Canon EOS 7D Mark III to Have Slight Crop in 4K [CR2]

[Orangutan]

That's not saying much. I shoot a 1dx2 for work and I'm sure there's a lot of people out there who'd have better keepers than mine with a 5d2, doesn't change the fact that the 1dx2 is objectively a better camera.

I find this really puzzling: there are a lot of things better about the 1DX2, but "better" is not always objective. For some the 1DX2 is too heavy, or likely to draw attention. A smaller camera is easier to carry discretely. Different tools for different purposes. As they say, the best camera is the one you have with you. Each of us makes a personal decision regarding features, size/weight, support, price, etc. Even AF isn't always clear: the 6D was generally thought to have one really good AF point, which bested some more expensive cameras in low light, and if that's all you needed then that was your camera.

 

[stevelee]

https://vimeo.com/9978386

National Geographic video, original 7d. It used to be quite popular for that among people looking for durability or on a budget, like the student crowd.

Looks good full screen on my 5K monitor.

 

[Aussie shooter]

There's that and there's the fact that the 7d line already takes a beating from the competition in stills anyway.

I would love to read your data on that. Honestly. Does it exist? Or are we projecting how 'things must be' based on the D500 spec sheet?

(I don't say that snarkily, I honestly would love to see some data. I'm curious how it is selling.)

- A

I don't know what you're getting at here. Seems you're talking about sales and I'm stating the competing flagship apsc cameras beat the pants off the 7d2 in stills. I don't know who buys more of each and quite frankly I don't care since I'm only going to use the one I have.

I spent 10 days in Svalbard I July. Much of it standing and shooting next to a funny as hell Irish fella who just happened to be shooting a D500 as opposed to me with a lowly 7D2. I had a close look at many of his photos. They were not better than mine. As a matter of fact I probably got more quality keepers than he did although we both got plenty of good shots. His camera did not magically make his photos better than mine. He must feel ripped off the poor fella

That's not saying much. I shoot a 1dx2 for work and I'm sure there's a lot of people out there who'd have better keepers than mine with a 5d2, doesn't change the fact that the 1dx2 is objectively a better camera.

The point was that while the D500 maybe be slightly better on the spec sheet it hardly 'beats the pants' off the 7d2. It is 'slightly' better in a couple of aspects and those features while great are not so incredible that the D500 is somehow lightyears ahead. swapping systems is not going to make anyones photography better in the real world. 1 stop extra of sensor performance is really not much.

 

[bwud]

so typical Canon: new cameras already NERFED at rumour stage. ;D

luckily i don't care at all about mirrorslappers and any sort of video capture. Canon will get money from me once they bring a worthwhile FF MILC system. Until then ... yawn.

I hear you but I would like to share a whole different experience with the best mirror less full fame camera out there. I recently acquired a EOS M5 (I already had the EF to EF-M adapter so no intention to buy any EF-M lenses) but changed my mind and bought a EF-M 18-55 (thinking this combo would be good for my 5 year old to take pictures) and tried to take a picture of artificial flowers with vase in a dimly lit room. M5 would not focus at all. I had the flash and focus assist light turned on and the focus assist lamp would come on but the camera would not focus at all. I thought the lens was bad so I tried a EF-S 18-135 with adapter (known good combo) even that would not focus. So I brought my 5D4 and Sigma 24-105 Art combo down, sure enough that focused properly. I increased the f number to f8 and still 5D4 focused. Then I decided to do the test with my Sony A9 and 24-240 and followed by Batis 85mm. The moment of truth, Sony A9 was not able to acquire focus at all. I started to think that the mirror slappers still have their edge when it comes to low light auto focus. Later I tried 5D4 with various Canon EF lens combos, all focused properly. I did not try the Dual pixel auto focus but thinking of doing an extensive low light AF capability test with all these cameras.

To be fair, the batis 85 is horrible at acquiring focus in low light. The 25 is unquestionably better, as are non-superzoom native lenses.

 

[transpo1]

I have yet to meet anyone who sought an iteration of the 7D, past or future, as a video rig. Sports, birding, wildlife, other action ...yes.

Possibly continuing the trend to broaden its appeal to parents of teenage athletes/performers. I doubt that crowd wants to carry a separate 4K video rig. For that market, it doesn't have to be pro-quality 4K, but just good enough.

https://vimeo.com/9978386

National Geographic video, original 7d. It used to be quite popular for that among people looking for durability or on a budget, like the student crowd.

There you go. Anyone who thinks the original 7D wasn’t heavily used as a video rig when it first came out doesn’t know what they’re talking about.

 

[Jack Douglas]

Sadly we are constantly bombarded by "cheap talk". The video of the 1DX2 is also sub par according to the initial chatter we heard. Modern equipment far exceeds the level of expertise of those spouting the cheap talk 90%+ of the time.

Jack

 

[Cthulhu]

That's not saying much. I shoot a 1dx2 for work and I'm sure there's a lot of people out there who'd have better keepers than mine with a 5d2, doesn't change the fact that the 1dx2 is objectively a better camera.

I find this really puzzling: there are a lot of things better about the 1DX2, but "better" is not always objective. For some the 1DX2 is too heavy, or likely to draw attention. A smaller camera is easier to carry discretely. Different tools for different purposes. As they say, the best camera is the one you have with you. Each of us makes a personal decision regarding features, size/weight, support, price, etc. Even AF isn't always clear: the 6D was generally thought to have one really good AF point, which bested some more expensive cameras in low light, and if that's all you needed then that was your camera.

That's what's puzzling you? The 1dx2 is heavier? So following your line of thought a little point and shoot is a better camera for me because I have small pockets...I seriously want to hear why stating the 1dx2 is an objectively better camera than a 5d2 puzzles you, but give me a something real.

 

[Cthulhu]

There's that and there's the fact that the 7d line already takes a beating from the competition in stills anyway.

I would love to read your data on that. Honestly. Does it exist? Or are we projecting how 'things must be' based on the D500 spec sheet?

(I don't say that snarkily, I honestly would love to see some data. I'm curious how it is selling.)

- A

I don't know what you're getting at here. Seems you're talking about sales and I'm stating the competing flagship apsc cameras beat the pants off the 7d2 in stills. I don't know who buys more of each and quite frankly I don't care since I'm only going to use the one I have.

I spent 10 days in Svalbard I July. Much of it standing and shooting next to a funny as hell Irish fella who just happened to be shooting a D500 as opposed to me with a lowly 7D2. I had a close look at many of his photos. They were not better than mine. As a matter of fact I probably got more quality keepers than he did although we both got plenty of good shots. His camera did not magically make his photos better than mine. He must feel ripped off the poor fella

That's not saying much. I shoot a 1dx2 for work and I'm sure there's a lot of people out there who'd have better keepers than mine with a 5d2, doesn't change the fact that the 1dx2 is objectively a better camera.

The point was that while the D500 maybe be slightly better on the spec sheet it hardly 'beats the pants' off the 7d2. It is 'slightly' better in a couple of aspects and those features while great are not so incredible that the D500 is somehow lightyears ahead. swapping systems is not going to make anyones photography better in the real world. 1 stop extra of sensor performance is really not much.

Slightly better is your own take on it. 1 stop performance can make that high iso shot that was bugging you and you didn't want to put out into something that makes you smile, specially without an AA filter, but that's just one of the areas the d500 is better. It is also better in every single other area. I'd get one over the 7d2 just for the focus and buffer alone, and I really dislike Nikon files.

 

[Orangutan]

That's not saying much. I shoot a 1dx2 for work and I'm sure there's a lot of people out there who'd have better keepers than mine with a 5d2, doesn't change the fact that the 1dx2 is objectively a better camera.

I find this really puzzling: there are a lot of things better about the 1DX2, but "better" is not always objective. For some the 1DX2 is too heavy, or likely to draw attention. A smaller camera is easier to carry discretely. Different tools for different purposes. As they say, the best camera is the one you have with you. Each of us makes a personal decision regarding features, size/weight, support, price, etc. Even AF isn't always clear: the 6D was generally thought to have one really good AF point, which bested some more expensive cameras in low light, and if that's all you needed then that was your camera.

I seriously want to hear why stating the 1dx2 is an objectively better camera than a 5d2 puzzles you, but give me a something real.

I assume by "something real" you mean I should exclude practical issues, such as cost, weight, etc. Personally, I consider cost, weight, ability to get it past museum staff to be "real," so maybe that's where we differ. If we stick merely to technical issues, I'll go along with your statement, and not even mention the additional 1MP of the 5D2.

More generally, I was disputing your idea that there is such a thing as "objectively better" when comparing two cameras. In all cases, practical issues come into play. If we exclude cost, a 5D4 seems to be "objectively" better" than a 5D3, but if you can't afford the price difference then that amounts to nothing.

 

[Jack Douglas]

This can become kind of silly. Define objectively what the purpose of a camera is and whatever does that better is better. Can anyone take a stab at which camera in existence is the best .. perhaps it's in outer space and is humongous.

Otherwise we are talking about trade-offs in the real world of our individual needs and it becomes less well defined. Isn't this what gets debated endlessly here in CRland. The best DR at ISO 100 does me zero good since I take a negligible number of photos at 100 ISO. Nikon's better AF on the other hand would help a lot in some of my situations. Or maybe it wouldn't, because I may simply be incompetent.

Jack

 

[Orangutan]

Otherwise we are talking about trade-offs in the real world of our individual needs and it becomes less well defined.

+1

because I may simply be incompetent.

Nope.

 

[ExodistPhotography]

We’re told that the Canon EOS 7D Mark III, which will be Canon’s first APS-C 4K camera, will have a slight crop when shooting in 4K.</p>
<p>As for frame rates, do not expect anything more than 30fps in 4K, and 60fps in 1080P.</p>


<p>There has been no mention of whether or not this camera will get a CFast slot. The EOS-1D X Mark II does, while the EOS 5D Mark IV does not. We’d like to see the EOS 7D Mark III get a CFast slot along with an SD slot.</p>
<p>We don’t yet have a solid announcement timeframe for the 7D Mark III, we hope to solve that riddle soon.</p>
<span id="pty_trigger"></span>

If there is a crop its due to pixel binning, for example if it goes 28 or 30 MP there will have to be binning at the 24MP level. Would not really impact any performance enough to complain. Now if its motion jpeg, then thats a real reason to complain. I can understand 30FPS to keep from it competing with their higher end equipment. Also CFAST in this camera, seriously NO.. There is no need for it as IMHO dual SD cards slot would be better suited for its price range and at a $2000 price tag that fits their target audience.

Seriously if people want a good 4k camera look into getting a AX53/AXP55 for under $1000 USD or pony up a few more bucks and get the higher end AX100 from Sony. You do not need to spend $2000 on a DSLR and another $800 on a lens to get good 4k video unless your a high end production company..

 

[Aussie shooter]

Slightly better is your own take on it. 1 stop performance can make that high iso shot that was bugging you and you didn't want to put out into something that makes you smile, specially without an AA filter, but that's just one of the areas the d500 is better. It is also better in every single other area. I'd get one over the 7d2 just for the focus and buffer alone, and I really dislike Nikon files.

Better in every way is a subjective and very debatable point. I would say the canon betters it in ergonomics, controls, user interface and general usability(except for the tilt screen) video focus capability(not that i care about that), lenses. Probably a few more little things i can't think of right now.. Basically the things that improve your photography the most are where canon wins out for me personally. I don't run into buffer problems with the 7d2 as i am selective when i fire away. Improved focus will be nice but the d500 is no magic bullet and still struggles in the situations that cause me problems with the canon. No AA filter would be nice but I have seen the d500 produce moire on birds when my canon did not so there is always a trade off.. IF I didn't already have canon gear I might consider the d500 but there is no way in the wide world that the cost of changing systems is worth the minor improvements in image quality and focusing.

 

[tron]

For the rumored video rates there is no need for CFAST cards. My guess is it will keep the 2 type of cards that 7D2 has and my only question is whether they will support the newer faster type of SD cards or not. An increase in High (mostly) and Low ISO performance, an even bigger buffer than 7D2's and a touch screen would be enough to make it awesome! (Just my opinion of course).