doubt the SD card solution is a temporary fix meant to tide them over, but will never substitute for built-in connectivity.

4) All new Canon models are including multiple f8 focus points. They are doing this in order to keep the 100-400 II competitive with third party options. The single f8 focus point on the 7DII puts the 100-400 at a competitive disadvantage against the f6.3 zooms from Sigma and Tamron. 

5) Comparisons between the original 7D and the 7DII are somewhat misleading. The original 7D was more of a successor to the 40D -- that is a high end, general purpose crop sensor camera. At the time of the release of the 7D I, the only available full frame cameras were the 5D and 1D series. Serious hobbyists and professionals had very limited choices and really no choice if they were not prepared to make the leap to full frame. The 7DII is very much a specialist camera, focused on sports, wildlife and birders. It is a "mini" 1DX, which is something the original 7D was not. With the 70D and now the 80D Canon has returned the XXD line to the place it occupied with the 40D. They then reinvented the 7DII. Comparing the life cycle of the 7DI to the 7DII is not relevant because they are very different cameras, targeted to very different markets.


----------



## Mikehit (Jan 1, 2017)

In addition, I recall the 7D was ready for release about 9 months earlier but they delayed it partly to tweak up the AF system so the 5-year cycle of 7D to 7D was a tad artificial. I think the 7D3 will be more like mid to late 2018


----------



## rs (Jan 1, 2017)

It wouldn't be the first time. 16 months after launching the 1D mk II, Canon announced the 1D mk IIN, featuring pretty much just a larger screen and a larger buffer over the outgoing model.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Jan 1, 2017)

tron said:


> reef58 said:
> 
> 
> > Not interested in upgrading for a touchscreen and wifi. Would upgrade immediately for a less noisy sensor.
> ...



That upgrade is now available, it's called the 5DIV.


----------



## tron (Jan 1, 2017)

neuroanatomist said:


> tron said:
> 
> 
> > reef58 said:
> ...


After one month of use I can confirm that 5DIV is a very nice camera. It's just that for focal length limited cases that an improved 7D3 (sensor wise mostly) would be useful as well. OK that or we add a tc to 5DIV


----------



## ahsanford (Jan 1, 2017)

unfocused said:


> ahsanford said:
> 
> 
> > ...we're only 2.5 years into its (presumed?) 5 year journey...It's not a rocksolid indicator of product lifecycles, but it shows a few key trends...
> ...



Your reason #2 -- the crop APS-C competition is no longer dormant -- would be the #1 reason Canon would come to market faster than 5 years, I agree. We in the public space have no visibility to how well the D500 is doing, so all we can do is review its (formidable) specs and state that it's 'advantage Nikon' in this market space. 

FWIW, the D500 price briefly dropped to $1,800 or so but Nikon just snapped it back to its original $2k asking again. It's anecdotal of course, but that _might_ imply that it is indeed selling well.

But, for Canon, I would argue that you don't offer a wifi retrofit option with the W-E1 to a brand that you plan to update soon. I see the W-E1 on the 7D2 plus a (near) future more significant firmware update as the 'mid-cycle refresh' to extend the life of the 7D2. 

But I certainly could be wrong. If the D500 + that 200-500 lens is truly stealing high-end crop users, Canon might shuffle the 7D3 release schedule a bit to respond. We shall see.

- A


----------



## tron (Jan 1, 2017)

I do not think a firmware update can provide anything significant to 7DII. Its buffer size is already decent and IQ cannot be improved without a hardware update.


----------



## ahsanford (Jan 1, 2017)

Also, *what is reasonable to be added/improved via firmware?*

Completely speculating here, comment welcomed:

Added details / options in the menu system: Yes (e.g. the 7D1 mid-cycle update did this)
Added IO functionality through existing connections: Yes (The W-E1 update just did this)
Improved Auto ISO or metering options: Yes (if ML can do it...)
Higher ISO limits? Yes (No guarantee the shots would be useable/better, but Canon could unlock this, right?)

Higher fps: _Possibly?_ It's possible Canon originally designed the 7D2's shutter/mirror setup for a higher FPS count but opted against commercializing it for lifespan or buffer reasons. If so, they could choose to unlock this via firmware, but I'm guessing significant strings would be attached -- AF limitations, JPG only, etc.

Better noise in high ISO files: Not an expert here -- the hardware is fixed, but perhaps they've learned a thing or two processing-wise from newer models that they could retrofit the 7D2 with? One would assume this would only help a small amount.

More f/8 resolving AF points: Can they do this in firmware? Presume no, but I am no expert on this.
Larger buffer: Presumably hardware limited, so I'd guess No here
New sensor / higher resolution / better DR: No
DP RAW functionality: No
Touchscreen / tilty-flippy / etc.: No
More AF points (via traditional OVF use): No

Is that about right? Please straighten me out if I've misread/misunderstood the hardware vs. firmware situation.

- A


----------



## ahsanford (Jan 1, 2017)

tron said:


> I do not think a firmware update can provide anything significant to 7DII. It's buffer size is already decent and IQ cannot be improved without a hardware update.



For reference, a fair amount can be done from a past example:
https://www.dpreview.com/articles/0868043083/canon-eos-7d-firmware-v2-major-update

This was a relatively unprecedented mid-cycle upgrade from Canon. And as much as we think of the 'horsepower' specs (MP, FPS, AF, etc.) not being able to improve, expanding ISO limits, using the buffer more cleverly/efficiently and making overall usage snappier are not bad things at all.

- A


----------



## Don Haines (Jan 1, 2017)

ahsanford said:


> Also, *what is reasonable to be added/improved via firmware?*
> 
> Completely speculating here, comment welcomed:
> 
> ...


I think your assessment is pretty well on the mark....
As to higher FPS, I really doubt it as to move the mirror faster would take new circuitry and a new mirror mechanism.... That spec is fairly well cast in stone.... Yes, the 1DX2 has a faster mirror, but it also has a higher voltage battery and that means more power to move the mirror....

Higher ISO? Should be easy to fake it through software, but at a great cost to image quality. Ultimately, there are only so many photons per area and your only way to improve things is either bigger pixels or more glass to gather more light... at this point in technology, even a perfect sensor that is 100% efficient will only gain you a third to a half stop.... Despite how much I love my 7D2, for dim light you really want a FF sensor...


----------



## zim (Jan 1, 2017)

_Any chance for a 7D Mark 'II+'? _

Nope

hope I helped (hick)  ;D


----------



## tron (Jan 1, 2017)

ahsanford said:


> tron said:
> 
> 
> > I do not think a firmware update can provide anything significant to 7DII. It's buffer size is already decent and IQ cannot be improved without a hardware update.
> ...


Expanding ISO limits is a gimmick, no one in a right mind would try out of 7DII and anyway isn't a native of 16000 with a maximum of 51200 enough for 7DII?, buffer is already decent, overall usage snapier defines something vague. The Camera is fast.

I am not saying that improvements are not welcome but improvements in the past cannot determine possible improvements in the future.

*UNLESS:* They find a way to improve Af by making all af points responsive to f/8. But to tell the truth I am not sure they could/would do it. This will be a 7DIII capability...

Also; I saw perfectly reasonable comments of yours marked in red. So your new comments confused me a little since they seemed a little contradictory to your own....


----------



## tron (Jan 1, 2017)

Some clarifications. "Limited" as it maybe I consider my 7DII my "toy" for birding in bright light. I made have more shots with my 7D2 than with all my other cameras combined. So I consider it a very decent camera that needs just a sensor IQ boost (in next iteration) to become an excellent one.


----------



## ahsanford (Jan 1, 2017)

tron said:


> Also; I saw perfectly reasonable comments of yours marked in red. So your new comments confused me a little since they seemed a little contradictory to your own....



You may have misinterpreted my color code. Red = not possible in a firmware release for the existing 7D2. I am not arguing the red items were undesirable -- far from it: I believe the items in red items _are the very value proposition_ for the 7D3. 

- A


----------



## tron (Jan 1, 2017)

ahsanford said:


> tron said:
> 
> 
> > Also; I saw perfectly reasonable comments of yours marked in red. So your new comments confused me a little since they seemed a little contradictory to your own....
> ...


On that I agree 100%. By the way do you own a 7D2? What are your thoughts? (Slightly off topic but still productive discussion)...


----------



## ahsanford (Jan 1, 2017)

tron said:


> On that I agree 100%. By the way do you own a 7D2? What are your thoughts? (Slightly off topic but still productive discussion)...



I only shoot with my 5D3 -- I'm sure others here will chime in on how the 7D2 is performing in their hands, though.

- A


----------



## unfocused (Jan 2, 2017)

ahsanford said:


> tron said:
> 
> 
> > On that I agree 100%. By the way do you own a 7D2? What are your thoughts? (Slightly off topic but still productive discussion)...
> ...



I bought a 7DII, when I began to shoot a lot of sports and only had a 5DIII. Shot for about a year with the 7DII for sports and found it very capable, although I feel that 6400 is pretty much the upper limit and even then, you need to be tolerant of some noise. I do feel though that the noise is much less annoying than the original 7D. The difference in my opinion is that the 7DII noise is much more similar to traditional film grain, while the original 7D had a more "static-y" look to its noise. 

I have since traded the 5DIII for a 1DX II and use that almost exclusively when shooting sports. However, I have to admit that when I look back on some of the images I shot with the 7DII and compare them to what I get with the 1DX II, the actual quality difference isn't that great.

If I'm shooting birds in flight for myself, I think I prefer the 7DII, because of the reach. But, if the light is less than ideal, I'm inclined to use the 1DX II because it seems to have better noise control at higher ISOs.


----------



## tron (Jan 2, 2017)

unfocused said:


> ahsanford said:
> 
> 
> > tron said:
> ...


Same here: I shoot birds with 7D2 and when light gets worse I switch to 5D4.


----------



## reef58 (Jan 2, 2017)

neuroanatomist said:


> tron said:
> 
> 
> > reef58 said:
> ...



Well except for the 1.6x crop and 3 less frames per second.


----------



## Aussie shooter (Jan 2, 2017)

Is the difference in sensor performance between a 7d2 and a Nikon D500 only around 1/3 of a stop as I have read? If so just how likely is it that canon would manage to exceed that in the next iteration in the 7d lineup?


----------



## Don Haines (Jan 2, 2017)

Aussie shooter said:


> Is the difference in sensor performance between a 7d2 and a Nikon D500 only around 1/3 of a stop as I have read? If so just how likely is it that canon would manage to exceed that in the next iteration in the 7d lineup?


If that.....

The problem is physics.... There are only so many photons hitting the sensor. The efficiency of the sensor to turn those photons into electrons (QE or Quantum Efficiency) is very close between most new sensors and all of them are starting to approach the same level. There is convergence.

I think we are getting to the point where your choice of lens matters more than your choice of camera....


----------



## Aussie shooter (Jan 2, 2017)

Don Haines said:


> Aussie shooter said:
> 
> 
> > Is the difference in sensor performance between a 7d2 and a Nikon D500 only around 1/3 of a stop as I have read? If so just how likely is it that canon would manage to exceed that in the next iteration in the 7d lineup?
> ...



I am thinking the same. I am just about to get a 7d2 and am not particularly worried that I won't be getting the 3 when it comes out. I am sure the added f8 points will be great and I have little doubt it will get a touch screen that tilts? but I just can't see any massive improvement in IQ coming. And as I am currently shooting wildlife with a 700d I am fairly positive I won't have any complaints about the AF performance ;D


----------



## DaveGershon (Jan 3, 2017)

I had the 7D Mark II for shooting sports. It worked great in daylight. It had too much noise in low light when shooting High School football. The AF did not work well in low light either. I really liked the "extra reach". I moved to a 1Dx MK II. I would consider a improved 7DMkII+, if Canon went to the new sensor like the 80D has along with better low light AF. I could push the ISO a bit further.


----------



## scyrene (Jan 3, 2017)

reef58 said:


> neuroanatomist said:
> 
> 
> > tron said:
> ...



Some of the crop is mitigated by the higher MP in the 5D4, though not all.


----------



## ksgal (Jan 5, 2017)

I don't find 6400 iso to be my limit, for small prints or web work. 12,800 is fine. 
Processed in LR 5.7

But I would take a new sensor in a heartbeat. Great camera. 

Canon EOS 7D Mark II | Canon EF 70-200mm f/2.8L USM @125mm | 1/640 | f/3.2 | ISO 12800


----------



## reef58 (Jan 5, 2017)

scyrene said:


> reef58 said:
> 
> 
> > neuroanatomist said:
> ...


----------



## K (Jan 27, 2017)

Canon should not stick to these 3-4 year update intervals so strictly.

The 7DII is a prime example. Since its release, Canon has significantly updated their sensor technology with on-chip ADC which makes a big difference.

7D2 only needs the following, simple and very reasonable updates --

1. Updated Sensor
2. Touch Screen
3. Built in Wifi

UHS-II card compatibility would be nice, but not necessary. Beyond that, this camera is stacked with high performance features.

If they can do the above AND add just 0.5 or 1fps to make it 11fps (to be able to top Nikon D500 on specs, since FPS on these IS THE main point) ...then they could label it the 7D Mark III easily. It would be a respectable update, without much else.


2018 is probably when the 7D3 will happen. Shortly after, an updated or unified 5DSR2.


----------



## tron (Jan 27, 2017)

K said:


> Canon should not stick to these 3-4 year update intervals so strictly.
> 
> The 7DII is a prime example. Since its release, Canon has significantly updated their sensor technology with on-chip ADC which makes a big difference.
> 
> ...


+1


----------



## Aussie shooter (Jan 28, 2017)

Late 2018 would be perfect as I just picked up the mk2 and won't be looking for an upgrade now untill early 2019. Bloody awesome camera it is. Going from a 700d to the 7dmk2 is a major change.


----------



## Mikehit (Jan 29, 2017)

K said:


> Canon should not stick to these 3-4 year update intervals so strictly.
> 
> The 7DII is a prime example. Since its release, Canon has significantly updated their sensor technology with on-chip ADC which makes a big difference.
> 
> ...



What do you mean by 'so strictly'? 
Do you rally think that Canon execs sit there thinking 'we've got a great new camera but we can't release it for another year because our calendar says otherwise'? 

I am sure they could put a new sensor in the 7DII right now but the question is whether the newer sensor is _sufficiently improved _to warrant a new model. Rumour has it that the 7D2 had a prolonged gestation because they decided to put a newer AF in there and wanted to make sure it worked - otherwise it would have been released a year earlier. 
Canon has always been cautious this way in only introducing a model that gives real-world improvements. With the 5DIII, the 5DIV and the 1Dx2, they have n release been labelled as 'evolutoin rather than evolution, and technologically that has been correct. But I think it is significant that when professionals get their hands on them, they appreciate not the leap forwards but the improvements on the total package as a real move forward, especially the ergonomics. This is why Canon do a lot of research along the lines of 'what would make your life better' and not 'what specification would impress you in a press release'. 

You only need see the comments when Sony released 2 models with in 12months with hacked off early adopters saying the new model solved the problems that the first one should not have had in the first place. This actually caused a problem down the line with people not buying until they were confident the new model had no glitches that a newer model would fix.

So please tell me, what difference does 10.5 or 11 fps make compared to 10fps in the real world? That really does smack of spec-obsessed bragging.


----------



## Don Haines (Jan 29, 2017)

K said:


> Canon should not stick to these 3-4 year update intervals so strictly.
> 
> The 7DII is a prime example. Since its release, Canon has significantly updated their sensor technology with on-chip ADC which makes a big difference.
> 
> ...



First point, it will be UHS-II because for the last few years nobody has designed for UHS-I because the modules are end of lifespan and are not being produced any more.....

Second point - touch screen..... I was amazed that the 7D2 did not have it nor did it have WiFi.... but at the time of the development cycle when the decision was made to lock down the hardware it obviously made good sense or they would have included it. Where we stand now, Touchscreens and WiFi interfaces are old hat.... the user interface software is written and runs reliably on a lot of different models, so including it on a 7D3 is probably a done deal....

Third point - updated sensor.... When the decision in the development cycle is made to lock the hardware design, Canon will use the best possible tech in the appropriate price range.... the point that many of us forget is that the development cycle of a camera is approximately 5 years long.... Work on the 7D3 would have started before the 7D2 was released. At some point, most likely 2 years before release date, the hardware design will be locked and contracts will start to go out to various companies to start producing the various components, the electronics, the camera body, printing manuals, etc etc.... by the time any camera (Canon, Nikon, Sony, etc) reaches the market it is obsolete.

And the big point.... Canon is really good at surprising us. It is possible that the 7D3 might be a mirrorless monster (EF-S mount and same size) that does things like face recognition and tracking and with a 60FPS burst mode and multi-image averaging... Who knows? Not me, but the speculation sure is fun.....


----------



## Hector1970 (Feb 1, 2017)

AlanF said:


> What it needs most is a new sensor. The present one isn't bad, and can give great results. But, a crop from the 5DS R is better in terms of sharpness and noise. Personally, I would not upgrade until they put in a new sensor without a low-pass filter. The filter is too aggressive on these pixel dense sensors, far more so than on the FF 5DIV and 5DIII.


I find the sensor the worst thing about it. I find the pixels a bit mushy. It's poor at higher ISO and I use it a lot for sport at 1/500 sec so it's not at base ISO.
I think it's a cut down version of the 5DSR sensor. For me it too is poor at higher ISO.
The 5DIV has much more pleasing high ISO characteristics.
On the 7DIi I find the frame rate great and the focus is very clear and sharp through the eyepiece.
I find the resultant file to be short on what I expect.


----------



## Mikehit (Feb 1, 2017)

Hector1970 said:


> I find the resultant file to be short on what I expect.



It depends what you mean by 'expect'. If you expect 5D image quality for the price of the 7D2 you are living in fantasy land.
The 7D2 was intended to be a top-of-the-range APS-C camera in much the same way as the 1Dx is the top of the FF range- it is a wildlife/action camera for those who can't afford the 1Dx.
And that is the compromise you choose when you go for the 7D line.


----------



## Aussie shooter (Feb 1, 2017)

The latest and greatest Nikon version of an APS-C sports DSLR has only achieved minor image quality improvement over the 7D2 so the 7d3 is unlikely to go far over that at best. I personally find it pretty damn good for the most part. ISO 1600 is pretty good as long as you don't have to crop too much. Get closer, fill the frame and you are good to go


----------



## ahsanford (Feb 1, 2017)

Aussie shooter said:


> The latest and greatest Nikon version of an APS-C sports DSLR has only achieved minor image quality improvement over the 7D2 so the 7d3 is unlikely to go far over that at best. I personally find it pretty damn good for the most part. ISO 1600 is pretty good as long as you don't have to crop too much. Get closer, fill the frame and you are good to go



Calls for a faster 7D3 or 7D2+ are feature-set envy to me, nothing more. Since the 7D2 came out, Canon switched to on chip ADC and Nikon offered a more modern rival in the D500. 

People hate long cycle times because that's now 5 years of new tech that Canon will put out that the 7D camp cannot enjoy. That's what's fueling this.

But people should consider:


The 7D was on the market ~ 5 years before the 7D2 came out. 


Canon does not accelerate product line refreshes over its prior cycle. See the two charts below -- I believe Northlight tracks announcements and Wikipedia tracks release dates, but neither show a given product line accelerating over prior models.


Canon is still the market leader (broadly -- SLR-wise).

Put those three statements together, and I think unless Canon has internal information showing the D500 (or possibly a6500) is cleaning Canon's clock in the enthusiast sports/wildlife market (not reviews or sensor scores but _sales_), they will stick to what they do and we will be waiting a while for the 7D3.

- A


----------



## zim (Feb 1, 2017)

That's an interesting point about not accelerating product line refreshes but the 7d was first of its line and wasn't it's sale life extended for at least a year though, I can't remember the reason ? So the next version could be released on the original cycle bringing the date back to plan, no?


----------



## ahsanford (Feb 1, 2017)

zim said:


> That's an interesting point about not accelerating product line refreshes but the 7d was first of its line and wasn't it's sale life extended for at least a year though, I can't remember the reason ? So the next version could be released on the original cycle bringing the date back to plan, no?



That's the $64,000 question, yes. They refreshed the 7D with a fairly extensive firmware update and extended its lifespan.

Guess what they just did with the 7D2? Gave it a firmware update and unlocked new functionality. Granted, the WiFi SD card interface is no where near what they did for the 7D1 years ago, but one might argue Canon had a 5 year journey in mind for the 7D1 all along and they were just executing to plan, and they are repeating that successful business model with the 7D2.

Until I see evidence that the now awakened pro APS-C segment for Nikon is kicking butt sales-wise, why should Canon cut short the return on investment for all its 7D2 tooling, production methods, QC, marketing, etc.? _Because their users want something new?_ Since when has Canon's pipeline ever been pushed around by its customers?

- A


----------



## Mikehit (Feb 2, 2017)

Isn't basing the '7D life cycle' on a sample size of 1 a bit risky?


----------



## ahsanford (Feb 2, 2017)

Mikehit said:


> Isn't basing the '7D life cycle' on a sample size of 1 a bit risky?



Of course. It's a guess.

-A


----------



## Maximilian (Feb 2, 2017)

ahsanford said:


> Mikehit said:
> 
> 
> > Isn't basing the '7D life cycle' on a sample size of 1 a bit risky?
> ...



I say it's a well educated guess because the 7D type of construction and market (though different segment) is quite comparable to the 5D series. So we can take the 5D life cycle time into account as well. So 4 to 5 years seem reasonable.


----------



## Don Haines (Feb 2, 2017)

Mikehit said:


> Isn't basing the '7D life cycle' on a sample size of 1 a bit risky?



1DC 5 years (so far)
1DX 4 1/4 years
5D3 4 1/2 years
6D 5 1/4 years (so far)
7D 5 years

7D2 3 1/4 years (so far)

4 3/4 years seems to be the average and the 7D2 is at 3 1/4 years...... A reasonable GUESS at replacement time would be 1 1/2 years in the future.


----------



## ahsanford (Feb 2, 2017)

Don Haines said:


> Mikehit said:
> 
> 
> > Isn't basing the '7D life cycle' on a sample size of 1 a bit risky?
> ...



Yeah, I've been pegging my estimates based on other swim lanes... _sometimes.
_
1D/5D/6D seem to be tracking around 4.5 years at present. It was faster 2 generations ago, but it appears to have slowed a bit due to so many new lines (6D, EOS M, Cinema, etc.) getting offered. There's also a 'release cadence' of 1D/5D/6D in a very deliberate and sequential/staggered manner, so I see those three brands' timing being linked. These brand lines are the most predictable based on now having nearly two full release rotations.

7D seems to be on the longer timeline as a niche product, but since there's nothing like it, it seems less depending on other product lines for a 'release window' to get all the spotlight.

The 80D line seems to be on a 3 year strategy and Rebels now seem to be a 2 year refresh.

5DS remains the mysterious animal that might get updated sooner rather than later. It should be part of the FF release order I referred to before, as a 1.5-2 year gap between 5DS and 5D4 leads to 5D-level 'feature-set envy' where prospective 5D-level buyers keep their money in their pocket because there might be new tech around the corner. So a fast follow-up to the 5DS is the most plausible product line to accelerate, IMHO.

- A


----------



## unfocused (Feb 2, 2017)

Mikehit said:


> Isn't basing the '7D life cycle' on a sample size of 1 a bit risky?



Yes. But, more to the point, people are basing the "7D life cycle" on arbitrary factors that Canon almost certainly considers irrelevant.

There is no doubt in my mind that Canon decides when to release new models based on market conditions and availability of technological improvements. The technology probably follows fairly consistent development cycles, but those cycles aren't going to be precise. 

Since these two most important factors are unknown to us (we don't know anything about Canon's technology development cycles, nor do we really know anything about market conditions), people tend to assign significance to factors they can define. They might be right in their predictions, or they might be wrong, but the reality is, it is mere coincidence.

Still it is fun to speculate. After all that represents about 90% of the content on this forum.

My personal speculation:

The 7DIII will certainly have in-camera wi-fi and a full featured touch screen, will likely have 4K and could replace the SD slot with CFast. All of this is technology that is available today, so has little impact on the release date. (The release of the wifi card indicates that Canon was concerned enough about the Nikon D500 to create a workaround for the lack of connectivity. This can be argued is an indicator that they wanted to extend the life cycle of the 7DII, but it could also be argued that they simply wanted to get the workaround to market as quickly as possible to keep from bleeding sales.)

Canon has shown no hesitation to leapfrog the 1D series with improvements in autofocus as they become available. So I expect the autofocus of the 7DIII will be state of the art at the time of release.

The current sensor holds up quite well against both the D500 and 80D at ISO 400 and above. Dynamic range improvements at base ISO are nice, but not that significant to sports, bird and wildlife shooters, who are the primary users of this camera and it's competitor.

So, my argument would be that the next generation of 7DIII will wait until Canon achieves the next level of sensor performance (or until they decide that they are as close as they can get, within reasonable time frames)

We do know from the release of the 1DX II and the 5D IV that the latest generation of sensors seems to have significantly narrowed the old gap between higher megapixels vs. lower megapixels. By that, I mean that the lower megapixel count of the 1DX II results in only slight improvements in noise at higher ISO over the 5D IV. This, of course, bodes very well for future APS-C sensors.

The unknown here, is just how much of an improvement can we expect in the next generation of sensors. As noise performance becomes divorced from pixel density, are we moving toward an era where full-frame cameras won't have any real advantage over APS-C? My guess (hope too) is that Canon would love to release a 7D III that comes very close to the 5D IV in high ISO performance. A few years ago that would have been a completely unrealistic expectation, but given what we have seen in recent releases, it is now not that unlikely.

And, no, I don't believe Canon would be the least bit concerned about undermining 5D or 1D sales by offering a 7D that it "too good."


----------



## ahsanford (Feb 2, 2017)

unfocused said:


> The unknown here, is just how much of an improvement can we expect in the next generation of sensors. As noise performance becomes divorced from pixel density, are we moving toward an era where full-frame cameras won't have any real advantage over APS-C? My guess (hope too) is that Canon would love to release a 7D III that comes very close to the 5D IV in high ISO performance. A few years ago that would have been a completely unrealistic expectation, but given what we have seen in recent releases, it is now not that unlikely.



Don't we already have a read on both of your questions based on the 80D sensor? Is it not the first on-chip ADC crop sensor Canon has made? See comparison below -- I think that broadly speak to the potential improvement that have many folks on this forum clamoring for in 7D2+ / 7D3: they want that new sensor tech in a high FPS crop body.

- A


----------



## ahsanford (Feb 2, 2017)

unfocused said:


> The unknown here, is just how much of an improvement can we expect in the next generation of sensors. As noise performance becomes divorced from pixel density, are we moving toward an era where full-frame cameras won't have any real advantage over APS-C? My guess (hope too) is that Canon would love to release a 7D III that comes very close to the 5D IV in high ISO performance. A few years ago that would have been a completely unrealistic expectation, but given what we have seen in recent releases, it is now not that unlikely.



As to hoping for "a 7D III that comes very close to the 5D IV in high ISO performance", _good luck with that._ Using DXO's 'at-least-it's-consistent' low light sensor method, here's how they stack up.

DXO ISO / Sports score for each of these:
(on-chip ADC in blue -- please correct me if I've got this wrong)

1DX2: 3207
5D4: 2995
1DX1: 2786
6D: 2340
5DS R: 2308
5D3: 2293

80D: 1135
7D2: 1082
70D: 926
7D1: 854

I appreciate this is crude 'overall' lowlight score and glosses over the quality of the shot/noise/grain at higher ISO, but just drawing a rough trend: the line-leading sensors for low light in crop are a solid 1.5 stops behind the line-leading sensors for FF, and are still a solid full stop behind _last-gen_ FF sensors like the 5D3.

I would argue that even with on-chip goodness going on, Canon's ability to improve low light performance over time is much smaller than the physical advantage FF has over APS-C.

I suppose backlighting the sensor like Sony does with the A7R II could deliver a considerable bump in high ISO performance, but that's not current Canon APS-C/FF sensor tech, is it? That's _future_ tech for Canon, correct? (I'm not well read on that at all.)

- A


----------



## unfocused (Feb 2, 2017)

ahsanford said:


> Using DXO's 'at-least-it's-consistent' low light sensor method, here's how they stack up.
> 
> DXO ISO / Sports score for each of these:
> (on-chip ADC in blue -- please correct me if I've got this wrong)
> ...



Perhaps I overreached. But, what I'm simply suggesting is that we seem to be seeing less of a clear-cut distinction between pixel density and noise than has been the case in the past.

Let's take a quick look at those DXO numbers. If we accept them, we are saying that the 30mp 5DIV outperforms the 18mp 1DX I. The scores also indicate that the 50mp 5D SR marginally improved upon the 20mp 5D III. (Neither of which used on-chip processing).

That, actually, may be the most significant number, because it shows how little price was being paid for pixel density in the previous generation of sensors. We now have the 1DX II and 5DIV to compare and it's pretty evident that the price being paid with the current generation of sensors is even smaller.

Of course, numbers mean nothing, since what ultimately counts is real world performance. I don't think anyone would argue that the either the 5DIV or the 1DX II offers three-times the high ISO performance of the 80D, despite what the scores might say. 

If one were to attempt to translate that into real world performance, ISO 400 on the 80D would be comparable to ISO 1600 on the 5DIV and 1DX II. I can't vouch for the 80D, but I can assure you that when shooting the 7DII and 1D X II side by side, the ISO performance of the 1DX II is definitely not three times as good as the 7DII. On average I would give the 1DX II at best a one-stop advantage. (Unscientific, real world shooting).

I don't want to get into a meaningless debate, particularly since I know that many people are absolutely convinced that full frame sensors are visibly better under all circumstances. My point is simply that there appears to be a convergence going on and it will be interesting to see what Canon offers in the next top-of-the-line APS-C sensor.


----------



## scyrene (Feb 3, 2017)

Hector1970 said:


> AlanF said:
> 
> 
> > What it needs most is a new sensor. The present one isn't bad, and can give great results. But, a crop from the 5DS R is better in terms of sharpness and noise. Personally, I would not upgrade until they put in a new sensor without a low-pass filter. The filter is too aggressive on these pixel dense sensors, far more so than on the FF 5DIV and 5DIII.
> ...



Can you be more specific - are you talking about pixel-level 'ISO characteristics', or image-level? One would expect the camera with lower pixel density/larger pixels to look better at 100%, but when normalised things get muddier.


----------



## Hector1970 (Feb 7, 2017)

Did I say I expected a 5D Image quality?
I find the 7D II has the same image issue as a 5DSR. Both have a smudginess in the pixels that make the images slightly unsharp.
I don't expect a 7DII to have the same image quality as a 5D camera so I'm not living in a fantasy land.
I expected a camera to have an excellent APS-C sensor. 
It has an excellent focusing system and frame rate but for me it's let down by it's sensor.
You are obviously delighted with it so happy days for you.
As a camera I think it was a missed opportunity and it has most of the ingredients for a camera to not require an upgrade in the near term but let down by it's sensor. 
I think it and the 5DSR suffer from the same problem of too many Megapixels crammed on the sensor.
Both work reasonably well in excellent light but fall short as soon as ISO needs to be raised up.
Photos look very sharp through the eye piece so its looks as if its focussing correctly.



Mikehit said:


> Hector1970 said:
> 
> 
> > I find the resultant file to be short on what I expect.
> ...


----------



## scyrene (Feb 7, 2017)

Hector1970 said:


> Did I say I expected a 5D Image quality?
> I find the 7D II has the same image issue as a 5DSR. Both have a smudginess in the pixels that make the images slightly unsharp.
> I don't expect a 7DII to have the same image quality as a 5D camera so I'm not living in a fantasy land.
> I expected a camera to have an excellent APS-C sensor.
> ...



Hard to know what you mean precisely without example images, but smaller pixels are bound to be at a disadvantage in some regards compared to larger ones. However, image-level sharpness should be better with more, smaller pixels (i.e. not viewed 100% or 1:1, but normalised to the same size as an image from a lower resolution camera with the same size sensor).


----------



## K (Feb 7, 2017)

Don Haines said:


> K said:
> 
> 
> > Canon should not stick to these 3-4 year update intervals so strictly.
> ...




I don't think sensor price is an issue, the 80D sensor is better than the 7D2 sensor in a lower cost camera. It employs Canon's newest APS-C tech.

Touchscreen, wifi - ok whatever. Say it doesn't have it. But a sensor update is very reasonable and doesn't seem like it would require a complete redesign or some massive 5 year product development cycle. If that is the case, then Canon has some serious problems and development is too slow to compete in technology.


The 7D2 is almost the perfect APS-C machine. It's also probably one of Canon's best relatively speaking. Its only weakness is the sensor compared to the competition. Touchscreen and built in wifi are extras. New things. They don't make a better photo. But a newer sensor can.

7D2 is going to have a weaker, older tech sensor than the 80D and Rebel line. That doesn't make sense. T


UHS-II isn't exactly new, yet the 80D, 5D4 and 5DS doesn't have it. No Canon has it yet. Are you suggesting Canon implements new tech only when forced to by outside industry aka obsolescence? If so, that is sad. 

I can understand why they didn't put it in the 5D4, this would have undermined the move to keep CF - an old as dirt standard, and the move to keep CF was to get the 4K recording fanatics off their back. Canon can say the card can't handle it, rather than say they intentionally weakened 4K recording in the 5D lineup to protect the 1DX2 and Cinema lines. I doubt Canon really gives a crap


But on the 80D? The camera only has 1 slot, at least make it the fastest it can be.


This reminds me of the lousy SD slot on the 5D3. What a piece of crap that thing is. Use 2 cards, which is the point of having two cards, totally kill your buffer unload times. Terrible. At least the 6D had an updated SD slot.


----------



## unfocused (Feb 7, 2017)

K said:


> ..But a sensor update is very reasonable and doesn't seem like it would require a complete redesign or some massive 5 year product development cycle...
> 
> The 7D2 is almost the perfect APS-C machine...Its only weakness is the sensor compared to the competition..



Except that the difference in the 80D and 7DII sensor really only affects base ISO. At higher ISOs, where most 7DII users are likely to be shooting, the 7DII is at or close to both the 80D and the 500D. I believe Canon will wait until it can unveil a new sensor that actually improves upon performance at the ISOs that most 7DII shooters need.


----------



## K (Feb 8, 2017)

unfocused said:


> K said:
> 
> 
> > ..But a sensor update is very reasonable and doesn't seem like it would require a complete redesign or some massive 5 year product development cycle...
> ...




80D can be even better than it is, 7D2 has the advantage of more advanced processing which is why it is very close despite an old technology sensor. D500 has an edge for sure.

It's the same thing Nikon does between the D3x00, D5x00 and D7x00 lines...processing leads to IQ advantages of the higher line camera, even though the sensors are basically identical. There's a lot of talk about sensors, but the processing is a big part of what you get. Different manufacturers can get different results from the same sensor. We've seen this in the industry before.

I'm thinking an 80D or slightly updated sensor in the 7D3 with the processing it has will be fantastic and finally match (maybe not surpass) the Nikon/Sony competitors.

Figure, the 7D2 sensor, while a big improvement for Canon at the time...was not at all the best APS-C sensor on the market when it was released. Now, nearly 3 years later - it is really showing its age. It's a different thing to be the best, cutting edge technology sensor on day 1. Because that can carry longer.


----------

