Where is the 7d mark 3 heading?

RGF

How you relate to the issue, is the issue.
Jul 13, 2012
2,742
18
#41
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.
Almost any 7D M2 replacements wlll be better than the current model. Not saying that the current model is bad, just an update will of course be better.

But is that enough? Unless the camera is a significantly improvement over the current model, users may sit on their wallets. Significant improvement could be interpreted as matching or exceeding D500 performance in key areas and the 90D or its successor (whatever that will be called).
 

Keith_Reeder

No apologies for not suffering fools gladly...
Feb 8, 2014
676
103
58
Blyth, NE England
#42
Almost any 7D M2 replacements wlll be better than the current model. Not saying that the current model is bad, just an update will of course be better.

But is that enough? Unless the camera is a significantly improvement over the current model, users may sit on their wallets. Significant improvement could be interpreted as matching or exceeding D500 performance in key areas and the 90D or its successor (whatever that will be called).
Yep, all true - and I have no idea what the answer is.

All manufacturers have to deal with the "how much of an improvement is enough?" question with every update round, and generally they seem to get it right - think 5D Mk III to 5D Mk IV, where initial reaction was muted, but eventually the consensus was that the Mk IV was indeed a worthwhile improvement; and even the 6D/6D Mk II, where although the Mk II was initially rather coolly received, it's still turned into a popular camera.

So while I don't doubt that the 7D Mk III will be better than the Mk II, what "better" looks like, and whether people will want to buy into it, is a mystery. For me though, it's hard to imagine what could be improved significantly: I have no problems at all with the 7D Mk II's IQ at any ISO I'm likely to use it in; and I remain constantly impressed by its AF; so there's not much which can obviously be made into the next killer/must-have improvement for me.

TBH, that's why I recently decided not to wait and see, and bought an as-new (< 37k shutter actuations) 1Dx instead, just to see what FF was all about...
 

RGF

How you relate to the issue, is the issue.
Jul 13, 2012
2,742
18
#43
There is a larger question - how much downgrade does each company apply as to lower end products.

About the 5 years ago I had an Acura RDX. Same engine as the MDX but 500-1000 pounds lighter plus 1 foot shorter, perhaps 4" narrower. Based upon these spec you have incorrectly thought that the RDX would get better fuel economy than the MDX, but no - Acura detuned the engine so their fuel economy was the same.

I was very disappointed in Acura, so my car was not an Acura
 

Don Haines

posting cat pictures on the internet since 1986
Jun 4, 2012
7,267
256
Canada
#44
Did you bother reading the comment to which the comment you quoted was responding? There was nothing in it about the EOS R. It was about "higher end" cameras such as the D5 and 1D X Mark II.
The comment was about high end cameras. The R is a midrange camera, roughly equivalent to a 6D2. Canon will come out with higher end mirrorless cameras, and on those cameras, similar to the 1DX2 and 7D2, one should expect multiple processors, where one can do more complex AF processing, and get greater AF performance, features, and burst modes.
 
Dec 6, 2016
171
46
#46
Could be doing both a DSLR 7DM3 and a mirrorless equivalent? Would that be be a M camera?
I doubt they will do a mirrorless version of a 7d2. The ability to choose field of view in camera on a mirrorless means a FF 50mp camera that shoots at say 7fps could be used as a crop sensor 20mp shooting at 10fps. Therefore no need to build a specialist apsc mirrorless action model. Unfortunately it will mean a higher pricetag.
 
Likes: Michael Clark
Jul 10, 2015
93
2
#47
Well, the 7DII is definitely better than my first DSLR, the 600D. I'm probably not a typical 7DII user - no sports, but I do BIF occasionally. I also use it for macro, landscapes. And what I miss most from the 600D is the tilty-flippy. But comparing the 7DII with 600D images at the pixel-peeping level, the 7DII was if anything slightly worse, despite a higher Mpix (only 20 c/w 18). So I dug into it a little more. I looked at 5DsR images (from others) and the 7DII came out inferior, given that the pixel sizes are about the same.
So here's my wish list for the 7DIII: a tilty-flippy; built-in GPS (not an SD insert that then takes up your reserve slot); probably 24MP (on APS-C that seems sufficient); more f/8 AF points (the AF is great but if you can't afford a 500 then you need it to work with at least a 1.4x) and NO AA filter.
I think that would finally compete with the 5DsR for the rest of us.