Could the 7D-iii be closer than we might think???

[zim]

Your correct Tom those pictures are fantastic!

 

[Don Haines]

Am i the only one that think the 7DMKII is an awesome camera? Makes my 5DMKIII feel really quite old...

<cut>

If you don't think the 7DMKII is capable you need to get out and shoot with one, a camera is more than its spec sheet. I love mine its extremely dependable when you need it.

Agreed! It is a fantastic camera and tough enough to survive shooting in the Canadian winter and on a hot steamy summer day.... That's why, for me, a 7D mark III would have to be a massive upgrade for it to tempt me.... A bit better isn't enough incentive. Comparisons to the 80D shows it to be superior at high ISO, and that's where this beast sees a lot of action.....

 

[mehaue]

Very true, de 7D MKII is an amazing camera and very realiable. Also you can get a lot out of pictures in post-production when the conditions are not that great. Shot with a Canon 100-400mm MKII at ISO 1600 and 1/1000 shutterspeed

 

[Kwwund]

Thank you tomscott and MartinH! Best perspective in the thread! You've inspired me to change plans today, grab my camera (only a T3i but good enough for me) and shoot some pictures.

 

[jeffa4444]

7D3 needs to get in line behind a couple big brothers

+1

I am sure that the 7D3 is well into the prototype stage and early testing, but it is a safe bet that the 5D4 and 6D2 are even further along and we will not see a 7D3 until those two cameras are out on store shelves.....

The scale point maybe lower than you think. Leica have dedicated sensors designed by CMOSIS and TowerJazz fab for various design houses. Black Magic have used a CMOSIS sensor neither of these camera makers have anywhere near the volume of Canon so Canon could continue to make their own sensors for FF & APS-C for some time whereas we know they use Sony sensors in some G series cameras.
Canon also have the security market with a sensor requirement with some spill over between the two.

I doubt that the 7D MK III is more than just a listing of goals for features and performance at this stage. A prototype would imply that they have all that stuff ironed out. I'd expect a new sensor, not a 80D sensor. Sensors do take a long time to develop. Canon may be considering Sony sensors, but may be shy of them if Sony Fabs are all in earthquake prone areas.

As sales of cameras wind down, more and more parts sharing between manufacturers is going to happen. There is a lot now, but we may see more. I keep expecting Samsung sensors to start making them for Canon. You can bet that its been discussed.

 

[scyrene]

200-600 f6.3 is extremely unlikely. Canon doesn't make DSLR lenses slower than 5.6.

It is unlikely, yet it isn't..... The new cameras seem to handle F8 and there is no reason why the lens can not "stretch the truth" when it talks to the camera body, just like Tamron and Sigma do when you put one of those 150-600mm lenses onto your camera...

This has been debated as nauseam elsewhere on these forums, as you probably know. Anything's possible, but remember those third party lenses aren't even 600mm f/6.3, they're shorter and narrower at the long end - the only way they can be so relatively small and light. I think a (Xmm-)500mm f/5.6 is more reasonable.

 

[ahsanford]

200-600 f6.3 is extremely unlikely. Canon doesn't make DSLR lenses slower than 5.6.

It is unlikely, yet it isn't..... The new cameras seem to handle F8 and there is no reason why the lens can not "stretch the truth" when it talks to the camera body, just like Tamron and Sigma do when you put one of those 150-600mm lenses onto your camera...

This has been debated as nauseam elsewhere on these forums, as you probably know. Anything's possible, but remember those third party lenses aren't even 600mm f/6.3, they're shorter and narrower at the long end - the only way they can be so relatively small and light. I think a (Xmm-)500mm f/5.6 is more reasonable.

The question is not whether Canon will offer a 200-(some large number) 'slower' zoom. They will.

The question is how slow is slow, how big is 'some large number' and how much will it cost? A very good Nikon 200-500 f/5.6 IS for $1400 is an impossibly good value proposition -- first party AF, 1.4x T/C possible on the long end, strong IQ, etc.

Canon only going to 500mm makes little sense with such a strong 100-400L II already on the market. So most think this will be a 200-600 zoom.

Canon reaching to 600mm @ f/5.6 will not be cheap. You're well over 100mm on the entrance pupil at that point (as many have pointed out on other threads here), which will drive weight and cost considerably.

Others have also stated that Canon doesn't deploy anything slower than f/5.6 with the EF mount (I believe someone said that it was part of some Canon authored EF standard).

- A

 

[scyrene]

Now I have gone over to a camera without a low-pass filter, the 5DS R, I am never going back to a 7D or other APS-C with a filter as it softens the image, and Moiré is very rare problem.

I hope you put on asbestos clothing before you posted that because the collective wisdom of CR is that the low pass filter is absolutely necessary and that moire ruins everything.

I've no strong feelings either way on the topic. However, it does seem like one of those things a marketing department thought up - after all, were lots of people calling for the removal of the filter before? Moiré exists - it is a rare problem for most shooters, from what I've read. But it exists. And those sounding a note of caution say - moiré cannot be as easily remedied as the slight softening of an AA filter. Anti-AA evangelists don't have much to say about that.

Ultimately though, the idea one should pay a premium for the lack of a feature (strictly a feature that is disabled in the case of the 5DsR) is what stops me from considering that camera. I am glad to hear it's not showing up much in bird shots, as I expect in a few years AA filters will be much rarer - a victory for marketing.

 

[Don Haines]

200-600 f6.3 is extremely unlikely. Canon doesn't make DSLR lenses slower than 5.6.

It is unlikely, yet it isn't..... The new cameras seem to handle F8 and there is no reason why the lens can not "stretch the truth" when it talks to the camera body, just like Tamron and Sigma do when you put one of those 150-600mm lenses onto your camera...

This has been debated as nauseam elsewhere on these forums, as you probably know. Anything's possible, but remember those third party lenses aren't even 600mm f/6.3, they're shorter and narrower at the long end - the only way they can be so relatively small and light. I think a (Xmm-)500mm f/5.6 is more reasonable.

agreed, but everyone rounds up or down to make the numbers sound better..... 560mm at F6.5 gets rounded to 600mm at F6.3..... everyone cheats and embellishes their numbers.... even Canon and Nikon.....

 

[Mikehit]

Now I have gone over to a camera without a low-pass filter, the 5DS R, I am never going back to a 7D or other APS-C with a filter as it softens the image, and Moiré is very rare problem.

I hope you put on asbestos clothing before you posted that because the collective wisdom of CR is that the low pass filter is absolutely necessary and that moire ruins everything.

I've no strong feelings either way on the topic. However, it does seem like one of those things a marketing department thought up - after all, were lots of people calling for the removal of the filter before? Moiré exists - it is a rare problem for most shooters, from what I've read. But it exists. And those sounding a note of caution say - moiré cannot be as easily remedied as the slight softening of an AA filter. Anti-AA evangelists don't have much to say about that.

Ultimately though, the idea one should pay a premium for the lack of a feature (strictly a feature that is disabled in the case of the 5DsR) is what stops me from considering that camera. I am glad to hear it's not showing up much in bird shots, as I expect in a few years AA filters will be much rarer - a victory for marketing.

Apparently moire is also dependent on pixel density and the higher MP models today mean a AA filter is much less effective.

 

[scyrene]

Now I have gone over to a camera without a low-pass filter, the 5DS R, I am never going back to a 7D or other APS-C with a filter as it softens the image, and Moiré is very rare problem.

I hope you put on asbestos clothing before you posted that because the collective wisdom of CR is that the low pass filter is absolutely necessary and that moire ruins everything.

I've no strong feelings either way on the topic. However, it does seem like one of those things a marketing department thought up - after all, were lots of people calling for the removal of the filter before? Moiré exists - it is a rare problem for most shooters, from what I've read. But it exists. And those sounding a note of caution say - moiré cannot be as easily remedied as the slight softening of an AA filter. Anti-AA evangelists don't have much to say about that.

Ultimately though, the idea one should pay a premium for the lack of a feature (strictly a feature that is disabled in the case of the 5DsR) is what stops me from considering that camera. I am glad to hear it's not showing up much in bird shots, as I expect in a few years AA filters will be much rarer - a victory for marketing.

Apparently moire is also dependent on pixel density and the higher MP models today mean a AA filter is much less effective.

I guess it's just the ability to resolve more detail that helps. Similar to how if you downsize an image with close parallel lines or certain patterns, moiré can appear (because the resolution has decreased).

 

[IglooEater]

200-600 f6.3 is extremely unlikely. Canon doesn't make DSLR lenses slower than 5.6.

It is unlikely, yet it isn't..... The new cameras seem to handle F8 and there is no reason why the lens can not "stretch the truth" when it talks to the camera body, just like Tamron and Sigma do when you put one of those 150-600mm lenses onto your camera...

This has been debated as nauseam elsewhere on these forums, as you probably know. Anything's possible, but remember those third party lenses aren't even 600mm f/6.3, they're shorter and narrower at the long end - the only way they can be so relatively small and light. I think a (Xmm-)500mm f/5.6 is more reasonable.

agreed, but everyone rounds up or down to make the numbers sound better..... 560mm at F6.5 gets rounded to 600mm at F6.3..... everyone cheats and embellishes their numbers.... even Canon and Nikon.....

Yup, canon is so good at cheating that the 100mm f/2.8L IS is actually f/3.5 at minimum focus distance, but the camera will still display f/2.8 and compensate in ISO or shutter speed. Rather backwards for a macro to perform least well at minimum focus distance, but oh well.

 

[ajfotofilmagem]

It is unlikely, yet it isn't..... The new cameras seem to handle F8 and there is no reason why the lens can not "stretch the truth" when it talks to the camera body, just like Tamron and Sigma do when you put one of those 150-600mm lenses onto your camera...

This has been debated as nauseam elsewhere on these forums, as you probably know. Anything's possible, but remember those third party lenses aren't even 600mm f/6.3, they're shorter and narrower at the long end - the only way they can be so relatively small and light. I think a (Xmm-)500mm f/5.6 is more reasonable.

agreed, but everyone rounds up or down to make the numbers sound better..... 560mm at F6.5 gets rounded to 600mm at F6.3..... everyone cheats and embellishes their numbers.... even Canon and Nikon.....

Yup, canon is so good at cheating that the 100mm f/2.8L IS is actually f/3.5 at minimum focus distance, but the camera will still display f/2.8 and compensate in ISO or shutter speed. Rather backwards for a macro to perform least well at minimum focus distance, but oh well.

This is an optical phenomenon that affects ALL Macro lenses when focusing on the closest distance. It is not something only Canon, but Tokina, Sigma, Nikon, etc.

 

[j-nord]

Back to the OP's discussion, I think the absolute earliest we could see a 7Diii is end of 2017 and I think that is very unlikely. The 7Dii is only about 1.5 years old with no significant competitive deficiencies. Unless Canon starts employing a 'tick/tock' type upgrade cycle and puts out a minor 'S/R' upgrade, we are probably looking at 2018.

 

[scyrene]

It is unlikely, yet it isn't..... The new cameras seem to handle F8 and there is no reason why the lens can not "stretch the truth" when it talks to the camera body, just like Tamron and Sigma do when you put one of those 150-600mm lenses onto your camera...

This has been debated as nauseam elsewhere on these forums, as you probably know. Anything's possible, but remember those third party lenses aren't even 600mm f/6.3, they're shorter and narrower at the long end - the only way they can be so relatively small and light. I think a (Xmm-)500mm f/5.6 is more reasonable.

agreed, but everyone rounds up or down to make the numbers sound better..... 560mm at F6.5 gets rounded to 600mm at F6.3..... everyone cheats and embellishes their numbers.... even Canon and Nikon.....

Yup, canon is so good at cheating that the 100mm f/2.8L IS is actually f/3.5 at minimum focus distance, but the camera will still display f/2.8 and compensate in ISO or shutter speed. Rather backwards for a macro to perform least well at minimum focus distance, but oh well.

This is an optical phenomenon that affects ALL Macro lenses when focusing on the closest distance. It is not something only Canon, but Tokina, Sigma, Nikon, etc.

Yes indeed, it is a well known phenomenon and not a cheat at all. Indeed the manual for the 100L macro and MP-E lenses explain it in detail.

 

[whothafunk]

In my opinion, saying the autofocus system is identical to the 1DX is a major reach without this bit of tech

It's not nowhere near identical. It's similar. 7D2 has all the 6 cases and more cross type points, but 1Dx has 5 dual cross points, more f4 sensitive, and by god, it focuses a lot better than the 7D2.

 

[K]

Canon should dispense with these 5 year upgrade cycles and bring out the 7D Mark III soon after the 5D4.

Keep the camera basically the same, but just update to the newer on-chip ADC sensor. That should give a worthwhile boost to IQ. The 80D is looking pretty good.

 

[Don Haines]

Canon should dispense with these 5 year upgrade cycles and bring out the 7D Mark III soon after the 5D4.

Keep the camera basically the same, but just update to the newer on-chip ADC sensor. That should give a worthwhile boost to IQ. The 80D is looking pretty good.

Actually, the 7D2 has much better IQ at high ISO.

There is a very real possibility that off-sensor A/D is superior at high ISO and that on chip is superior at low ISO. Only time will tell, but right now it looks like it is making a compromise.....

 

[K]

Early examples and tests show that the D500 IQ is noticeably better than the 7D2. That is saying something, given that Canon glass is better. That indicates to me that Nikon's sensor is better, and is making up for it quite a bit. Much like how the 5D3 was holding even with the D810 because of superior L glass, despite the significant megapixel disadvantage.

The lack of AA filter isn't the only factor. The D7200 previously held the best IQ in APS-C, and was already better than the 7D2. But this isn't an apples to apples comparison. The 7D2 is a flagship, robust, 10fps so on and so forth.

But the D500 is an apples to apples comparison. So some of the 7D2 apologists say there's a big price difference. Not really...the 7D2 released at $1,800 if I remember correctly. So $200 difference in initial price isn't that significant.

The only thing you can give the 7D2 is that it's older. That is true. 2 years older tech.


Canon would be wise to update the 7D2 using their new sensor technology. Better DR, better ISO and consider losing the AA filter. Maybe a few tweaks here and there - nothing major needed as the rest of the camera is top-notch. That would be worthy update and keep the 7D relevant.

Touch screen would be an upgrade. Doesn't have to be articulating, but a larger screen that is touch would be great. DPAF works best with that, and it would make sense to pair the two. OR...go the other way, dump the DPAF and go for all-out stills quality, maybe go to 22mp or 24 with better DR, ISO and no AA while keeping the speed.

I can't speak for anyone else, but I think DPAF is a waste without touch screen. I'm not really sure why they even added it to the 7D2. I've run the 7D2 side by side with the 70D - for video, the 70D dominates, not because of quality - the 7D2 has it beat on quality easily - but on ease of use and the ability to shoot video with.

People tend to get hung up on specs, and forget how important the usability is. You can have the world's best video recording quality, it is all lost if you cannot effectively and smoothly focus. You end up with very sharp video of blurry transitions.

For me, the 7D3 needs to dump the DPAF (if it doesn't have touch), and go for all out stills quality. The 80D is fine for amateur video. Anyone more serious than that is skipping APS-C and moving to FF anyway.

It has the AF, it has the speed, the build quality and all the bells and whistles already. But it will get beatup on IQ in all comparisons going forward...and well, being that cameras are imaging products, image quality is the most important factor.

Waiting another 3 years to make this update will prove Canon to be archaic in their approach, and that they aren't changing their ways on DSLR development and release cycles. In 3 years, the IQ of the 7D2 will be further behind than the 7DI was of current tech before the release of the 7D2.

 

[Alejandro]

March 2018 would be a reasonable date for the 7D3.

They still have to launch the 5D4, 6D2, T7i/T7s, 5D s/r 2.