# Where the heck is the 70D or 7D mkII?



## Cgdillan (Oct 31, 2012)

The 60D came out in August 2010. It's been over 2 years with is a long time for an XXD body. Then even more so the 7D mkII (if there will be one). Where are they? I want a new slightly better high iso sensor with DIGIC 5 and some nice jpeg and video noise reduction.


----------



## Mt Spokane Photography (Oct 31, 2012)

Its pretty obvious that there would be no 7D MK II soon, if ever after they came out with the new firmware.
I think that Canon has been working to perfect their new backlit sensor technology and will likely announnce something in early 2013.
This is just my guess, but it takes into account recent patents and news about additional sensor processing capabilities being added.
I'd much rather see the new technology than a warmed over 18mp sensor with Digic V


----------



## weekendshooter (Oct 31, 2012)

I agree wholeheartedly with Spokane on this one - you can think of the T4i as a new 60D and as likely the final body with the long-serving 18mp sensor. The 7D v2 firmware is a likely indication that their new sensor is taking longer than expected to develop, but I'm sure they'll come up with something nice for 2013! In the meantime, the 7D is still the best high-end crop body around, though the D7k is making a nice case for itself as best all-around crop body now that it's price has dropped to $1000 new.


----------



## x-vision (Oct 31, 2012)

Before the 6D announcement, I was of the opinion that the 7D series was done. 
But considering the 6D specs, I now think the opposite. 

Most likely we'll see a 7DII in the spring of next year and a 70D in the fall, IMO. 

Interesting to speculate what the 7DII and 70D will offer.
It appears that Canon's strategy is to have the 7DII and the 6D as different upgrade paths for Rebel/60D/70D owners. 
But if the 6D is positioned as an (appealing) upgrade option for a 70D owner, then the 70D will have to remain more or less the same as the 60D. In fact, Canon might decide to further Rebelize the 70D.

The 7DII has more room for upgrades in terms of features. 

Of course both the 7DII and the 70D will get new sensors plus Digic 5(+) processors.
We'll see.


----------



## unfocused (Oct 31, 2012)

The 7D II will be released either in the spring or within one month of the Nikon D300 replacement. 

The 70D will be released six to nine months after the 7DII or within one month of the D7000 replacement.

Yes, the 7D is getting a little long in the tooth, but with the firmware upgrade it is still very competitive. By comparison, the 12 mp D300 looks like a dinosaur. I don't know how Nikon manages to sell any of them (or if they do). 

As digital technology matures and improvements with each generation become more marginal, expect the refresh cycles for various bodies to extend. What was once a two-year cycle in the 2000s, has become a three-year-plus cycle now. By the end of the decade, it may be four years or more.


----------



## jrista (Oct 31, 2012)

Mt Spokane Photography said:


> Its pretty obvious that there would be no 7D MK II soon, if ever after they came out with the new firmware.
> I think that Canon has been working to perfect their new backlit sensor technology and will likely announnce something in early 2013.
> This is just my guess, but it takes into account recent patents and news about additional sensor processing capabilities being added.
> I'd much rather see the new technology than a warmed over 18mp sensor with Digic V



Hmm, when did Canon develop BSI? I'd love to read about that! Got a link? I totally agree, I'd rather see new technology than *another 18mp *7D.


----------



## jrista (Oct 31, 2012)

unfocused said:


> As digital technology matures and improvements with each generation become more marginal, expect the refresh cycles for various bodies to extend. What was once a two-year cycle in the 2000s, has become a three-year-plus cycle now. By the end of the decade, it may be four years or more.



Has Sony not clearly demonstrated that digital technology is far from mature, and has LOTS of room to continue improving? Canon has failed to improve over the last four years, and Canon has only been producing marginal gains with each successive release (1D X excluded in regards to ISO and AF performance.) Sony, along with Nikon, have been demonstrating a nearly linear improvement year over year regarding technology improvements. There are also plenty of areas where further improvements can be made...ubiquitous BSI, higher megapixel counts with concurrent increases in readout rate, further improvements to Q.E. and S/N, a shift to 16-bit ADC (from 14-bit) which could open up even further gains for higher DR, etc.

Canon needs to stop prototyping cool stuff, and actually put that cool stuff into commercial products. They have 180nm fabrication capabilities, they have demonstrated high pixel densities (2um pixel pitch) with high readout rates, and they have hinted at on-die parallel ADC technology...YEARS ago. It's time the prototypes became real-world products.


----------



## aznable (Oct 31, 2012)

sony is demostrating how a once well regarded company is going bankrouptcy


----------



## Cgdillan (Oct 31, 2012)

I agree that I would much much rather see a new sensor tech. vs a vamped 18MP. But I just wondering why it's taking so darn long. And I agree. Sony is killing it with sensors and are performing very well in that area. I love my 7D, and am enjoying the new firmware. But I can't help but start feeling left behind by sony sensor tech.


----------



## Botts (Nov 7, 2012)

x-vision said:


> Before the 6D announcement, I was of the opinion that the 7D series was done.
> But considering the 6D specs, I now think the opposite.
> 
> Most likely we'll see a 7DII in the spring of next year and a 70D in the fall, IMO.
> ...



I completely with the two separate upgrade paths. And I agree that the 6D is a more natural upgrade path for a 60D user than a 7D user. The 7D is an incredibly fast, tough camera, it is great for shooting sports or journalism, compared to the other EOS bodies except the 1-series. An upgrade to the 7D is likely a new APS-C camera with a great sensor, the 5D3's AF, and the speed of the 7D. The users (sports/journalism) of a 7D also probably appreciate the "built in tele-convertor".

Finally, I don't believe though that the 70D has to be crippled to keep the 6D as an appealing upgrade, I imagine the sensor quality in the 6D will surprise people, and that the DOF advantages of FF are appealing as well.


----------



## Cgdillan (Nov 7, 2012)

Botts said:


> x-vision said:
> 
> 
> > Before the 6D announcement, I was of the opinion that the 7D series was done.
> ...



I agree with all of this


----------



## Sameer Thawani (Nov 8, 2012)

The 60D and 7D, Nikon D7000 and Nikon D300s wars are next, clearly. Not sure why it's taking so long, but hope to see some announcements SOON


----------



## Marsu42 (Nov 8, 2012)

Sameer Thawani said:


> The 60D and 7D, Nikon D7000 and Nikon D300s wars are next, clearly. Not sure why it's taking so long, but hope to see some announcements SOON



We should do a poll (maybe I'll really set one up) - but my guess: 7d2 end of 2013, 70d mid-2014 ... Canon wouldn't dare to release a 70d without an updated sensor and just by stuffing video af & touchscreen into it, and the recent sensors show that Canon currently cannot do any better on aps-c - that's why they released the 6d.

Or maybe I'm wrong and Canon really simply refreshes 60d+7d with a new digic and some gimmicks...


----------



## jrista (Nov 8, 2012)

Cgdillan said:


> Botts said:
> 
> 
> > x-vision said:
> ...



I would only disagree that the 6D IQ will surprise people...unless those people actually expect it to be much better than any other Canon sensor. Canon has not yet demonstrated an improved manufacturing process, so it is doubtful that the 6D sensor will be radically changed in any way.


----------



## dlleno (Nov 8, 2012)

jrista said:


> I would only disagree that the 6D IQ will surprise people...unless those people actually expect it to be much better than any other Canon sensor. Canon has not yet demonstrated an improved manufacturing process, so it is doubtful that the 6D sensor will be radically changed in any way.



true dat. and extending this logic, one has to conclude that whatever sensor the 7D2 gets, it may be incrementally better than the 7D1 but still won't compare with 6D or 5D3. I mean -- even if they could, its not likely that Canon would produce a crop body that would exceed the IQ of a more expensive FF body in the current line-up. It wouldn't surprise me to see (in the 7D2) an increase in MP count, improvements to AF and perhaps even fps, and a measureable improvement to the ISO and noise performannce, but I guess I'm not expecting to be astonished by a market-disruptive IQ or DR. is anyone else? 

someone in another thread (pardon the lack of reference) has already suggested that Canon has telgraphed their FF sensor offereings for the next 2-4 years or so, with the 1DX, 5D3, and 6D releases. The big mp body is the unknown at this time, and I suspect this one to be optimized for DR and low ISO, expecially its first release I doubt it will match the ISO performance of the 5D3 for example. 

but they have not telegrahped their crop sensors for 2013, and the silence of the 7D2 in this regard is defening. I can only hope that the delays mean a new sensor and not a re-worked t4i sensor.


----------



## Marsu42 (Nov 8, 2012)

jrista said:


> I would only disagree that the 6D IQ will surprise people...unless those people actually expect it to be much better than any other Canon sensor. Canon has not yet demonstrated an improved manufacturing process, so it is doubtful that the 6D sensor will be radically changed in any way.



The Canon exec in the Photokina interview in some other thread already stated that the 6d sensor uses the same tech level as the 5d2/5d3 sensor, so there won't be any positive surprises here - it's really a 5d2 in a smaller 60d-like body updated to current manufacturing processes like digic5.


----------



## unfocused (Nov 8, 2012)

Marsu42 said:


> jrista said:
> 
> 
> > I would only disagree that the 6D IQ will surprise people...unless those people actually expect it to be much better than any other Canon sensor. Canon has not yet demonstrated an improved manufacturing process, so it is doubtful that the 6D sensor will be radically changed in any way.
> ...



I find this perplexing. Comments on this site and others from 5DIII users have led me to believe that the 5DIII shows some significant improvements over the 5DII in noise levels at higher ISOs. So, when you say the 6D uses "the same tech level as the 5DII/5DIII sensor" which sensor are you talking about?


----------



## Marsu42 (Nov 8, 2012)

unfocused said:


> I find this perplexing. Comments on this site and others from 5DIII users have led me to believe that the 5DIII shows some significant improvements over the 5DII in noise levels at higher ISOs. So, when you say the 6D uses "the same tech level as the 5DII/5DIII sensor" which sensor are you talking about?



The sensor hasn't been improved much on the 5d3, but the readout is cleaner (less banding) and the noise has a "nicer" film-like pattern giving it an edge on iso3200+ ... overall it might be a 0.5 stop improvement with a much more usable iso12800, but "significant improvement" isn't the word that comes to my mind here. The improvements of the 5d3 lie everywhere else, but Canon chose to reserve their best current sensor tech for the 1dx.

I can say that because I d/l'ed 5d2 and 5d3 raw studio samples myself (and so should you!), had a look at them in LR and up to iso1600 there is no difference I can see - some even figure that the 5d3 has worse sharpness than the 5d2 due to a stronger aa filter and it does have a bit less dynamic range (not that anyone would notice, but still...).

If people say the 5d3 is the high iso king imho that's because a) Canon marketing owns them, b) you see what you want to believe after paying $3500, c) the subjective impression how much less banding when raising shadows and the film-like noise pattern improves the picture varies among viewers and individual shots.

Last not least: Even if the iso noise on the 5d3 is somewhat improved, this even more shows the limited dynamic range of current Canon sensors that decreases further the higher the iso setting is. Disclaimer: The 5d3 is a great camera and I still didn't get a 5d2 because I still struggle with myself if I am willing to pay €3000, but the 2 stop improvement Canon predicted is a fairy tale.


----------



## jrista (Nov 8, 2012)

Marsu42 said:


> unfocused said:
> 
> 
> > I find this perplexing. Comments on this site and others from 5DIII users have led me to believe that the 5DIII shows some significant improvements over the 5DII in noise levels at higher ISOs. So, when you say the 6D uses "the same tech level as the 5DII/5DIII sensor" which sensor are you talking about?
> ...



Even according to DXO, the 5D III's DR and noise at HIGH ISO is better, even than the D800. The 5D III only loses ground at LOW ISO, in the ISO range 100-400, where read noise starts eating away STOPS worth of shadow DR. The "quality" of read noise has improved...there seems to be less banding in one direction, with roughly the same in the other direction, so lifting shadows is not as bad as it was before despite the fact that the 5D III has slightly less DR than the 5D II AT LOW ISO. When it comes to High ISO, though, you are ultimately limited by physics. The reason differences in DR across multiple camera brands all normalize in a near-linear faloff curve beyond ISO 400 is because your approaching physical limits. The 5D III fares better at high ISO because it has a higher S/N at those settings (thanks to a weaker CFA, which affects native color fidelity for the tradeoff of higher per-pixel Q.E.)

Noise quality at high ISO is also determined by physics. The random "grainy" nature of 5D III ISO is primarily driven by the physical nature of light. It has far less to do with the electronic makeup of the sensor itself. Lower read noise might help the nature of noise at ISO 800, maybe ISO 1600 (MAYBE), but at high ISO, statistically speaking, the 5D II, 5D III, 1D X, D800, D600, etc. should all pretty much exhibit THE SAME kind of noise for an identical scene...as the hardware at ISO 1600+ really has very little to do with noise characteristics.



unfocused said:


> Marsu42 said:
> 
> 
> > jrista said:
> ...



Canon's sensor technology has improved marginally, and basically as little as it possibly could, since the 5D II and original 7D. To achieve any improvement at all while remaining on the same old 500nm fabrication process, Canon effectively had to "cheat". They improved low-ISO noise quality a little by improving S/N overall. They improved S/N overall by improving Q.E. They improved Q.E. by REDUCING the strength of the color filter array (CFA) in the sensor...the red, blue, and green color filters over each pixel. A lower strength CFA allows more light through, but also increases color crosstalk among pixels. Red pixels are now more red-green. Blue pixels are now more blue-green. Green pixels are now more Green-sortaRed-sortaBlue. It's a cheat...a means of extending the life of a very old CMOS fabrication process. It is actually quite amazing Canon has strung a 500nm process along this far, but they really can't extract all that much more out of it, if anything, at this point. The 6D sensor is still being fabricated on the same process as the 5D III sensor, which is the same process as the 5D II, and even the 5DC, the 7D, the 60D, 50D, 40D, etc. dating back to the early 2000's.

So, no...the 6D sensor will not really bring any kind of major sensor fabrication improvements to the table. Canon has experimented with and prototyped sensors on a 180nm Cu wiring fabrication process. Their 50mp APS-H and the 120mp APS-H both used a 180nm process. They have prototyped 180nm sensors that make use of high refractive index lightpipe technology for higher Q.E. that approaches the performance of BSI sensor designs. Based on the 120mp press releases, it even sounds like they have some kind of CP-ADC technology. But they have not yet put any commercial-grade high-volume sensor fabrication on those processes yet (god only knows why...if they don't do so soon, they will really be in a competitive bind.) Regardless, it is highly, highly doubtful that the 6D will offer any kind of major IQ improvements over anything on the market today, and it most likely will use the same 500nm process as every other Canon sensor released in the past decade.


----------



## Marsu42 (Nov 8, 2012)

jrista said:


> Noise quality at high ISO is also determined by physics. The random "grainy" nature of 5D III ISO is primarily driven by the physical nature of light. It has far less to do with the electronic makeup of the sensor itself. Lower read noise might help the nature of noise at ISO 800, maybe ISO 1600 (MAYBE), but at high ISO, statistically speaking, the 5D II, 5D III, 1D X, D800, D600, etc. should all pretty much exhibit THE SAME kind of noise for an identical scene...as the hardware at ISO 1600+ really has very little to do with noise characteristics.



Thanks for the great explanation and insight, jrista! The only remark I have is that despite your theory that @iso1600+ these sensors should produce the same noise the raw samples I looked at show the more film-like pattern of the 5d3 vs. 5d2, an observation not only I have made?



jrista said:


> But they have not yet put any commercial-grade high-volume sensor fabrication on those processes yet (god only knows why...if they don't do so soon, they will really be in a competitive bind.)



God might not know why, but marketing does - it's called "planned obsolescence" and means that you should time and stretch innovations so that users always find a reason to get a new product, either because the new one is better in some way (5d2->5d3: body, 5d3->5d4: sensor) or the old one simply breaks and repair is almost as expensive as a new product (most other electronics like lcd displays). Only fierce competition can prevent this method from getting too impudent - go Nikon, go!


----------



## wickidwombat (Nov 8, 2012)

unfocused said:


> Marsu42 said:
> 
> 
> > jrista said:
> ...



the 5dmk3 definately has more pleasant noise which has a highter tollerance to noise reduction
at face value the 5Dmk2 and mk3 files look not that much different in terms of quantity of noise however
the 5Dmk3 files have significantly more latitude in post processing both in terms of sharpening and noise reduction. While a completely untouched RAW file of the 5Dmk2 at iso 100 will apear a tiny bit sharper than the 5Dmk3 file when viewed at 100% the 5Dmk3 file can be edited beyond the boundarys that the 5Dmk2 files can
this is why shooting up to ISO 16000 and even 25600 (if converting to B&W) on the 5Dmk3 is perfectly fine and produced great images where as 6400 on the 5Dmk2 is about the limit


----------



## gmrza (Nov 8, 2012)

jrista said:


> So, no...the 6D sensor will not really bring any kind of major sensor fabrication improvements to the table. Canon has experimented with and prototyped sensors on a 180nm Cu wiring fabrication process. Their 50mp APS-H and the 120mp APS-H both used a 180nm process. They have prototyped 180nm sensors that make use of high refractive index lightpipe technology for higher Q.E. that approaches the performance of BSI sensor designs. Based on the 120mp press releases, it even sounds like they have some kind of CP-ADC technology. But they have not yet put any commercial-grade high-volume sensor fabrication on those processes yet (god only knows why...if they don't do so soon, they will really be in a competitive bind.) Regardless, it is highly, highly doubtful that the 6D will offer any kind of major IQ improvements over anything on the market today, and it most likely will use the same 500nm process as every other Canon sensor released in the past decade.



For these reasons, I will be intrigued to see what Canon's next APS-C sensor looks like. I have my doubts that Canon can get anything more out of the current 500nm process. I suspect that any significant improvement in Canon's APS-C sensors would require a move to a newer process.
I have my doubts that we will see anything being announced before February or March next year, so we probably still have a while to wait before we see Canon play its hand.

What I suspect would be a likely approach from Canon is to move its APS-C sensors to a new process - possibly next year, while it carries on using the 500nm process for full frame for another 3 years or so, until the 1DX and 5DIII are replaced. That would probably be done in order to achieve the required manufacturing costs.


----------



## dlleno (Nov 8, 2012)

gmrza said:


> ... I have my doubts that Canon can get anything more out of the current 500nm process. I suspect that any significant improvement in Canon's APS-C sensors would require a move to a newer process.
> I have my doubts that we will see anything being announced before February or March next year, so we probably still have a while to wait before we see Canon play its hand.
> 
> What I suspect would be a likely approach from Canon is to move its APS-C sensors to a new process - possibly next year, while it carries on using the 500nm process for full frame for another 3 years or so, until the 1DX and 5DIII are replaced. That would probably be done in order to achieve the required manufacturing costs.



That theory does square, in my opinion, with the fact that 7D2 rumors are quiet, while the 7D1 ages mercilessly, and yet Canon has already introduced a new crop sensor in the t4i. What will be interesting to see, should this come to pass, is what IQ level can be acheived, how it compares with the current FF lineup, and what we might learn (by implication) regarding what Canon's future acheivements in future FF sensors. 

on that topic, what if the FF 46mp monster and the new 7D2 crop sensor are based on the same process?


----------



## wickidwombat (Nov 8, 2012)

dlleno said:


> on that topic, what if the FF 46mp monster and the new 7D2 crop sensor are based on the same process?



I bet it is


----------



## jrista (Nov 8, 2012)

Marsu42 said:


> jrista said:
> 
> 
> > Noise quality at high ISO is also determined by physics. The random "grainy" nature of 5D III ISO is primarily driven by the physical nature of light. It has far less to do with the electronic makeup of the sensor itself. Lower read noise might help the nature of noise at ISO 800, maybe ISO 1600 (MAYBE), but at high ISO, statistically speaking, the 5D II, 5D III, 1D X, D800, D600, etc. should all pretty much exhibit THE SAME kind of noise for an identical scene...as the hardware at ISO 1600+ really has very little to do with noise characteristics.
> ...



Well, factually speaking planned obsolescence is really only an assumption and in some respects more of a myth (I don't know of any actual evidence that companies truly follow the concept of "planned obsolescence"...I've only ever known it to be more of a "conspiracy theory" kind of thing.) A company can also only really apply the notion of planned obsolescence in a market relatively free of competition. In a highly competitive environment, such as the digital camera market, conforming to the business ideal of planned obsolescence is more likely to make your involvement in that market segment obsolete, rather than simply your products. Canon is currently still the top DSLR dog, and in general the top digital camera dog as well, *from a pure sales standpoint* so they still have some wiggle room left. From a *technological standpoint*, almost EVERY SINGLE ONE of Canon's camera releases this year (except the 1D X) has been rather dull and lackluster, garnering a considerable amount low enthusiasm responses from their actual or potential customers, while competitors are wowing and wooing with some very impressive technology across the board (technical defects and issues, like the D800 AF and yellow LCD problems aside.) 

Soon enough, though (few years probably at most), external competitive forces are going to do one of two things to Canon: Either *force* them to innovate more and get ALL of the technology used in their product offerings "up to snuff", or cost them significant market share due to a *generally inferior* product line. The kinds of improvements, such as low read noise, that have found their way into Sony's CMOS sensors are unlikely to stay there...they could be applied to, say, AF sensors, metering sensors, etc. (possibly allowing operation in EXTREMELY LOW light...say EV -5, -7?) It is also unlikely that we have seen the last of that scale of improvement in CMOS image sensor technology. BSI has been relegated to P&S cameras, but it has the potential of allowing near-micron pixel pitches even in FF sensors. High Refractive Index LightPipe technology can extend the life of FSI sensors down to around 2 micron pixel pitches. CP-ADC combined with active cooling could reduce read noise to fractional electron levels opening an even larger door for extreme DR (especially when combined with 16-bit ADC, we might see 15.9 stops of real-world photographic DR.)

There are a lot of improvements still to be made to digital image sensor technology. Some would say Canon is simply incapable of using a smaller fabrication process, and are stuck at 500nm without choice. I believe Canon has the ability to move off of a 500nm process to a modern 180nm process, although there are certainly logistical hurdles to overcome. I do not believe Canon can survive and try to follow a "planned obsolescence" model in the face of increasing and progressively intensifying competition from their competitors, though...so they will either have to _stop prototyping_ and _start developing_ technology, or eventually fade into oblivion. (Of course, the entire market segment might fade into oblivion if the worlds economic problems can't be reversed...and there doesn't seem to be any sign of hope on the horizon for the EU, China, nor the US.)


----------



## dlleno (Nov 8, 2012)

wickidwombat said:


> dlleno said:
> 
> 
> > on that topic, what if the FF 46mp monster and the new 7D2 crop sensor are based on the same process?
> ...



and the natives are restless for want of information!


----------



## Marsu42 (Nov 9, 2012)

jrista said:


> Well, factually speaking planned obsolescence is really only an assumption and in some respects more of a myth (I don't know of any actual evidence that companies truly follow the concept of "planned obsolescence"...I've only ever known it to be more of a "conspiracy theory" kind of thing.) A company can also only really apply the notion of planned obsolescence in a market relatively free of competition.



This is only true if the lifespan of a product is a factor in the buyer's purchase decision - and for cheaper electronics, it isn't. Only very few people will ask "Will it be repairable after 3 years" when buying an lcd display, it's not even about power consumption (= hidden costs), it's really 90% of the time about the stickers on the front of it like xyz-ready.

I recently read an article about these tv lcd products, it's not just the features that are obsoleted by new standards, but these things are build so that parts that *will* break at prolonged use are needlessly so tightly integrated that you can only replace the whole circuit board - if that is available as a repair part at all. And have a look at your electronics @home - often they aren't designed to be repairable, not even to be opened at all.

Planned obsolescence is no conspiracy theory, but an economical concept from the 50s by reputable scientists to keep the economy running. And it does however positive or negative one thinks this is, though at the cost of higher drain on natural resources because recycling doesn't really work and needs energy that is limited atm.

Dslrs are a borderline case because they aren't cheap, but if I'd run a company I'd make sure my marketing people would have new features available for some time in the future instead of putting all eggs in one basket.


----------



## jrista (Nov 9, 2012)

Marsu42 said:


> jrista said:
> 
> 
> > Well, factually speaking planned obsolescence is really only an assumption and in some respects more of a myth (I don't know of any actual evidence that companies truly follow the concept of "planned obsolescence"...I've only ever known it to be more of a "conspiracy theory" kind of thing.) A company can also only really apply the notion of planned obsolescence in a market relatively free of competition.
> ...



Well, if it was an economic concept from the 50's, I'm not sure it still applies, at least not broadly, today. Just about every device and appliance in my home can be opened in the event I want to repair them. My TV, a Samsung, came with a fairly long warranty, and even outside the warranty I can have a tech come to my house for an on-site repair. I've had the TV for...going on six years now? Thing still operates beautifully, it has never once had even a glitch, it's color is as vibrant as ever. I keep it clean, regularly dusting and vacuuming its vents.

All the other appliances in my home are original...they were installed in 1997 and 1998. I've only had ONE repaired...the drum fan of my AC unit seized up, and it only cost $230 (including labor) to have it replaced. The thing should function for another decade at this point, and it was also tuned up to maximum efficiency (so I can avoid wasting additional time, money, energy, and other resources buying a new-fangled and supposedly more "energy efficient" model that would actually have a large carbon footprint (new materials for the new unit + old materials for my old unit that would need to be disposed of) requiring multi-year carbon amortization to "pay off" and finally result in a lower overall carbon footprint due to the supposed improvement in efficiency.)

I have never really experienced this whole "planned obsolescence". The only realistic story I'd ever heard of it involved light bulbs. Supposedly bulbs with a tungsten filament are only supposed to last about two years. The only time I've ever had a tungsten burn out is when it was jostled too much. When I purchased my house three years go, all of the lighting was original except for two flood lamps in the ceiling. The rest were about 11 years old. Only last year did I replace all of them, however that was more to move to CFL and LED bulbs with much cooler color temperatures (I AM a photographer after all, and one who prints his own work...always hated the deep orange color of tungsten...4100K lighting is so much better for viewing photography.) Same deal goes for my father, who has owned his home for about 15 years. Aside from one flood light in one of his ceilings, every tungsten bulb is original and by modern rating standards "ancient". I have a hard time believing planned obsolescence, even if it was a real thing in the past, is still today. Of course, I don't generally guy bottom of the barrel "cheap" either...I invest money in quality products with the expectation that my money will be well spent over a very long product lifetime (i.e. over decades). 

Rather than "planned obsolescence", I just figure on "you get what you pay for".


----------



## Marsu42 (Nov 9, 2012)

jrista said:


> Of course, I don't generally guy bottom of the barrel "cheap" either...I invest money in quality products with the expectation that my money will be well spent over a very long product lifetime (i.e. over decades).



Then you're indeed not affected by products with built-in "planned obsolescence", these only affect products with the big stickers like "best price"... but this is a high-volume market like cheap mobile phones (I once tried to get a working one out of two broken phones, forget it, they are carefully build to be non-user serviceable and all parts are integrated for no apparent reason other than to save a few cents).


----------



## jrista (Nov 9, 2012)

Marsu42 said:


> ...they are carefully build to be non-user serviceable and all parts are integrated for no apparent reason other than to save a few cents).



Other than to potentially save hundreds of thousands or even millions of dollars. If you sell fifty million phones, and save five cents a phone by using smaller parts that can be integrated more efficiently, you just saved yourself 2.5 million dollars.  Like I said, its not so much "planned obsolescence" these days as it is "you get what you pay for". Businesses, by definition, are designed to make money. The more money a "company" makes, the more benefit the people working for them. Companies are simply that..."people in company", and they do what they do to fuel the needs and sometimes the wants of their lives. Saving money on your products gives you the opportunity to improve the quality of your own life as well as the lives of the people you employ, or even better, capitalize business growth, which in turn increases the number of people you can employ, the salaries you can pay them, the benefits you can offer them.

I'll grant that every once in a while a corporation comes along run by truly evil people who have no interest in anything but lining their own pockets. (i.e. Enron comes to mind, as does US West Telco/Qwest a number of years ago, AT&T in decades past, etc.) But that is the rarer occurrence, and in general the above holds true for most companies in most business sectors. 

Saving a few pennies per phone is actually a critically important factor in a competitive world. The "cheap" is not as intentional as it is a necessity. On the flip side, buying something cheap is quite explicitly intentional and a matter of choice. If you don't like the rapid obsolescence of a cheap product, you always have the option of buying something better...better built, evaluated with better quality assurance, and usually priced higher...but, you get what you pay for. Quality and longevity cost. For that matter, if you are concerned about the environment and truly have the desire to reduce your carbon footprint, you consciously decide that and your spending on manufactured products reflects as much. Instead of saving money instantly at the cost of carbon, you amortize your cost and save carbon.


----------



## dlleno (Nov 9, 2012)

getting back to the original topic: I suspect one reason we haven't heard more about the 7D2 is that Canon is trying to protect holiday sales, and may announce something soon into 2013. They've telegraphed the big MP FF (to keep people from jumping to Nikon I suppose) but they have not telegraphed anything re: the 7D2


----------



## x-vision (Nov 9, 2012)

dlleno said:


> They've telegraphed the big MP FF (to keep people from jumping to Nikon I suppose) ...



Canon hasn't telegraphed anything. 

The 46mp figure is derived by scaling the resolution of the 7D/60D sensor to FF: 

18mp * 1.6 * 1.6 = 46.08mp

Not sure who thought that this was a good idea but it looks like wishful thinking to me.

40mp would be much more palatable, for example. 
A 40mp sensor will be able to achieve UHD video resolution (3840 × 2160) with 2x2 pixel binning.
Canon is already doing 2x2 pixel binning on the 5DIII for HD video (hence the magic number 22mp).
And it would only make sense if they do the exact same thing on a high-MP camera.
This would require a 40mp sensor, though, not a 46mp sensor.
So, 40mp is actually more likely than 46mp for the high-MP camera. 

The 46mp figure is not only _not _telegraphed by Canon but it's also a very weak [CR0] rumor.


----------

