Will it be worth waiting for?

[unfocused]

...So, I will stand by my prediction, that Canon will just add enough features and specs to the 7DIII, and not over do it by any means.

You still didn't answer which feature(s) you think Canon may exclude. I am curious.

Translation: He doesn't want to be confused by facts and he doesn't want to have to defend his statements. Therefore, he makes a prediction that is completely unquantifiable. No matter what Canon includes in the 7DIII he can claim they added "just enough features and specs" and did not "over do it."

 

[Pitbullo]

...So, I will stand by my prediction, that Canon will just add enough features and specs to the 7DIII, and not over do it by any means.

You still didn't answer which feature(s) you think Canon may exclude. I am curious.

Translation: He doesn't want to be confused by facts and he doesn't want to have to defend his statements. Therefore, he makes a prediction that is completely unquantifiable. No matter what Canon includes in the 7DIII he can claim they added "just enough features and specs" and did not "over do it."

Why so rude? It could be that I live in a different part of the world making me wanna sleep when others are awake..
I don’t think Canon will put in unlimited buffer, like the D500 (with a proper card). I do think it will have 4K with decent codec and bit rate, but nothing over the top, so it won’t compete with the higher end cameras. SD will be UHS-I still. No back lighted buttons or tilty screen. We might see a new feature from Canon, automatic AF tune. Would be nice.
As said before, I don’t think it will be a bad camera, just that the marketing guys and economy guys have more to say about features to include than the engineers. Canon is in it for the money, not giving away features for free. A few specs to give people GAS, and state competitive with the competition, and then as little as possible to save money.
They will sell loads of them.

 

[Talys]

...So, I will stand by my prediction, that Canon will just add enough features and specs to the 7DIII, and not over do it by any means.

You still didn't answer which feature(s) you think Canon may exclude. I am curious.

Translation: He doesn't want to be confused by facts and he doesn't want to have to defend his statements. Therefore, he makes a prediction that is completely unquantifiable. No matter what Canon includes in the 7DIII he can claim they added "just enough features and specs" and did not "over do it."

Why so rude? It could be that I live in a different part of the world making me wanna sleep when others are awake..
I don’t think Canon will put in unlimited buffer, like the D500 (with a proper card). I do think it will have 4K with decent codec and bit rate, but nothing over the top, so it won’t compete with the higher end cameras. SD will be UHS-I still. No back lighted buttons or tilty screen. We might see a new feature from Canon, automatic AF tune. Would be nice.
As said before, I don’t think it will be a bad camera, just that the marketing guys and economy guys have more to say about features to include than the engineers. Canon is in it for the money, not giving away features for free. A few specs to give people GAS, and state competitive with the competition, and then as little as possible to save money.
They will sell loads of them.

I think there will be a tilting screen of some kind, and I believe that with CRAW, the buffer should be effectively never-ending. I mean, 100 pictures is effectively forever.

I do not believe cost is an issue in the flagship cameras; features are included or excluded for other reasons.

I'm not sure what you mean by over the top 4k. The real test to 4k isn't how awesome the video quality is, but how easy it is to use -- which is to say, whether it is usable at all or just a feature to plunk on a spec sheet. I suspect the 7DMk3 will better than the M50, for example, and will have DPAF in 4k. But really, this should not be a camera you're buying for 4k video 8)

Like I said earlier, I really don't know about storage options, but if I had to guess, I'd surmise it would be something more than UHS-1. I would prefer a UHS-1/2 in 1 slot, like Sony does, rather than CFast+SD, just for cost reasons. A lot of us just won't need a super fast card and would just as soon have slots for 2 cheap storage cards.

 

[greger]

If the 7Diii isn’t an upgrade with features I want, like a fully articulating screen then I’ll chuck my cf cards and buy a 90D I think that camera will take quite a few sales away from the 7Diii if Canon doesn’t up their game this time.

 

[reef58]

We live in good times when we are concerned the omissions from a camera will be card format, and 4k format. Before you know it there will be hand wringing over what kind of plastic shell is used. I think the bottom line for the 7d3 will be improvement is high ISO performance, tweaking the auto focus to make it more accurate, and probably adding 4k. They will probably add a tilt screen of some description. I guess we shall see.

 

[haggie]

The 7D Mk III is a cropped action camera. That means I have requirements for 2 specific areas.

First of all, images must have good IQ. But “IQ” is a broad subject, and can be made more specific in this context of action photography.
In action photography the possibilities to influence the light are quite limited or even impossible. Therefore an important aspect of IQ is that there must be ‘room’ to compensate for sub-optimal shooting conditions. This means high Dynamic Range and little Noise. Preferably from 100 to at least 2000 ISO.
Then the initial quality of the images as they come out of the camera allows for good final results after post-processing. Therefore considerably improving these properties (DR and Noise) in the 7D Mk III are hard requirements for me.

Also “richness of detail” is important.
“Richness of detail” is the result of many properties of the camera’s sensor, but also of some other features of the camera and also of the lens used. Talking about individual properties (like pixel size, resolution) does not do justice to the complex interaction with other properties and the science (optics, electronics) involved.
In fact, this aspect can only be judged fully when the actual camera is there.

Secondly, I want plenty of keepers.
The primary requirement to be a ‘keeper’ is that the image is sharp. In the context of an action camera this means that the AF system must be as responsive as feasible (which includes taking into account constraints like size, cost and many other implementation details of the camera) to allow good tracking, even in suboptimal conditions.
This requires swift, effective and configurable firmware. It is important to acknowledge that this all starts with the properties of the individual AF-points on the AF-sensor.


Most other features of an action camera are in support of the photographer at several stages of photography.
For instance, they assist in shooting more done user friendly, faster change of settings, manage your camera more easily, shoot during a longer period, etc.. Such features can be crucial in specific situations, but I regard many of them as ‘nice to have’ as opposed to the essential properties I just mentioned.


Many cropped action photographers chose the cropped format for good reasons; not just money as is sometimes stated.
As a Canon user I also want access to a cropped action camera with the best what is doable and feasible in the areas that I just mentioned. And I am not the only one, as shown by posts of this thread and other threads too.

Personally I hope that Canon will be able (willing?) to let the 7D Mk III have at least the DR and Noise levels of the D500.
Mind you, wanting the 7D Mk III to be at least on par in AF and in IQ with an over-2-years-old design from the competition (the D500 is already 2 years old now!) cannot too much to ask, can it?
I think it is needless to say that for many interested people, the yardstick to judge the 7D Mk III will be the D500.

Recent impressions, also on this forum and even in this thread, seemed to lower the expectations for the 7D Mk III. In particular, areas like DR and Noise are mentioned then.
That seems strange because that is exactly where the 7D Mk II is lagging the competition.
Perhaps that is not a very good sign.
But one thing is certain: the future will reveal all …………….

 

[Talys]

In action photography the possibilities to influence the light are quite limited or even impossible. Therefore an important aspect of IQ is that there must be ‘room’ to compensate for sub-optimal shooting conditions. This means high Dynamic Range and little Noise. Preferably from 100 to at least 2000 ISO.

I completely agree with you, but I have been convinced that this is impossible with current technology.

No crop camera exists that gives us good ISO performance AND high megapixels. It looks like our choices are either 25+ megapixels with relatively poor signal to noise curves, or excellent SNR curves with below 20 megapixels at APSC.

To put it into perspective, the Sony A7R3 crop mode gives 18 megapixel APSC.

 

[unfocused]

...Recent impressions, also on this forum and even in this thread, seemed to lower the expectations for the 7D Mk III. In particular, areas like DR and Noise are mentioned then.

That seems strange because that is exactly where the 7D Mk II is lagging the competition...

Except that "lagging the competition" is a very subjective term. If you look at DXO Mark's testing (and yes, I am very much aware that many of this forum dismiss DXO as being skewed against Canon), the D500 and 7D II are nearly identical on signal to noise ratio. The Nikon D500 does seem to have about a stop better Dynamic Range. Is that one stop significant? Yes, but it is not in the realm of game changing that many seem to believe. And, as one who shoots a lot of sports, if I have to choose, noise is far more important to me than dynamic range.

I think Talys is absolutely correct:

...I have been convinced that this is impossible with current technology.

No crop camera exists that gives us good ISO performance AND high megapixels...

Do I want and expect improvements from the 7DIII? Absolutely. I certainly hope it will set some new standards. But, I try to match that with reality and the reality is that, despite all the hand-wringing, the D500 simply isn't much better than the 7DII.

 

[Aussie shooter]

Again. The 7d111 pops up . Fair enough too. It really is the camera we are waiting for atm. My thoughts remain the same on MP in that it will probably get a 24 mp sensor(whether the current one from the 80d or a brand new one I don't know but........I think it will get dual digic 8 processors. That would give a vast(relatively speaking) improvement in both sensor performance and autofocus ability as well as allowing for a slight fps bump. I think it will be a worthwhile upgrade.

 

[haggie]

... seem to have about a stop better Dynamic Range. Is that one stop significant?

I wonder why you chose to describe the charts at DXO Mark in these words. For Dynamic Range the graphs show the following:
at 100 ISO: D500 almost 2 stops better DR
at 200 ISO: D500 almost 1,5 stops better DR
at 400 ISO: D500 1.5 stops better DR
at 800 ISO: D500 almost 1,5 stops better DR
at 1600 ISO: D500 1 stops better DR
above 3200 ISO: D500 almost 1 stop better DR
That is quite a bit different from “about a stop better” as you described it.
And I can say from experience with both the D500 and the 7D Mk II that this is a big difference in post-processing. Especially if conditions were not perfect.

I have read where some that say that a good photographer would not need this. Well, more often than not the shooting conditions can not be influenced by the photographer in action photography. Then even just 1 stop better DR can make a noticeable difference in post.

... noise is far more important to me than dynamic range.

You are right that Noise is important also. That is why I mentioned it in my post.
But looking at the graphs that represent Noise (SNR 18%) at DXO Mark, the D500 is better in that area also. From 800 ISO upwards they are identical, but below that the D500 is better. Remember here that a mere 3 dB less is 50% less (!) Noise.
So in numbers along the axis it may appear to be a small difference, in the images itself it is not.

... the D500 simply isn't much better than the 7DII.

Based on the numbers I do not agree with your conclusion. The actual values for DR and Noise show that the D500 is quite a bit better than the 7D Mk II.

Based on subjective comparing images from the D500 and the 7D Mk II (and also the D80) that were taken at the same moment, the D500 proves to have (much) more DR and (some) less Noise than the 7D Mk II in Lightroom. That seems to confirm these numbers. And that is not just my experience as shown by other threads on this forum and elsewhere too.

..., despite all the hand-wringing, ...

Was that really necessary? ???
What I write here is not treason to Canon or an attack on the way of life or photography of any Canon user.
To avoid being covered in verbal cow dung by certain members of this forum I feel I must emphasize that this reply is not to bash Canon or to imply that Canon is doomed or to suggest that the 7D Mk II is crap. None of that is applicable. And for CanonFanBoy, I have no wish to switch to Nikon at this moment.

To be absolutely clear, I do not claim that the D500 is the perfect cropped action camera. But the D500 undeniably is better in DR and Noise than the 7D Mk II.
Then it seems peculiar not to acknowlwdge this as an area where Canon can make a considerable improvement in the next 7D Mk III.

 

[Busted Knuckles]

Interesting comments.

Bit if a troll topic.

Rather than spreadsheet features, what 3 features are hding back your images from the next level?

What features are inbetween the "almost got it" you have now and the "got it" that you are looking for?

Canon, Nikon etc 1st duty is to their shareholders, their second is to..... oh wait there isn't a second.

 

[privatebydesign]

The D500 has a maximum of 1.6 stops more DR than the 7D MkII at equivalent ISO settings. That can be a significant difference. The trouble with that and the differences in real life action shooting is that the cameras are generally rarely used at base ISO.

At 800 ISO the difference is 0.55 of a stop, that is not significant, at higher ISO settings the differences are even less.

This is a good reason why some people say the differences are massive and others not so much, what part of the ISO range do you predominantly use your camera? If it is below 800 ISO then there is a good point to be made for the newer Nikon's DR performance, if, on the other hand, your ISO rarely goes below 800 and generally is higher, well the truth is that Nikon superiority becomes considerably less important.

 

[degos]

Rather than spreadsheet features, what 3 features are hding back your images from the next level?
What features are inbetween the "almost got it" you have now and the "got it" that you are looking for?

1. Autofocus that actually understands the scene. Imagine DPAF generating a depth map, determining that the subject is at 300 metres and decreasing whereas the background sky is at infinity. No more wandering off to focus on grey overcast!

2. EVF mode for the viewfinder to permit easier tracking of subjects when shooting in Live View ( for reduced vibration )

3. Metering that understands colours beyond 18% grey. Why in 2018 do I have to keep using spot metering and the zone-system in my head to get a decent exposure, at the same time juggling shutter-aperture-ISO? Photographing an airshow is mentally exhausting, I thought technology was supposed to help me!


Unlikely that any of that will appear on a 7D3, we'll just have a refinement of how things have always worked. And we'll buy it because there's no option.

.

 

[Talys]

1. Autofocus that actually understands the scene. Imagine DPAF generating a depth map, determining that the subject is at 300 metres and decreasing whereas the background sky is at infinity. No more wandering off to focus on grey overcast!

This certainly is not the Sony, except with people. It's very good at recognizing humans and prioritizing focus on them and Eye AF is a wonderful feature. And you can even switch it off, if you don't want to prioritize people.

But for everything else, and I mean everything -- dogs, cats, birds, buildings, cars, trees, flowers, bugs, houses -- it's terrible. Mostly, it just grabs the nearest thing to you, whether it's a droplet of water or a blade of grass, and ignores the rest of the scene.

This isn't unique to Sony, of course. On Canon, I also always end up reverting to single point autofocus and selecting manually telling the camera what I want to focus on.

2. EVF mode for the viewfinder to permit easier tracking of subjects when shooting in Live View ( for reduced vibration )

If we're talking Sony, I get way more vibration on Sony than Canon, when take a photo, because on Canon, I can roll my index finger over the shutter button. On the Sony, the ridge around the shutter is raised so high that I have to jab at it and jostle the camera with ever shutter press.

On the subject of subject tracking, again, it's really good at humans. With my cat, dogs, or birds, it is hit and miss. Often, it shows a green square around the subject, but in fact, the animal is not in focus. If I change it to just a single point, the miss rate is much lower (as long as I keep it trained on the subject).

3. Metering that understands colours beyond 18% grey. Why in 2018 do I have to keep using spot metering and the zone-system in my head to get a decent exposure, at the same time juggling shutter-aperture-ISO? Photographing an airshow is mentally exhausting, I thought technology was supposed to help me!

I think Canon's evaluative metering does a superior job to the Sony multi-zone metering. Photographing things in the sky is a particular grump of mine, because the A7R3 seems incapable of metering correctly in blue sky (usually underexposing), even with a focus-linked spot metering, and the camera pointing right at the subject.

That said, Canon metering can be off too. It's really important to take test shots ahead of the action and see how many EV's metering is off by.

I both systems, I find the best way is to set shutter and aperture and use auto ISO, and just watch to ensure ISO is where I want it. That said, the Sony Auto ISO system (which you can use in aperture or shutter priority, too) made it very fluid to set minimum and maximum ISOs, as well as minimum shutter speeds.

It's not a feature I actually use, but I do appreciate it.

[/quote]

Canon, Nikon etc 1st duty is to their shareholders, their second is to..... oh wait there isn't a second.

That's a little bit cynical. I'm pretty sure that there are a good number of employees in all of the companies that genuinely want to produce great camera equipment -- as well as help with shareholder return!