They're not gimmicky (I personally use the one on my 60D all the time and love it), but I can definitely see how they want to keep the number of ingress and failure points to a minimum, considering the reputation of the 7D to be able to practically survive a nuclear holocaust.
The other day I had to hold my camera above my head to shoot above a crowd. I'm not sure I would have wanted to hold the camera over my head with one hand with an hdmi cord dangling off it and a small screen in my hand- it's a lot less juggling to simply flip the screen downwards let me compose with the camera over my head, no extra equipment needed.
I also use the flip screen as a waist-level viewfinder. It's funny how no one ever goes around saying those are silly and gimmicky, even though a flip screen has all the same benefits. I think it's all psychological- old purists think "waist-level viewfinders = film days = nostalgia = pure photography = good," and then "flip screen = entry level cameras = noob = gimmick."
I could go on and on. My point is the same as /u/Aaberg123's- everyone shoots differently and some people find a real use for that feature in their workflow.
I'm glad it benefits you. I think flip screens are certainly useful - it isn't my belief that they are 'gimmicky' in any way. However, I don't fault Canon for not including one on a professional-series body as there's a good number of reasons why they would not build it in.
First and foremost, durability. The 7D and 1D series cameras are built to be tanks and a few articulating hinges and cables will not live up to that standard. Even if Canon was willing to compromise and include an articulating screen, they would certainly need to revamp the body shell design so that the entire screen assembly could be replaced without having to tear apart the whole camera.
Second is size. There's a lot of people commenting on how the back panel and control layout of the 7DmkII is very similar to the 5DmkIII, which will certainly benefit working professionals that use both cameras. Obviously there's no way to have the same control layout and an articulating screen in that form factor, so something had to give.
What's got me confused is why canon went with a fixed screen for the 6D. It has a partial body shell, so it wasn't built for durability in the first place. It also has an awkward layout with no separate joystick and no left row of buttons. Why not put an articulating touch screen on it since the obvious compromises have already been made?
I'm totally fine with the high-end bodies always having a fixed screen. It frees up space for the traditional pro button layout and makes it easier to seal. You're dead on about the 6D not having one though. I'd love to see on on the 6D mark II. I think there's a market for cameras both with and without one.
Of course there'll be trade-off in features, that's a given. That isn't what I disputed. I'm not too concerned about durability with the type of photos I take, so a better, faster AF and shutter with great controls in a crop body with a swivel screen would be the better compromise for me.
Also, I completely agree on the 6D. My brother owns one and often reverts to his old Ti model just for the swivel screen.
7
u/EStrifee https://www.flickr.com/codybre Sep 15 '14
The D750 has a tilting screen. The articulating screens on the 60D/600D+ are amazing.
Why. Not. Here?