Nikon's Response to the Canon 7D MKII??

<p>In the D750 thread I asked what Nikon's reply to the Canon 7D MK II was going to be.</p>

<p>People said it didn't exist. Well it does now.</p>

<p>Canon 7D Mark II Major specification <br /><br />- Body of tough magnesium alloy <br />- Dust and water <br />-<strong> 20.2MP</strong> CMOS sensor <br />- Dual Pixel CMOS AF <br />- A new 65-point AF. All points cross type <br />- EOS iTR AF <br />- Continuous shooting <strong>10 frames / sec</strong>. <br />- Dual DIGIC6 <br />- Upper limit of the normal ISO sensitivity 16000 <br />- RGB + IR photometry sensor of new 150000 pixels <br />- Video Full HD 60p <br />- GPS Built-in <br />- Interval Timer <br />- Bulb Timer</p>

<p>That's a lot of camera for £1600.</p>

<p>Time for Nikon to release the D400.</p>

<p>Yes Mike it is a lot of camera.</p>

<p> And I wish Nikon had come out with it's equal long ago. I wonder how good the AF is really going to be as Canon has had some problems with that area.</p>

<p>I am going to make some pop corn and sit back to see how this all shakes out.</p>

<p>I have a feeling that if Nikon wanted (was able?) to respond to the 7D II <strong>from a specs perspective</strong>, they would have done it when the initial 7D came out... Yes, the D300s was close, but not as capable<strong> spec-wise</strong>. (please notice my emphasis on "spec-wise"). </p>

<p>Re the 10fps (which I'd love to have), someone explained to me (here I think) that Nikon is limited by the fact that the Expeed engine is not designed to be used in a parallel-processing way, so Nikon cannot just put 2 of them in parallel, like Canon does in the 7D, hence the limits on the ability to go very high in fame rates. Then again, it could also be a mechanical limit with the shutter, who knows... </p>

<p>Nikon seems to have focused a lot on improving sensor technology (with Sony) while some of the other camera components have lagged behind. It might be a strategic decision to differentiate themselves in areas where they feel they have a competitive advantage or it could be something else... </p>

<p>Anyway, this looks like a very capable camera on paper. Like Michael said, let's see how good all of it really is (AF, high iso noise, etc.) and how this plays out. </p>

 

Canon's AF issues with the 1D series were more than resolved by the 1D X.hopefully they have used what they learned

there in the 7D Mk. II.

 

Not having worked with either it looks like the D750 and 7D Mk. II are fairly evenly matched in specifications. Both

cameras have been in the works for about three-four years.

 

I predict (I hope) that the next really significant evolutionary step in digital camera sensor design will be a CMOS with a

stochastic array of irregularly shaped photo receptors.

<p>First of all, I am very puzzled that why it took Canon five full years before they finally come up with the successor to the 7D. A September 2014 announcement should have been the successor to the successor to the 7D, which has gotten very out of date.</p>

<p>Likewise, if Nikon were to introduce a successor to the D300/D300S, it should have been in 2011, when the EN-EL3-based products became illegal to sell in Japan, or 2012 the latest.</p>

<p>Nikon's strategy has clearly shifted to FX since 2012. Since the beginning of that year, Nikon has introduced eight FX DSLRs, nine if you count the D800 and D800E as two. And there is a bunch of new affordable f1.8 AF-S lenses and some zooms:</p>

<ol>

<li>D4, January 2012</li>

<li>D800/D800E, February 2012</li>

<li>D600, September 2012</li>

<li>D610, October 2013</li>

<li>Df, November 2013</li>

<li>D4S, February 2014</li>

<li>D810, June 2014</li>

<li>D750, September 2014</li>

</ol>

<p>In other words, the three introduced back in 2012 have all been updated. The D610 was inserted to fix the D600 dust/oil issue and the Df is probably just a one off niche camera. I would say the D750 is the real update for the D600/D610 but at a slightly higher price. (Calling it a D750 instead of D620 is marketing's way to justify the price increase.) And that leaves room for another entry-level FX DSLR around the 7D Mark II's $1800 range.</p>

<p>Meanwhile, in 2012, Canon had the 1DX, 5D Mark III and 6D to match the D4, D800, and D600. In particular, the D600 and 6D were announced within a few days at the same $2100 price prior to the 2012 Photokina. However, since then, Canon's DSLR introduction has slowed way down. The 6D is still the last Canon FX-format DSLR to date. The 7D Mark II is only the 2nd Canon DSLR of any type introduced in 2014 (after the Rebel T5). Canon also only has minimal participation in the mirrorless market.</p>

<p>I am sure the 1DX, 5D Mark III and 6D are still quite current, but Canon is a bit behind in the FX area. They have just slowed way down in new camera introduction overall.</p>

<p>It seems clear that Nikon is no longer interested in high-end DX. Nikon needs to update the D7100 to EXPEED 4 and hopefully faster SD cards to improve the buffer issue. Otherwise, I think the D7100 type construction is too weak for 8 to 10 fps.</p>

<p>Canon used to introduce new cameras the moment a new technology came out and suddenly they just stopped. The company probably wanted to focus on other aspects of their company such as printers, copiers, lenses, advertising, point and shoots and such. They probably feel their current cameras are good matches to what Nikon has to offer. Also, they're probably keeping a careful eye on the camera market and the sales vs. what the cellphones are doing to the market.<br>

Remember, Nikon is really expensive to begin with, always has been, always will be. Many consumers see that aspect as a negative and go with other cameras, particularly Canon. There's a reason why Canon is one of the top sellers in the world. Nikon has to differentiate their cameras from other companies somehow to make them "worth" the extra price and a full FX product line with lenses and accessories to match is a great start. Sony can't match the amount of lenses or accessories available to their full-size sensor line. Canon can, but at this point they're a little behind Nikon.</p>

<p>Nathan just wondering where you get your numbers from.<br>

Canon cameras are less expensive then Nikon cameras? 1DX started out more expensive then the D4 and still is more expensive then a D4s The 5D III cost more then a D810 and the list goes on.</p>

<p>Not like I have any say at what goes on at Nikon but I think they are kind of missing the boat on this. A lot of sports shooters like the crop. That is why I stayed with the D300/D300s for as long as I did. I have not tried a D7100 to shoot sports with but from the specs the frame rate is low and the buffer is small. And I really like a larger camera to fit in my hands</p>

<p>If the 7D II is all it is supposed to be it will be a very nice sports camera. And could very well draw new photographers into the Canon camp just because Nikon has nothing like it.</p>

<p>I prefer APS-C because I shoot a lot of wildlife, a lot of which are small and far away; they also tend to be not cooperative. For sports, I think FX is the way to go because (1) the subjects are larger and not that far away and (2) FX has a clear advantage for night and indoor sports.</p>

<p>So ironically, the 7D Mark II would have fit my needs quite well, but for those who shoot sports, there are plenty of good FX alternatives, including used cameras. For example, I am sure that a used D3S can still do very well for still sports photography; video is a different matter.</p>

<p>I can easily buy a 7D Mark II, but the problem will be lenses. For example, I use the 80-400mm/f4.5-5.6 AF-S VR a lot on the D7100 in these days. Adding some 500mm/f4 is going to be costly.</p>

<p>Well I guess that depends on the sport you are shooting.</p>

<p>And I still think a fast and rugged APS-C camera would be a great thing for Nikon to have.</p>

<p>I think the D9x00 will be the camera.</p>

<p>And I think it will fall short, still, of what people want in a D400.</p>

<p>But what do I know...</p>

<blockquote>

<p>I think the D9x00 will be the camera.<br>

And I think it will fall short, still, of what people want in a D400</p>

</blockquote>

<p>What are the specs for this hypothetical, vaporware D9x00 camera? In particular, what makes you feel that it is not as good as another non-existing D400?</p>

<p>You know, Peter, it is hard to compare two cameras when neither one exists. :-)</p>

<p>I'll try to be more sepecific...</p>

<p>I predict that Nikon will respond to this new 7D Mk II with a D9x00 (or whatever it gets called, but I think it will be 4 digits, like all the rest of the current DX DSLRs) that is already in development. I predict it will not have the construction and form factor that D300 lovers want, but will match the Canon in most regards.</p>

<p>I truly believe that Nikon "overdelivered" more with the generation of cameras that included the D90/300/700/D3(s) than with anything else they (or perhaps anyone) has brought to market in this digital age.</p>

<p>And in a very real sense, they are continuing to pay the price for that, in that, I suspect, a true "D400" (as most of the people on this board would understand it to be) probably can't be brought to market at the price point that actual "D400" users would pay.</p>

<p>And they still make awesome cameras, so whatcha gonna do.</p>

<p><em>I truly believe that Nikon "overdelivered" more with the generation of cameras that included the D90/300/700/D3(s)</em></p>

<p>That generation of Nikon cameras had really low resolution (for FX) except for the 8000€ D3X whereas at the same time Canon and Sony were selling high res (21-24MP) full frame for one third of the price. So in that respect Nikon underdelivered in that generation, but they certainly fixed that in the 2012+ generation. Now people complain that the cameras (except for the D4s) are too slow. ;-) Can't have everything. ;-)</p>

 

<p>switching back and forth every time a product comes out from either camp doesnt make logical nor financial sense. those 7d specs look good, especially the 10 fps and video capabilities, but i dont know that that camera is enough to make d300 owners switch camps. i'd probably prefer an inexpensive full-frame body over another souped-up crop sensor camera at or around the same price point.</p>

<p>"whereas at the same time Canon and Sony were selling high res (21-24MP) full frame for one third of the price."</p>

<p>Didn't those high-res cameras come out after the Nikons had been out a while?</p>

<p>That low light performance on those, especially the 700 and 3, were off the chain compared with what was out.</p>

<p>Sony and Canon introduced their "affordable" (<$3000) high res full frame cameras in September 2008; Nikon brought out the 12 MP D700 in July 2008. Nikon only got their first "affordable" high res FX (D800) out in 2012, that's quite a waiting time for those with that type of needs. </p>

<p>I think with regards to the 7D Mk II, Nikon should increase the buffer in the D7100 (to 30-40 frames 14-bit NEF) and add 1 fps (Expeed 4 should help achieve that) in an update and keep the price at its original introduction level. This way they could maintain affordability in the DX format yet provide useful additional functionality for action photography. A $1800 10fps DX camera isn't something I would buy today. I am not suggesting that there aren't people who would, it's just not my cup of tea.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>how good the AF is really going to be as Canon has had some problems with that area.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>where do these little memes come from? <br>

And, although many Nikon users are strangely reluctant to do so, there are good reasons for using BOTH DX and FX cameras at the same time.<br>

"<a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/He_Ain%27t_Heavy,_He%27s_My_Brother">It ain't heavy, it's ma cameras</a>"</p>

<p>If Nikon were to continue down the pro DX road (and I hope they do) they need to expand their DX lenses. At least add a small 16mm prime. Another couple DX lenses I would like to see would be an f5.6 400mm and a f5.6 600mm. Think of it: small sharp 600 and 900mm equivalents selling at four figures rather than five. The wildlife shooters would go nuts!<br>

Al</p>

<p>JDM<br>

On an occasion I spend days shooting beside people who use Canon gear and until the 1DX hit they spent a lot of time bitching about how the AF on the Mk IV wouldn't track a horse consistently. In fact quite a few of them sold off their 1Dmk IV and bought the 7D because the AF was better.</p>

<p>So these little mems come from the experience of personal friends who shoot Canon</p>

<p>Is that an APS-C camera? Then, no thanks. The only thing interesting in that spec is 10fps, for the sports shooters, but not something I would ever use.<br /> With the cost of FX sensors coming down, Nikon should phase out all the DX gear.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>With the cost of FX sensors coming down</p>

 

</blockquote>

<p>Excellent news Dan, would you care to put some actual figures to that? No-one I know has the foggiest notion as to how much a DX sensor or an FX sensor actually costs to make. Sure FX is bigger, physically, by about a 1/3 and I know you get fewer perfect sensors per silicon slice but...???</p>

<p>Yes, I know the D750 is a D5300 with an FX sensor and costs 4 times as much....but just how much is the sensor's cost actually involved?</p>

<p>Shun, this is aimed at you.</p>

<p>After reading this forum for a while, it has become quite apparent that you have more knowledge of Nikon products than you are allowed by NDAs to discuss, and you have also developed a keen understanding of the marketing of camera hardware. Accordingly, I would really like to get your opinion about a question I have.</p>

<p>IF IF IF Nikon is going to respond to Canon's introduction of the new 7D Mk II after leaving a void behind the D300/S for so long, how soon would you expect such a move? There's an obvious benefit to Nikon to be able to deliver such a new model for the coming Christmas season, but that leaves precious little time if the camera is not already well into development. It seems to me they'd need to announce the camera in about a month and begin delivering units to retailers in November to take advantage of holiday buying.</p>

<p>On another note, I have seen much attention given to the 10 fps of the new Canon, but I can't find any information about buffer capacity. At 20 mpix per frame, unless the camera has an uncommonly large buffer for a DX body and/or a breakthrough in write speed, the user may be able to shoot at high rate but for a disappointingly small number of frames before hitting the buffer's limit. And I don't expect a breakthrough in write speed because of the absence in the Canon announcement of any claims about using blazingly fast cards.</p>

<p>And just a little reinforcment on the past AF issues with the Canon AF</p>

<p>http://www.robgalbraith.com/multi_page60e1.html?cid=7-10048-10484</p>

<blockquote>

<p>IF IF IF Nikon is going to respond to Canon's introduction of the new 7D Mk II after leaving a void behind the D300/S for so long, how soon would you expect such a move?</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Bob, first of all, I have no insider information. My point of view that Canon was not going to update the 7D to 7D Mark II well known. Clearly I can be wrong sometimes. :-)</p>

<p>And I should point out that the specifications for the 7D Mark II are very strong. The AF module has more cross-type AF points than even the 1DX and 5D Mark III, and the $1800 price tag is very competitive. How well it functions in the field remains to be determined.</p>

<p>We have discussed here a number of times that in Japan, they changed the safety regulations in November 2008, with a three-year grace period, such that they could no longer sell products that are based on Li-ion batteries with exposed contacts such as the EN-EL3e. Therefore, it was already known in 2008 that Nikon would not be able to sell the D300/D300S in Japan by November 2011, before Nikon introduced the D300S in the summer of 2009.Therefore, if Nikon had any intention to provide an update to the D300S and D700, which uses that same battery, those updates should have been announced well ahead of the November 2011 deadline.</p>

<p>What obscured things in 2011 were the two natural disasters that year, the Japan earthquake/tsunami in March and then the flood in Thailand in October that seriously damaged the Nikon factory. Therefore, there were excused why the successors to the D300 and D700 were not introduced in 2011, but Nikon did introduce the D800/D800E dual in February 2012. Gradually, it finally became apparent that no successor to the D300 was planned.</p>

<p>Think about it, it took Canon 5 full years to update the 7D (introduced on September 1, 2009) to the 7D Mark II, if Nikon introduced some D400 in 2011 or even 2012, it would have little competition for a couple of years. However, by then, Nikon's strategy had shifted to FX. My post above clearly shows that Nikon's has updated their FX-format DSLRs far more frequently than their competition.</p>

<p>Therefore, the time window for Nikon to update the D300 has come and gone about 3 years ago. If you think Nikon already has something in the pipeline, you need to explain why they didn't introduce it in 2011, 2012 or even earlier in 2013, 2014. If Nikon is to design some D400 now, it'll be at least a year or maybe two before it is ready for the market; it would be extremely late.</p>

<p>Needless to say, the 7D Mark II is going to eat into the 1DX's market and it also competes in the 6D's price range. Any Nikon equivalent is going to compete against their own D750 and D610 as well as its successor. Frankly, if you shoot sports and cannot afford the D4S, there are plenty of used D4 and D3S, and D750 with the updated AF module should work ok. The D750's frame rate is on the slow side for sports, but again, FX has a clear advantage for anything indoors and night games.</p>

<p>If you definitely want sports/wildlife APS-C body, I would wait for some initial test results and unless there is something really wrong, go with the 7D Mark II. However, lenses are another issue to ponder. For me, there is no modern Canon equivalent of the 80-400 AF-S VR, and Canon's 200-400mm/f4 costs close to twice as much as the Nikon version. (Is Nikon really always more expensive than Canon?)</p>

<p>Quick summary for the cropped frame sports shooter (me). Canon 7D II shoots 1090 JPEG images at 10 FPS. My D7100 shoots 33 JPEG images at 6 FPS. When I go to the Wedge to shoot surfers in large waves, Nikons seem to be outnumbered by Canon at least 2:1, probably more. Game over in this category. </p>