Future 7D Mark III

[unfocused]

Just been comparing the 7D Mkll with the Nikon D500 over on 'Image Comparimeter' - a 7D mkll file at 800 iso looks very similar to a D500 file at 3200 iso. 2 stops difference. Is the gap really that big? Anybody found any other evidence to support or refute this?

I don't agree with your conclusion.

Neither does the much-maligned DXOmark. In fact, most testers have found that at higher ISOs, the two are virtually indistinguishable.

 

[SteveM]

Just been comparing the 7D Mkll with the Nikon D500 over on 'Image Comparimeter' - a 7D mkll file at 800 iso looks very similar to a D500 file at 3200 iso. 2 stops difference. Is the gap really that big? Anybody found any other evidence to support or refute this?

To add to my own post, probably a better picture is reflected for me on dpreview where the difference appears to be less than 1 stop. Which logically probably reflects the reality better. Happily, a lot less difference than I originally thought. In some ways I wish the Nikon sensor were considerably better in high iso as that would give Canon the leeway to improve theirs. As it looks, sensors may have virtually maxed out with noise. Disappointing.

On the Image Comparometer site I'm looking at the bottom left of the crayons box, and I still see a big difference in visible noise and sharpness of edges.
C'est la vie.
If Canon can better that sensor, I'll upgrade with little hesitation. Noise at 1600 - 3200 iso is a big deal for me.

 

[JMZawodny]

How many people use the built-in flash on the 7Ds anyway?

I know a few who own 7D's and they all do. It's an acceptable solution for optically triggering speedlights, and a good deal less expensive than getting Canon's proprietary radio triggers. The case can be made that a Yongnuo RT might be more effective and as cost-effective.

I read this and said to myself "Built-in flash! What built-in flash?" Sure enough, I found one on my body. So, count me as one who never uses the built-in flash. Honestly, I rarely use a flash so this should not surprise me.

 

[luckydude]

For me - I would like the 7D3 to have better AF (say from the 1DX Mk1?)

I have never been that excited about the 7D2, it just hasn't given me as many keepers as the 5DIII.

So I would pay $3-4K for a 7D<anything> that was basically a 5DIII (or 5DIV I guess, haven't used one) in a crop factor.
What I mean by that is I want a 5DIII that has 1.6X the reach with no loss in image quality.

For me, the 7D2 has not come close to delivering that. It's good if you don't pixel peep but sometimes I shoot surfing and the 7D2 sucks at that compared to the 5DIII. It seems to gather a lot more noise, noise that you really see at 100%. The 5D does much better at not gathering that noise. Has anyone else noticed that?

 

[Keith_Reeder]

The 5D does much better at not gathering that noise. Has anyone else noticed that?

Well it's full frame, so that's what you'd expect.

That said - the 7DMk II is brilliant at higher ISOs (for a crop camera) if you convert the files well.

This is a 100% crop of one of my files at 4000 ISO - and it's noiseless.

And here's 6400 ISO at 100% - again, no noise.

These are straight out of the converter, with no additional PP NR applied. Admittedly the 4000 ISO one was in decent light, but the 6400 ISO crop was in very dull low light.

And in both cases, the full image is sharp, squeaky-clean, and full of detail.