Canon 77D

[mjperini]

Hi Bob, I hope this finds you well, and preparing for spring....
I'd love to hear your comments on the new 77D, and why Canon felt it was necessary to create another line above the Rebels?
It looks like a very nice camera giving up very little to the 80D
The Rebels have always been good cameras and good values, I almost wonder if the 'Rebel' name vas become too associated with the idea of a first step serious camera for 'Soccer Moms & Dads' (at which it excels) ??
It seems like a lot of camera for the money--Digic7 vs 6 in the 80D, better stated ISO, but not a 100% viewfinder.
There must be a real reason to create a new category, because it also creates some confusion.
I may be missing something but it looks like it would kill 80D sales ??
all the best

[Bob Atkins]

The 77D is probably more about marketing than technology. The more choices Canon give customers the more likely it is that one of them will fit their needs and price range. That's the theory anyway. It also causes confusion about what to bay and what the differences are. Too many options con't always make life easier for customers.

The main "upgrade" of the 77D is the use of the new DIGIC 7 processing chip. This appears to allow them to offer a slightly higher ISO range, presumably due to slightly better noise reduction algorithms. It may also slightly improve AF tracking performance. However these are likely to me marginal gains. Measurably better in lab tests but probably not really noticeable to user who isn't looking for them.

As it is now I think the 80D has a longer battery life, a faster shutter, higher viewfinder magification, a faster shooting rate (both JPEG and RAW), better weather sealing and a headphone jack for monitoring audio when shooting video. The 80D also has an 8 way control bad, the 77D has a 4 way. The 77D has bluetooth, is slightly cheaper and has a larger buffer, plus the DIGIC 7 advantages.

I'm sure the 90D will have all the additional features of the 77D (mainly a DIGIC 7 processore), plus more. Canon's main goal in fife is to get you to upgrade in small step. i.e. for you to buy a new camera every year or two. They are all good cameras, each one slightly better then the previous one. If you buy the 77D now, Canon probably hope that you'll move to a 90D when they release one!

The EOS 77D is $ 899 and should be shipping by the end of March (http://www.adorama.com/ica77d.html?kbid=12417)
The EOS 80D is $1099 and ships right away (with $44 in store credit) (http://www.adorama.com/ica80d.html?kbid=12417)

So I wouldn't say the 77D is an 80D killer. It's an option with fewer features in general, but with a few things the 80D doesn't have. There's still a choice there!

[mjperini]

Bob,
That was really helpful, thanks a lot.
I think it is an option that creates more confusion than Canon thinks---- at least on my part.

[Bob Atkins]

It's a problem known as "The Paradox of Choice". See the Wikipedia article here - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Paradox_of_Choice

The more choices there are, the less happy you may be with what you finally choose - because you're never sure you made the right/best choice!

[mjperini]

Bob, You are exactly right.
I went from a 20D to a 40D and in 2007 to a 1Ds mk III which was the best camera I had ever used by far.
I love it and still use it,I waited in vein for a high MP update, when it became clear none was likely I considered the 5Ds or sr,  but added the 5D mk iv because it seemed like it offered the best body, if not the highest MP. It is a wonderful camera in every way, but I'd be lying if I said I didn't occasionally think about printing 50MP files.  It was no where near as satisfying as the 1Ds III purchase was.
It was a huge satisfying jump in every area, ( remember in 2007 Nikon's flagship was a crop sensor 12mp camera, and my 40D was 10)
I get what they are doing, and why, but it takes a little of the fun out of it.....;-))

[Bob Atkins]

I think one of the issues is that the rate of progress is slowing as the technology matures. Today's entry level DSLRs probably have the performance that "state of the art" models had 10 or 15 years ago. The difference in image quality between a low end APS-C rebel and a full frame pro level DSLR isn't really that much for the applications that most people have. If your making poster sized prints at iso 25600 then the difference might be significant. If you're shooting for 8x10 prints at iso 100, it isn't. Recent new models tend to feature faster processors, more complex metering and AF systems, Higher resolution video (4K), more connectivity and other features not really directly connected to still image quality.

Whether you need higher image quality is a personal decision and depends on how you will be using your images. Personally I'm fine with the IQ of today's DSLRs. I'd like to see higher image quality in smaller, lighter cameras with smaller sensors. There's still room for a lot of improvement there!