Another EOS 7D Mark III Wishlist Makes the Rounds, Along With Some Opinion [CR0]

May 11, 2016
102
0
#23
If the EOS 7D Mark III has:

- improved AF in particular tracking accuracy for moving subjects – in particular for brownish/greenish subjects;
- about 1 stop better DR across the whole range up to 1600 ISO;
- around 20 to 24 Mpixel;
- better sharpness (preferably with an AA-filter, but leave it out otherwise);
- an LCD screen with higher resolution (and possibly, but not necessarily, articulating);
- no price premium due to e.g. 4K video

then I will most certainly get it.

As soon as this becomes clear from reliable tests and reviews, I will get the EOS 7D Mark III right after it becomes available – even when the price is, as usual, very high due to skimming the market.
And I know a few people who will do the same then.

By the way, I will still keep my 80D then. ;)
 

RGF

How you relate to the issue, is the issue.
Jul 13, 2012
2,705
10
#24
Adrianf said:
I feel that Canon's objective is simple. The Nikon D500 has a slight advantage in performance over the 7D2. Canon needs the 7D3 to be better, in every way, than the D500, but not by much. If they can't do that, then eventually the D500 replacement will blow Canon's crop cameras off the map. It should be a game of leap-frog - that's healthy competition, and drives development targets. The other thing is, too many megapixels and we'll all need the fanciest glassware to keep up.
Given that the 7D3 will be introduced severals after the D500, the 7D3 needs to be clearly superior. Technology marches forward, Canon needs to raise the bar with the 7D3.
 

ahsanford

Particular Member
Aug 16, 2012
7,941
464
#25
RGF said:
Given that the 7D3 will be introduced severals after the D500, the 7D3 needs to be clearly superior. Technology marches forward, Canon needs to raise the bar with the 7D3.
There's that word again: "Need."

I always recommend thinking twice before projecting your expectations as a consumer on to Canon. They. don't. care. about what you think you need or what you believe you are entitled to for price point X in market segment Y. They care about their own assessment of the minimum they need to do to not lose you when the 7D3 is announced, in other words: what you think you need/deserve for $1699 is not what you'll leave the company for if it doesn't happen.

Will the 7D3 be better than the 7D2 in general? Obviously.

Will the 7D3 be better than the 7D2 in a specific metric you care about? Depends on what it is, but sure, it's possible.

Will the 7D3 be better than the D500? Probably in places we already take for granted (DPAF) or in incremental 'as time rolls on' moves a 7D3 would have gotten regardless of the D500 existing (+2 fps, + a few more MP, etc.).

But Canon isn't on the hook to deliver (say) 14 stops of base ISO DR because time and time again the market has shown that Canon doesn't need to deliver that to maintain market share, ASP, etc.

Again: Canon only has to do enough that you'll begrudgingly stay in the fold plus some small factor of satefy buffer in case their marketing assumptions were off. To put any more into a camera with a locked in starting price would just undermine their profit margins.

- A
 
Jul 21, 2017
6
0
Hungary
#26
ahsanford said:
Will the 7D3 be better than the 7D2 in general? Obviously.
Well, it's not obvious. The 6DII is not better than 6D in general, because imaging sensor quality is the most important part, and that is worse than the previous version.
 
Feb 7, 2012
129
0
40
Tucson, AZ
#27
The 7d would be a prime lineup to start into mirrorless.
Slim the body ever so slightly and lighten the body without changing the battery.
Give us, please
-12-15fps
-24mp
- uhs2 SD and CF CARD
4K at 24/30fps and at least 120fps 1080 in respectable codecs.
-EF mount capable.
Fully articulating screen.
Catch up to Sony circa 2016

Work on a series of lighter weight lenses that don’t sacrifice IQ much
 
Aug 26, 2013
66
1
#28
Sure 12fps would be good, but I think 10 is plenty for me. What I'd most like is an increase in the quality of the sensor. And I'd like to loose the AA filter (I use a 5DSR a lot and have had zero problems).

I'd also like an AF mode that worked between for subjects that are totally still and then suddenly move. I find that if the AF is set to erratic movement then it often wanders off my subject if nothing is moving, and then when my subject does move it's too slow to keep up.
I'd also like a slightly bigger body, especially if it could accommodate a larger battery. At the moment battery life with GPS active is not so great.

I'm not fussed about video, and I haven't ever thought it needed an articulating screen. I find it a bit weird that it has a pop-up-flash.

stilscream said:
The 7d would be a prime lineup to start into mirrorless.
Slim the body ever so slightly and lighten the body without changing the battery.
Give us, please
-12-15fps
-24mp
- uhs2 SD and CF CARD
4K at 24/30fps and at least 120fps 1080 in respectable codecs.
-EF mount capable.
Fully articulating screen.
Catch up to Sony circa 2016

Work on a series of lighter weight lenses that don’t sacrifice IQ much
 
Jan 21, 2015
187
29
#29
stilscream said:
The 7d would be a prime lineup to start into mirrorless.
Slim the body ever so slightly and lighten the body without changing the battery.
Give us, please
-12-15fps
-24mp
- uhs2 SD and CF CARD
4K at 24/30fps and at least 120fps 1080 in respectable codecs.
-EF mount capable.
Fully articulating screen.
Catch up to Sony circa 2016

Work on a series of lighter weight lenses that don’t sacrifice IQ much
Sounds like a beefy M series rather than a 7DIII
 
Jul 10, 2015
92
2
#30
My wish list-
sharper images, maybe if they left out the AA filter
24 MP would be enough
12 fps would be enough
improved high ISO performance (but I'd give up fps for this)

I wonder if they'll do a 5Ds/5Dsr with the 7DIII so you can choose whether to have the aaf or not.
 

justaCanonuser

Grab your camera, go out and shoot!
Feb 12, 2014
246
75
Frankfurt, Germany
#31
Shooting with a 7D2 frequently (wildlife, birding), my 7D3 wish list for Canon is:
(1) stick with a moderate pixel pitch not more than 24 MP, smaller pixels only mean stronger diffraction blur kicking in at f >= 7.1 plus the need for faster shutter speeds in action to get sharp images on the pixel level, i.e. to make really use of smaller pixels;
(2) substantial improvement of low-light performance;
(3) substantial improvement of the phase detection AF sensor so it matches the good performance of the recent 5D series;
(4) stick with OVF/SLR principle, because shooting wildlife with a long tele I don't want to drain the battery whenever I peer through the viewfinder to check whether something interesting is going on;
(5) implement really competitive 4K video that can also be used for nice high-speed stills;
(6) touchscreen to make focusing easier during video shooting with the great DP AF, like with a 80D sort of camera.
 
Jul 6, 2017
784
45
Davidson, NC
#32
As has been noted in other threads, video frame grabs are blurry because of the low shutter speeds, not so much because of low resolution. With static subjects, 4K will make better looking grabs than 1080p, but if the subject is not moving, why not just make one still shot?

One could, I guess, set a higher shutter speed if one planned just to use frame grabs and not the jerky video.
 
Aug 24, 2018
1
0
#33
I find 10 frames is enough. Obviously more would be better. Current resolution works for me too. Can't see any need for more. I'd even be happy with slightly less. I just want far better ISO performance, slightly better DR and while I don't really use it/require it, more options for 1080x60 and maybe 1080x120 and 4kx30. I don't use video much though.
The 7D2 has served me well but the 1DX2 and D4 at work have left me wanting more from my 7D.