7D mark II rumours ?

[JohnTrav]

I think a mkii makes sense or canon to release IMO especially with the release of the 70D. It would kill the resale value if my 7D which would suck but I don't really plan to sell it for any reason. I know my brother he waiting for the 7D mkii to be officially announced and released.

I agree with people though if they are going to release it and it's $2199. It's worth it to me to just spend the extra couple hundred and get the 5D mkiii.

 

[JerryLove]

I agree with people though if they are going to release it and it's $2199. It's worth it to me to just spend the extra couple hundred and get the 5D mkiii.

Worse: that would be *more* expensive than the 6D

 

[Gavjenks]

The 5DMIII is the only non 1D that has a similar AF to the 7D. So the 70D and 6D don't replace it on that score. Like yourself weepete the only thing I feel I really want is better sensor performance. AF refinement and other elements but in general its the core camera sensor and noise performance that I'd like to see improve.

Which is precisely the thing that ain't gonna happen to the extent guessed at in the OP.

Crop sensors simply cannot perform at the noise performance of full frame. Yes, technology improves and noise gets better at a given size, but that same technology has ALSO being applied to the newer full frame models... so it will never ever catch up. Crop frames will have noise worse by almost exactly the proportion of the sensor size (same is true of everything down to cell phone sensors, and so forth).

For the price, why not simply sell a 6D full frame, but with the full autofocus system, and the higher framerate, for the extra $500-600?

 

[Derrel]

For the price, why not simply sell a 6D full frame, but with the full autofocus system, and the higher framerate, for the extra $500-600?

If I understand your question, I would say that pricing a fully-featured, "loaded" 6D, with a high-end AF system, and high frame rate, would totally cannibalize the 5D Mark III's sales numbers, and would eliminate $1,000 to $800 in per-unit sales revenue.

 

[JohnTrav]

I still think there is always going to be a market for a high end crop body especially or sports. Take someone like me for example. I shoot paintball and that takes place during the day in daylight. Do I shoot at 100-400(on cloudy overcast days) ISO at all times. So full frame for this isn't necessary as far as noise performance isn't as big for me since I shoot at low ISO and it's not noisy. So a high end crop is very nice and useful. Worth the money for me. Especially a very good AF system. So a 7D mkII would be great for me.

For other situations and things I shoot such as portraits and events, yeah I agree. If it's priced at $2199 than I should just go full frame with a 6D or possible a 5D mkiii.

For the most part though there are photographers out there that do not want FF but still want a top of the time crop body. Thats where the 7D shines so a 7D mkII would be great to introduce new technology with and a better sensor. Is it going to be worth $2199? I don't know it will all depend on the consumer. Would I pay $2199 for it? Probably not.

I am still going to follow the rumors though and hope it comes out.

 

[EIngerson]

I agree with people though if they are going to release it and it's $2199. It's worth it to me to just spend the extra couple hundred and get the 5D mkiii.

Worse: that would be *more* expensive than the 6D

I'd disagree simply because of the quality difference.

 

[Gavjenks]

For the price, why not simply sell a 6D full frame, but with the full autofocus system, and the higher framerate, for the extra $500-600?

If I understand your question, I would say that pricing a fully-featured, "loaded" 6D, with a high-end AF system, and high frame rate, would totally cannibalize the 5D Mark III's sales numbers, and would eliminate $1,000 to $800 in per-unit sales revenue.

There are a lot of people who would buy such a thing at $2100 who would not buy a 5D Mk III for $2900.

A better, closer coverage of the full market curve is always a way to get higher revenues in any industry. The question is whether that pretty much guaranteed rise in revenue would be higher or lower than the untapped market of people willing to pay mid range "loaded" full frame prices, but for a crop frame.

And that market confuses me. Who is in that market? Why would it exist? The only advantage seems to be extra pixels per inch for those who want reach and have the high end lenses to provide enough speed and resolution to actually realize the difference between the crop frame and a cropped portion of the full frame.


Considering the advent of some cameras coming out that are full frame but with crop frame pixel pitch, this seems like a sort of a dead-end niche to me. If/when all sensors just have crop sensor-style pixel density, crop sensors won't have any advantage at all anymore, and ultimate high end crop frames wont make sense.

 

[JerryLove]

For the price, why not simply sell a 6D full frame, but with the full autofocus system, and the higher framerate, for the extra $500-600?

If I understand your question, I would say that pricing a fully-featured, "loaded" 6D, with a high-end AF system, and high frame rate, would totally cannibalize the 5D Mark III's sales numbers, and would eliminate $1,000 to $800 in per-unit sales revenue.

There are a lot of people who would buy such a thing at $2100 who would not buy a 5D Mk III for $2900.

Let's get our pricing in sync.

A 5DMKIII is $3300 - Canon EOS-5D Mark III Digital SLR Camera Body, 22.3 Megapixels - USA Warranty 5260B002
A 6D is $1800 - Canon EOS-6D DSLR Camera Body 8035B002

Perhaps you have a cheaper source, but I would expect that is scales pretty evenly. So the cost difference is $1500, not "$500-600?"

A 7D is $1,400 - Canon EOS-7D DSLR Camera Body 3814B004

Personally: I cannot make a case for the current 7D over they 6D. I can, however, make a case for the 70D with it's phase-sensor-in-sensor (among other things). If they brought those features to a 7DmkII, it might win out on the 6D for more AF points, and AF in live-view, and such.

Personally: I'd really like to see the 70D features brought to a 6DmkII. That's top on my list.

 

[JerryLove]

Crop sensors simply cannot perform at the noise performance of full frame.

Of course they can. They will just have fewer pixels.

You can just chop the extra edges off a full-frame and you'll have a crop-frame that's identical in every way except that it will have something like 50%-65% of the pixel count.

 

[JacaRanda]

Is there a link to the $2500 5DmkIII?

 

[EIngerson]

Let's get our pricing in sync. A 5DMKIII is $3300 - Canon EOS-5D Mark III Digital SLR Camera Body, 22.3 Megapixels - USA Warranty 5260B002 A 6D is $1800 - Canon EOS-6D DSLR Camera Body 8035B002 Perhaps you have a cheaper source, but I would expect that is scales pretty evenly. So the cost difference is $1500, not "$500-600?" A 7D is $1,400 - Canon EOS-7D DSLR Camera Body 3814B004 Personally: I cannot make a case for the current 7D over they 6D. I can, however, make a case for the 70D with it's phase-sensor-in-sensor (among other things). If they brought those features to a 7DmkII, it might win out on the 6D for more AF points, and AF in live-view, and such. Personally: I'd really like to see the 70D features brought to a 6DmkII. That's top on my list.

Get YOUR pricing right. I got mine a year ago for $2,950 from best buy. I also got it tax free and they threw in an extra battery. Shop around a little more.

It can be bought for an extra $700. Before you scoff at paying a little more for the 5D MK III. Use one for long enough to get comfortable with it. You'll quit photography before you go back to the 7d.

 

[Derrel]

Exactly JacaRanda and JerryLove--it seems like some people in this thread are way out of touch with what the ACTUAL retail prices are on the 5D Mark III and also seem to think that "$500 to $600 more than the 6D" is $2199...but it's NOT. $500 more than today's B&H Photo price of $1899 on the 6D is $2,399, and 600 extra dollars brings it up to $2,499. TODAY, the 5D Mark III is $3,299 (after a $100 instant rebate has been deducted).

Prices on Canon cameras are VERY much "rebate-dependent". Rebates allow the camera makers to get a feel for demand as it relates to pricing, AND it keeps the DEALERS happy; dealers hate price reductions, because it hurts THEIR bottom line. Dealers LOVE rebates, because Canon takes the hit. The 5D seriss has been the single largest "rebate-based seller" for a long time. The 5D Classic started at $3499, and sold very slowly. Price drops were slow in coming, but the camera was on rebates multiple times. Same with ther 5D-II. But if you want to buy a 5D-III TODAY from B&H, the price is $3299, which is after a ....rebate...

The camera market's rapid, astounding growth over the prior ten years of the d-slr explosion has really slowed down. Wayyyyy down. The market is mature, and new developments that actually "make a difference" in end results are becoming much more difficult for the manufacturers to come up with. Most of the early d-slr era competition has been reduced to almost irrelevance, and Canon and Nikon are operating as a duopoly, with Sony a distant third place plater with around 5% of the market, and Pentax,Olympus, Samsung, and Ricoh reduced to sales numbers that make them basically "hobby businesses" for their large parent corporations.

The way Canon and Nikon have played the high-specification APS-C camera market is a sort of game of chicken. Canon feels no need to update the 7D until Nikon makes a move. Nikon feels no need to update the D300s until Canon makes a move. What's perplexing is trying to figure out what it will take to get those two companies off of their butts!

 

[JerryLove]

Let's get our pricing in sync. A 5DMKIII is $3300 - Canon EOS-5D Mark III Digital SLR Camera Body, 22.3 Megapixels - USA Warranty 5260B002 A 6D is $1800 - Canon EOS-6D DSLR Camera Body 8035B002 Perhaps you have a cheaper source, but I would expect that is scales pretty evenly. So the cost difference is $1500, not "$500-600?" A 7D is $1,400 - Canon EOS-7D DSLR Camera Body 3814B004 Personally: I cannot make a case for the current 7D over they 6D. I can, however, make a case for the 70D with it's phase-sensor-in-sensor (among other things). If they brought those features to a 7DmkII, it might win out on the 6D for more AF points, and AF in live-view, and such. Personally: I'd really like to see the 70D features brought to a 6DmkII. That's top on my list.

Get YOUR pricing right. I got mine a year ago for $2,950 from best buy. I also got it tax free and they threw in an extra battery. Shop around a little more.

It can be bought for an extra $700. Before you scoff at paying a little more for the 5D MK III. Use one for long enough to get comfortable with it. You'll quit photography before you go back to the 7d.

First: do me a favor and read the part I bolded. It's likely the same type of sale would push the 6D lower as well.

Then do some math, and find out that $2900 is $1100 more than $1800 (which is a price for which I can get a 6D). So my statement is still just as valid.

Then go look up real, current, normal prices. I've given you one. Let's go to Best Buy: Canon EOS 5D Mark III DSLR Camera Body Only Black 5260B002 - Best Buy

Hrm. $3,399 + tax

I don't even disbelieve your $3k claim (though I challenge you to show me that deal now). I'm just pointing out that it's irrelevant. Show me a spot I can currently buy one for $2,400, and that a similar reduction on the 6D is impossible, and you'd have something to counter my statement with.

 

[EIngerson]

First: do me a favor and read the part I bolded. It's likely the same type of sale would push the 6D lower as well. Then do some math, and find out that $2900 is $1100 more than $1800 (which is a price for which I can get a 6D). So my statement is still just as valid. Then go look up real, current, normal prices. I've given you one. Let's go to Best Buy: Canon EOS 5D Mark III DSLR Camera Body Only Black 5260B002 - Best Buy Hrm. $3,399 + tax I don't even disbelieve your $3k claim (though I challenge you to show me that deal now). I'm just pointing out that it's irrelevant. Show me a spot I can currently buy one for $2,400, and that a similar reduction on the 6D is impossible, and you'd have something to counter my statement with.

Your bold print comment is irrelevant if you know how to shop. I would wait a considerable amount of time to save nearly $400. Add that to your useless math comment and you'll realize I didn't say anything about a 6D. My "math" was in relation to someone paying $2,200 for a 7D. Slow your role there chief. It's not that big of a deal.

 

[Gavjenks]

Crop sensors simply cannot perform at the noise performance of full frame.

Of course they can. They will just have fewer pixels.

You can just chop the extra edges off a full-frame and you'll have a crop-frame that's identical in every way except that it will have something like 50%-65% of the pixel count.

Well that's great. Except it doesn't have the same pixel count... OP estimate of stats says 24 MP. So it is not a typical full frame with edges chopped off. Which would be more like 10 MP.
Nobody's gonna buy a 10MP camera for more than pocket change, period. That's marketing suicide. Doesn't matter if it makes sense or not to use to take pictures.



@Derrel, 6d doesn't cost $1900.

I got mine for $2300 including a lens that sells like hotcakes on ebay for at least $650 used, probably more if you can say you've never used it. Thus the 6D costs $1650 at most. And you can be liquidated and at that price with your bank account if you want within a week. Just consider the 24-105mm kit lens as a $250 instant rebate.

$1650 + $550 ("five to six hundred") = $2200, AKA exactly the guess price of the 7D Mk II in the opening post.