Will the 7DII have the "staying power" of the 7D?

JackM said:

I don't disagree, but the lens is still not on the overall build quality level of the 7D2. So keeping the 7D line compatible with EF-S is not the strict mandate that some would argue.

Click to expand...

And that about says it right there. It reflects a fundamental misunderstanding of professional use.

There's a lot more to maintaining compatibility than "there aren't presently any weather-resistant EF-S lenses, so maintaining compatibility isn't really that important". The 7D series is a professionally-oriented tool, not a consumer gadget that can be freely upgraded whenever. Oh, you don't like that you can't use your existing lenses? *shrug* that's progress, suck it up. Maybe that works with consumer gadgets, but it's not something professionals like.

Pro sports/journalism photographers (for example) -- and some of us amateurs -- are less interested in the latest and greatest features (flippy touch screen) or squeezing out the tiniest bits of image quality -- than they in something that Just Works, and doesn't require reinvesting in an entirely new line of gear to use effectively, and doesn't change radically from release to release. When people complain that the 7DII was "just an incremental upgrade", they don't realize that a lot of people, and in particular the target market for the camera, consider this to be high praise indeed. The fact that someone who has been shooting the 7D can take the 7DII, configure it as they did their 7D, and go off shooting confident that the camera will perform just like the 7D except for better image quality, improved focus, and higher frame rate says a lot for what I see as Canon's commitment to their customers.

Yes, you can get better results, more convenience, and that by taking advantage of the newer features of the 7DII. But you don't have to right away just to be able to use the camera; you can learn about them and integrate them into your shooting at your own pace. Say you bought one late in the basketball season in 2014. You kept shooting it as an improved 7D, using the same button, AF, and custom mode configuration as you did on the 7D, relying on your muscle memory. When the season's over, you take the time to study the manual, learn some of the fine points of the autofocus, some of the additional button options, and integrate them into your baseball and football shooting, and when basketball season rolls around in the fall, you're ready to go.

Do something radical like move to APS-H, add a flip screen (taking away some of the buttons perforce), go mirrorless (!), or what have you and it's no longer a simple compatible upgrade, but something entirely new that you have to learn from scratch.

The 1D series does have a different mode control than all other Canon bodies, but it's the same control setup as all of the 1-series bodies before that. If you shot an EOS-1 or 1N film body, the basic shooting controls on the 1DXII will still be familiar to you.

JackM said:

How does going from 20 to 28mp double the pixels on subject? Wouldn't you need 80mp to really do that?

Click to expand...

Sorry with that. I've got that right in the past; it is half the effect of a 1.4x TC, not a full effect. So it would be 40MP to double pixels-on-subject, so both our numbers were wrong. I was mixing up what 40MP would do in my head with 28MP.

JackM said:

Nikon/Sony sensors seem to be better for pixel peeping, especially when DR and noise are concerned.

Click to expand...

They also lack AA filters, typically, so the SNR is higher at the pixel frequency, but the signal can be spatially distorted with aliasing, which is not what I want. Again, you are comparing recent Nikon offerings to an unknown one from Canon. Why would a person go through all the stress of changing systems, with the possiblility that they find out 3 months later that their old system caught up? You are not suggesting rational things, IMO.

Robert Krawitz said:

JackM said:

I don't disagree, but the lens is still not on the overall build quality level of the 7D2. So keeping the 7D line compatible with EF-S is not the strict mandate that some would argue.

Click to expand...

And that about says it right there. It reflects a fundamental misunderstanding of professional use.

Click to expand...

Oh excellent. I've only been shooting sports professionally for 10 years, but what do I know. I would gladly use an APS-H 7D3 on the sidelines of any sports field, assuming it had equal or better reach (pixel density) than the 7D2, and equal or better FPS than the 7D2.

Robert Krawitz said:

There's a lot more to maintaining compatibility than "there aren't presently any weather-resistant EF-S lenses, so maintaining compatibility isn't really that important". The 7D series is a professionally-oriented tool, not a consumer gadget that can be freely upgraded whenever. Oh, you don't like that you can't use your existing lenses? *shrug* that's progress, suck it up. Maybe that works with consumer gadgets, but it's not something professionals like.

Click to expand...

1, I think it could be made to work with EF-S lenses, 2, it's no big deal if it can't. There is precisely ONE EF-S lens that professionals might care about, the 17-55. Any professional worth a damn could easily sell their 17-55, upgrade to a 24-70, write off the difference, and forget about it.

John Sheehy said:

JackM said:

How does going from 20 to 28mp double the pixels on subject? Wouldn't you need 80mp to really do that?

Click to expand...

Sorry with that. I've got that right in the past; it is half the effect of a 1.4x TC, not a full effect. So it would be 40MP to double pixels-on-subject, so both our numbers were wrong.

Click to expand...

Well, 40mp is literally "double the pixels", but 80mp would be double the resolution of 20mp.

John Sheehy said:

John Sheehy said:

Nikon/Sony sensors seem to be better for pixel peeping, especially when DR and noise are concerned.

Click to expand...

They also lack AA filters, typically, so the SNR is higher at the pixel frequency, but the signal can be spatially distorted with aliasing, which is not what I want. Again, you are comparing recent Nikon offerings to an unknown one from Canon. Why would a person go through all the stress of changing systems, with the possiblility that they find out 3 months later that their old system caught up? You are not suggesting rational things, IMO.

Click to expand...

I wasn't necessarily advocating switching systems, it just seems to me that pixel peepers are more excited about Nikon/Sony sensors. And I don't mean "pixel peepers" as an insult. I agree about the 3 months notion.

JackM said:

I wasn't necessarily advocating switching systems, it just seems to me that pixel peepers are more excited about Nikon/Sony sensors. And I don't mean "pixel peepers" as an insult. I agree about the 3 months notion.

Click to expand...

I have no use for aliasing, and that is what is pleasing many "pixel peepers", IMO. They see some very white pixels next to some very black pixels without the artifacts of software sharpening of AA-muted images, and they feel like something good has happened. I care a lot about pixel-level results; I just have a very different opinion about what they say. When I see high RAW sharpness, I think, "not enough pixel density"; not, "well done, sharp pixels".

100% crops (on 100 PPI monitors) should be soft and noisy, but because of pixel density, not because of a dull lens or noisy sensor.

JackM said:

Robert Krawitz said:

JackM said:

I don't disagree, but the lens is still not on the overall build quality level of the 7D2. So keeping the 7D line compatible with EF-S is not the strict mandate that some would argue.

Click to expand...

And that about says it right there. It reflects a fundamental misunderstanding of professional use.

Click to expand...

Oh excellent. I've only been shooting sports professionally for 10 years, but what do I know. I would gladly use an APS-H 7D3 on the sidelines of any sports field, assuming it had equal or better reach (pixel density) than the 7D2, and equal or better FPS than the 7D2.

Click to expand...

Of course, full frame would do even better in that regard, if it had equal/better pixel density and FPS.

But those "ifs" really matter in the real world. APS-H needs about 50% more pixels to achieve the same pixel density as APS-C. That means, again everything else being equal, more readout time, which may impact FPS. And the more complicated mirror mechanism (unless you're prepared to give up altogether on being able to use EF-S lenses) would likely slow things down too (that example door looks like a rather more complicated mechanism).

And if you can achieve the same FPS as the current 7DmkII, you'd likely achieve a higher FPS on APS-C, or even higher pixel density. Maybe that doesn't matter to you, but you're not the only person out there.

JackM said:

JackM said:

There's a lot more to maintaining compatibility than "there aren't presently any weather-resistant EF-S lenses, so maintaining compatibility isn't really that important". The 7D series is a professionally-oriented tool, not a consumer gadget that can be freely upgraded whenever. Oh, you don't like that you can't use your existing lenses? *shrug* that's progress, suck it up. Maybe that works with consumer gadgets, but it's not something professionals like.

Click to expand...

1, I think it could be made to work with EF-S lenses, 2, it's no big deal if it can't. There is precisely ONE EF-S lens that professionals might care about, the 17-55. Any professional worth a damn could easily sell their 17-55, upgrade to a 24-70, write off the difference, and forget about it.

Click to expand...

No big deal to you, maybe. Other people may have different considerations.

I'd also note that since introducing the EOS line Canon has been very careful about back compatibility and has made only very rare exceptions for technical reasons (e. g. E-TTL vs. A-TTL, and EF-S lenses with their shorter flange distance). They've been particularly careful not to break compatibility within product lines, as noted above about the 1DX vs. the 1. If they were to come out with another APS-H camera -- which I really doubt -- it would certainly bear a different number.

You have extremely specific product demands here that simply may not be worth Canon's while to support.

Robert Krawitz said:

JackM said:

Oh excellent. I've only been shooting sports professionally for 10 years, but what do I know. I would gladly use an APS-H 7D3 on the sidelines of any sports field, assuming it had equal or better reach (pixel density) than the 7D2, and equal or better FPS than the 7D2.

Click to expand...

Of course, full frame would do even better in that regard, if it had equal/better pixel density and FPS.

Click to expand...

We are not close to the day when that would be feasible for sports. Now you're talking about 51mp. No way you're getting 10fps any time soon. Equally, dealing with these files in post is a major consideration. I know, I have a 5DSR.

Robert Krawitz said:

But those "ifs" really matter in the real world. APS-H needs about 50% more pixels to achieve the same pixel density as APS-C. That means, again everything else being equal, more readout time, which may impact FPS.

Click to expand...

APS-H could be 30mp and have the same reach as a 7D2. 5D4 is already 7fps, so 10 won't be far off. I wouldn't be surprised if it was already possible, but they limited the 5D4 to 7fps in order to protect the 7D line and to a lesser extent the 1D line.

Robert Krawitz said:

And the more complicated mirror mechanism (unless you're prepared to give up altogether on being able to use EF-S lenses)

Click to expand...

I am. So should anyone paying upwards of $2800 for a camera. (price of a D500)

Robert Krawitz said:

would likely slow things down too (that example door looks like a rather more complicated mechanism).

Click to expand...

I guess you've never seen a door like that in person. Really simple and elegant. (aside from the fact that they feel kind of strange when you open them because they don't swing out normally)

Robert Krawitz said:

And if you can achieve the same FPS as the current 7DmkII, you'd likely achieve a higher FPS on APS-C, or even higher pixel density. Maybe that doesn't matter to you, but you're not the only person out there.

Click to expand...

I don't know why anyone needs more than 10fps other than Canon's marketing department. But if 12 or 14fps or more is Canon's goal for the 7D3 then APS-H may not be possible.

Robert Krawitz said:

You have extremely specific product demands here that simply may not be worth Canon's while to support.

Click to expand...

I know, Sports and Wildlife are really fringe stuff.

JackM said:

Robert Krawitz said:

JackM said:

Oh excellent. I've only been shooting sports professionally for 10 years, but what do I know. I would gladly use an APS-H 7D3 on the sidelines of any sports field, assuming it had equal or better reach (pixel density) than the 7D2, and equal or better FPS than the 7D2.

Click to expand...

Of course, full frame would do even better in that regard, if it had equal/better pixel density and FPS.

Click to expand...

We are not close to the day when that would be feasible for sports. Now you're talking about 51mp. No way you're getting 10fps any time soon. Equally, dealing with these files in post is a major consideration. I know, I have a 5DSR.

Click to expand...

I see.

JackM said:

JackM said:

But those "ifs" really matter in the real world. APS-H needs about 50% more pixels to achieve the same pixel density as APS-C. That means, again everything else being equal, more readout time, which may impact FPS.

Click to expand...

APS-H could be 30mp and have the same reach as a 7D2. 5D4 is already 7fps, so 10 won't be far off. I wouldn't be surprised if it was already possible, but they limited the 5D4 to 7fps in order to protect the 7D line and to a lesser extent the 1D line.

Click to expand...

Maybe, maybe not. I don't see why they'd limit a more expensive body to protect a less expensive one. Surely Canon would prefer (if anything) to sell a 5D4 than a 7D2? I'd expect Canon to limit the 7D to protect the 5D, not the other way around.

Protecting the 1DX would make more sense, but they're really very different bodies.

JackM said:

JackM said:

And the more complicated mirror mechanism (unless you're prepared to give up altogether on being able to use EF-S lenses)

Click to expand...

I am. So should anyone paying upwards of $2800 for a camera. (price of a D500)

Click to expand...

Is that $2800 (or D500) a typo? The D500 is closer to $2000 (which is still higher than the 7D2, which is an older body). But there is real demand for both bodies despite high performance full frame alternatives in both lines, so perhaps not everyone agrees.

JackM said:

JackM said:

would likely slow things down too (that example door looks like a rather more complicated mechanism).

Click to expand...

I guess you've never seen a door like that in person. Really simple and elegant. (aside from the fact that they feel kind of strange when you open them because they don't swing out normally)

Click to expand...

Again, you need space behind the door for it to retract into.

JackM said:

JackM said:

And if you can achieve the same FPS as the current 7DmkII, you'd likely achieve a higher FPS on APS-C, or even higher pixel density. Maybe that doesn't matter to you, but you're not the only person out there.

Click to expand...

I don't know why anyone needs more than 10fps other than Canon's marketing department. But if 12 or 14fps or more is Canon's goal for the 7D3 then APS-H may not be possible.

Click to expand...

The first statement is your personal opinion, as is your willingness to give up APS-C lenses.

JackM said:

JackM said:

You have extremely specific product demands here that simply may not be worth Canon's while to support.

Click to expand...

I know, Sports and Wildlife are really fringe stuff.

Click to expand...

I'm talking about your specific product requirements. You want pixel count/density to be high (but not 50% higher than that), shutter fps to be high (but again, not higher than 20-50% greater), and frame size to be larger than APS-C (but again, not much more so). Those aren't generic sports/wildlife requirements, they are very precise points that you want Canon to target.

If they're really sandbagging the 5D4 to not compete against the 7D2 (which would strike me as a very strange thing to do), then if the 7D3 comes out at 12-14 FPS than they would have marketing space to get the 5D5 up to 10 fps or thereabouts, and if that hypothetical latter were around 36 MP, it wouldn't be too far off from the 51 MP needed to achieve reach parity with the 7D2.

My mistake on the D500. I searched quickly and found the 100th anniversary special edition without realizing it, which is $2800. Anyway, I imagine an APS-H 7D3 would probably intro at $2495.

Really, like my the title of first post in this sub-thread implies, I'm just musing on what I think would be cool. I'd rather my 70-200/2.8 II effectively started at 91mm instead of 112mm (see below), and could still be cropped to simulate 320mm. And then whatever benefit in noise and DR would be nice too. That's it. I think other sports shooters would like this too.

JackM said:

Off topic, but interesting. I think in the days of the first and early digital Rebels, they were clamoring for all the consumer market share they could get, and that meant cutting costs wherever possible. This was probably wise, because now they have a solid base of consumers and prosumers hooked on Canon glass. If the least expensive Canon DSLRs were still out of reach for many people, then many more people would have simply started with Nikon ...

Click to expand...

... or continued with Pentax K mount, as would have been the case with me. I used a Ricoh KR-10 and later a Pentax film body till 2004 when I decided to get a digital SLR. Even with two kit lenses (18-55mm, 50-200mm) and a flash, the EOS 300D was still cheaper than the Pentax *ist D body only, on top of it the Pentax *ist was nowhere to get hold of in the shops of Newcastle upon Tyne.

Now I am a happy Canon user and after having gathered quite a collection of Canon-fit lenses it would make little sense to switch. It is difficult to tell whether I would be happier had I stayed with Pentax. Judging from many posts on dpreview, AF performance of Canon is superior, and the EF 100-400mm L IS is a great but affordable telephoto lens; furthermore, Tamron does not produce many of its lenses in Pentax K mount anymore. On the other hand Pentax has some nice features like weather sealing and big finders even in their smaller modells and produce well-rounded cameras.

I just bought a 7D today from Henry’s Camera Store in Toronto and am totally loving it.