October 22, 2017, 06:59:30 PM

Author Topic: Another EOS 7D Mark III Wishlist Makes the Rounds, Along With Some Opinion [CR0]  (Read 4431 times)

Canon Rumors

  • Administrator
  • Canon EF 600mm f/4L IS II
  • *****
  • Posts: 5781
    • Canon Rumors
Another list of recycled specifications for the EOS 7D Mark III is making the rounds.

Canon EOS 7D Mark III Rumoured Specifications:

  • 28mp Sensor (It was 30mp a few weeks ago) [see here]
  • 4K video [see here]
  • More video oriented features [see here]
  • Tilt-able touchscreen (Likely a feature for pretty much every Canon DSLR going forward)
  • A higher end feature set when compared to other APS-C DSLRs from Canon [see here]
  • A “new generation” of APS-C sensors from Canon
  • Same introductory price as the EOS 7D Mark III

I think we’ll be seeing a lot of these lists over the next couple of months, as Canon is going to be relatively quiet for the remainder of 2017. The PowerShot G1 X Mark III is coming and they have to start shipping the brand new tilt-shift lenses and the EF 85mm f/1.4L IS.

I personally don’t think Canon needs to up the resolution for the EOS 7D Mark III to make it attractive to buyers, but they could definitely improve dynamic range, image detail, autofocus performance, speed up frame rate, improve ISO performance and add the long overdue 4K video with C-Log for an APS-C camera.

I think things will start getting a little clearer as we get closer to CES in early 2018, while we don’t expect a DSLR to be announced for that show, we’ll likely see a a prosumer DSLR announcement some time in February of 2018.

thanks Ari

canonrumors.com

canon rumors FORUM


ahsanford

  • Canon EF 600mm f/4L IS II
  • **********
  • Posts: 5569
  • USM > STM
Same introductory price as the EOS 7D Mark III

#circularreference

- A

ahsanford

  • Canon EF 600mm f/4L IS II
  • **********
  • Posts: 5569
  • USM > STM
I keep playing the MP x FPS game in my head for how a 7D3 might play out.

The basic current state and assumptions are as follows:

1) FPS and MP won't go down with a 7D3.
2) Fastest throughput for a Canon rig to date = 16 x 20 = 320 MB/s
3) Fastest APS-C SLR competitor = D500 (same as 7D2) = 20 x 10 = 200 MB/s

Using the current state and the fastest Canon offers as a lower and upper bound, a 24 MP x 12 fps rig would sit nicely in between.  20% bump in res, 20% bump in speed.  Seems like a nice Canon upgrade.

BUT, the competition (admittedly in a pricier class) has really raised the roof on throughput of late:

Sony A99-II = 42 x 12 = 504 MB/s (in fairness, that's an SLT, the mirror's not flapping away)
Sony A9 = 20 x 24 = 480 MB/s (mirrorless)
Nikon D850 = 45.9 x 9 = 413.1 MB/s (SLR)

I'm not saying Nikon has an 18-20 fps crop SLR coming -- the mirror box and shutter would not be cheap to pull that off -- but they could roll in a much higher res sensor at a modest fps boost (wouldn't require a super pricey mirrorbox and shutter) and land with a 36 x 12, 40 x 10, etc. and try to scoop a relatively modest 24 x 12 7D3 for detail.

- A

Phil Lowe

  • PowerShot G1 X II
  • ***
  • Posts: 25
The problem with raising the resolution for any Canon APS-C camera is that Canon's APS-C sensor is smaller than Nikon's (or Sony's). The D500 comes in at almost 21MP, which is why a 22MP 7D3 would be a competitive bump in resolution without sacrificing too much in high-ISO/low-noise performance. IMHO, even 24MP for what should be a nighttime sports camera would be too much. But realistically-speaking, 20MP is still fine with me as long as it has much cleaner raw files up to ISO 3200 and the 5DMkIV's awesome dynamic range. And please, just keep it at 10FPS but give it the 1DX MkII's AF system, and drop the AA filter already. I don't have it on my D500, and have not run into any situation yet where I needed it. (I have the Canon 5D4 but recently traded my 5D3 and 7D2 in for the D500...keeping one foot in the Canon camp just in case the 7D3 is a D500 killer.  Doubt it will be, but one can hope!)

jolyonralph

  • EOS 6D Mark II
  • *****
  • Posts: 358
    • Every Other Shot
I think it would be very unlikely for the 7DIII to be >24mpx, unless Canon have some wonderful new sensor tech that they've kept very quiet about.

I also think 22mpx is the sweet spot for this camera.
Jolyon Ralph

Cameras: 5DSR, A7RII, 5D III, EOS M5/M3, Sony A6000, Mavic Pro, DXO One.  Oh, and more lenses than I care to count.

Chaitanya

  • EOS 5D Mark IV
  • ******
  • Posts: 603
28MP is nearly a 40% bump up in resolution and generally for a High-fps camera its not something that will bode well with its target shooters. Maybe we will see that 28MP sensor on 80D replacement but 7D mk 3 highly unlikely.

RGF

  • Canon EF 300mm f/2.8L IS II
  • ********
  • Posts: 2425
  • How you relate to the issue, is the issue.
My guess is 22-24 MP with similar FPS. 

Making higher MP will deleteriously S/N.  In the end I think Canon will make an incremental improvement, not major jump.

canon rumors FORUM


Hector1970

  • EOS 5D Mark IV
  • ******
  • Posts: 626
    • Flickr
For me I've no interest in higher resolution.
I don't see personally much use for that with the 7DIII.
I need better image quality and FPS.
Dynamic range is not that important for me personally.
I thought from the start that the 7DII image quality was poor. I thought it was because they crammed so many megapixels on the sensor. It's ISO performance was poor, that's an important think for sports photography. Canon have improved in this area.
If they don't increase the FPS then its a dead duck to me.
It's a huge help in sport.
The mirrorless are capable of going well beyond the mirrored cameras.
For the 7DII they should match the 1 DXII for FPS
(as I assume there is a new 1 DXIII coming for the World Cup in 2018) which will need more FPS to highlight it as a flagship camera.

tiggy@mac.com

  • EOS 80D
  • ****
  • Posts: 297
  • 5D4, 1DX
    • Forest Metrix
Many of us use both crop and full frame Canon rigs. Interestingly, when we wring our hands about these feature lists, that sensor size enormously effects the relative benefit/curse of the upgraded features. There are diminishing rates of return that start to come into play, particularly with the 7 series' crop sensor size.

The basic compromise AHSanford correctly sets out is the megapixels versus frame rate question. (Plainly it's not just a simple calculation of available throughput. Canon is perfectly happy underwhelming its cpu and cache by downplaying fps just because, such as in the 5D4.) Here are the two points I wanted to make:

ON RESOLUTION:
I do a lot of cropping with wildlife shooting. I'm more often than not at 1:1 magnification in Lightroom, estimating whether or not the medium in which the shot is going to be published will make the relatively low resolution output I'm about to export look like crud. So it was magical when the 5D4 came out with the unexpectedly large megapixel boost to 30. It went half-way to making the full frame sensor perform like a crop for the purposes of magnification. And I know, from having borrowed the 5DSR, that it could go to 50 and not break up.

This cannot happen on crop with current technology. Things get very muddy now at the 20 megapixels as it is, in good part because the crop sensor size makes the pixels very small, and we're taunting physical limits. I do hope that Canon can expand that ceiling using some the tech they've recently introduced, like on-chip ADCs, etc. But going from 20 to 28 megapixels will give significantly less benefit than seen on the full frame sensor.

I want the extra stop of shadow drawing that I get with the 5D4 files. So if Canon uses the new tech to have a 1.5 stop advantage, I'd rather than put only a small portion of that against allowing an increase in resolution, but the brunt of it against giving more dynamic range and file malleability. Going from 20 to 24 mp seems small, but it's a 30.5 percent decrease in pixel surface area. Put another way, if 10 photons were going to hit that pixel, now it would only see 7. This is why having a 5D4 that got boosted to 40mp would have been a fine idea, and a 7D3 that got boosted to 28 would have been wasting image quality on more pixels.

THE THREE LIMITATIONS OF FPS:
1) This will sound crazy, but there is such a thing as too many frames per second in a situation. Generally, people who are fans of mashing shutter buttons to get long strings of shots separated by mere milliseconds do this only in specific circumstances. And in those circumstances, 50 frames per second wouldn't be too much, buffer willing. But most times a 10-12 fps rate is more than adequate, or at least a compromise with our future selves later at night culling through the 95 percent of the shots we're going to throw away. This issue of too many FPS or too few, depending on the situation, is solved with a variable shutter button. Don't give me a menu option to change fps. People who vary fps don't have time for menus between shot recognition and click. The shutter depress needs to be graduated. We're using back-button focus anyway, so the "half press" should be dedicated to a modulated frame rate.

2) As a group, we often have underestimated the benefits of more frames per second in the past. Back when we thought 7 was high, 16 sounded stupid. The current 7D2's 10 is pretty good, but you'll notice more keepers (and even more non-keepers) if you shoot a 1 series with the higher fps. Having moved up and down in this fps continuum, I see a diminishing rate of returns somewhere between 12 and 16 fps. This is an interesting number because the industry has sort of arrived here, which means soon it will not be a good distinguishing factor between camera lines such as the 7 series versus the 1 series. Just in time for mirrorless to take away the limitations of the mirror mechanism. Sure, mirrorless will give us 40 fps, but at that point, it's just video, and Canon's motion JPEG format starts to seem prescient.

However, now that we're at this upper limit of utility, I think we tend to overestimate the value of more frames per second. To put it simply: if I were offered the same camera at 7 fps versus one at 8 fps, I'd sacrifice a lot to get the extra frame. I'd pay 15-20 percent more. If I were offered a 15 versus a 16 fps camera in different colors, my color preference would be more important. And I don't really give a damn about camera colors. What would make me buy a different camera is the buffer size - something that never makes the spec lists prior to launch, which has always been a mystery to me. 

UPSHOT:
Give us 24mp, 15 fps, 1 stop of extra (ISO performance +/or file malleability +/or dynamic range) geared to the high end of the ISOs, which is where 7D2 shooters are pegged.

zim

  • EOS-1D X Mark II
  • *******
  • Posts: 1581
18 -> 20 -> 22mp
8 -> 10 -> 12fps

I doubt it's going to be any more complicated that this    :)

C-A430

  • PowerShot G1 X II
  • ***
  • Posts: 27
  • Powershot C-A430
For me I've no interest in higher resolution.
I don't see personally much use for that with the 7DIII.
I need better image quality and FPS.
Dynamic range is not that important for me personally.
I thought from the start that the 7DII image quality was poor. I thought it was because they crammed so many megapixels on the sensor. It's ISO performance was poor, that's an important think for sports photography. Canon have improved in this area.
If they don't increase the FPS then its a dead duck to me.
It's a huge help in sport.
The mirrorless are capable of going well beyond the mirrored cameras.
For the 7DII they should match the 1 DXII for FPS
(as I assume there is a new 1 DXIII coming for the World Cup in 2018) which will need more FPS to highlight it as a flagship camera.

7Dii is Canon best low light crop camera so far (!), even though it is oldest in the line-up.

Although DxO gives 80D higher "sports score", on various websites RAW files of 7Dii at high ISO are cleaner.
80D behaves like 70D, but with higher DR yet DxO gives it much higher Sports score (1135 ISO vs 926 ISO for 70D, 7Dii is only 1082 ISO)

https://www.dxomark.com/Cameras/Compare/Side-by-side/Canon-EOS-80D-versus-Canon-EOS-7D-Mark-II-versus-Canon-EOS-70D___1076_977_895
« Last Edit: October 12, 2017, 09:13:32 AM by C-A430 »
2018 - 7DIII & 5DsII,  2019 - 90D & M5II,  2020 - 1DxIII & 5DV,  2021 - 6DIII,  2022 - 7DmIV
So going forward we will proactively, and let me emphasize that -- proactively -- work on expanding our lineup of EF-S or EF-M lenses
Masaya Maeda, September 2015

greger

  • EOS M5
  • ****
  • Posts: 234
  • 7D
24 mega-pixels I can live, with 28 is too many! Fully articulating is better than tiltable. If Canon can increase the usability of higher ISO images, I would jump on this as soon as it’s announced.
Canon 7D | EFS 17-85mm f/4-5.6 IS USM - EF 50mm f/1.8 Mark l - EF 100mm f/2.8 IS USM Macro - EF 70-200mm   f/4 L IS USM- EF 100-400    f4.5-5.6 IS USM - 1.4 ll and 2X ll Extenders

James Larsen

  • PowerShot G1 X II
  • ***
  • Posts: 25
A Canon 7DII with the addition of a flip touchscreen of the 80D, with a better sensor (speaking DR wise), and 4k video would be an immediate buy for me. Please, Canon, please. Give me something like this in the 7dIII!

canon rumors FORUM


wsmith96

  • EOS 5DS R
  • ******
  • Posts: 860
  • Advancing Amateur
If we could get the 5D MkIV sensor technology into the 20MP 7D sensor, I'd be fine with that.  Put the rest of the upgrade into cleaner hi-iso images and video capabilities.  The flip touch screen would be icing on the cake.  I don't see a need to upgrade fps, but putting in the 1DXII auto focus system would be great.
What I do today is important because I am exchanging a day of my life for it.
60D | 80D | 10-22 | Rokinon 14 2.8 | 17-55 | 24-105L | 50 1.4 | 60 Macro | 85 1.8 | 100 2.8L Macro | 70-200 2.8L Mk II | 100-400L Mk II | 430EX II x 3 | ST-E2 | 270EX | 1.4 Extender III

csibra

  • Canonflex
  • *
  • Posts: 2
Same introductory price as the EOS 7D Mark III

#circularreference

- A
This is a [CR3]  ;D

canon rumors FORUM