garyvot wrote:
Don't get your hopes up for a cheaper FF camera. I just can't see the business justification for this right now.
Going by past Canon naming practice a '7D' model would be a lower end, less feature-spec'd camera than a '5D' model.
Why not? Sony is actually going to do just that and release a lesser specced a900, for under $2000, some say $1899. Not bad for a 24.6MP camera, with 100% VF. FF is what Canon are aiming for across the range eventually, except entry level. I have no doubt, that any xD camera will be FF (1D have a specialists role currently, but will also go FF in time IMO).
Think of the glass they will sell to APS-C upgraders if they sell this camera cheap. I think it needs to be priced at $1999. That puts it between 50D and 5D, and undercuts the A900 and D700 by a healthy margin. Also $2000 is such a psychological barrier.
I want all AF points to be cross type, I want them to be well spaced in the frame and I want a CF that will attach the spot metering to the active AF point. Also, the less MP, the better. The rest of the spec are less important to me but if it'll have all the above, I'll buy it.
BTW, currently the model which is closest to this is the 1D Mk III......
only one year since the 5D2 release, i don't see canon putting out a camera that will steal sales from it, especially when it's selling like pot at a rusted root concert (when available). the 7D is going to be the otherwise '60D'.
as much as i'd love a 5DMk1n, and cheap FF will come, canon is due for a 50D successor and a 1D3 successor, and that's what i see us getting in a few days.
Drew_Persson wrote:
Not sure why such a body would retail for $2,700. Gotta be something more to it.
The price could be total garbage... BB had the wrong prices in their system for the G11 and S90. They had the G11 at $599 and the S90 at $499 when they're $499 and $429 (MSRP). That's 20% and 16% high respectively.
abam wrote:
only one year since the 5D2 release, i don't see canon putting out a camera that will steal sales from it, especially when it's selling like pot at a rusted root concert (when available). the 7D is going to be the otherwise '60D'.
as much as i'd love a 5DMk1n, and cheap FF will come, canon is due for a 50D successor and a 1D3 successor, and that's what i see us getting in a few days.
How is is stealing sales, it's made by the same company, not a competitor; they still get the money. The idea is that the 7D will have less pixels and a few other features, essentially a mdernised 5D. Many will want the extra res of the 5D II, and others are perfectly happy with 12.8MP. The salami will be sliced differently, but it'll still be a whole salami, ie who cares how the bottom line is achieved as long as it's not worse than before.
The the R&D and then sensor production money. If it's the EXACT same sensor as the 5D, that's one thing... but if it is a new sensor... that is a huge expense. They've already spent tons of money in 5DII development and production... a product to "steal" those sales would only work if it cost next to nothing to develop and produce.
For me, the only feature that matters is a better AF. I think that will be the grand decider. I.e. if they came out with a 5DII with 1D focus system, I'd be in line... and I just got a 5DII.
Pixel Perfect wrote:
How is is stealing sales, it's made by the same company, not a competitor; they still get the money. The idea is that the 7D will have less pixels and a few other features, essentially a mdernised 5D. Many will want the extra res of the 5D II, and others are perfectly happy with 12.8MP. The salami will be sliced differently, but it'll still be a whole salami, ie who cares how the bottom line is achieved as long as it's not worse than before.
Sound arithmetic is not welcome around here.
A 12 Mpixel camera with better AF would be very much in keeping with the Canon tradition of not giving the customer everything she wants. I want a 3D, i.e. better AF, lightweight body, 21 megapixels, $3000. I'm sure that ain't coming. Direct hits not allowed at Canon.
If it was the same sensor as the 5D then it would be 12.8 MP. Maybe they are going to catch up with Nikon a little and it is a dual, taking EF and EF-S lenses?
The rest of the feature bringing it up to date. I hope they do a little something on the focus side.
arithmetic can be sound but make poor business sense. you're making two cameras (R&D, production, individual marketing campaigns, etc.) instead of one for pretty much the same group of people (budget FFers). we're not talking about sausages, but cameras. =)
brainiac wrote:
Think of the glass they will sell to APS-C upgraders if they sell this camera cheap. I think it needs to be priced at $1999. That puts it between 50D and 5D, and undercuts the A900 and D700 by a healthy margin. Also $2000 is such a psychological barrier.
If it's a full frame "inexpensive" body, it's got to be under $2000. But I don't know if that'll be the case. How about a 1.3X small body rocket with 6-8 FPS and pro AF? I think a nice fast pro camera with a smaller footprint would be desirable. Not too many pixels, but excellent performance. Something that can be built well, but relatively inexpensively.
Personally, I have no idea - I'm just throwing out some theory here.
abam wrote:
arithmetic can be sound but make poor business sense. you're making two cameras (R&D, production, individual marketing campaigns, etc.) instead of one for pretty much the same group of people (budget FFers). we're not talking about sausages, but cameras. =)
By that reasoning why do they make 7 camera models? I hate to point it out, but the 5D II is still a lot of money and offering a FF camera under $2K makes a lot of sense. That $800 buys a nice lens.
I was really hoping for another FF camera, but at this point I'm unfortunately expecting another 1.6 crop body, or mabe 1.3 crop. Many claim that the photo shows the base of an EF-S lens.
Pixel Perfect wrote:
offering a FF camera under $2K makes a lot of sense.
Not trying to be argumentative or rude but makes sense to who? I agree with you... I'd love a FF under 2K. But that would most likely really sink their 5DII sales. Adding a 1D focus would completely kill the 5DII sales. Meaning all the money they spent on developing that camera is pretty much lost.
I would take almost any camera with pro AF and a smaller footprint than the 1D's. Hence why I have been scouting D700's for the last couple weeks. Just waiting to see what is announced before pulling the trigger.
aaronlam wrote:
....I would take almost any camera with pro AF and a smaller footprint than the 1D's. Hence why I have been scouting D700's for the last couple weeks. Just waiting to see what is announced before pulling the trigger.
Agreed and your certainly not alone in wanting that. Why Canon can't offer this I just don't understand.
"Small size", FF, "pro-level" AF, ?12-15 mp - why not?
aaronlam wrote:
Not trying to be argumentative or rude but makes sense to who? I agree with you... I'd love a FF under 2K. But that would most likely really sink their 5DII sales.
Unless there are suckers out there who think that 21 Mpixels are better than 12 (fools!) and don't care too much about pro AF because they realise that all AF sucks, even Nikon's.
The "5" on my 5D MK II has tiny horizontal lines running thru it, not as bold as the ones in the D, but visible. I do not see them in the 7. Also do not see a red dot on the edge of the lens to proclaim it FF.
Our local Canon Dealer now lists the 5D MK II for $2899, or $900 more than the supposed price of this camera, so thats a big margin.
roanjohnnyc, your math has a problem!! If each pixel difference was $100, there would be a 6 billion dollar difference in the price of the cameras. (6,000,000 X $100)
