No 7d iii in 2019!

privatebydesign

Would you take advice from a cartoons stuffed toy?
Jan 29, 2011
7,116
115
118
#21
So playing devils advocate for a moment, what do those for whom this is a "big deal" need from a MkIII that the MkII doesn't give you? I'm not talking about inevitable evolution, a few more MP and a a couple of fps increase, they are both almost certainly modest bumps that aren't going to make a huge difference. Even moving to the modern sensors would only give you benefits below 400iso and I'd expect few 7D series users are shooting their sports and wildlife below 400 iso most of the time as you just can't get the shutter speeds. What's the "big deal"?
 
Likes: YuengLinger

YuengLinger

EOS 7D Mark II
Dec 20, 2012
1,940
32
Southeastern USA
#22
Is it, is it not, true that for a given distance to subject and focal length, a subject will appear larger in the frame of an image from a crop camera than from a full-frame? (The direct inverse of the fact that a full frame sensor is "wider" than a crop sensor")?

There's your reach..!
There's your illusion of reach. Please don't act like this is the first time you've been exposed to the debate about cropped vs full frame. I was expressing an opinion. Kind of like rolling my eyes. ;)
 

Don Haines

posting cat pictures on the internet since 1986
Jun 4, 2012
7,267
256
Canada
#23
As someone who has both crop and FF cameras (7D2, 5D2, 6D2) my observations are:

On a lower quality lens and poor light - FF has a reach advantage
On a lower quality lens and good light - no significant difference.
On a high quality lens and poor light - no significant difference
On a high quality lens and good light - crop has a reach advantage

but anyway, you are all missing the big reason for the 7D2..... you have a mini 1DX at a fraction of the price!
 

YuengLinger

EOS 7D Mark II
Dec 20, 2012
1,940
32
Southeastern USA
#24
As someone who has both crop and FF cameras (7D2, 5D2, 6D2) my observations are:

On a lower quality lens and poor light - FF has a reach advantage
On a lower quality lens and good light - no significant difference.
On a high quality lens and poor light - no significant difference
On a high quality lens and good light - crop has a reach advantage

but anyway, you are all missing the big reason for the 7D2..... you have a mini 1DX at a fraction of the price!
Yes, you and PBD have gotten to the heart of the matter. Good points you've made here, and, I believe, previously.
I can't get excited about a new 7D because, as PBD says, high ISO goes with nature photography when the light is most pleasing yet stopping motion/blur are most difficult. And unless there is a truly astounding leap in sensor tech, yet another APS-C sensor in a slightly tweaked body as big as a FF seems, well...What is the big deal?
 

privatebydesign

Would you take advice from a cartoons stuffed toy?
Jan 29, 2011
7,116
115
118
#27
It’s a big deal because the Nikon D500 with the 200-500 lens is an affordable consumer combo.

The auto focus there is reportedly excellent. Competition would be good.
That the two companies make comparable gear isn't a big deal, that they leapfrog each other every few years also isn't, switch (either way) if the feature set is compelling enough, don't if it isn't.

The D500 and 200-500 is a good combo in comparison and I have seen many more of them than 7D-400 f5.6 recently at the popular local birding spots, having said that there is an aspect of the pissing contest to a lot of the gear buying decisions around here and it's funny because I am seeing fewer Sony cameras since the first tidal wave of Sony publicity/social media abated and people have learned the pros and cons of Sony ownership first hand.

I'm still not seeing a "big deal" aspect to the question of a 7D MkIII though, the D500/200-500 combo is as much about the lens than the body.

Turn it around, if Canon were to come out with a 7D MkIII and a 200-500 IS with the IQ of the venerable 400 f5.6 and you could only afford one, how many 7D MkII owners would take the new body with modest resolution and fps boosts along with improved IQ below 400iso instead of the new glass? I know I'd jump at the glass.
 

tron

EOS 5DS R
Nov 8, 2011
3,702
100
#28
So playing devils advocate for a moment, what do those for whom this is a "big deal" need from a MkIII that the MkII doesn't give you? I'm not talking about inevitable evolution, a few more MP and a a couple of fps increase, they are both almost certainly modest bumps that aren't going to make a huge difference. Even moving to the modern sensors would only give you benefits below 400iso and I'd expect few 7D series users are shooting their sports and wildlife below 400 iso most of the time as you just can't get the shutter speeds. What's the "big deal"?
I used to use 7DII for birding. But I read what AlanF mentioned about 5DsR and bought it. He was right. It has better IQ up to about ISO 1000 than 7DII. Since it has the same pixel density I sacrificed speed for IQ. The difference is not huge but it's there. So I would welcome this IQ increase (and a little more due to even newer sensor) in 7DIII and I would be satisfied even if there was no other improvement over 7DII (10fps are more than enough, I am OK with fixed back screen and I do not care for video).
 
Likes: AlanF
Jul 4, 2018
42
9
Germany
#29
So playing devils advocate for a moment, what do those for whom this is a "big deal" need from a MkIII that the MkII doesn't give you? I'm not talking about inevitable evolution, a few more MP and a a couple of fps increase, they are both almost certainly modest bumps that aren't going to make a huge difference. Even moving to the modern sensors would only give you benefits below 400iso and I'd expect few 7D series users are shooting their sports and wildlife below 400 iso most of the time as you just can't get the shutter speeds. What's the "big deal"?
For me its the better sensor. I currently shoot with the 80d because it has the best canon apsc sensor.

I want the controlls (joystick etc.) And focusing and shutterspeed etc. Of the 7d series with a good sensor. Basicaly i want the nikon d500 but from canon.
 
Aug 1, 2017
106
41
#30
You can pick up a new 7D Mark II for about $1400 US. Not sure how much more Canon could offer at that price. On chip ADC would be very nice but I don't know if Canon would upgrade just for that and they didn't put it in the 6D II. The logical place to roll that out next would be the 5DSR II and that doesn't seem to be on the horizon either.

Otherwise what more can they do. The frame rate is already right on the edge of functional IMO. Even under the best of circumstance the AF at 10 FPS throws up a lot of clunkers. How much faster can they flap that little mirror without getting into IDX level build construction. It also has the potential to be an excellent APS-C/Super 35 video camera for field work but that doesn't seem likely given Canon's track record on video features in their DSLR's. I'd want high frame rates/slow motion for that and that seems to be an issue accross the line.

If Canon didn't put CFast in the 5D Mark IV seems unlikely they'd go that route in an APS-C given the price point and target buyer.

I'd be surprised if we saw a 7D Mark III until Canon has a compelling reason to update. I don't think I'd upgrade unless Canon has some new tech we haven't seen in current models. The existing camera seems fine for it's intended use.

edit: In my experience the biggest issues with the 7D Mark II and the reason I don't really use it that much these days is that it doesn't take any "additional crop" very well. As soon as you start drilling in to improve the composition things go south very quickly. When I can use the entire frame I'm usually very happy with the results. The problem is that it's very difficult to do that when you are doing sports/wildlife with primes. Too close and the subject bleeds out of the frame. Too loose and the IQ really suffers. I've found I need the extra real estate of a FF camera to consistently end up with the framing that I want. It's not really a knock on APS-C because I've found that you can acheive excellent results for a variety of subjects. It's just that I've found that for difficult subjects the "reach" doesn't necessarily translate to a better final image.
 
Last edited:
Jul 4, 2018
42
9
Germany
#32
I'd be surprised if we saw a 7D Mark III until Canon has a compelling reason to update. I don't think I'd upgrade unless Canon has some new tech we haven't seen in current models. The existing camera seems fine for it's intended use.
you are probably right, and i am currently looking into buying a used 7d ii. I just dont want to downgrade imagequality wise from my 80d. I just wish the 7dii didnt have an aa filter and was better in low and high iso. Otherwise its a nice camera.
 

privatebydesign

Would you take advice from a cartoons stuffed toy?
Jan 29, 2011
7,116
115
118
#33
you are probably right, and i am currently looking into buying a used 7d ii. I just dont want to downgrade imagequality wise from my 80d. I just wish the 7dii didnt have an aa filter and was better in low and high iso. Otherwise its a nice camera.
That depends entirely on where in the iso range you shoot. Sub 400 iso you could see a difference between them, over 400 iso you won't.
http://www.photonstophotos.net/Charts/PDR.htm#Canon EOS 7D Mark II,Canon EOS 80D
https://www.dpreview.com/reviews/im...=1&x=0.9419494976920991&y=-1.0903796778238335
 

Jack Douglas

https://yourshot.nationalgeographic.com/profile/64
Apr 10, 2013
5,556
89
Alberta, Canada
#34
I can't imagine I'd go back to crop but I have to say I really liked the 1D4's 1.3 crop. If that camera could have had better high ISO capability and a few more MPs I doubt I would have dumped it.

Something that may be forgotten with comparisons between a camera with and without extender or between FF and crop is the ability to see the distant subject enlarged when shooting results in more precise placement of the AF point where you want it and also aids in picking out subjects in the trees etc. Of course if you can't later crop to enlarge that little birdie and still have a stellar photo, it doesn't prove much.

I know it's considered a no no but my nature shots are often cropped, sometimes significantly because I'm reach limited for the FL I use. However, moving from 300 X2 to 400 X2 seemed to have helped more than the numbers would suggest.

Jack
 
Likes: tron

AlanF

EOS 5DS R
Aug 16, 2012
4,050
278
#35
As tron and others have mentioned, removal of the AA-filter on going from 7DII to the equal pixel density 5DSR significantly improved the resolution by about 10%. Lensrental also found this difference between the 5DSR and 5DS. The noise and actual resolution also depend on the RAW converter. I find DxO much better than DPP for getting the best from the high density sensors like the 7DII and 5DSR.

I use both the 5DIV and 5DSR routinely for bird photography and heavy cropping. At low iso, the 5DSR is very significantly sharper and gives me about 40% more reach e.g., 5DSR + 100-400mm II ~ 5DIV ~ 400mm DO II for resolution. 5DSR + 100-400mm II better than 5DIV + 100-400mm II + 1.4xTC. In all cases, the 5DSR is slightly better than the same lens with the 5DIV + 1.4xTC and has 1 stop advantage. For high isos, up to iso6400, the 5DSR is as good noise wise as the 5DIV, allowing for scaling. The 5DIV wins for speed and AF.

I would expect a new 7DIII without an AA-filter to perform similarly, and I would pre-order one.
 
Likes: tron
Dec 6, 2016
171
46
#36
So playing devils advocate for a moment, what do those for whom this is a "big deal" need from a MkIII that the MkII doesn't give you? I'm not talking about inevitable evolution, a few more MP and a a couple of fps increase, they are both almost certainly modest bumps that aren't going to make a huge difference. Even moving to the modern sensors would only give you benefits below 400iso and I'd expect few 7D series users are shooting their sports and wildlife below 400 iso most of the time as you just can't get the shutter speeds. What's the "big deal"?
Improved AF system. Dual digic 8's would simply give more processing power to improve AF as well as sensor performance, buffer etc . F8 af across the board and not just center point. And improvements in high iso and dynamic range will be nice(a lot of us also use the camera for landscapes etc). Other small things like illuminated buttons would be nice.
 
Likes: tron

YuengLinger

EOS 7D Mark II
Dec 20, 2012
1,940
32
Southeastern USA
#37
Improved AF system. Dual digic 8's would simply give more processing power to improve AF as well as sensor performance, buffer etc . F8 af across the board and not just center point. And improvements in high iso and dynamic range will be nice(a lot of us also use the camera for landscapes etc). Other small things like illuminated buttons would be nice.
These are modest but sensible updates. F8 AF would put it where it should be for a modern sports/action shooter. But I'd still say, unless Canon introduces a significantly improved APS-C sensor, just spend more and get a 5D IV or, fingers crossed, the next, better performing, R body many of us are waiting for.
 
Last edited:

tron

EOS 5DS R
Nov 8, 2011
3,702
100
#38
These are modest but sensible updates. F8 AF would put it where it should be for a modern sports/action shooter. But I'd still say, unless Canon introduces a significantly improved APS-C sensor, just spend more and get a 5D IV or, fingers crossed, the better performing R body many of us are waiting for.
I do have a 5DIV and I love it. But when someone needs a 7DII (or 5DsR) there is a big chance (let's say there is roughly a 50% chance: birding vs landscaping) that he/she is Focal Length limited. So a 5DIV doesn't cut it. I hope you are not referring to the EOS R which is useless in that case (a little worse than 5DIV) but a future high MPixel R style body...
 
Likes: AlanF

privatebydesign

Would you take advice from a cartoons stuffed toy?
Jan 29, 2011
7,116
115
118
#39
Improved AF system. Dual digic 8's would simply give more processing power to improve AF as well as sensor performance, buffer etc . F8 af across the board and not just center point. And improvements in high iso and dynamic range will be nice(a lot of us also use the camera for landscapes etc). Other small things like illuminated buttons would be nice.
But that's my point, that is all incremental, it would all be nice to have and in an incremental update you will get some of it, but none of it is a "big deal".
 

YuengLinger

EOS 7D Mark II
Dec 20, 2012
1,940
32
Southeastern USA
#40
I do have a 5DIV and I love it. But when someone needs a 7DII (or 5DsR) there is a big chance (let's say there is roughly a 50% chance: birding vs landscaping) that he/she is Focal Length limited. So a 5DIV doesn't cut it. I hope you are not referring to the EOS R which is useless in that case (a little worse than 5DIV) but a future high MPixel R style body...
Yes, I mean the NEXT, better performing, R series body.
 
Likes: tron