No, it doesn't. It only needs to "beat" (whatever that means in the Real World) the 7D Mk II.the Canon 7D mark 3 has to beat D500 and at a price equal or lower when 7D mark II was launched (was it $1900?)
Still not convinced, Otara.I think a higher percentage will than previously. Particularly with Nikon's 500mm 5.6 coming out too. But I agree that its not really about 'failing'.
I can see it both ways.... If it were me designing it, I would put in a bigger buffer and a pair of UHS-II slots, and go for a faster/longer burst rate. I would expect a small increment in sensor performance and perhaps 4 to 6 more megapixels, and most definitely the articulated touchscreen of the 6D2, but other than that, not really a lot of change...I can't see the 7d3 going mirrorless. It is a dedicated sports and action stills camera and at this point mirrorless don't cut it in that field. The xxd line is a little different however so I think that is where the questions lie.
I would say if there is not 'much' better than the mark II, I would stick to my mark II. Like the delta from the mark II over the mark I is quite a lot.No, it doesn't. It only needs to "beat" (whatever that means in the Real World) the 7D Mk II.
I'm a typical (probably the typical) 7D Mk II user, and nothing on God's Green Earth is going to make me chuck in my 500mm f/4 Mk II and 100-400mm Mk II to move to Nikon just because the D500 is (say) better at very high ISOs than my current body (or even, if it comes to it, the 7D Mk III). I might move to a 1D-X, but not to the D500.
There are precious few sport/wildlife "serious enthusiasts" out there, who would throw in what they're currently using - which will doubtless be serving them extremely well - to move to another brand, just for one "must-have" feature their camera supposedly lacks. It just doesn't happen in anything like the numbers internet forums suggest.
So no satisfied Nikon D500 user is going to chuck it for a 7D Mk III, no matter how good it might be - just like the many 7D Mk II users out there now, who are still 7D Mk II users, even though the D500 is available.
And there are even fewer completely brand-uncommitted photographers who are coming in, completely cold, to sport or wildlife photography: if there were, you might have a point, but they're a rare beast indeed.
So it follows that all Canon has to to is keep its 7D Mk II users happy by rolling out a better camera than it.
The problem is not in faster/longer burst rate per se, It is in doing AI Servo AF tracking between each frame that makes mirrorless, particularly Canon's, so inappropriate for sports/action.I can see it both ways.... If it were me designing it, I would put in a bigger buffer and a pair of UHS-II slots, and go for a faster/longer burst rate. I would expect a small increment in sensor performance and perhaps 4 to 6 more megapixels, and most definitely the articulated touchscreen of the 6D2, but other than that, not really a lot of change...
Bluetooth headsets! Come on Canon... you put Bluetooth into cameras and don't give it the ability to connect to a Bluetooth headset? Why would you not include that? WHY?
If it did go mirrorless, we would be looking at enhanced info in the viewfinder (undoubtedly user configurable), the possibility of burst rates of 60, even 120FPS (at reduced resolution), and the end of having to AFMA lenses.... I'd buy that one!
The Nikon D750 is a FF camera.With Nikon hinting at the Z6 being the D750 replacement i am concerned as to what the future holds for the Canon 7D mark 3. The rumor waters have become increasingly muddy of late.