# New 7D2 'studio version' released?



## ahsanford (Mar 31, 2016)

Every time I think Canon has too many camera bodies, I find out about nutty once-every-so-often left field releases like the astro rigs or, now, _this_:

http://www.the-digital-picture.com/News/News-Post.aspx?News=17982

I played the video briefly and see what they're doing here. But why on earth does this need dedicated hardware? Couldn't firmware have been released to tinker with the EXIF files instead? 

- A


----------



## ahsanford (Mar 31, 2016)

And no. It's not April 1st yet.


----------



## bluemoon (Mar 31, 2016)

It needs bluetooth!


pierre


----------



## tr573 (Mar 31, 2016)

ahsanford said:


> Every time I think Canon has too many camera bodies, I find out about nutty once-every-so-often left field releases like the astro rigs or, now, _this_:
> 
> http://www.the-digital-picture.com/News/News-Post.aspx?News=17982
> 
> ...



No bluetooth for the barcode reader in the std hardware. I assume Nikon makes special versions like these also, as all the disney parks photographers have nikon stuff and they use barcode and rfid readers to attach photos to a guests account.


----------



## ahsanford (Mar 31, 2016)

tr573 said:


> ahsanford said:
> 
> 
> > Every time I think Canon has too many camera bodies, I find out about nutty once-every-so-often left field releases like the astro rigs or, now, _this_:
> ...



Ah. I didn't know that. I presumed the wireless transmitters have them these days -- but I'm not a studio photog and have never used one.

Thx for clearing that up. Why a 7D and not a FF studio rig? Do 1D or 5D bodies get this similar treatment, or does the sealed top inhibit the possibility to do this?

- A


----------



## Mark D5 TEAM II (Mar 31, 2016)

The old 7D had an SV version as well, so maybe this is the most popular level to add this specialist functionality to.


----------



## tr573 (Mar 31, 2016)

ahsanford said:


> tr573 said:
> 
> 
> > ahsanford said:
> ...



Not really sure. This kind of functionality is more suited to on the go guest (like theme parks) or assembly line style (mall santa) photography than it is to studio stuff IMO, so the name is a bit odd. I'd imagine people using 1 series bodies in an actual studio setting are just shooting tethered with ethernet for speed and reliability.


----------



## Sharlin (Mar 31, 2016)

tr573 said:


> ahsanford said:
> 
> 
> > Thx for clearing that up. Why a 7D and not a FF studio rig? Do 1D or 5D bodies get this similar treatment, or does the sealed top inhibit the possibility to do this?
> ...



Yeah, also class photos and such. It appears the main feature of these "studio versions" is that almost all camera features can be selectively locked or unlocked, allowing, ehm, limited-skill professionals do repetitive routine shooting without worrying about accidentally changing settings. Presumably the "studio" in the name is mostly a marketing euphemism.


----------



## Maui5150 (Mar 31, 2016)

ahsanford said:


> Every time I think Canon has too many camera bodies, I find out about nutty once-every-so-often left field releases like the astro rigs or, now, _this_:
> 
> http://www.the-digital-picture.com/News/News-Post.aspx?News=17982
> 
> ...


Will believe when I see... Seeing a lot more early Aprils Fools today


----------



## ahsanford (Mar 31, 2016)

Maui5150 said:


> ahsanford said:
> 
> 
> > Every time I think Canon has too many camera bodies, I find out about nutty once-every-so-often left field releases like the astro rigs or, now, _this_:
> ...



Then play the video I linked and start believing. Looks like a TON of work to fake something so specific in such detail.

And a 7D1 SV version used to exist: http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/745408-REG/Canon_3829B010_EOS_7D_Studio_Version.html

- A


----------



## RickWagoner (Mar 31, 2016)

The 7D2 is lacking modern features but this is disgusting,,,,sad,,,,sad


----------



## neuroanatomist (Mar 31, 2016)

RickWagoner said:


> The 7D2 is lacking modern features but this is disgusting,,,,sad,,,,sad



You must feel so personally wounded that Canon released a product for which you have no use. :


----------



## TeT (Mar 31, 2016)

neuroanatomist said:


> RickWagoner said:
> 
> 
> > The 7D2 is lacking modern features but this is disgusting,,,,sad,,,,sad
> ...



Thats what I was thinking...


----------



## TeT (Mar 31, 2016)

The Digital Picture is big on bringing at least a decent April Fools post...


----------



## LSXPhotog (Mar 31, 2016)

It's so weird and also show just how cumbersome the WiFi transmitter looks to work with. The use of this feature would be good for school photographers because they could have every student bring their barcode up before they get their photos. When it's all uploaded into the computer, the images can be organized very easily. It's doubtful there is any true benefit to this system for anyone other than the intended target market. Someone pointed out that most theme parks use Nikon d3200 or d3000s, so I'm sure they have something similar in a smaller, more affordable package. Surprising this change wasn't added to a T5/T6 or 70D/80D instead of a $1499-1799 camera.


----------



## Tugela (Mar 31, 2016)

tr573 said:


> ahsanford said:
> 
> 
> > tr573 said:
> ...



It is to make it sound fancy, when in reality it is aimed at the photographic equivalent of ambulance chasers.

Real studios would likely never use the "studio version".


----------



## saveyourmoment (Mar 31, 2016)

everytime i see this ugly awkward wireless transimmter, i shake my head: canon what are you thinking, this is a design fail all the way, who is responsible for this, fire him/her!... please do not fail with your 5d IV/X and make a wirelesstransmitter like the 1dx/ii has got...


----------



## Tugela (Mar 31, 2016)

neuroanatomist said:


> RickWagoner said:
> 
> 
> > The 7D2 is lacking modern features but this is disgusting,,,,sad,,,,sad
> ...



The problem is that they do it time after time after time. When do they plan to release a product that I actually do have a use for? They are always and consistently a dollar short and a day late. That is why I personally have a cynical view of them. If they want my respect, then they need to pony up and perform. I don't think that is an unreasonable expectation. Of course, there are always those who have low expectations and will salivate over whatever scraps are thrown their way. I don't have much respect for those folks either btw 

There is zero reason why this sort of functionality could not have been built in from the get go. After all it is supposed to be a pro camera. They don't need to release a dozen variants of the same camera.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Mar 31, 2016)

Tugela said:


> The problem is that they do it time after time after time. When do they plan to release a product that I actually do have a use for?



That's _your_ problem, not Canon's. 




Tugela said:


> There is zero reason why this sort of functionality could not have been built in from the get go. After all it is supposed to be a pro camera. They don't need to release a dozen variants of the same camera.



As usual, you and your ilk always think you know better than Canon how Canon should spend Canon's money and how Canon should formulate Canon's business strategy. 

There's 'zero reason'? Gee, Canon must be idiots to do it the way they are, right? I mean, it's not like they might have any data to support their strategy here, say things like market research or even something simple like how many units of the SV version of the original 7D were sold, and whether that version yielded a positive return on investment. Where are _your_ data showing that you know better?

Oh, and yes, I get that you probably meant 'no technical reason' it can't be built in. If so, I guess you think typical users need multiple levels of password controls, recovery options, etc., and that a barcode solution suitable for medical/forensic use is going to come in handy for lots of photographers. If Canon users really wanted 40 extra menu choices to sift through, they'd switch to Sony or Nikon.


----------



## maz (Mar 31, 2016)

why could this feature not simply be implemented in the image analysis software? almost any phone with a camera can read even 2D barcodes these days. Something Magic Lantern may want to do.


----------



## TeT (Mar 31, 2016)

Tugela said:


> It is to make it sound fancy, when in reality it is aimed at the photographic equivalent of ambulance chasers.
> 
> Real studios would likely never use the "studio version".



so Mall photo studio's are not real... They probably out produce almost any "real" studio you can name, followed closely by Target, K-Mart, JC Penny's (if they still do it) Sears. Theme parks or School picture day ppl probably outproduce all of em by themselves. 

This get up is a huge PROFESSIONAL workflow management tool. Those places usually utilize workflow solutions so they can have only one employee handle it ALL.

BTW:Most of these outfits use APC Which is why you wont have to worry about seeing it on your FF ...

Of course it could be Brian's annual 04/01 offering...


----------



## RustyTheGeek (Mar 31, 2016)

neuroanatomist said:


> Tugela said:
> 
> 
> > The problem is that they do it time after time after time. When do they plan to release a product that I actually do have a use for?
> ...



Honestly *Neuro*, I don't understand your negative post replies above. I was thinking roughly the same thing as *Tugela*. Why does this feature demand a special camera body? These camera body settings appear to be software only items. I'm willing to bet they are already hidden in the firmware on existing 7D-2 bodies. All that needs to be done is have an extra menu item in Custom Settings that enables the Photo Studio Mode (and necc sub menus). In fact, I see no reason why "Photo Studio Mode" settings couldn't be available on ALL of Canon's 5D, 7D and 1D series cameras that most pros use. Then Canon gets to sell all the extra side hardware needed to curious/interested customers. 

Don't most _studios_ use FF? (At least studios that can afford to buy a whole dedicated body just for barcodes and would probably buy at least TWO or THREE to protect workflow and potential downtime at a big event.) Why make folks buy a whole other crop body? Seems pretty redundant and will probably discourage most pros that might otherwise try out a barcode approach if all they had to buy was a set of the extra hardware to test the approach with existing camera bodies. Most pros already probably have a customer/product ID/tracking system that works for them and this isn't going to be worth the investment if they have to buy all new bodies and hardware to boot. In most cases, if it ain't broke....


----------



## ahsanford (Mar 31, 2016)

RustyTheGeek said:


> Why does this feature demand a special camera body? These camera body settings appear to be software only items. I'm willing to bet they are already hidden in the firmware on existing 7D-2 bodies. All that needs to be done is have an extra menu item in Custom Settings that enables the Photo Studio Mode (and necc sub menus). In fact, I see no reason why "Photo Studio Mode" settings couldn't be available on ALL of Canon's 5D, 7D and 1D series cameras that most pros use. Then Canon gets to sell all the extra side hardware needed to curious/interested customers.



As someone else pointed out earlier in the thread, this is Bluetooth related. You can't tack _that_ on with firmware unless it's been sitting on the 7D2 this the whole time without our knowledge.

- A


----------



## unfocused (Mar 31, 2016)

neuroanatomist said:


> RickWagoner said:
> 
> 
> > The 7D2 is lacking modern features but this is disgusting,,,,sad,,,,sad
> ...



I am surprised that someone who is so close to Canon's development team and has so much inside knowledge about future products wasn't aware of this already and didn't have the opportunity to influence the design. 

But, then I am also curious what "modern features" the 7DII lacks.


----------



## unfocused (Mar 31, 2016)

TeT said:


> ... They probably out produce almost any "real" studio you can name, followed closely by Target, K-Mart, JC Penny's (if they still do it) Sears. Theme parks or School picture day ppl probably outproduce all of em by themselves.
> 
> This get up is a huge PROFESSIONAL workflow management tool. Those places usually utilize workflow solutions so they can have only one employee handle it ALL.



Exactly. As has already been pointed out, Canon released a studio version of the original 7D. They must have sold enough to justify making a new version.

It's clearly a specialized tool and those who don't need it don't have to buy it. But really, I can't understand why so many people on this forum feel the need to nitpick and second guess everything Canon does.


----------



## biscuit (Mar 31, 2016)

Sharlin said:


> tr573 said:
> 
> 
> > ahsanford said:
> ...



Maybe "7D2 - mall Santa version" wasn't a hit with marketing.


----------



## ahsanford (Mar 31, 2016)

unfocused said:


> neuroanatomist said:
> 
> 
> > RickWagoner said:
> ...



I will not speak on Rick's behalf (and this is not aimed at him), but here's the aggregated 7D2 gripe list I am aware of:


Those jerk FF sensors keep outperforming my 7D2 in low light. That's BS. I want to shoot a feeding bat in total darkness at 1/8000th of a second.


Those jerk mirrorless setups have more AF points than I do. That's _super_ BS. I want my AF to lock on things even if they are out of frame. My 7D2 should know better and take care of it.


Other crop cameras released after my 7D2 have newer technology that I want! I want apps and automated AFMA and low interest rates on a new car.


It's the 7D2's fault that I don't have a 200-500 f/5.6 IS for $1400 like Nikon does.

Did I miss any?

- A


----------



## ahsanford (Mar 31, 2016)

biscuit said:


> Maybe "7D2 - mall Santa version" wasn't a hit with marketing.



The kids say LOL, I'm told. 

Well done. 

- A


----------



## RustyTheGeek (Mar 31, 2016)

ahsanford said:


> RustyTheGeek said:
> 
> 
> > Why does this feature demand a special camera body? These camera body settings appear to be software only items. I'm willing to bet they are already hidden in the firmware on existing 7D-2 bodies. All that needs to be done is have an extra menu item in Custom Settings that enables the Photo Studio Mode (and necc sub menus). In fact, I see no reason why "Photo Studio Mode" settings couldn't be available on ALL of Canon's 5D, 7D and 1D series cameras that most pros use. Then Canon gets to sell all the extra side hardware needed to curious/interested customers.
> ...



??? *Bluetooth?* ??? Let me get this straight... I have to buy an external wireless transmitter to attach to this camera body and then I'm forced to buy a SPECIAL 7D camera body just so I can get BLUETOOTH? (Along with some simple menu items and a fancy battery door.) No offense to you *ahsanford* but that is the biggest waste of money and insulting rip-off I've seen in a long while. I mean, if we're already hanging an expensive bulky wireless module off the camera that makes it unstable on a tripod and more fragile with wires sticking off the side, why can't we just hang more crap off the side for bluetooth while we're at it? Canon could charge another $200 for that module too! :

Things like this hurt Canon's image because it makes photographers that endorse, support, promote and otherwise like their products feel exploited and taken advantage of. Offering an expensive, less than elegant band-aid parts system like this to photographers when there is clearly a better way to design/offer it for less is a joke. It's one thing to offer the extra parts/modules to add to an existing body. But since that isn't the case here...

IMHO - If Canon wants to offer a dedicated "Photo Studio" body that is practically identical to the 7D body many pros already own then they should get all the essential wireless hardware built into that body and sell it as a package with the external barcode reader and software. (AND make that special body work with most other industry barcode solutions.) THAT would at least make it _appear_ that they are trying to justify buying an expensive dedicated body that is otherwise _redundant_.

Seriously, just like they offer Camera Bodies with or without a Kit Lens. Same thing. 7D-PS Kit (with Barcode Gun & Software) or 7D-PS Body only.

Please understand that I'm not trying to be insulting or negative. I'm trying to be practical and pragmatic and I think a dedicated body really isn't necc to give Canon's user base what they need. And Canon can still make money on it in other ways that are more practical.


----------



## brad-man (Mar 31, 2016)

unfocused said:


> neuroanatomist said:
> 
> 
> > RickWagoner said:
> ...




One of these...


----------



## ahsanford (Mar 31, 2016)

RustyTheGeek said:


> ahsanford said:
> 
> 
> > As someone else pointed out earlier in the thread, this is Bluetooth related. You can't tack _that_ on with firmware unless it's been sitting on the 7D2 this the whole time without our knowledge.
> ...



I am neither a Canon spokesperson nor fond of this product. I'm just answering your question based on a plausible theory why this isn't a firmware opportunity.

In fairness, I haven't even verified this theory. I thought the 7D2's wireless file transmitter actually had some form of bluetooth connectivity, didn't it? 

- A


----------



## Don Haines (Mar 31, 2016)

ahsanford said:


> unfocused said:
> 
> 
> > neuroanatomist said:
> ...


The 7D2 does not have built in WiFi. It does not have an ap for phones/tablets that lets you remote control them. This is a huge disappointment.... a deal breaker... it makes the camera obsolete before it was released..... and yet somehow I was tricked into buying this camera despite knowing how the lack of that feature made it a worthless POS..... and even worse, the camera has performed flawlessly summer and winter, rain and sun, and even lets me adjust the exposure by 5435434 stops (well, really only about 4) when I take a picture with the settings wrong. I know that this is just Canon mocking me! I will have my revenge!


----------



## Don Haines (Apr 1, 2016)

you just have to assume this is an April Fools joke....

If it was real, instead of basing it on a 7D2 and an external (and very expensive) WiFi transmiutter, they would have gone for the much cheaper 70D or 80D WITH BUILT IN WIFI!!!!!


----------



## ahsanford (Apr 1, 2016)

Don Haines said:


> you just have to assume this is an April Fools joke....
> 
> If it was real, instead of basing it on a 7D2 and an external (and very expensive) WiFi transmiutter, they would have gone for the much cheaper 70D or 80D WITH BUILT IN WIFI!!!!!



I could entirely be mistaken, but specialty rigs like these trail the bleeding edge of Canon's development work. Astro rigs are similarly announced on not-exactly-spanking-new models, aren't they? 

Hell, they may have even farmed the product development work outside as a 2nd or 3rd tier priority.

- A


----------



## Bennymiata (Apr 1, 2016)

Having done school photos, and very busy events, the features could come in handy.
What does surprise me is that the wireless box has to be connected to the camera with an exterior cable that could cause lots of problems.
As the wifi tx is a dedicated box, why don't they have contacts on the bottom of the camera instead of that cable?

That is just poor design IMHO.


----------



## jebrady03 (Apr 1, 2016)

This is basically just FW and supplemental hardware, right? Why not just allow people to pay for a FW update to their camera(s) when they buy the supplemental hardware, and have the FW apply to ANY EOS camera? Seems to me, a more customer friendly solution.


----------



## RickWagoner (Apr 1, 2016)

unfocused said:


> neuroanatomist said:
> 
> 
> > RickWagoner said:
> ...



No reason to third party test this as it is a software update if anything. If it is real i would have no doubt not many people outside of Canon HQ knew anything about it. 

WIFI is a feature that should of been in the 7DII, if it was present one would not need a bulky scanner or transmitter. Just connect your phone and use your phone's camera to scan the barcode..

Also a modern feature that it lacks is its sales, so bad dealers are giving them away for $1000 WITH a printer. Little ole 70D is still only $200 off release date price, has much more competition in the marketplace and even has it's replacement shipping now but sales are still amazing. Still curious on how no WIFI, Touch Tilty Screen can be considered a modern feature?


----------



## neuroanatomist (Apr 1, 2016)

RustyTheGeek said:


> Honestly *Neuro*, I don't understand your negative post replies above. I was thinking roughly the same thing as *Tugela*. Why does this feature demand a special camera body? These camera body settings appear to be software only items.



It may very well not _require_ a separate body, for only a firmware difference (assuming that's true). But it's different firmware, that means a different product. Do you think it's a good idea to give all users the ability to lock themselves out of their camera settings? I'm sure Canon support knows that's a very bad idea. Separate firmware means separate development and testing (as we've seen, apparently unrelated settings changes can expose bugs). Selling a separate version at a modestly higher cost makes perfect business sense. 




RustyTheGeek said:


> Don't most _studios_ use FF? (At least studios that can afford to buy a whole dedicated body just for barcodes and would probably buy at least TWO or THREE to protect workflow and potential downtime at a big event.)



As the ensuing discussion shows, most _studios_ – the high volume ones that would drive this model – shoot crop. Chain portrait studios (Portrait Innovations, Kiddie Kandids, mall anchor stores, etc.), school photography outfits (LifeTouch), etc., all shoot crop. What advantage would FF offer to a high-volume studio? They have strobes in softboxes, they have backdrops – ample light, no need for thin DoF, that means a crop sensor and f/8 on a kit 18-135mm lens delivers perfectly good shots. The only thing FF adds is higher cost. 




RustyTheGeek said:


> In most cases, if it ain't broke....



Exactly my point – Canon released a 7D SV in 2010, they have nearly 6 years of sales data to know if it was broke, and clearly the fact that they're releasing a 7DII SV says it ain't.


----------



## Don Haines (Apr 1, 2016)

ahsanford said:


> Don Haines said:
> 
> 
> > you just have to assume this is an April Fools joke....
> ...


You are probably right.....


----------



## d (Apr 1, 2016)

Geez - what's all the criticism, vitriol, and fury here about this announcement? You'd think Canon had just announced a bunch of features were about to be automatically and permanently disabled in the 7DII's firmware, judging by some of the reactions here.

Did anyone actually watch the video through to the end to properly understand what this does?

Up until recently, I was managing a large commercial studio responsible for shooting catalogue and ecommerce images for several large retail clients, and I would have picked up a couple of these setups in a heartbeat if they'd come out last year.

My studio was contracted to shoot approx. 80,000 images a year for one particular client, with five or six photographers working full time, along with a number of stylists and other support staff. When shooting long racks of garments body-form or as flat-lays, being able to scan a barcode to be embedded directly into the meta-data of an image file is a great time-saver, and helps cut down naming/identification errors later on which then require time to track down and fix (trust me, I've spent many hours doing this!)

I can think of numerous scenarios where the features of the 7DIISV would save time, which saves money - this thing would pay for itself very quickly in my former studio. Yes, it'd be great if the add-on transceiver was better designed and implemented, or if bluetooth were already built into the camera, but those of you who can't see point of this version or are angered by it somehow - don't buy it! Easy!!

d.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Apr 1, 2016)

Don Haines said:


> you just have to assume this is an April Fools joke....
> 
> If it was real, instead of basing it on a 7D2 and an external (and very expensive) WiFi transmiutter, they would have gone for the much cheaper 70D or 80D WITH BUILT IN WIFI!!!!!



I'm pretty sure it's real, just like the 7D SV. 

As for basing it on the 7DII vs. a lower model, the 7DII is a more durable model (e.g. 200K vs. 100K shutter life). The SV model is obviously targeted at business customers, and capital assets are depreciated over a multi-year period, which provides a tax benefit. I can tell you from experience that having equipment fail before it's fully depreciated sucks...


----------



## RustyTheGeek (Apr 1, 2016)

I may have gotten a bit over zealous with my previous post and that wasn't necessary. This isn't that big of a deal. Truly. BUT - I would like to summarize...

- *Neuro* - I think we all know that firmware changes that reveal features don't require separate hardware. It's just a few more lines of code. I don't think it would be that hard to keep people from locking themselves out of their own camera. And the features offered here don't appear to use any special hardware that doesn't exist on every camera already.

- *ahsanford* - Yeah, I'm not trying to put you on the spot. It's all good. I know you're just commenting.

Look, to be clear - I think the "Studio Version" camera has a use and has a market. It's a good idea. I just don't understand why Canon is creating a dedicated piece of hardware to essentially provide a feature that is all software (firmware). Forget the rest. Forget having it all integrated. I just don't see the need for another camera body.

And with regard to crop vs. FF - I'm perfectly willing to concede that I don't have a clue about what is the most popular or useful format for this target audience. I'm just saying that a few extra menu features could be available in ALL of Canon's cameras and it would create versatility for all photographers if they needed this functionality. Again - _Why only make it available with one single, special crop sensor body?_

With just a little imagination, I could see anyone using some of these features in their workflow. A barcode isn't always necessary. But being able to tag/add inventory, project, shooter, etc or other kinds of data to the images and organize them, send them to a computer, phone, tablet, or whatever would still save time for many busy photographers, esp if they were working as a team at an event. Why restrict this to only one camera body?


----------



## Don Haines (Apr 1, 2016)

RustyTheGeek said:


> I may have gotten a bit over zealous with my previous post and that wasn't necessary. This isn't that big of a deal. Truly. BUT - I would like to summarize...
> 
> - *Neuro* - I think we all know that firmware changes that reveal features don't require separate hardware. It's just a few more lines of code. I don't think it would be that hard to keep people from locking themselves out of their own camera. And the features offered here don't appear to use any special hardware that doesn't exist on every camera already.
> 
> ...


My workflow has been taking pictures of the barcode, then pictures of the item.... a barcode reader is just one more thing to carry in the field. Of course a studio is different, but there I would probably have the camera and barcode reader talking to the computer....


----------



## TeT (Apr 1, 2016)

Don Haines said:


> RustyTheGeek said:
> 
> 
> > I may have gotten a bit over zealous with my previous post and that wasn't necessary. This isn't that big of a deal. Truly. BUT - I would like to summarize...
> ...



maybe a pain in the field, but hauling the reader and a mini CPU into the field could save hours in the office...


----------



## d (Apr 1, 2016)

Don Haines said:


> My workflow has been taking pictures of the barcode, then pictures of the item.... a barcode reader is just one more thing to carry in the field. Of course a studio is different, but there I would probably have the camera and barcode reader talking to the computer....



In my studio, we were originally typing codes into Capture One manually, anywhere from six to twelve or more characters, so it was easy to make a typo. Then we played with a couple of barcode scanners which were better, but you still needed to click in the "Next Capture Naming" field, then scan, then start shooting. Or shoot, the scan and rename the files just shot (it would depend on your workflow in the studio, if you were working with a stylist etc etc).

With this 7DIISV, you simply scan the code (it's sent directly to the camera), and then shoot. Really easy. It can be set up a number of ways so that (for example) one scan allows you one shot - you can't make a second exposure until the same or different code is scanned in again. Means you can't forget to input the next code and keep shooting with incorrect code from the previous item.

I'm surprised Capture One doesn't have a barcode recognition feature built in. Would be handy to designate a certain area of the frame for it to look in for each shot, and if it can find and read a barcode within that space, add it into the file name or meta-data or perform some other action you require. Then you can potentially shoot a single frame containing both the item and tag with barcode, and cut down on shutter wear.

Cheers,
d.


----------



## d (Apr 1, 2016)

RustyTheGeek said:


> Look, to be clear - I think the "Studio Version" camera has a use and has a market. It's a good idea. I just don't understand why Canon is creating a dedicated piece of hardware to essentially provide a feature that is all software (firmware). Forget the rest. Forget having it all integrated. I just don't see the need for another camera body.
> 
> And with regard to crop vs. FF - I'm perfectly willing to concede that I don't have a clue about what is the most popular or useful format for this target audience. I'm just saying that a few extra menu features could be available in ALL of Canon's cameras and it would create versatility for all photographers if they needed this functionality. Again - _Why only make it available with one single, special crop sensor body?_
> 
> With just a little imagination, I could see anyone using some of these features in their workflow. A barcode isn't always necessary. But being able to tag/add inventory, project, shooter, etc or other kinds of data to the images and organize them, send them to a computer, phone, tablet, or whatever would still save time for many busy photographers, esp if they were working as a team at an event. Why restrict this to only one camera body?



Sadly, it's the Canon way. Why did we have to buy external intervalometers for Canon bodies for so many years when other camera brands had all that built into the firmware. When I switched from Nikon to Canon I couldn't believe that unlike my D3, which I could program to make time-lapses on its own, I had to purchase and plug in something external to my 1DX to achieve the same.

I agree that the barcoding would be a useful feature to have across all Canon bodies, FF or crop, so you've got the option of both. My studio used mostly FF, but we had a couple of cheaper crop bodies that would get dragged out from time to time as well.

d.


----------



## et31 (Apr 1, 2016)

I am confident that this year is the year for the 1DW body and 200-600mm f/4.0 L IS STM lens!
Let's go already! ;D


----------



## hubie (Apr 1, 2016)

You know, it's no god april fool joke anymore, when you say it is not April fool joke...


----------



## ahsanford (Apr 1, 2016)

hubie said:


> You know, it's no god april fool joke anymore, when you say it is not April fool joke...



Nope. You need to go here for your April Fool's joke:

http://www.thephoblographer.com/2016/04/01/canon-announces-7-series-rangefinder-leica-mount/#.Vv4oinpyzNA

- A


----------



## avbmenon (Apr 1, 2016)

I really loved the camo on the body, is there a way to get this done on my impending 1dx mark 2 body? 



et31 said:


> I am confident that this year is the year for the 1DW body and 200-600mm f/4.0 L IS STM lens!
> Let's go already! ;D


----------



## deletemyaccount (Apr 1, 2016)

I know it's not an "April Fool's" joke. If it was, I'd hear tentative release dates on a 1Dx II and a 5D4 like tomorrow!


----------



## neuroanatomist (Apr 1, 2016)

RustyTheGeek said:


> - *Neuro* - I think we all know that firmware changes that reveal features don't require separate hardware. It's just a few more lines of code. I don't think it would be that hard to keep people from locking themselves out of their own camera. And the features offered here don't appear to use any special hardware that doesn't exist on every camera already.
> 
> Look, to be clear - I think the "Studio Version" camera has a use and has a market. It's a good idea. I just don't understand why Canon is creating a dedicated piece of hardware to essentially provide a feature that is all software (firmware). Forget the rest. Forget having it all integrated. I just don't see the need for another camera body.



Yes, I get that _you_ don't understand why Canon is doing this and _you_ don't see the need. Apologies for being blunt, but so what? Canon is releasing a 7DII SV because *they* see a need. Canon launched a 7D SV six years ago, and obviously know how many they sold, so *they* understand the market for a 7DII SV as a dedicated, specific model variant. 

It doesn't have to exist at all. The firmware options could be incorporated into any or every dSLR that Canon makes. Or, they could release a dedicated version of their top APS-C camera. Evidently, Canon chose that last option – twice. No doubt they have good reasons for that choice. 

Certainly the SV product meets a need for some photographers, but it's a niche segment – not many have a need to lock out selected settings or embed barcodes in their EXIF metadata. So, why put the feature into every camera by default? That adds development and testing requirements (i.e., time and cost) across the line. 

Most importantly, you need to understand Canon's goal. It's not to make photography easier, to make customers happy, or to provide every feature under the sun. Their goal is to make money and return value to their shareholders. Period. Every product, and every feature, costs something. If Canon believes making that product or adding that feature will yield a positive return on investment, then it's worth doing. People accuse Canon of 'just doing the minimum' in terms of improvements or features – and they're right. Canon isn't your buddy, guy, and they're not your friend, pal. They're a business, and 'doing the minimum' is a sound business policy. The fact that they've held the #1 market share for 13 years now suggests they know what they're doing. Whether you or I understand or agree with what they're doing is, to again be blunt, irrelevant.


----------



## Quackator (Apr 1, 2016)

Fashion lookbook shooters have always struggled to keep
track of all the articles in a look that make up an image.
Shoes, pants, top, shawl, belt...... scan the barcode and
all your SKU's are inside your EXIF data, ready to be processed.

This will very likely spare you one extra digital assistant
or hang tag wrangler in a production. The camera delivers 
a full return on investment in only a few days of shooting.

The only drawback is the miserable integration of the WFT.
I loved the vertical grip style of the WFT-E42 for the 5D Mk2
and did not buy the WFT for the 5D Mk3 because it is such 
a cumbersome brick with accident prone cable connection.

Wifi built in - okay, Wifi via a rugged 1D style dongle - okay.
Wifi in a vertical grip - also okay. Wifi in a brick? No way.


----------



## bdunbar79 (Apr 1, 2016)

Nero beat me to it. You have to have a good business acumen to understand these things. You do not put a feature in EVERY camera model when it is designed for a niche market. You make more money by doing it the way they are doing it. Not to mention the bugs and implementation, to EVERY model vs. a smaller subset of models.


----------



## tr573 (Apr 1, 2016)

ahsanford said:


> RustyTheGeek said:
> 
> 
> > ahsanford said:
> ...



I was wrong, you are correct - I checked last night and the WFT has connectivity for bluetooth GPS receivers. Which presumably could also be extended to barcode/rfid readers with firmware, so this does appear to be a software based solution.


----------



## RustyTheGeek (Apr 1, 2016)

neuroanatomist said:


> RustyTheGeek said:
> 
> 
> > - *Neuro* - I think we all know that firmware changes that reveal features don't require separate hardware. It's just a few more lines of code. I don't think it would be that hard to keep people from locking themselves out of their own camera. And the features offered here don't appear to use any special hardware that doesn't exist on every camera already.
> ...


----------



## RustyTheGeek (Apr 1, 2016)

bdunbar79 said:


> Nero beat me to it. You have to have a good business acumen to understand these things. You do not put a feature in EVERY camera model when it is designed for a niche market. You make more money by doing it the way they are doing it. Not to mention the bugs and implementation, to EVERY model vs. a smaller subset of models.



I understand the business points. I'm just trying to offer alternative ideas and postulating _WHAT IF_ ?? I agree that Canon is in the business to make money and be profitable. But sometimes can't we just talk about the possibilities of something better without throwing water on the topic by saying it's all business? And for what it's worth, I don't think adding this feature to every camera would cause much of an issue at all. It's just another feature. But Canon could market it up and sell more cameras just like every other feature that no one uses.


----------



## Big_Ant_TV_Media (Apr 1, 2016)

RustyTheGeek said:


> neuroanatomist said:
> 
> 
> > Tugela said:
> ...



THIS IS CANON' sWAY OF FLOODING THE MARKET WITH NEW 7D2's REMEMBER THEY NEVER REALLY FIXED OR EVEN MADE A STATEMENT ON TE BAD AF PROBLEMS SOME HAD THAT U HAD TOO EITHER SEND IN,RETURN OR HOPE A NEW FIRMWARE FIXED
WHICH WE ONLY HAD 1 REAL OPTION OTHER THEN RETURNS


----------



## RustyTheGeek (Apr 1, 2016)

d said:


> RustyTheGeek said:
> 
> 
> > Look, to be clear - I think the "Studio Version" camera has a use and has a market. It's a good idea. I just don't understand why Canon is creating a dedicated piece of hardware to essentially provide a feature that is all software (firmware). Forget the rest. Forget having it all integrated. I just don't see the need for another camera body.
> ...



I thought the same thing! The infamous missing *intervalometer*. How much profit did Canon really make on their expensive (and feature limited) external contraption compared with the amount of *ire* they generated by any photog who hated paying $125 to hang a giant POS off the side of the camera? (Which was available from China with more features for 1/5 the price.)


----------



## RustyTheGeek (Apr 1, 2016)

I also want to say something else...

Canon is innovating. Consider (only one of many features) the possibilities of *EOS Remote* - what it offers and has the potential to offer in the future.

So on one hand Canon shows innovative thinking. On the other, they seem to be stuck in the past. And I'm OK with that specifically because their cameras are NOT like a kitchen sink SONY camera. But that doesn't mean I always agree with every facet of it.


----------



## bdunbar79 (Apr 1, 2016)

I think we could be ok just discussing the what ifs. It is fun, I agree.

But then you keep saying things like:

<So on one hand Canon shows innovative thinking. On the other, they seem to be stuck in the past.>

<But Canon could market it up and sell more cameras just like every other feature that no one uses.>

<Canon could add this feature to every new camera they sell and offer a firmware update to the existing bodies. Everyone thinks Canon is a hero and potentially their cameras get USED MORE and consequentially, they SELL MORE. They beat the competition to the punch with yet another innovative feature that no one else has.>

So which is it? You keep referring your ideas to the generation of more SALES. Which is wrong. It obviously won't generate more sales because if it would, that's what Canon would be doing. And they're not.

We can talk about what ifs, but you are actually the one that keeps translating this idea to more sales, not us. All we're trying to say is no, it won't translate to more sales.


----------



## RustyTheGeek (Apr 1, 2016)

bdunbar79 said:


> I think we could be ok just discussing the what ifs. It is fun, I agree.
> 
> But then you keep saying things like:
> 
> ...



I'm just responding to what others have brought up about business and sales. In addition, I fail to see how anyone can know that something...

< won't generate more sales because if it would, that's what Canon would be doing. And they're not. >

... if it doesn't exist to know the outcome. Kind of a strange statement isn't it?


----------



## neuroanatomist (Apr 1, 2016)

What if Canon offered all their dSLRs in a choice of black or Hello Kitty Pink?

You're right, this 'what if' game is fun!


----------



## Don Haines (Apr 1, 2016)

neuroanatomist said:


> What if Canon offered all their dSLRs in a choice of black or Hello Kitty Pink?
> 
> You're right, this 'what if' game is fun!


The pink one would be easier to find in fog.....


----------



## neuroanatomist (Apr 1, 2016)

Don Haines said:


> neuroanatomist said:
> 
> 
> > What if Canon offered all their dSLRs in a choice of black or Hello Kitty Pink?
> ...



Yeah, but how will Canon compete against the cheap 3rd party options?


----------



## midluk (Apr 1, 2016)

neuroanatomist said:


> Yeah, but how will Canon compete against the cheap 3rd party options?


Successfully!


----------



## neuroanatomist (Apr 1, 2016)

midluk said:


> neuroanatomist said:
> 
> 
> > Yeah, but how will Canon compete against the cheap 3rd party options?
> ...



Of course, because Canon is the ILC market leader! 

8)


----------

