70D and 7Dmk2 is coming what to expect?

Started Feb 28, 2013 | Discussions thread
bobn2
Forum ProPosts: 32,222
Like?
Re: Indeed
In reply to Wyville, Mar 1, 2013

Wyville wrote:

bobn2 wrote:

There is no 'APS-C 1D'. The 7D is way short of a 1D in every aspect of its capability. What there has been is a huge marketing success in convincing people that a beefed-up 50D is a 'APS-C 1D'. However, there is the added aspect of $2k FF now, which is bound to suck money for APS-C cameras out of that price point. I can't see another APS-C camera at $1800-$2k. Much more likely the 7D MkII will be a straightforward linear upgrade, maybe no faster, new AF - perhaps an evolved version of the old 45 point system but critically a few hundred dollars less, in direct competition with the D7100. Then there will be no 70D, just the 60D will go on forever, gradually sagging in price.

-- hide signature --

Bob

I can't agree on that. For wildlife/sports enthusiasts the 7D is unique and its sales surely reflect that.

Nothing that I said is in conflict with that.

I have no idea why you think the 6D would be even remotely interesting for the target 7D market.

Nor with that. However, the question that has to be asked is what is the actual size of the market for the 7D as an action camera.

A full frame Rebel is completely the opposite of what wildlife/sports enthusiasts (or pros on a budget) are looking for. A $2,000-2,500 7DmkII that has been developed to be closer to the APS-C 1D ideal will be a dream for many.

The 6D is not at all a 'full frame Rebel' and that pejorative description betrays where you are coming from. The 'pros on a budget' idea is a bit of a non-starter. If you are a 'pro' and your livelihood depends on having the gear to do the job, then you buy the gear to do the job, and don'r make a false economy on gear that doesn't quite do the job. A pro on a budget would be much more likely to go for a 1DIV.

Neither is the D7100 in the same segment as the 7D. The D7100 is a great camera, but it's a 70D competitor.

It's exactly in the same 'segment' but positioned a bit lower. All it lacks with respect to the 7D is a couple of FPS and some buffer. That means that it is a little shy if FPS is everything to you, a bit better in some other ways. In most respects of functionality the D7000 blew the 60D out of the water and if the 70D (if it appears) is a normal Canon evolution of the 60D, it will similarly not compete.

Try looking at it from a wildlife photographer's perspective. What do they need/want? High fps, fast AF and tracking, environmental seals, customizable AF and buttons, a crop sensor (debateable, but on a budget it's unavoidable). When the 7D came out it completely blew away Nikon's excellent D300,

Actually, that is not at all true. The D300 and D300s are and remain in every conceivable way superior on spec and performance to the 7D, apart from having a geriatric 12MP sensor.  The 7D ended up being a far more saleable package, maybe Canon's marketing skill in persuading buyers that somehow it was a major step up from the 50D on which it was based. However, with respect to the wildlife photographer, their perspective is more subtle. These cameras are mostly sold to amateurs, and few are so focussed that one type of photography takes precedence over all else. So, if a well-heeled amateur has £2k burning a hole in his pocket, and wants to decide which camera will get his money, he weights up a number of pros and cons. Both Nikon and Canon have taken a punt that FF is a bigger pro than the con of a reduced FPS. Nikon has backed that up with a pretty capable camera for less money. All these things erode the potential marketplace for a specialist high FPS camera, because that is really only bought by the people for whom the FPS is such a big pro it discounts all the cons. In the case of the D7100, it gets even more nuanced, because you can get 7FPS at 15MP, albeit the burst length is a bit limited. So then you're talking $500 more for 1 FPS and longer burst length - the number of people for whom that is a compelling deal is limited.

and the D7000 was never a D300 replacement.

In practice, yes it was. A camera aimed at 70% of the D300 buyers, while the D600 mops up the next 25%. The 5% make a lot of noise, but there is a question how relevant that noise really is in sales terms. A lot of D300 owners have upgraded to the D800, a proposition that wouldn't work if they were all high FPS action shooters.

Look on the Nikon forums how many have kept their D300 while waiting for a D400.

Not a huge number, but they are very, very vocal. They are in fact far outnumbered by people who have gone for D800's, D600's and D7000's but those people are more likely to just be taking photographs than whinging on forums.

There is a very strong market for very high-end APS-C cameras, and that market is not interested in either full frame or mirrorless.

I doubt that. I would be interested to see any sound figures to back up the idea that this market is 'very strong'. Were it so strong, one would have expected the 8FPS, pro spec AF D300s to be selling much better than it actually is.

Canon and Nikon would be shooting themselves in the foot if they didn't take that market seriously. Not in the least part, because these same people invest heavily in the big lenses.

How much more do they invest in 'big lenses' than the other guys? And if you're willing to spend $kkk's on 'big lenses', why are you trying to save a $k or so on a cut price body?

-- hide signature --

Bob

Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
Post (hide subjects)Posted by
Keyboard shortcuts:
FForum PPrevious NNext WNext unread UUpvote SSubscribe RReply QQuote BBookmark post MMy threads
Color scheme? Blue / Yellow