I doubt this is even [CR1] but I guess it starts somewhere - 7D3 specs?

[dolina]

No AA filter would be a surprise and possibly problematic for birders, who are a key market for the 7D series.

Why would no AA filter be problematic? Nikon hasn't had AA filters in the last several generations of croppers. I used both the D7200 and D500 and shot well over 10,000 images of birds on each and never once ran into an issue with moire. If anything, birders should be clamoring for no AA filter as it increases fine detail. Shooting my 7DII + 100-400II side-by-side with the D500 + 200-500, the Nikon combo actually showed more detail even though most testing shows the 100-400II to be a sharper lens than the 200-500 - I can only surmise my results were due to the lack of AA filter on the D500.

I've been on Canon's case for years wondering why they continue to use an unnecessary AA filter in largely wildlife bodies.

Japanese companies are rather conservative. They're great in kaizen but little else.

 

[RGF]

Specs are geared to the target audience to gain maximum excitement

The readers of rumor sites.

Don't think this is a real camera but the specs are created to cause buzz. Which they certainly do.

 

[dolina]

I've been expecting Cfast. Not sure about the SD vs. CF. That means having to carry three types of cards if you use the 7D as a backup for 1DX.

I would love a body that takes CFast + SDXC UHS-II. It should have a write speed of more than 167MB/s to allow for high bit rate 4K at 60fps or better.

I would have liked it implemented as early as 2012 with the 1D C, 1D X, 5Ds R, 5D Mark III & 7D Mark II.

Although the trade off would be shorter battery life, more expensive memory cards, card readers and camera bodies.

Based on past product cycles I expect these cameras to be released within these time frame.

1D X Mark III & 5D Mark V - Before July 2020 for the Summer Olympics in Tokyo.

7D Mark IV - September 2019 or before July 2020.

I highly doubt either of these three bodies to be out earlier than July 2019 unless sales of these specific line became threatened by Nikon.

I would love to see USB PD charging via USB-C port directly to the body. Sony has this option with their mirrorless and high end point and shoots.

 

[Cthulhu]

...the IQ will not match or better the D500...

I'm not sure what point you are trying to make. The 7DII is not that far behind the D500 as it is and as ISO climbs, the advantages of the D500 begins to fade. Even at lower ISO, the only significant difference is in dynamic range and given that Canon will certainly switch to on-chic ADC, that will narrow.

The d500 is noticeably sharper at any range and will produce usable images at iso ranges that every 7dmk2 owner shudders, like 6400-12800.

I want to believe Canon will have it beat, given that it had time to catch up, but I'm not optimistic as to returning to Canon's aps-c range for action shots.

 

[unfocused]

...The d500 is noticeably sharper at any range and will produce usable images at iso ranges that every 7dmk2 owner shudders, like 6400-12800...

I'd like to see some evidence of that. Using the DPR online comparison tool, it looks like jpg images from the D500 are cleaner, but I see no real difference in raw at either 6,400 or 12,800. So perhaps Nikon's jpg processing is a bit better, but it doesn't appear that the sensor itself is any better.

I've certainly seen some wonderfully sharp and clean images on this forum from people using the 7D II at higher ISOs. I admit that in my own experience, I never shoot above 6,400 and try to stay with a top of 3,200. That's about a stop less than I shoot the 1Dx II at. I don't own the D500, so I have no frame of reference except testing sites, which don't seem to match your statement.

If you are really getting that much better performance with the D500, hats off to you and Nikon. I just like to see things with my own eyes.

 

[Adrianf]

Personally i would be very happy to see a 7D3 with a lower megapixel count. Shock! Horror! I don't want more. I want the sensor to have much lower noise, higher ISO capability and better dynamic range. It's never the number of pixels that matters - its the quality of those pixels. I want to take bird photos in poor light, with decent shutter speeds, and that means better performance at higher ISO settings.
I doubt that much of the glass that is commonly used could usefully resolve an image onto 30mpix on a cropped sensor.
Canon has an opportunity here to really come up with something special and come up with a camera that has great performance by being realistic with the spec - but I bet they won't take it....

 

[Cthulhu]

...The d500 is noticeably sharper at any range and will produce usable images at iso ranges that every 7dmk2 owner shudders, like 6400-12800...

I'd like to see some evidence of that. Using the DPR online comparison tool, it looks like jpg images from the D500 are cleaner, but I see no real difference in raw at either 6,400 or 12,800. So perhaps Nikon's jpg processing is a bit better, but it doesn't appear that the sensor itself is any better.

I've certainly seen some wonderfully sharp and clean images on this forum from people using the 7D II at higher ISOs. I admit that in my own experience, I never shoot above 6,400 and try to stay with a top of 3,200. That's about a stop less than I shoot the 1Dx II at. I don't own the D500, so I have no frame of reference except testing sites, which don't seem to match your statement.

If you are really getting that much better performance with the D500, hats off to you and Nikon. I just like to see things with my own eyes.

Really? I thought it was pretty straightforward even on dpr's questionable test, and by the time you get rid of all the extra color noise on the 7d2 the d500 is well ahead. But then again 'm viewing in a 30" monitor.

At any rate, the internet is full of examples of the d500's image quality.

 

[x-vision]

I'll do a realistic list:

24 Mpx (I'd say a polished 80D sensor).
12 fps. (14 would be a 1DX2 killer but...).
4k@30 fps. (Again, 4k@60 fps would be a 1DX2 killer but... it'll sell like hot bread)
FHD@120 fps.
I'd say 70/90% AF Point spread coverage. More than a few with -3 EV (If not all of them).
Dual Digic 7. (More than capable of handling 12 fps @ 24mpx).
DPAF (Of course).
CFast and CF Slots. (If not dual CFast if 4k@60).

+1

30mp doesn't make sense for the 7DIII.

A 24mp crop sensor has the same pixel density as a ~60mp FF sensor.
IMO, these are the most likely resolutions for the 7DIII and the 5DSII respectively.

 

[Speedsurfer142]

If these specs where right and it is an APS-C body than I will buy one on the spot.
12 fps with 30mp is just what I am looking for in my Rallysport and Windsurfing photography.
No AA filter is just what I want.

 

[snoke]

Good thing Canon ignore canonrumor else APS-C still 8MP.
4K video checkbox item. New shopper ignore camera without. Need CFast.
1DX II + 7DIII = CF, CFast, SD.

Current Canon only SD UHS. Slow.
SD UHS II or III?
SD UHS = 50MB/sec (Canon)
SD UHS II = 156 or 312 MB/sec (Sony/Nikon)
SD UHS III = 312 or 624 MB/sec (new!)

 

[Mt Spokane Photography]

The argument about more MP has been around as long as Digital cameras. People argued when cameras went from 3 to 6 MP, and every increase since.

Canon is not going to put a sensor in a camera that does not improve the sales, and most likely is matching what other companies are working on as well.

I now have a 24 mp DSLR (SL2) and a slight jump to 30 would not be a big deal.

 

[Phil Lowe]

I am heavily invested in Canon with other bodies and lenses and reluctant to move elsewhere, however, with this 7D mklll image quality is really paramount now. Not hugely interested in the bells and whistles, I expect the quality of the final image to at least match that of the D500, if not I will have to seriously consider what I spend this slice of money on, I am not prepared to wait a further 5 yrs for a solid D500 competitor.

Yep. Image quality is what ultimately made me move from the 7D2 to the D500. Not that I was getting bad images from the 7D2, but the IQ from the D500 is so much better. You can really see the difference when editing raw files from both cameras side-by-side. I just got tired of waiting for the 7D3, as well. Canon could get me back with a 7D3 having superior IQ to the D500. I just don't think Canon wants to expose its more expensive offerings to internal competition.

 

[snoke]

More MP sell camera.
Go into store. Listen to consumer. "Phone A have 12MP camera. Phone B have 16MP camera. Phone B better camera."

If Sony not have 30+MP APS-C soon, Canon have good lead.
How long Sony make 24MP APS-C? Too long. Stagnate. Sony have problem? Canon capitalize.

Someone say moire problem for fabirc. Yes. Animal not wear fabric, model do. Who take many photo of people? Photographer with 1DXII/D5.

 

[AlanF]

...The d500 is noticeably sharper at any range and will produce usable images at iso ranges that every 7dmk2 owner shudders, like 6400-12800...

I'd like to see some evidence of that. Using the DPR online comparison tool, it looks like jpg images from the D500 are cleaner, but I see no real difference in raw at either 6,400 or 12,800. So perhaps Nikon's jpg processing is a bit better, but it doesn't appear that the sensor itself is any better.

I've certainly seen some wonderfully sharp and clean images on this forum from people using the 7D II at higher ISOs. I admit that in my own experience, I never shoot above 6,400 and try to stay with a top of 3,200. That's about a stop less than I shoot the 1Dx II at. I don't own the D500, so I have no frame of reference except testing sites, which don't seem to match your statement.

If you are really getting that much better performance with the D500, hats off to you and Nikon. I just like to see things with my own eyes.

Really? I thought it was pretty straightforward even on dpr's questionable test, and by the time you get rid of all the extra color noise on the 7d2 the d500 is well ahead. But then again 'm viewing in a 30" monitor.

At any rate, the internet is full of examples of the d500's image quality.

My experience is that the 5DSR without an AA-filter produces better IQ from a 1.6x cropped image than does the full 7DII. As the 5DSR gives me better resolution and wider field of view than the 7DII, I prefer the full frame despite the larger file sizes and slower frame rate. The FF with a 400mm prime is like having the flexibility of a 250-400mm zoom on APS-C. A 7DII without AA-filter and improved AF would be tempting, however. I would not buy a 7DIII with an AA-filter.

 

[traveller]

Personally i would be very happy to see a 7D3 with a lower megapixel count. Shock! Horror! I don't want more. I want the sensor to have much lower noise, higher ISO capability and better dynamic range. It's never the number of pixels that matters - its the quality of those pixels. I want to take bird photos in poor light, with decent shutter speeds, and that means better performance at higher ISO settings.
I doubt that much of the glass that is commonly used could usefully resolve an image onto 30mpix on a cropped sensor.
Canon has an opportunity here to really come up with something special and come up with a camera that has great performance by being realistic with the spec - but I bet they won't take it....

This is a great argument, it's just a shame that the facts don't support it:

https://www.dxomark.com/Cameras/Compare/Side-by-side/Sony-a9-versus-Sony-A7S-II-versus-Sony-A7R-II___1162_1047_1035

You can always improve noise performance by downsizing, but upsizing will never increase resolution. There are speed and workflow arguments for wanting lower resolution sensors, but the noise argument doesn't hold water.

As for lens resolution, decent lenses have withstood the increases in sensor resolution so far. I'm not sure what's so magical the extra 12.5% (average) increase in linear resolution going from 24MP to 30MP would require that justifies you proclamation of doom. Samsung demonstrated a 28MP APS-C sensor on its NX1 three years ago and their lenses were fine.

 

[Sharlin]

So, because I didn't have any better things to do on a Saturday night, I plotted the throughput of a bunch of Canon bodies. 30Mpix*12fps would certainly be an unreasonable large jump; 24Mpix*12fps (plotted) fits the general trend better but would still be a noticeable jump. Source data

 

[aceflibble]

I don’t understand why some posters and the front page suggest wildlife shooters wouldn’t want no AA filter when the lack of an AA filter is precisely why people have been switching to Nikon and/or accepting the slower speed of the 5DS R just so they can not have an AA.

If, for sake of argument, the 7D3 is 30mp with no AA, that is perfect for birders and wildlife shooters. 30mp is far beyond any risk of moiré and 30mp 1.6x crop without an AA is more clean pixels on-target than any other camera in the world.

The old theory that lower pixel count means less noise hasn’t really been true for a few hardware generations now. More resolution means a cleaner image after rescaling, more options to crop without losing detail, and/or simply more effective noise reduction if you so desire. The lower resolution = quality idea simply doesn’t hold up anymore. Look at the a7s vs the a7R and how the S is only cleaner 1:1 and has worse noise once the images are equalised. Not to mention that especially for birds, getting size and detail—that means higher resolution—matters far, far more than noise. Majority of wildlife print publication already accepts the 7D2’s files at ISO 1600 without reduction and the BBC shoot at 3200 for video on the 7D2. If the 7D2’s ISO 3200 is good enough for the BBC’s archival wildlife video, I’m not worried about high ISO quality on a 30mp 7D3.


... All that said, I’d rather have a lower resolution if it meant a higher frame rate and deeper buffer. That’s the one thing that would be more of a boon than the increased detail. 24mp with an extra 1or 2 fps and an extra 5-10 shots in the buffer would be preferable for wildlife. Speed > detail > pixel quality.

 

[ufaforwork3]

nice เล่นคาสิโนบนมือถือ

 

[dolina]

enough arguing on the internet. shoot more photos.

 

[Orangutan]

30mp is far beyond any risk of moiré

I have yet to see evidence of this. On several occasions I've encountered regrets that a bird photo was ruined by Moiré on a 5DSR. I don't know how common this is, but I'd love to see side-by-side photos of identical subjects using 5DS and 5DSR to see for myself the sharpness vs. Moiré issue.