Patrick H Lockwood: I see some comments here where they are suggesting that this camera will only have a value for sports shooters. As a wedding shooter who owns a 7d, here is the camera's value for me. First, in combo with 5d, I like the 7d's apc sensor which, in church, the extended reach using a 70 - 200 ( effective 112 - 320) is invaluable. My current7d produces very usable shots at IS0 5000 in low light ( though the exposures have to be right on ). So, if the ISO reach can go higher, that plus the focal point tracking improvement ( shooting candids ) this is a camera I definitely want to own. It won't replace the 5dmkIII, but it makes a formidable companion.
I don't know much about wedding photography (I don't do that and probably never will - I think it's too much pressure). I also don't have a 7D.But I did use a pretty decent APS-C cam before, the Sony a580, and ISO 5000 was kind of passable if I shot raw and did a ton of post processing. So perhaps it's not the raw output that he's talking about, it's the output after raw conversion, tons of noise reduction, and maybe downsizing too.
I think everyone has different standards for "usable". In fact, one person would probably have different standards for "usable" depending on how the images are going to be used.For example, if I knew that a picture would be displayed no larger than 300x200 online or would be printed in a newspaper, I'd have no problem hitting ISO 12800 on an APS-C camera. The noise just isn't noticeable enough at those sizes.
Joseph Black: She has a loose thread near her right shoulder blade. Considering the lens I would have stopped it down a bit and used a slightly higher ISO. It looks like there are moments when she's spinning so fast the shutter speed isn't adequate to freeze the motion. Still, we appreciate some great first shots. The plant and glass are tack sharp.
Not stopping down the lens is a good test of the focus system, though. And at least when I shoot sports, I tend to use a fast lens wide open, both to isolate the subject and get the highest shutter speed at the lowest ISO possible.
May I ask what AF settings you used for this sequence?
Calistoga_Guy: Another reason for Canon shooters to go full frame, that is unless they tend to stay below ISO 800, then maybe this camera might appeal to the Canon shooters. Canon got slapped so hard by Nikon back in 2007 by the D3 that they never recovered. But money wise, it's worked out for them to give their consumers second rate sensors and keep counting their money. The 7D had a mediocre Rebel sensor, now the 7D mark II gets the mediocre 70d sensor. It has all the bells and whistles, but still blows at high ISO. It's just another Sony 77 mark I or II, nothing to see here.
"Canon got slapped so hard..."-well they got slapped, but they did recover, partially because Nikon managed to produce two FF DSLRs with well publicized issues, and partially because Nikon never followed up with new versions of the D300 and D700.
Today, Canon's still in the top spot for interchangeable lens camera sales, and Nikon's still #2. If there's anything to learn from this, it's that if you don't cannibalize sales of high end cameras (D3/4), someone else will.
sneakyracer: Well, while the 7D2 seems like a superb camera, but large DSLR style crop sensor cameras still reminds us of the time when Full Frame sensors were too expensive so most manufacturers adapted 35mm DSLRs for use with smaller sensors. The Fuji S2 pro is an example.
Only the most recent crop (no pun intended) of mirror less cameras take advantage of the smaller (crop) formats and gives us great cameras in a MUCH smaller package and most importantly, fast, really superb optics in small packages as well. The smaller sensors then make sense since the user gets size and weight savings across the board.
I would have liked to see a fast, pro build, mirror less body with industry leading (mirror less) AF performance along with a new line of lenses for said camera including FAST and affordable telephotos.
Maybe in ten years Canon will do that, if we are lucky!
There's the problem: fast telephotos. Once you go for fast, long glass, the size/weight reductions you get from using small sensors goes right out the window as the lens starts to dominate the system's weight. Might as well go for a FF DSLR at that point for better IQ/AF/battery life/responsiveness.
Suhas Sudhakar Kulkarni: Its interesting to note that Canon announced 7D mark II while nikon did not announce their D300 successor. On the other hand Nikon announced D750 and Canon did not announce 5D mark IV. Marking the territories (for this year sales of course) with mutual understanding?
Canon doesn't really need to announce a 5D IV to stay competitive in the 'do everything kinda well' FF segment. A price drop on the 5D III would probably do it - the 5D III is still competitive with the D750.
What Canon does need is a uber-high megapixel FF camera to compete with the D800/810. I'm not in the market for that kind of camera though.
Potemkin_Photo: As usual, the Japanese "differentiate" their line-up by putting one feature and taking out another. Have a touchscreen in the 70D but leave it out on the 7D just for sake of "differentiation." I guess they will be laughing all the way to the bank when fanbois go ahead and buy both because they must have both features.
I'm sure there are other factors to it. Perhaps putting a touchscreen in would make the camera $50 more expensive, and management didn't like that because the AF system and parts necessary to shoot at 10 fps were pushing the price as is.
I've tried a Sigma 120-300. I was disappointed. Autofocus is slow and unreliable, and IQ at 300mm is noticeably worse than that of a ~20 year old fixed 300/2.8 (the 300mm f/2.8 AF-I).
davids8560: But in a larger sense, how would you guys say Canon stacks up overall nowadays among the key players?
I would disagree. The D750 in DX crop mode has an even lower pixel count than the D300. Furthermore, the D300 could hit 8 fps with a grip, while the D750 cannot. The D750 is a high pixel count FF camera that makes compromises to deliver that resolution (namely, compromises in shooting speed).
I think most people's vision of the D400 is something that doesn't regress compared to the D300 in any respect. That would mean at least 8 fps, with the expected sensor improvements (i.e., modern Sony 16 or 24 MP sensor).
Dragonfire: Just for fun:Honestly, who wil buy this (building a new system)?A pro who uses ~10 fps needs high iso with proper latitude in RAW files for post processing, latest Canon APC-C sensors are not the best on this.A hobbyst or an advanced amateur hardly needs 10 fps, lens selection, higher image Q on one shot is more important, and Nikon takes the lead on this with some marginVideographers I can imagine jump ship, they need a rugged body, they wanna use Canon lenses...But add a few dollers and You get a D750 with fantastic f/1.8 prime selection! :D
Right now my Nikon stuff (D600 and D3s) gets the job done, but if I were starting from scratch, this camera would make me give Canon a serious look. -I'd go with a FF and the 7D II, and use the FF cam to handle high ISOs. In daylight, the 7D II will be at ISO 100-400, where it should have no problem.-Lens selection, IQ, and so on are important of course. But everyone understates the importance of AF and FPS. Higher FPS often translates to more keepers at the end of the day. I learned this after I got a D3s. -The D750 looks nice, but there's a noticeable gap between 6.5 fps and 10 fps. The D750 also costs more, and not everyone needs to go FF (for example, birders who mostly shoot in good light).
Still stacks up very well, holding first place when large camera sales are concerned. Aside from a few niggles like poor sensor DR and under-specced AF systems in Rebel cameras (compared to the D5200/5300), Canon looks very strong.
With the 7D II, and no "D400" competitor from Nikon, Canon is looking very strong indeed.
I don't see mirrorless makers as being among the biggest players right now - their sales aren't so good and they aren't doing as well financially.
whtchocla7e: You can get the same or higher quality image cropping from a FF 36Mp than from this contraption.
The semi-pro/pro APS-C cams are running out of arguments to justify their high prices...
I'm pretty sure it's 15.3 MP for the D800's 36 MP FF sensor in DX mode. The D600's 24 MP FF sensor crops to about 10 MP in DX mode though. You might be getting confused with that one.
Either way, it's less than the 20 MP offered by the 7D II.
chlamchowder: I'm a Nikon user, and this camera looks awesome, even for the rather high price. It has everything a daylight action shooter/birder could ask for - an excellent AF system, a high burst rate without having to crop, and a deep buffer. This thing would be awesome for shooting soccer/football, or pretty much any outdoor sport where a large field is involved. I wish it had a Nikon mount.
And for those of you complaining that it doesn't have FF ISO performance - the best FF for action you can get at that price is the D610. It doesn't shoot at 10 fps, and doesn't have the 7D II's pixel density for telephoto reach.
Sure, it could use a better sensor.But there are enough situations in which this sensor is adequate(sports in decent light, mainly) for it to not take down the rest of the camera.If this were a low FPS high MP camera, then sensor DR would be a top issue. But it's not.
Probably not - you're still getting more pixel density from this sensor (at 20 MP) than a crop from the 36 MP sensor (16 MP).
Also, no 36 MP camera can shoot at 10 fps, even with cropping.
topstuff: I think this camera will be overtaken very quickly.
Why? Because there is a revolution coming down the road in sensor tech, including for sports shooters.
We are not far now from 4k mirror less cameras having excellent AF, comparable with DSLR's. When that happens, shooters can shoot video if they want and take stills from video. Mirrorless will soon be able to exploit the theoretical advantage of not having to move the mirror out of the way.
This 7D will not last 5 years like its predecessor did.
Alright, let's pay attention to the mirrorless companies (if they're still around) in five years.
But for now, no mirrorless camera can even begin to touch what this is capable of when action is involved.
I think high framerates are important.
You can time things, but what if someone happens to fire a high-powered strobe while your shutter's open? What if that carefully timed image is slightly out of focus? High FPS gives you more of a chance that one of the shots will be good. And that's important when there are moments you can't afford to miss.
shutterbud: If they'd only used a Sony sensor this would have been THE camera to own. The 70D is scoring lower than every new u4/3, so if they've tweaked the sensor from the 70D, if we're very lucky, we'll be able to pay nearly two grand for a camera with the IQ of an EP5. It simply is not good enough! This looks like a GLORIOUS BODY with a 5 year old sensor in it. What an absolute waste!I genuinely wanted Canon to hit this one out of the park.
As long as you can put up with some shadow noise at low ISO (which most photojournalists and sports shooters can - noise is pretty hard to see once it's printed into a tiny box in a newspaper), it's not so bad.
So if you're a landscape shooter, go for the D7100. Or just go full frame since used D600s are so cheap now. But for action in good light, it's hard to beat Canon's offering.
I'm a Nikon user, and this camera looks awesome, even for the rather high price. It has everything a daylight action shooter/birder could ask for - an excellent AF system, a high burst rate without having to crop, and a deep buffer. This thing would be awesome for shooting soccer/football, or pretty much any outdoor sport where a large field is involved. I wish it had a Nikon mount.
Bob Meyer: "Affordable flagship?" More like stolidly mid-range, at a higher than mid-range price. No wonder Microsoft doesn't want to talk about the specs. 720P on a 5" screen is pretty poor, as is 1 GB of RAM.
If this is Microsoft's flagship, I shudder to think what their mid and low-end phones look like.
It definitely isn't a flagship though. The Nokia Icon/930/1520 have 1080P screens and Snapdragon 800 processors. Those are more like flagships.