# Hybrid Viewfinder Coming To Canon DSLRs? [CR1]



## Canon Rumors Guy (Jan 15, 2014)

```
<div name="googleone_share_1" style="position:relative;z-index:5;float: right; /*margin: 70px 0 0 0;*/ top:70px; right:120px; width:0;"><g:plusone size="tall" count="1" href="http://www.canonrumors.com/?p=15508"></g:plusone></div><div style="float: right; margin:0 0 70px 70px;"><a href="https://twitter.com/share" class="twitter-share-button" data-count="vertical" data-url="http://www.canonrumors.com/?p=15508">Tweet</a></div>
Another mention of a <a href="http://www.canonwatch.com/rumor-canon-eos-7d-replacement-cp-new-tidbits-rumored-eos-a1/" target="_blank">hybrid viewfinder coming to a “high end” Canon DSLR</a> is making the rounds.</p>
<p>Basically, the viewfinder is both electronic and optical. The electronic viewfinder would take over for video recording and the optical viewfinder would be used for stills.</p>
<p>I see this as a possibility in one of two cameras initially. Either a replacement to the EOS-1D C or in the EOS 7D Mark II (could be named something else). We’ve been told in the past that the EOS 7D replacement would receive a host of video features to help differentiate the camera from the EOS 70D and everyone else currently making a high end APS-C DSLR.</p>
<p>I think whatever replaces the EOS 7D will definitely have some new technology in it, just like the 7D did when it arrived on the scene 4.5 years ago.</p>
<p>More to come…</p>
<p><strong><span style="color: #ff0000;">c</span>r</strong></p>
```


----------



## firebreatherboy (Jan 15, 2014)

i think that hybrid viewfinder would make it almost the best of MILCs and SLRs.
there'd be nothing other than the advantage of low flange length for mirrorless cameras then.


----------



## Rienzphotoz (Jan 15, 2014)

The 7D MK II (or whatever it will be called) looks more and more enticing.


----------



## Etienne (Jan 15, 2014)

As always the proof is in the pudding. Looking forward to seeing what this is about.

I wonder whether this hybrid viewfinder would form part of an automated lens microadjustment system.


----------



## CANONisOK (Jan 15, 2014)

Sounds interesting. If true, does that mean Canon thinks this development (hybrid viewfinder) somehow eclipses the touch focus (by introducing it in 7DII instead of 70D)? Or maybe it is just another option. But I fail to see what is the big advantage of the hybrid viewfinder over the larger back screen (other than power consumption/visability in adversely bright situations).

I'm sure someone smarter than me (low threshold) can point out the additional advantages. ;D


----------



## Lee Jay (Jan 15, 2014)

Canon Rumors said:


> I see this as a possibility in one of two cameras initially. Either a replacement to the EOS-1D C or in the _*EOS 7D Mark II (could be named something else)*_.



Please make it so!!!


----------



## Jack Douglas (Jan 15, 2014)

"any time I want you all I have to do is dream; dream, dream, dream" EB

Jack


----------



## jiphoto (Jan 15, 2014)

CANONisOK said:


> Sounds interesting. If true, does that mean Canon thinks this development (hybrid viewfinder) somehow eclipses the touch focus (by introducing it in 7DII instead of 70D)? Or maybe it is just another option. But I fail to see what is the big advantage of the hybrid viewfinder over the larger back screen (other than power consumption/visability in adversely bright situations).
> 
> I'm sure someone smarter than me (low threshold) can point out the additional advantages. ;D



I'd love to think that the hybrid viewfinder would help video, but I wonder if it would hurt more than it would help? Any filmmaker would want the camera to be far more mobile than having it perpetually affixed to one's eye, and imagine how hard it would be to keep the camera steady with the viewfinder up to one's face, and change settings at the same time! Granted, it would definitely help those of us who use our cameras as the functional equivalent of a camcorder (I know I do sometimes), but I don't think it'd be a draw for professional videographers, who use external monitors anyway. I still want to see what Canon would do with a hybrid viewfinder though, it sounds fascinating!


----------



## yeahyoung (Jan 15, 2014)

Quite the contrary, I think the electronic viewfinder should be more helpful for stills than for videos.


----------



## Viper28 (Jan 15, 2014)

The implication of this is that they are moving the 7D more towards video support, which is exactly what I hoped they wouldn't do :-\


----------



## VanWeddings (Jan 15, 2014)

jiphoto said:


> I'd love to think that the hybrid viewfinder would help video, but I wonder if it would hurt more than it would help? Any filmmaker would want the camera to be far more mobile than having it perpetually affixed to one's eye, and imagine how hard it would be to keep the camera steady with the viewfinder up to one's face, and change settings at the same time! Granted, it would definitely help those of us who use our cameras as the functional equivalent of a camcorder (I know I do sometimes), but I don't think it'd be a draw for professional videographers, who use external monitors anyway. I still want to see what Canon would do with a hybrid viewfinder though, it sounds fascinating!



the viewfinder definitely helps video. having a third point of contact for handheld video improves stability immensely. just imagine taking a photo by holding the camera out with just your hands, vs the normal way of putting it against your eye. the improvement in stability is the same for video.

even pro videographers need to go handheld sometimes, and a rig is not always an option for doc/event shooters. I would be a lot more interested in the 7D2 with a hybrid viewfinder.


----------



## Ricku (Jan 15, 2014)

yeahyoung said:


> Quite the contrary, I think the electronic viewfinder should be more helpful for stills than for videos.


Yup! I don't care about video but I do want the EVF for my stills.


----------



## Boyer U. Klum-Cey (Jan 15, 2014)

Twoud make a versatile 7D(2,II,TOO,Also), eh?


----------



## Mt Spokane Photography (Jan 15, 2014)

Canon patented a hybrid viewfinder a couple or more years back. Now, with the dual pixel sensor, there might be some advantage. I see no relation to a touch screen touch focus for use with liveview on a tripod.


----------



## jrista (Jan 15, 2014)

I am getting the distinct feeling that the 7D II will be a 7D with improved video, not a 7D II with a better sensor, better AF system, and higher frame rate. Hybrid VF sounds very cool...but if it isn't paired with a new and much improved sensor (yes, even over the 70D) that has a FWC in the 30,000e- range (on par with the D7100 and better than the 70D), along with a much improved and more consistent AF system (eliminating the jitter that plagues the 7D)...that fancy new VF will be largely useless for a stills photographer.

It's looking more and more like I am going to be investing my money in a 5D III.


----------



## Jack Douglas (Jan 15, 2014)

jrista, no no no don't say such things, it's disheartening! 

Jack


----------



## DanielW (Jan 15, 2014)

jrista said:


> It's looking more and more like I am going to be investing my money in a 5D III.



I just wrote this (below) in another thread.
5D3 + Daniel is looking like a likely couple to me. 

*****
Something just occurred to me now... How likely is it that a new 7D will have many advantages over the current 5D3?
Possible advantages I see (sure many debatable):
- Crop factor for birding, wildlife and sports
- Compatibility with EF-S lenses
- Built-in flash
- Higher burst rate and bigger buffer
- Price
Is that it? I am aware, from reading previous discussions here, that the crop factor is not a huge advantage (if at all), and compatibility with EF-S lenses is probably not relevant. The built-in flash may not even come with the new 7D anymore, and some people even dislike it. Burst rate, well, here I see a difference, but it is not important to me (I understand other folks may need it, though).
Anyway, when the 7D2 finally arrives costing US$ 2,000-2,200 body only (more? less?), how much will a 5D3 be costing? I have just found prices under 2,900 on canonpricewatch.com, and rythercamera.com has the 5D3 for 2,499 right now. Even Canon sells it refurbished for under 2,800.
What do you guys think? Will the 7D2 be worth buying when the price of the 5D3 drops even further? I am not so sure anymore.
Cheers
Daniel


----------



## unfocused (Jan 15, 2014)

jrista said:


> I am getting the distinct feeling that the 7D II will be a 7D with improved video...It's looking more and more like I am going to be investing my money in a 5D III.



Well they already suckered me in with a 5DIII, but I'm still holding out some hope and interest for a 7DII. Mixed emotions. On the one hand, I'd love a 7DII with a modest sensor improvement, 5D style autofocus and a few other goodies like dual card slots, improved weathersealing, touchscreen, etc. But, on the other hand my credit card would be a lot healthier if it turns out that most of the improvements are in video and I can keep my current 7D as a second body.

I'm not one of the those anti-video freaks. I fully understand that video increases demand and reduces the cost to consumers. But, I'm concerned that we are reaching the point where compromises will have to be made to accommodate video (or it might be better stated the other way – Canon is unwilling to make compromises to video to accommodate stills photographers).

Actually Jon, some of your posts have been kind of discouraging to me. Your very thorough dissection of the difficulties of achieving ever-higher high ISO performance makes me think that Canon is likely focusing on improvements and research that offer the best return on investment (which of course they have a corporate responsibility to do). 

In that context, enhancements that improve usability and convenience (like hybrid viewfinders) likely offer a much better return and greater opportunities for significant advancements. I suspect we may be facing a long future where sensor technology advances by very small steps, while other features keep getting piled on. 

Actually, I don't know that anyone should be surprised by that. We've been spoiled by the massive advancements that occurred during the past decade. It's only natural that, as the technology matures, the pace will slow down and we return to a pattern that is more consistent with the previous 50 years of SLR development.


----------



## Jack Douglas (Jan 15, 2014)

"I am aware, from reading previous discussions here, that the crop factor is not a huge advantage (if at all),"

Dan, if the 1.6 factor helps you to fill the frame and you can't otherwise, then it is an advantage that you can't make up by cropping FF. I believe jrista has explained this in other threads. The huge downside of crop is the smaller pixels that result in poor high-ISO performance. If you have 24 MP in a crop, the resolution should be pretty impressive, assuming top of the line lenses (advantage goes away as FF gets more MP). 

Jack


----------



## jrista (Jan 15, 2014)

unfocused said:


> jrista said:
> 
> 
> > I am getting the distinct feeling that the 7D II will be a 7D with improved video...It's looking more and more like I am going to be investing my money in a 5D III.
> ...



Sorry to be discouraging, however I don't think it is useful for anyone to get extremely high hopes over physical impossibilities. ;P Better to get your hopes up over ACTUALITIES or ACTUAL POSSIBILITIES.  I don't aim to discourage, I only aim to be realistic, and redirect people's hopes towards things they might actually get at some point in the future. 

High ISO, at it's best, could double in performance, maybe twice. Double Q.E., and improve color filtration at the pixel to allow more light (and probably a couple other things like using black silicon and such to fully get us that two stops). That gets us ISO 6400 performance that looks like ISO 1600. That's not bad, but the chances of that actually happening are pretty low...doubling Q.E. would be EXTREMELY difficult. Of course, there will always be the option of larger pixels. That can be achieved by reducing megapixel count, or increasing sensor size. Maybe something like a ThreeCCD will find it's way into CMOS cameras, giving us the maximum full-color potential in a single package (that would be amazing, although I suspect the camera body would be rather large.) In the long run, not really sure how long, I foresee a sensor larger than FF finding a common home in DSLRs.

As for the rest of your post... Maybe we have been spoiled. I think there is still a decade of exploration left before we actually reach the stage your describing. We still have to actually employ discoveries that improve Q.E. at room temperature, that improve total transmission of light past the color filter, that increase the charge capacity of each pixel (despite shrinking area), etc. There is research and some patents in this area, but they have not yet actually been employed in stills cameras. Some of these discoveries have been employed in certain types of video cameras, usually in the security industry...however just because they have been employed somewhere does not mean that growth in sensor capabilities in the stills photography department will suddenly stop. We have a long ways to go before we actually REALIZE ISO 6400 in the future that looks like ISO 1600 does today, and at some point, we will realize that full potential.

Furthermore...a lot of the advancements in sensor technology we talk about here have been employed in stills, _but not by Canon_. Not yet... That means Canon has a LOOONG ways to go before they hit any kind of technological wall. They have a LOT of things they could implement to improve IQ, particularly at low ISO, but even at high ISO. Maybe not a literal two stops better high ISO, but something better. I certainly have the hope that Canon will start to do something radical with their sensor technology, but it gets harder and harder to actually EXPECT that hope to become a reality when each successive CR rumor about the 7D II talks about video. A Hybrid VF certainly sounds cool...and I certainly HOPE the EVF is an option I'll be able to enable at will. However with my realistic mind, I can't help but EXPECT the EVF will only activate if I enable video mode, which eliminates the option of it being a user-selectable thing for stills photography. 

I don't just expect that, I HIGHLY EXPECT that, because, well, you know...*it's Canon*. If there is one thing they do well, *it's THE TRICKLE*. They will _trickle _out the technology, not that trickling helps their bottom line or anything (a user-selectable Hybrid VF would probably triple their bottom line with the 7D II alone), just because that's what they do. So, I don't foresee a true Hybrid VF where I can choose between OVF and EVF at will whenever, video or stills. Again, not to be discouraging...just being realistic. It helps me better control the flow of my funds to things that will best suit my needs, and redirect sooner rather than later so I don't sit on my hands missing opportunities while I WAIT. The aura of the 7D II has been fading for me for a while, and while I still hold out hope that it will be this great and wonderful thing....it's Canon... I have to be realistic. My money is best invested in a 5D III, I feel I am no longer able to escape that realization, and I think it's ok to share that.

So, your right...Canon technology will probably advance in very small steps. But I don't think that's because were approaching wall that will stop technological advancement. Other CIS manufacturers will continue to push the envelope for several years to come at least, while Canon...well, Canon will TRICKLE. I love Canon, don't get me wrong. They deliver the goods in every other area except sensors EXCEPTIONALLY WELL. I couldn't live without Canon glass, their ergonomics and button placement are just about perfect, I think their 61pt AF system is a thing of wonder, and when you feel a 1D X firing off like a machine gun...yeah, I can't choose anything other than Canon. That doesn't mean there are not things about Canon that irk me royally, there are...like THE TRICKLE...and like their low ISO read noise when I'm doing landscapes. 

I could very well be proven wrong with the 7D II. I sincerely hope I am!! If I am, thats great, and certainly OK for me...there is no way the 5D III will be a bad purchase, for me or for anyone else in the same boat as I am in. If the 7D II hits the streets with 24mp (30k FWC, which would mean ISO 3200 would be usable), 10fps, 61pt(esque) AF system, Hybrid VF, 5D III level weather sealing and all the goodies we can imagine, those of you who hold out will certainly be richly rewarded. I'll probably sell my 7D and pick up a 7D II for a second body at some point in the future, too.


----------



## jiphoto (Jan 15, 2014)

I definitely appreciate the 1.6x crop for birds and wildlife, but apart from that very special example, I wish I had FF. It's extremely difficult to find wide-angle lenses that aren't excessively expensive, or off-brand crap - even fairly wide-angle zooms like the 24-105 are usually too tight for indoor work. While there may be a resolution advantage, if you compare 7D and 5D3 crops (there are plenty floating around the forums here if you look for them), there isn't really much sharpness difference between the two, even though the 5D3's 22MP is equivalent to an 8.6MP APS-C sensor when cropped. 

I'm not trying to kick a hornet's nest here, I know that this is a sensitive topic on the forums, but it's very hard to dispute that for all intents and purposes, nobody will notice a substantial sharpness difference between a 7D and a cropped 5D3 when printed, despite the 7D having nearly twice the pixel density.


----------



## jdramirez (Jan 15, 2014)

I can't tell you the number of times I have looked my head into the viewfinder when shooting video. Every time I feel like an ass.


----------



## unfocused (Jan 15, 2014)

jrista said:


> Sorry to be discouraging, however I don't think it is useful for anyone to get extremely high hopes over physical impossibilities...



Honestly, I don't find your posts discouraging. Eye-opening with a heavy dose of reality maybe, but not discouraging. 

As a completely non-technical person (a trait that I have had since my days of film and darkrooms, when the need for technical accuracy was much more important) I appreciate your insights and appreciate even more that you dispense them without sarcasm.

Having grown up on film, I am constantly amazed at the quality of the equipment available today from all manufacturers. While I want more and look forward to the next model of anything, I know in my heart that if technology stopped advancing today I could still spend the rest of my life enjoying and trying to master what is currently available.



jiphoto said:


> I definitely appreciate the 1.6x crop for birds and wildlife, but apart from that very special example, I wish I had FF. It's extremely difficult to find wide-angle lenses that aren't excessively expensive, or off-brand crap...



I'm kind of surprised by that. If you can live with a zoom, the Tokina 11-16 f2.8 is definitely not crap. And, the Canon 10-22 is well regarded if a little on the slow side.



jiphoto said:


> I'm not trying to kick a hornet's nest here, I know that this is a sensitive topic on the forums, but it's very hard to dispute that for all intents and purposes, nobody will notice a substantial sharpness difference between a 7D and a cropped 5D3 when printed, despite the 7D having nearly twice the pixel density.



I think that's been pretty thoroughly discussed and the general consensus is it is correct. Just, as it is correct that at 400 IS0 and below, almost no one can tell the difference between an APS-C image and a full-frame image.

As far as the cropping goes though, it becomes much more problematic when you are talking about a distance-limited shot that must be significantly cropped in APS-C and even more significantly cropped in full frame.

By the same token, if you have to shoot at higher ISOs the limitations of APS-C quickly become apparent.


----------



## DanielW (Jan 15, 2014)

Jack Douglas said:


> "I am aware, from reading previous discussions here, that the crop factor is not a huge advantage (if at all),"
> 
> Dan, if the 1.6 factor helps you to fill the frame and you can't otherwise, then it is an advantage that you can't make up by cropping FF. I believe jrista has explained this in other threads. The huge downside of crop is the smaller pixels that result in poor high-ISO performance. If you have 24 MP in a crop, the resolution should be pretty impressive, assuming top of the line lenses (advantage goes away as FF gets more MP).
> 
> Jack



I read jrista's comments about it a while ago, and to be honest I had a conclusion in my mind that, in the end, one could achieve similar results when cropping FF. Have I misunderstood? Maybe it was exactly that, pixel density was counterbalanced by cleaner image, and in the end there was no clear advantage for crop. I am not sure anymore, though, and if you are, well, I guess I had better believe you... 
Question: Is it better to shoot with a crop camera than with a FF + teleconverter? 
Anyway, other than that, I am not sure it will be worth buying a 7D2 because a 5D3 will be costing (am I wrong?) nearly the same at the time. We keep praying for 5D3-like AF, 5D3-like IQ etc... Well, if the price is similar, then I see no advantage of the new 7D2 except for when the extra reach is important (not my case).
(Sorry if it was waaaay off-topic.)
Thank you for answering, Jack!
Daniel


----------



## jiphoto (Jan 15, 2014)

unfocused said:


> jiphoto said:
> 
> 
> > I definitely appreciate the 1.6x crop for birds and wildlife, but apart from that very special example, I wish I had FF. It's extremely difficult to find wide-angle lenses that aren't excessively expensive, or off-brand crap...
> ...



That's true, I had forgotten about the Tokina. IMHO, wide-angle lenses for crop cameras become so specialized that one has to be absolutely certain that one will use it well, because otherwise, it's a $300+ paperweight that gets pulled out only when absolutely necessary. I have an old Canon 20-35 (it's in my signature - I wouldn't recommend it), and that's exactly what happened to it when I upgraded from a 28-135 to my current 24-105. The slight FOV difference between 20 and 24mm is not enough for me to leave behind IS and the exponentially better image quality of the 24-105.

High ISO is a huge problem with the 7D, as any 7D owner knows well . I won't deny drooling over 5D3 high-iso shots, and I'd love to have a stop better ISO performance on a 7D successor. The 7D is, in certain cases, nearly a stop better than my old 40D, so we have some hope there, but it seems that every ISO improvement has a substantial price increase attached - the 5D2 -> 5D3 and 1D4 -> 1DX upgrades were both pretty bad in that respect.



DanielW said:


> I read jrista's comments about it a while ago, and to be honest I had a conclusion in my mind that, in the end, one could achieve similar results when cropping FF. Have I misunderstood? Maybe it was exactly that, pixel density was counterbalanced by cleaner image, and in the end there was no clear advantage for crop. I am not sure anymore, though, and if you are, well, I guess I had better believe you...
> Question: Is it better to shoot with a crop camera than with a FF + teleconverter?
> Anyway, other than that, I am not sure it will be worth buying a 7D2 because a 5D3 will be costing (am I wrong?) nearly the same at the time. We keep praying for 5D3-like AF, 5D3-like IQ etc... Well, if the price is similar, then I see no advantage of the new 7D2 except for when the extra reach is important (not my case).



Dan, I can't speak for the newest Canon TCs, but it seems that unless you're willing to pony up $8000+ for one of the newer super-teles specifically designed to work better with TCs, the image degradation for a TC is pretty horrendous. Since unfocused agrees that cropping a FF camera down to APS-C sizes doesn't usually have obvious adverse effects, I'd conclude that there's no need for a teleconverter on an FF if you're looking for the reach of APS-C. Just crop and don't worry about the resolution decrease - even 11x14" prints don't show much difference between 9mp and 18mp (at least from my experience).

I certainly wouldn't complain about the 7D2 having 5D3-level AF and IQ, but the only realistic expectation is probably the AF, and AF is only one piece of the puzzle. If the current 7D suddenly had the 5D3's AF, would people be all over it again?


----------



## Jack Douglas (Jan 15, 2014)

Daniel, I'm no expert to believe!  One thing for sure though is that the 1.4X and 2X if they help you to fill your frame, are better than cropping. I've proven that with my 300 2.8 II and converters III.

I believe what some like me are hoping for is more reach while still being able to keep the portability of the 300 plus converters, and for AF improvement. While I might be able to scrimp and afford a 600, I would be seriously challenged to take it where I would most want it. Thus, I want to try out the elusive 7DII.

If you're thinking wide, go full frame for sure.

Jack


----------



## DanielW (Jan 15, 2014)

jiphoto said:


> If the current 7D suddenly had the 5D3's AF, would people be all over it again?



I would definitely buy one!


----------



## jrista (Jan 15, 2014)

DanielW said:


> Jack Douglas said:
> 
> 
> > "I am aware, from reading previous discussions here, that the crop factor is not a huge advantage (if at all),"
> ...



The quirky thing about that question is it has changed over time. Back when the 7D was first released, there was no question it produced better results in reach-limited scenarios. It's higher spatial resolution extracted more detail, even if that detail was a little more noisy.

The situation has changed today, with the 5D III and 1D X. Both of those cameras have considerably less noise than the 5D II did beforehand, and even less than the 1D III and 1D IV. The quirk here, is that with so much less noise, the detail they resolve can be pushed around more, and cropping then enlarging still produces great results. 

Now, technically speaking, the 7D still resolves more detail. The 7D has 4.3 micron pixels, while the 5D III has 6.25 micron pixels. You can fit 2.11 7D pixels into every 5D III pixel. Even despite the AA filter and the noise levels, the 7D still resolves more detail. I think the key difference most people observe is that the 5D III images are crisper and smoother and cleaner, which in the grand scheme of things produces more pleasing results. 

I feel it these days, when I take nice, razor-sharp images with my 7D, they still lack the clarity and cleanliness of similar 5D III or 1D X images. For those who shoot with the 5D III or 1D X with a 600/4 + 2x TC, even though they have a smaller maximum aperture, their results are STILL less noisy than what I get with my 7D. The 7D only gathers less than 21000e- per pixel at maximum signal (and most images don't expose every pixel to maximum, so the average signal in terms of charge is probably less than 18000e- at ISO 100, and certainly less than that at higher ISOs. The 5D III has over 67000e- per pixel at maximum signal, and the 1D X has over 90000e- per pixel!! The 1D X has a stronger signal at ISO 400 than the 7D does at ISO 100. The 5D III has nearly as strong a signal at ISO 400 as the 7D does at ISO 100. It's that stronger signal that largely overpowers the loss in resolution. For what detail those two cameras DO resolve, despite being less detail than the 7D, it is more well defined detail.

If the 7D II gets its much-needed sensor improvement, and achieves around 30000e- FWC at ISO 100, then that would bring it up to par with the 5D III at ISO 200. That's a full stop of real-world improvement. That could have significant implications for the 7D II IQ. Especially if it achieves that increase along with a resolution increase. At 24mp, with 30000e- FWC, the 7D II would once again be able to offer a TRUE reach advantage over the 5D III and 1D X. It would be roughly equivalent to using the 5D III or 1D X with 1.4x teleconverters to achieve more reach, which would level out the noise differences...however the 7D II would still have a meaningful resolution advantage. Both FF cameras could still be used with 2x teleconverters, at which point they could regain a small advantage over such a hypothetical 7D II...being able to pack more pixels on subject with only slightly greater noise.

I dunno if that answers your question or not, but there is a bit of generational flipflop going on. The 7D used to demonstrate a significant resolution advantage over FF models. With the 5D III and even the 1D X, that resolution advantage is no longer sufficient to overcome the benefit of having less noise with FF. With the 7D II, assuming it gets all the goodies we hope it does, it will once again attain that resolution advantage. If that occurs, then there will be no way to get around the fact that as 7D II with 400mm lens will be just as good as a 5D III with 600mm lens, *for a very small fraction of the cost.* (Can't forget the very significant cost advantage that the 7D enjoyed for so long...the 7D II will have it, too!)


----------



## jrista (Jan 15, 2014)

Jack Douglas said:


> Daniel, I'm no expert to believe!  One thing for sure though is that the 1.4X and 2X if they help you to fill your frame, are better than cropping. I've proven that with my 300 2.8 II and converters III.



The 300/2.8 II would be one of those "$8000 lenses" he was talking about, though (even though it's really only about $6500, it's still out of the price range of most individuals).  If you try to use a 1.4x or 2x TC on the 70-200 f/2.8, or a 1.4x on the 300/4, the results are not nearly as phenomenal as what you experience with your 300/2.8 II.

When you cannot afford to spend thousands on a Mark II supertele and a couple Mark III TCs, the 7D line offers something that is very valuable to a LOT of shooters who have less deep pockets: Free reach. The 7D II should still continue to offer that, and even more so, if it gets a good resolution boost to 24mp.


----------



## photonius (Jan 15, 2014)

jiphoto said:


> CANONisOK said:
> 
> 
> > Sounds interesting. If true, does that mean Canon thinks this development (hybrid viewfinder) somehow eclipses the touch focus (by introducing it in 7DII instead of 70D)? Or maybe it is just another option. But I fail to see what is the big advantage of the hybrid viewfinder over the larger back screen (other than power consumption/visability in adversely bright situations).
> ...



I guess you never used a real video camera, or the old film (e.g., super 8) cameras. Holding it against your eye stabilizes things a lot. In particular the Leicina with the upper compartment that rests against your forehead allowed for nice steady holding. http://www.super8data.com/database/cameras_list/cameras_leicina/leicina_super_rt1.htm


----------



## Marauder (Jan 16, 2014)

I'm not anti-video and I grasp how important it is to provide good, or great, video performance on the new 7D II. That being said though, I too worry that the camera will be compromised too much towards video. Or, more accurately, that the still capability will be compromised in order to achieve the video goals. It's a worry every time they post another video oriented "gee whiz, lookatthat!" rumour. 

However, I do think that the 7D II is still going to be a stellar stills camera. I think the long-rumoured 24 MP wildlife/action/sports powerhouse for which many of us have waited is still coming, with a stellar AF and amazing 10-12 fps tied to a deep buffer.

Although I haven't longed for a hybrid viewfinder, I can see its benefits as a stills shooter as well. Particularly if they offer a "Heads Up Display" sort of arrangement, much as Fuji has done in some of the X series. For example, a transparent, live Historgram overlaid over a corner of the optical view might be useful in challenging lighting conditions. Only time will tell if this is the sort of thing they plan to implement into this new hybrid viewfinder. 

As for Canon's lack of innovation in sensors, well that may be coming to an end. Certainly DPAF has shown that they can be inventive and innovative. Insofar as the technology is more useful for video, some might think that it's a sign that Canon is favouring video over stills, but I don't think that's the case. We've already been told that using Dual Pixel technology for AF is just the beginning of what it can do, so it could be an interesting 3 or 4 years for Canon if that promise can deliver new tricks for stills. 

I also think it is wise to keep in mind how amazing the original 7D was when it first came out. Given how the 5D series has moved from strength to strength, I don't think Canon will compromise on the quality of the 7D II, simply because they will lose a golden opportunity to build on an already incredibly popular product line. If they "blow it" with this product, it will hit them hard where no corporation wants to get hit--their reputation. Although the bread and butter Rebels may be what pays the bills and keeps the lights on, it's the high-profile "flagship" products that allow them to sell those rebels. Delores from Idaho may not know which end of a 1DX is which, but she knows there are lots of Canon cameras at the Olympics and as well as in the hands of pro photographers, and that is what makes her decision to buy a T3i, or SL1 (or a little Canon pocket camera, for that matter). Companies can afford to "blow it" with a low end camera, then replace it with a nearly identical model some months later. Witness the "oops--T4i had a problem with the grips turning white. Better add a fully rotating dial and call it a T5i six months later!" situation. But the same isn't true for a high-end camera. A bad rap in a premium camera is harder to shake. 

Another point to consider is the time factor. Given how long people have been waiting for it, Canon doesn't want the 7D II to underwhelm. It may actually be a positive that it's been so long, insofar as it might mean Canon is waiting till the product is "right" before they release it. Consider the 200-400 F4 IS with 1.4TC--_the wait was so long it became a running gag that it was more akin to Bigfoot than a real lens_. Yet it delivered all that was promised of it when it finally shipped. I know, for most of us that's a moot point--we can't afford it. But we all still wanted it to be phenomenal anyway--and it is! I think it will be like that for the 7D II--except this camera WILL be affordable (if still expensive compared to the other APS-C cameras). 

I've said it before but I'll say it again, I think Canon will make the 7D II (and I hope they choose that name for continuity) will be great, because they don't dare make it anything less than phenomenal. I could be wrong--in which case it will likely flop and flop badly. But I still hold out hope that it will be everything the 7D was in its time---and more! ;D


----------



## jiphoto (Jan 16, 2014)

No, I can't say I have used any of the designed-for-video cameras, but I completely agree that a viewfinder will help those cameras. However, an SLR form factor is much less ergonomically designed for video, so I don't know how effective a viewfinder would be, especially since it's so close to the camera body (difficult, if not downright uncomfortable).


----------



## jrista (Jan 16, 2014)

Marauder said:


> Although I haven't longed for a hybrid viewfinder, I can see its benefits as a stills shooter as well. Particularly if they offer a "Heads Up Display" sort of arrangement, much as Fuji has done in some of the X series. * For example, a transparent, live Historgram overlaid over a corner of the optical view might be useful in challenging lighting conditions.* Only time will tell if this is the sort of thing they plan to implement into this new hybrid viewfinder.



TOTALLY AGREE!! I've said that very thing a few times in the past...with Canon's existing translucent LCD overlay for their OVFs, they could put in a monochrome histogram, which would be IMMENSELY useful for those times where you can't really take your eye away from the viewfinder, and the basic exposure meter isn't sufficient to gauge proper exposure. I think there are so many things Canon could do with their current OVF technology...would be very cool to see them take it farther.



Marauder said:


> As for Canon's lack of innovation in sensors, well that may be coming to an end. Certainly DPAF has shown that they can be inventive and innovative. Insofar as the technology is more useful for video, some might think that it's a sign that Canon is favouring video over stills, but I don't think that's the case. We've already been told that using Dual Pixel technology for AF is just the beginning of what it can do, so it could be an interesting 3 or 4 years for Canon if that promise can deliver new tricks for stills.
> 
> I also think it is wise to keep in mind how amazing the original 7D was when it first came out. Given how the 5D series has moved from strength to strength, I don't think Canon will compromise on the quality of the 7D II, simply because they will lose a golden opportunity to build on an already incredibly popular product line. If they "blow it" with this product, it will hit them hard where no corporation wants to get hit--their reputation. Although the bread and butter Rebels may be what pays the bills and keeps the lights on, it's the high-profile "flagship" products that allow them to sell those rebels. Delores from Idaho may not know which end of a 1DX is which, but she knows there are lots of Canon cameras at the Olympics and as well as in the hands of pro photographers, and that is what makes her decision to buy a T3i, or SL1 (or a little Canon pocket camera, for that matter). Companies can afford to "blow it" with a low end camera, then replace it with a nearly identical model some months later. Witness the "oops--T4i had a problem with the grips turning white. Better add a fully rotating dial and call it a T5i six months later!" situation. But the same isn't true for a high-end camera. A bad rap in a premium camera is harder to shake.
> 
> ...



+1 Great insights. Particularly the points about the great overall leaps forward the 5D III and 1D X were relative to their predecessors. I guess if you apply that logic to the 7D II, which is still a pro-grade DSLR, then that would indicate the 7D II should see a similar overall leap forward. I still fear THE TRICKLE...but maybe that's just Canon's MO for lower end products (which they release far more of far more frequently than pro-grade anything.) Maybe the 7D II will still be what we all hope it will be, plus the Hybrid VF.

(Personally, I am not concerned with timeframe, as you say...the more time Canon takes on the 7D II, the better it should be when it finally arrives. I can get the 5D III in the interim, which I suspect would still be my primary even if I picked up a 7D II in the future.)


----------



## Marauder (Jan 16, 2014)

Thanks Jon. I'm definitely hoping and expecting for great things for the 7D II. Truth be told, I think the 70D is an amazing camera and it raises the bar for the 7D II because of it. 

I think the "Trickle" is a very real phenomenon and I concur that they do it, but I think it's mainly their Rebels that tend to embody that phenomenon. Moreover, it kind of makes sense too. Rebels come out at intervals of less than a year, so having "too much" appear in a model might hit the bottom line, and hard at that, as it would compromise the viability of older products. 

For example, the T5i is a better overall camera than the T3i, but not so much better that I'd steer a new photographer from purchasing a T3i. It's still a great little camera. When I'm not shooting "things that move," I still use it a great deal. Sometimes it gets used more than my 7D. Naturally, the 7D is greatly superior for catching BIF, airshows and historical events to get musket or cannon flash, having an amazing burst rate and excellent buffer and much better AF system. But for landscapes and the like, the T3i does at least as good a job. That being said, "trickling" the tech at the rapidly replaced low end allows Canon to maximise their profit margins on a product that needs a "new" product every 10 months or so, without obsoleting existing models. So you can have long-duration, solid products like the T2i and T3i (and even viable "super-budget" ones like the T3!), while still offering a worthwhile, but minimum resource upgrade such as the T4i/T5i. Sensor and IQ of the latter are little changed, but you get decent perks, such as the very highly regarded touch-screen and 9 cross-type AF points, rather than 1 cross-type and 8 standard AF points on the former. 

But, when it comes to products like the xxD and the XD series, Canon seems to be willing to really deliver on the goods! If the 70D blew away the 60D (and it does), then I think the 7D II will do the same to the 7D. Canon will be making a huge mistake if they don't wow those of us who want this camera to be the most amazing APS-C camera ever. That's what I think they have to aim for--and that's what I think they will accomplish. Only time will tell if that assessment is correct! LOL

Jeff




jrista said:


> Marauder said:
> 
> 
> > Although I haven't longed for a hybrid viewfinder, I can see its benefits as a stills shooter as well. Particularly if they offer a "Heads Up Display" sort of arrangement, much as Fuji has done in some of the X series. * For example, a transparent, live Historgram overlaid over a corner of the optical view might be useful in challenging lighting conditions.* Only time will tell if this is the sort of thing they plan to implement into this new hybrid viewfinder.
> ...


----------



## Don Haines (Jan 16, 2014)

Jack Douglas said:


> Daniel, I'm no expert to believe!  One thing for sure though is that the 1.4X and 2X if they help you to fill your frame, are better than cropping. I've proven that with my 300 2.8 II and converters III.
> 
> I believe what some like me are hoping for is more reach while still being able to keep the portability of the 300 plus converters, and for AF improvement. While I might be able to scrimp and afford a 600, I would be seriously challenged to take it where I would most want it. Thus, I want to try out the elusive 7DII.
> 
> ...


A lot of argument over the relative value of teleconverters and crop/ff depends a lot on the lens.

If you use a teleconverter on a soft lens, you can decrease the resolving power. If you use it on a sharp lens you will increase the resolving power.

Likewise, a soft lens on a FF camera may out-resolve (or at least be close to) that same soft lens on a crop camera, yet with a sharp lens it may be the other way around...

In other words, if you are going long, the lens quality is more important than FF or Crop.

And Jack is definitely right about going wide.... FF all the way! The wider the angle of the lens, the harder it is to design without distortion and the harder it is to make it sharp. If you wanted the same angle of view on a crop camera as 24mm on a FF camera, you would need a 15mm lens. With the same level of design and materials you can not make a 15mm lens as well as a 24mm lens, so just on the glass, FF wins in IQ.....plus there is all the usual stuff about less noise, higher ISO, etc etc...


----------



## jiphoto (Jan 16, 2014)

Don Haines said:


> Jack Douglas said:
> 
> 
> > Daniel, I'm no expert to believe!  One thing for sure though is that the 1.4X and 2X if they help you to fill your frame, are better than cropping. I've proven that with my 300 2.8 II and converters III.
> ...




This is very true: certain lenses are known to disagree with teleconverters - the 100-400L is a good example of that, for multiple reasons. The teleconverter quality also matters - a cheap teleconverter can be worse than cropping a photo. I have an $80ish TC that actually degrades the quality of my 100-400 - a total waste of money.


----------



## jdramirez (Jan 16, 2014)

jiphoto said:


> Don Haines said:
> 
> 
> > Jack Douglas said:
> ...



I have a Canon 1.4 mkii teleconvertor. Just as a cautionary tale... mind telling people which brand the $80 TC is?


----------



## jiphoto (Jan 16, 2014)

jdramirez said:


> jiphoto said:
> 
> 
> > Don Haines said:
> ...


It's a Bower. I think it's the same generic brand as Rokinon/Samyang.


----------



## jdramirez (Jan 16, 2014)

jiphoto said:


> It's a Bower. I think it's the same generic brand as Rokinon/Samyang.



I have a Rokinon fisheye... I don't hate the fisheye... but I stopped using it after its initial novelty wore off... so not a bad lens... but a bad decision on my part. 

I've occasionally thought about buying a 500mm f/8 or something like that... but fortunately I come to my senses.


----------



## jrista (Jan 16, 2014)

jiphoto said:


> jdramirez said:
> 
> 
> > jiphoto said:
> ...



It may not be the Bower TC that causes the IQ loss. I mean, it will cause some, but the 100-400 sucks even with the EF 1.4x III (which it doesn't even function properly with), and while it functions properly with the much-loved Kenko Teleplus Pro 300 GDX 1.4x TC, the IQ still sucks (a little bit more than the Canon 1.4x, but the differences aren't huge.) I think it's just that the old 100-400mm lens design was built in the film era, at the early dawn of the digital era, and the bar for quality wasn't as high back then. It is most definitely a softish camera at f/5.6 and f/6.3, and only really starts to sharpen up by f/7.1 and f/8. With a TC, you would be at f/11, which imposes a significant hit on either shutter speed (which increases softness from camera shake) or ISO (which packs on the noise, especially on a 7D). 

It is possible that your $80 Bower TC is just fine, and that it just doesn't pair well with 100-400 (because, well, NO TC pairs well with that lens. )


----------



## jiphoto (Jan 16, 2014)

jrista said:


> jiphoto said:
> 
> 
> > It's a Bower. I think it's the same generic brand as Rokinon/Samyang.
> ...


There's probably something to do with the age of the 100-400 and its dislike of TCs, but I've tried the Bower TC on my old 28-135, and the TC definitely degraded the sharpness there too. Maybe I got a bad copy. I imagine the Kenko brand is a tad better than Bower. I hear the Bower/Rokinon/Samyang conglomerate makes fairly good lenses, so maybe they just don't make good teleconverters. It's probably very difficult to optimize a teleconverter for a bunch of very different lenses.


----------



## jrista (Jan 16, 2014)

jiphoto said:


> jrista said:
> 
> 
> > jiphoto said:
> ...



The Kenko is decent, but it is definitely not as good as the Canon TCs. It allows just barely visible improvements when attached vs. when not attached. Subjects are definitely larger in the frame, but you don't get the same kind of increase in overall detail as with a Canon TC.

Something else I've noticed with the Kenko TC...boke circles look TERRIBLE. They have this funky warped star effect which just looks rather bad, so I don't really use it much anymore. It's great though, for people who want f/8 AF on camera bodies, like the 7D, that don't normally support it (so the boke issue just doesn't matter in those cases). It does allow f/8 AF, and in good light, even the 100-400 will focus automatically, albeit slowly.

If you have a good lens, and a body that supports AF at the smaller apertures, get a Canon TC. No question they offer better quality. If you have a body that does not support f/8 AF and you need it (probably best with the 400/5.6 L prime), the Kenko is the best bet. (Actually, the Kenko MC4 seems to produce better IQ overall than the Kenko Pro 300 DGX, so I actually recommend getting that one...I simply couldn't find one for sale when I bought mine.)


----------



## scottkinfw (Jan 16, 2014)

I would have to say that the iQ from the 5D3 is awesome, and the ISO performance is spectacular in low light and high ISO's, so the new crop sensor along with the body it ships in would have to be very interesting for me to consider giving up that quality, when I can just get a 1.4X tele-extender and more or less get the same reach, and do it for ~$425 USD with current sales going on now.

My two cents.

And what do others think of that take on it?

Scott



DanielW said:


> jrista said:
> 
> 
> > It's looking more and more like I am going to be investing my money in a 5D III.
> ...


----------



## weixing (Jan 16, 2014)

jrista said:


> jiphoto said:
> 
> 
> > jrista said:
> ...


Hi,
I use the Kenko Pro 300 DGX 1.4x (blue dot version) on my 400mm F5.6L and 6D all the time and the bokeh look normal to me... focusing speed is only slightly slower. Anyway, bokeh is cause by the aperture blades, right? So the quality of the bokeh should be determine by the lens design.

Have a nice day.


----------



## Jack Douglas (Jan 16, 2014)

scottkinfw, that makes sense only some of us already have the 1.4X or 2X attached and still need (would like)more reach. 

My plan when I bought the 6D was that it would be great for travel and landscape and then I'd buy a second body. I'm toying with the 7DII idea because all this season I shot 90+% with 300 X2 and the reach for birds is just about enough but more would be really great. The 7DII would have to be very good for me to accept a crop after using FF, I know. 

I might consider 1Dx but that's big $$$ and worse it's a heavy camera combined with heavy lenses, not the greatest for hiking. Of course, there is the 5DIII that I might consider if something new doesn't show up from Canon by about April.

Jack


----------



## jiphoto (Jan 16, 2014)

jrista said:


> jiphoto said:
> 
> 
> > jrista said:
> ...


Interestingly, even though the Bower TC doesn't report itself to the camera, the 7D fails to confirm focus, just racking back and forth until it gives up. I'd expect it to focus at least in bright, contrasty situations, but even the live view contrast-detect focus has a very hard time with it. It seems like the teleconverter is just not good enough to allow autofocus... which has bad implications for image quality!

I've thought about buying a Kenko, but the teleconverter isn't really worth much to me for nearly all my usage of my 100-400, so why spend another $150 for slightly better IQ?


----------



## jdramirez (Jan 16, 2014)

I missed the left turn some where. Why are we talking about tc's?


----------



## jiphoto (Jan 16, 2014)

jdramirez said:


> I missed the left turn some where. Why are we talking about tc's?


The thread went on a tangent about crop cameras vs. TCs on FF... I think I was involved : .


Back on topic... I'd love the "hybrid viewfinder" to be capable of something like a heads-up display, showing more options, like changing AF modes in a more complex way than highlighting points, maybe a couple custom AF presets, or a histogram?


----------



## photonius (Jan 17, 2014)

jiphoto said:


> No, I can't say I have used any of the designed-for-video cameras, but I completely agree that a viewfinder will help those cameras. However, an SLR form factor is much less ergonomically designed for video, so I don't know how effective a viewfinder would be, especially since it's so close to the camera body (difficult, if not downright uncomfortable).



I totally agree, the dSLR form factor is not optimal. This form factor is simply dictated by the mirror.
With an electronic viewfinder only, it could be placed (as it is in a few cameras) to the side, so that your nose doesn't bump into the back of the camera.


----------



## photonius (Jan 17, 2014)

weixing said:


> . Anyway, bokeh is cause by the aperture blades, right? So the quality of the bokeh should be determine by the lens design.
> 
> Have a nice day.



Not really, the shape of the aperture blades determines the shape of the light circles in out of focus areas when the lens is stopped down. Ideally you want a circle, not a hexagon or pentagon (as with older lenses). That's only one parameter.
But you are right, it is influenced by the lens design (the glass). An important aspect of bokey is also the quality of such out of focus light circles. It should be smooth. And it's not always, for example aspherical elements cause ring like structures. http://toothwalker.org/optics/bokeh.html The worst offenders are the mirror lenses, which give a circle bokeh.


----------



## jrista (Jan 17, 2014)

weixing said:


> Hi,
> I use the Kenko Pro 300 DGX 1.4x (blue dot version) on my 400mm F5.6L and 6D all the time and the bokeh look normal to me... focusing speed is only slightly slower. Anyway, bokeh is cause by the aperture blades, right? So the quality of the bokeh should be determine by the lens design.
> 
> Have a nice day.



Boke is determined by the whole lens design, not just the number of blades in the aperture. The _shape _of the blur circle is ultimately determined by the number of blades, and whether they are rounded or not...but the QUALITY of the blur is determined by the quality of the lens design, it's glass, what kinds of aberrations it has, etc. It is quite clear that the Kenko design is not as high quality as the Canon design, as there are definitely differences in the quality of boke. Canon blur circles are much cleaner.


----------



## Sella174 (Jan 18, 2014)

Even though this is just CR1, it is typical of the Canon trend of targeting wannabee movie-makers, instead of concentrating on serious photographers.


----------



## jdramirez (Jan 18, 2014)

Sella174 said:


> Even though this is just CR1, it is typical of the Canon trend of targeting wannabee movie-makers, instead of concentrating on serious photographers.



Maybe it's like the 50's... you know your wife isn't going to leave you regardless of how many cocktail waitresses you court.


----------



## Rienzphotoz (Jan 18, 2014)

Sella174 said:


> Even though this is just CR1, it is typical of the Canon trend of targeting wannabee movie-makers, instead of concentrating on serious photographers.


At the end of the day Canon, like every other camera manufacturer, is a company responsible to make money for its shareholders ... there are LOTS of companies making decent to great cameras that can take awesome images, so, "topping" every spec or the performance of every camera out there (in its class) isn't necessarily a wise business decision ... Canon caters to the masses, who at the moment happens to be those who are interested in both great stills and great video ... remember, 5D MK II? it had the worst AF possible but it became a rage and a run away hit, because of it video capability and literally changed the camera industry ... believe it or not fusion photography (stills and video mixed together) is the "in" thing right now. Personally I really like it that way, it makes for a very interesting watch, especially if they are 3 to 5 mins long ... I make many such videos for my company, and our CEO likes them very much and frequently requests me to make short "fusion" stuff for our Board of Directors presentations or for our town hall meetings.


----------



## Don Haines (Jan 18, 2014)

Sella174 said:


> Even though this is just CR1, it is typical of the Canon trend of targeting wannabee movie-makers, instead of concentrating on serious photographers.


What if they didn't? What if canon removed video features from their cameras and produced stills only cameras?

For one thing, look at how much simpler the controls would be. You would no longer have a movie button on the back of the camera and there would no longer be a movie stop on the mode dial.... This would make using the camera so much easier to use that it staggers the mind!

You would not have live view, because that feature is only good for video. Real photographers ALWAYS shoot looking through the viewfinder. I, for one, enjoy lying in the muck and ooze when I take low level pictures in the swamp....

The real advantage is price, get rid of all those video features and you could reduce the price.... Even though sales would plummet because the vast bulk of consumers want video features and would not buy a camera without it, I am sure that the remaining fraction of a percent would remain loyal to Canon, and that even though Canon would loose all manufacturing economies of scale, they would be willing to reduce camera prices even though their cost per unit tripled and their production facilities are now lying deserted.....and I am sure that Canon shareholders would support such a move and rally behind the management team that reduced the worth of their shares from billions of dollars to pennies....

IT IS NOT GOING TO HAPPEN!


----------



## Sella174 (Jan 18, 2014)

Rienzphotoz said:


> Sella174 said:
> 
> 
> > Even though this is just CR1, it is typical of the Canon trend of targeting wannabee movie-makers, instead of concentrating on serious photographers.
> ...



True. But is the "*DSLR* movie-maker" market sustainable in the long run, as compared to stills photography? How many current DSLR movie-makers will stick with DSLR's through their entire career (provided, of course, that they actually make a career out of movies and it is not just a "student" thing), instead of migrating to "real" movie cameras?

I am not advocating that Canon goes the route that Don Haines suggests above (and Nikon did with the Df), but rather that they stop trying to make DSLR's into movie cameras that can also do stills photography. If I should actually make a suggestion, then it would be that Canon introduce a seriously cheaper movie camera that utilises EF lenses - kind of like BlackMagic does for Micro-4/3, only better.

But back to the original rumour, which states that the overlay will *only* be available in movie mode, which is the crux of my gripe. As others have suggested, an overlay - as compared to an EVF - would in certain parts be most useful for stills photography, as well. But, just like the dual-pixel AF of the EOS 70D, it will be for video use only!


----------



## jiphoto (Jan 18, 2014)

Don Haines said:


> Sella174 said:
> 
> 
> > Even though this is just CR1, it is typical of the Canon trend of targeting wannabee movie-makers, instead of concentrating on serious photographers.
> ...


This is so accurate - for a supporting example, look at Nikon's Df. A "stills-only" camera that somehow manages to be the same price as a common discount on the 5D 3... and the same price as a D800, both of which are known for great image quality _and_ good video. I'm sure Nikon could have made the Df cheaper, but the fact that they didn't gives us a good idea of what Canon could do too. It wouldn't be our dream stills-only DR/high ISO monster for $800.




Sella174 said:


> I am not advocating that Canon goes the route that Don Haines suggests above (and Nikon did with the Df), but rather that they stop trying to make DSLR's into movie cameras that can also do stills photography. If I should actually make a suggestion, then it would be that Canon introduce a seriously cheaper movie camera that utilises EF lenses - kind of like BlackMagic does for Micro-4/3, only better.


I really like that idea - imagine what Canon could do with an EF-mount camcorder using the 70D's sensor! It wouldn't have all the pro-style inputs and outputs of the C series, but it could definitely have clean HDMI out (look at the Vixia mini X recently announced, clean HDMI is available on it). Filmmakers have been using dSLRs for the video quality, not necessarily their ease of use, so making something that caters to the video people while cutting out the stills portion of the camera is a completely valid idea. If you think about the hardware necessary to produce stills versus videos, it's actually substantially more cost-effective to cut out the stills portion, which involves viewfinder, phase-detect AF system, mode dial and accompanying surfaces, all the RAW processing capabilities... you get the idea.


I agree, it would be completely disappointing to find that Canon went the route of the 70D's DPAF and allowed the hybrid viewfinder to be used only for video shooting. The question is whether they go the route of some of the old Sony cameras, and divert the viewfinder view from the mirror to a separate screen, or the Fuji X-Pro 1's route and make the EVF capable of overlaying the viewfinder as well as taking over entirely.


----------



## linus (Jan 19, 2014)

I can't believe I overlooked this post the other day.

This is exactly the direction I've been hoping Canon would take dslrs and will be a very exciting development, if true.


----------

