The Canon EOS 7D Mark III : a test for Canon

haggie

EOS 90D
May 11, 2016
153
53
Recently there were some rumors about a new EOS 7D Mk III coming soon. Discussions about its rumored features and properties were based on the pros and cons of technology. Such approaches are nice, but also uncertain. After all, the details of the implementation determine if, and to what degree, the guesswork and (often: implied) assumptions about the technology are true in the final product.

It is a much more secure approach to start with the user of the product and his perception. Then uncertainties about implementation and the engineering decisions are not relevant. On a forum like this, it even makes sense to put the interest of the customer (the user) at number one when discussing the supposed features for a new product.


I talk a lot with other photographers when I am at airshows or when meeting one when on ‘safari’ for birds. A few years ago I already noticed that there are Canon owners that are quite critical about their brand. That surprised me then, because I had a different image of Canon.
And recently I got the impression that this sentiment of being unhappy with Canon is growing.
I have tried to find how this feeling can exist, in particular for those using the more expensive Canon gear.


Although not perfect, when the original 7D and the 7D Mk II came out, they were the best there was for action photography in cropped (APS-C) cameras. But the 7D Mk II no longer is the best cropped action camera: now there is the Nikon D500.

The general idea seems to be that Canon does not do its utmost for its customers. I have noticed that quite a few people feel that Canon does not WANT to deliver what they COULD for a given price.
By comparison, Nikon is then often described as the brand that aims to build the most capable camera for a given budget. As one guy described it: “Canon is ruled by sales managers, Nikon still gives some influence to technicians with a heart for the camera.”
I got the impression that the changing attitude among the owners of Canon equipment towards Canon is due to this negative perception about Canon’s efforts. In particular quite some action photographers with the 7D and 7D Mark II that I have met seem to be increasingly ‘unhappy’ with Canon.

But what I think is even more remarkable, is that this summer I heard 3 people express roughly the same idea. These guys (2 with a 7D, 1 with a 7D Mk II – one of them also had a 5D Mk III) feel that their interest as a customer is not a primary concern for Canon any more. They all three described roughly the same way they were going to act upon this feeling: when the new 7D Mk III proves to be at least (…) equal to the D500, they will get the 7D Mark III. But if not, they will sell their Canon gear and get the Nikon D500 with 2 or 3 lenses…………..
To be clear; this were people that did not know each other. It was even in 2 different countries.

The first time, I thought such a bold plan was an emotional expression of discontent (the grass always seems greener at the other side of the fence). When in early summer I heard this reasoning for the second time, I replied that you would need deep pockets to actually buy all new. The answer I got: “Canon keeps its value on the second hand market, so I can sell it quite well”. And he added that expenses for travel and lodgings near airshows or nature reservations cost hundreds up to thousands of euros each year. Over a period of, say, 8 years, about as much money flows to travelling and lodging as to the gear. “I will just take my loss and spend my money where they make an effort to give me the equipment that I want”.

These are people with Canon equipment who invest a lot of time and money in action photography. They want the prospect that they keep access to the best camera there is available for cropped action photographers. Because that is why they once chose for Canon equipment.

As a consequence of the time they spent and the money they paid, action photographers have pretty high standards. They want the best results: a high percentage of optimal images.

I hear too many Canon owners mention the Nikon D500 as the (far) better choice for action photography than the 7D Mk II. The new 7D Mk III will be a test case for their faith in Canon for disappointed people like the three guys I mentioned. But there may well be more that feel this way.

I am under the impression that this feeling/perception explains why many Canon owners in ‘the action photography scene’ are anxiously awaiting the new 7D Mark III. And therefore on this forum their perception is a relevant consideration when assessing what the new 7D Mark III should deliver.

From what I have seen and heard, the new 7D Mark III is hoped to have these properties:
- a camera body with an image quality at least as good as, but perhaps even a bit better than, Nikon’s D500 where detail, Dynamic Range and Noise are concerned, but hopefully a bit better – hoping that the improvement from the 80D’s sensor continues significantly;
- a camera with an improved Autofocus system that is fast yet accurate and with little spread – to be able to accurately select the subject to focus on;
- a camera with an Autofocus system with improved tracking of a subject, in particular when fast moving, moving erratically and also when the color is brownish/greenish – resulting in more ‘keepers’ when shooting in bursts.


These are not extreme wishes. And just to avoid some improper suggestions: nobody of the people I spoke wants a 1DX Mk II for the price of a ‘mere’ 7D Mk II. But they do want Canon to deliver the best of what is technically feasible within this sensor size (APS-C) and price range.
Their simple yet valid reasoning: if another brand can make a substantial leap in quality where it counts, Canon as market leader also can put that level of improvement in their most expensive APS-C body.
Or will Canon just follow the competition and/or add nice-to-have features while not addressing the really important issues?
I feel that such a path by Canon would be a mistake because by doing so, Canon would not allow these ambitious action photographers access to the best cropped camera technology that is feasible.

In conclusion:
For many (action) photographers, the new Canon 7D Mark III may be a test by which to measure Canon‘s commitment to action photographers in the APS-C segment.
 

Isaacheus

EOS RP
Jun 22, 2017
215
27
New Zealand
I think it'll be hard to tell until the camera is announced to be honest, and how long it takes for this to arrive. If it's a wait of another year, then it'd seem reasonable to expect it leapfrog over the competition.

Where canon has a strong advantage is the range of lenses and compatibility, so I can understand a number of people staying even if the camera isn't top of its class in every other aspect

I have seen a bit of frustration towards the recent canon releases however, the 6d mk2 being the stand out in this lot. For the prosumer full frame area, it's been enough for myself personally to start switching to a dual set up of sony and canon. I did look very hard at Nikon too, but decided going into a change slower would hopefully be easier overall.
 

unfocused

EOS-1D X Mark III
Jul 20, 2010
6,013
3,311
67
Springfield, IL
www.mgordoncommunications.com
Three people. No one who actually uses the Nikon D500 and two who don’t even use the 7DII. Not exactly a representative or relevant sample.

First, let me acknowledge that I expect to see improvements in sensor performance and autofocus, that’s a reasonable expectation. I don’t consider it any kind of test for Canon however as I know that the only relevant test for any company is whether or not their products sell and earn a profit. I can assure you that Canon’s market research exceeds three random people.

A few things to consider the next time you are out talking to people:

The grass is always greener on the other side of the fence. People compare the reality of what they have with what they imagine the competition to have. It’s a very common bias in polling. Ask someone if politician “A” deserves re-election and you will get a different answer than if you ask them to choose between “A” and “B” because in the first case they are comparing a real person with an ideal, while in the second case they are comparing two individuals each with their own flaws. The people you talked to have no real experience with the D500 so they idealize it. Even more so since two-thirds of your sample doesn’t even have any experience with the 7DII, which is a far different camera than the 7D.

I do get a little tired of all this hand wringing over the D500 which is a newer camera and of course has some slight improvements over the older 7D II. The 7D III will be newer when it is released and will have some improvements over the D500. Then when Nikon releases the next version it will have some improvements. That leapfrogging is always going to be the case,
 

Orangutan

EOS 5D Mark IV
Sep 25, 2010
2,140
3
haggie said:
In conclusion:
For many (action) photographers, the new Canon 7D Mark III may be a test by which to measure Canon‘s commitment to action photographers in the APS-C segment.

The foregoing is just a rehash of the standard complaints, so I'll rehash some of the standard replies.

* You're free to buy whatever gear suits your need and budget. If you buy Nikon we'll wish you well with your new kit.

* Extrapolating your own experiences and conversations is not statistically valid: you and everyone you encounter comprise a tiny fraction of the market, and it's more likely to be a statistical fluke than a trend. Canon (presumably) has capable market research, and will make its product decisions with more data than you'll ever see.

* 7D2 came out in Oct 2014, over 3 years ago. The D500 came out around April 2016. The D500 is a newer camera, and we would expect it to have leaped the 7D2 in several ways.

* Canon is a business; they will not make "heart" decisions, they will make business decisions. Nikon has had financial problems, and has not been able to gain market share despite their "heart." Nikon can't expect to take a small loss on each sale and "make it up on volume." Too much "heart" will earn Nikon a very nice eulogy.

Regards,

O
 

dak723

EOS R
Oct 26, 2013
1,141
435
haggie said:
Their simple yet valid reasoning: if another brand can make a substantial leap in quality where it counts, Canon as market leader also can put that level of improvement in their most expensive APS-C body.
Or will Canon just follow the competition and/or add nice-to-have features while not addressing the really important issues?

As most on this forum - and apparently the folks you talked to - don't seem to get, is that this reasoning is not valid. (Simple - yes, but not valid). Most technological advances are covered by patents. Canon can not just go out and start making a sensor just as good as Sony. It is not because Canon doesn't care about its customers. It is because Sony has a patent on how to increase the efficiency of its signal that other companies have - so far - been unable to match. That being said, when Canon went on-chip, the results are now very close and most photographers - in real life situations - don't notice any difference. The same can be said for the various tracking methods - I would guess they are all patented and each company has to find its own solution.

As has been mentioned a million times. If you really think that there is a substantial difference between brands, get the brand you want. Canon, like most companies, puts out the best product that it thinks will sell best and make them the most profit. So far, they are passing that test. If you want a company that has a different test, get that brand. It is really that simple. No one on the internet cares whether you buy a Nikon or a Canon next.
 

haggie

EOS 90D
May 11, 2016
153
53
unfocused said:
Three people. No one who actually uses the Nikon D500 and two who don’t even use the 7DII. Not exactly a representative or relevant sample.

Where did you get this impression that there are only three? What I mention in my 5th paragraph describes what I hear from many more, this year alone. And it is also regularly expressed on this forum. So do not try to make this existing sentiment smaller than it is by an incorrect account of what I wrote.
On this forum an attempt to start an open discussion is regularly met with a passive aggressive approach by some. Your reply, and to a lesser degree the reply before yours, also have this element in it.

In my text I leave in the middle whether or not I agree with the sentiments I mentioned.
My point is that these sentiments are present, and to quite some extent. Even probably increasing.
And that means they may become a force of their own. This is the issue I want to bring in. No emotional responses like yours do not help to have an open and factual discussion.

For the rest: you obviously miss my point.
I mentioned three very militant opinions indeed. Keep in mind: these are owners of advanced Canon equipment and not your average ignorant buyer. Even if you try to give them that label with your out-of-the-blue comparison with politicians. And these are also not the people that always have something to moan about Canon.
And neither am I, by the way. I have been ‘proud’ of my Canon equipment since my first 35mm camera.


FYI, the friend of one of these 3 guys had a Nikon D500, so at least one of them knew the difference from experience. Do you? And the other 2 guys, like many others I mentioned in general in the 5th paragraph of my post above, have read tests and reviews.

As you apparently want to disqualify the arguments I presented, I will add my personal experiences about this subject here.
I regularly have contact with almost 10 airplane and/or BIF shooters, 4 with Nikons and 6 with Canon (some of them have FF as well as cropped bodies). I too have seen the images from the D500 and the difference when taken to Photoshop are undeniable.
I do not feel like going into details here, but the difference is such that at first I expected other influences. But when comparing photos from bursts that were taken when standing 3 ft apart, with the same ISO number (and even the same aperture), I could only admit that the D500 is better than the 7D Mark II and also better than the 80D (the difference between the 80D and the 7D Mark II was smaller than I expected and often hardly noticeable, by the way).

My experiences of the 7D Mk II in relation to the D500 confirm that the D500 is better. And what is wrong in acknowledging that? Indeed, as has been mentioned, the fact that the D500 is a lot newer will contribute to that. And it also is a bit more expensive.
All this has been mentioned so often here (apparently so often that when reading the term “D500” you get a cramp). And it is not what I want to bring up. My point is that many don’t care where it comes from, how old it is or even what the technical details are.
They just want THE BEST (here: cropped) camera for their hobby: action photography.
And they hope to get it from Canon.
And if not, they may very well go somewhere else.

And the response to paint them almost as traitors because they might make that last step, does not do justice to their wishes. What is wrong in wanting Canon to make the best cropped camera?
Why are there people on this forum that seem to not want that? Or try to kill any discussion about such a subject with remarks like "No one on the internet cares whether you buy a Nikon or a Canon next".

I am sure that if Canon has the “capable market research” that is so often mentioned on this forum as a reason against any critical remarks, then Canon will deal with it in a more responsible and reasonable way than the former 4 replies show.
 

Don Haines

Beware of cats with laser eyes!
Jun 4, 2012
8,265
1,935
Canada
Sigh.......

Nikon comes out with a better camera.... then Canon does.....then Nikon does..... then Canon does...... and the pattern will continue!

The industry is approaching convergence. We are running closer and closer to physical limits and the differences between cameras is getting smaller and smaller. Both choices are great. Both have their strengths and both have their weaknesses.... in the final wash, the photographer is a far greater factor and the choice of lens is too.

Nobody is *******, and the amount of people who will jump to Nikon over any perceived disadvantage is probably about the same as the number of people who will jump from Nikon to Canon over any perceived advantage.

BTW, I am heading out for a walk today with my best friend. I am packing a 7D2 and he has a D500. Both work about the same....
 

zim

EOS 5D Mark IV
CR Pro
Oct 18, 2011
2,129
317
“I do not feel like going into details here, but the difference is such that at first I expected other influences. But when comparing photos from bursts that were taken when standing 3 ft apart, with the same ISO number (and even the same aperture), I could only admit that the D500 is better than the 7D Mark II”

Well that’s a pity because that’s the bit I’m interested in! Are you talking about IQ or AF performance or both?
I just don’t see these big differences between cameras, any would seem to me to be countered way more by infield technique and post processing software and ability.

Here’s the thing I’m still using a 7D I just didn’t see the 7D2 offering enough difference for me to warrant the expense (I also don’t see any big difference between 7D2 and 80D) but I know for a fact that the images I’m printing today are way better than when I first started using that camera, why? How can this possibly be?

Having said that I hope for an increase to 24mp as that would be an appreciable but not excessive difference to what I have now and suits my interests I also hope for a deeper buffer and improved AF I’d be very surprised (amazed actually) if there was an appreciable change in sensor noise performance (maybe a 1/3 of a stop at best) just as I would when the D500 successor is released.
 

Utonagan

I'm New Here
Dec 10, 2017
13
0
Canada
I suppose it would depend one a few factors at least for myself. Most recent cameras are just barely better in image quality than their predecessor and i am talking actual accurate rendition not interpolated guess work. I am not talking about pixel peeping but getting the details correct the first time and at all from macro to wide open landscapes ranges, not just crops to cover up deficiencies which the older models are better at in many instances.

I hope the 7D mk 3 impresses as a tool for as right now Niky isn't holding my interest.
 

LSV

EOS M6 Mark II
May 4, 2012
84
0
haggie said:
- a camera with an improved Autofocus system that is fast yet accurate and with little spread – to be able to accurately select the subject to focus on;
- a camera with an Autofocus system with improved tracking of a subject, in particular when fast moving, moving erratically and also when the color is brownish/greenish – resulting in more ‘keepers’ when shooting in bursts.

Thank you, I couldn't agree more. I hang out with about 50 or so serious amateur birds photographers of which 40 are Canon users. I would say 10 of the Canon shooters were so impressed with the Nikon D500, including me, that we either switched completely to Nikon or straddled both sides the fence. To be fair, the D500 is much newer, but its AF is so far ahead of the 7D2, especially for birds-in-flight, the most challenging and fun part of our kind of photography.

If this were a fairy tale then I would live happily ever with my new Nikon gears. But, reality bites when it comes to Nikon repair service. My used 200-500mm lens (no warranty) acted up and was sent in for service in LA. It came back after 2 weeks and $300 worth of repairs. Took it out but nothing was in focus at 500mm -- I mean blurry, not just soft. I spent 3 weeks arguing back and forth with Nikon about their botched repairs. I got so frustrated that I even offered to pay for shipping for this second repair and if they found nothing wrong, they can keep the lens and do whatever they want with it. They did not accept my offer and eventually agreed to repair it in NY. It came back OK after another 2 weeks, but the thrill is gone baby.

I've decided to stay with Canon and wait for the 7D3. The moral of the story can be found from the late great Erma Bombeck, "The grass is always greener over the septic tank."
 

haggie

EOS 90D
May 11, 2016
153
53
LSV said:
haggie said:
- a camera with an improved Autofocus system that is fast yet accurate and with little spread – to be able to accurately select the subject to focus on;
- a camera with an Autofocus system with improved tracking of a subject, in particular when fast moving, moving erratically and also when the color is brownish/greenish – resulting in more ‘keepers’ when shooting in bursts.

Thank you, I couldn't agree more. I hang out with about 50 or so serious amateur birds photographers of which 40 are Canon users. I would say 10 of the Canon shooters were so impressed with the Nikon D500, including me, that we either switched completely to Nikon or straddled both sides the fence. To be fair, the D500 is much newer, but its AF is so far ahead of the 7D2, especially for birds-in-flight, the most challenging and fun part of our kind of photography.

If this were a fairy tale then I would live happily ever with my new Nikon gears. But, reality bites when it comes to Nikon repair service. My used 200-500mm lens (no warranty) acted up and was sent in for service in LA. It came back after 2 weeks and $300 worth of repairs. Took it out but nothing was in focus at 500mm -- I mean blurry, not just soft. I spent 3 weeks arguing back and forth with Nikon about their botched repairs. I got so frustrated that I even offered to pay for shipping for this second repair and if they found nothing wrong, they can keep the lens and do whatever they want with it. They did not accept my offer and eventually agreed to repair it in NY. It came back OK after another 2 weeks, but the thrill is gone baby.

I've decided to stay with Canon and wait for the 7D3. The moral of the story can be found from the late great Erma Bombeck, "The grass is always greener over the septic tank."

What you write about the AF-performance of the D500 is what I hear praised a lot also (even more than the better DR and noise). That thing about service, and in particular WANTING to assist is indeed a valid point. I have only once needed help from Canon for a focussing issue with my former 7OD. That went smooth, although the problem did not present itself as a so-called hard error.
I myself did not use the "the grass is always greener ...." comparison for nothing.
 

Isaacheus

EOS RP
Jun 22, 2017
215
27
New Zealand
Don Haines said:
Sigh.......

Nikon comes out with a better camera.... then Canon does.....then Nikon does..... then Canon does...... and the pattern will continue!

The industry is approaching convergence. We are running closer and closer to physical limits and the differences between cameras is getting smaller and smaller. Both choices are great. Both have their strengths and both have their weaknesses.... in the final wash, the photographer is a far greater factor and the choice of lens is too.

Nobody is *******, and the amount of people who will jump to Nikon over any perceived disadvantage is probably about the same as the number of people who will jump from Nikon to Canon over any perceived advantage.

BTW, I am heading out for a walk today with my best friend. I am packing a 7D2 and he has a D500. Both work about the same....

Has Canon done that in some of its recent releases though? I feel this is where the test will truly lie - will they step up properly or give an incremental upgrade?

I know for the areas I was looking at, Canon had a few swings and misses, and I ended up going elsewhere for that part of what I wanted. The only significant reason I still have some Canon gear is the lens cost for swapping out at in one go

Having said that, I don't think Canon is ******* or the like at this stage, no.

In reply to haggins, I can see a lot of people staying if the camera is 'good enough' and they have the lens investment already, as a number of comments I've seen around the internet suggest that it's the lenses rather than the bodies that attract them to canon.

It'll be a test yes, but wouldn't it be similar to how Nikon users felt when the 7dmk2 came out, and there wasn't a strong response from Nikon for some time?

So I agree in many respects, but I'd be surprised if there was a large shift quickly over one body release
 

monkey44

EOS RP
Aug 7, 2014
430
0
One answer to the issues folks raise about new technology can find an answer by making your camera do what you want it to do, and not expect Canon or Nikon or Sony to cater to your skill as a photographer, or make up for the lack of skill.

All these cameras will do much more than the average photographer will ever use, pro /semi/amateur whatever skill level you reach, or satisfies your image goals. Too many photographers today expect technology to make up any error in technique ... and no manufacturer can hit that goal, too many difference between people and learning.

Personally, I shot with a 30D and a 7D for years, and still marvel at what that 30D could do in the field .. then finally upgraded to a 5DM3 and 7D2 ... these two cameras with the proper lens will do anything I want it to do. Of course, I limit my wants to reasonable captures too, so don't expect to accomplish anything beyond the limits of that technology either.

Canon and Nikon will do what it expects will give it the greatest ROI ... and if we don't like what appears on the market, learn the capabilities of the camera you own and make it work for you, and just don't buy what they sell.

Canon and Nikon (and others) compete for your dollars not for your love and kisses, and true customer satisfaction and service plays a limited role in what each one produces.
 

Aussie shooter

www.facebook.com/BrettGuyPhotography/
Dec 6, 2016
1,040
1,459
Ok. As a 7d2 user I will say this. Yes. We hope for better high iso performance and dynamic range. Yes. We hope for an improved AF system(but to be honest if the current AF system is really holding you back it is your skills as a photographer that need improvement-not your camera). Apart from that there is really nothing the opposition has over the 7d2 and there are many things where the opposition lags. I would NEVER consider swapping to a Nikon or Sony etc because of one simple reason. Usability. put simply, the others suck.. User interface, button placement and sheer intuitiveness of Canon camera is light years ahead of the completion and it is the usability that allows you to get the shot more so than the sensor. I have used a Nikon d500. Great camera. If I liked Nikon ergonomics etc I would get one. I have used Sony's(briefly). It is hard to describe how horrible they feel in the hand. Canon are for the moment safe with me as a customer.
 

aceflibble

EOS RP
May 8, 2015
299
95
Y'all realise the 7D3 is essentially finalised by now, right?

Whatever it is, it's not going to beat the D500 for raw image quality. Canon haven't even remotely scratched that possibility. The 80D was their last big leap in image quality, and that only came about as long as you were willing to ignore that the 80D drastically misrepresented its ISO (even more than Fuji) in order to compare more favourably at various settings. (E.G. the 80D's ISO 400 is actually closer to 200 than 400, so it's not surprising it is better than the 7D2's ISO 400 setting which is closer to 400.) That isn't something a 7D3 can get away with as exposure is so vital to sports & wildlife photographers; a landscape photographer can compensate for overrated ISO, but nobody photographing a rare eagle or an important sports final is going to risk opening up their shutter or aperture two thirds of a stop. The 7D's ISO needs to be more accurate than the 80D was allowed to get away with, and when you actually compare the 80D's sensor and processor at the ISO they really use instead of the ISO they claim to use... that sensor and processor aren't so great. There isn't really the big leap in quality, not when you compare like-for-like.

But that's par for the course. Canon make their own sensors and processors; Nikon buy their sensors from Sony and their processors have come from a variety of companies, including 'rivals' like Sony, Fuji, and Panasonic. Buying in parts allows Nikon more time to tweak the configuration and things like heat management, which in turn allows them to run a processor at faster clock speeds or push a sensor's sensitivity. Meanwhile, Canon make all their stuff themselves. They get to spend less money on the sensor and processor, but it requires more time. As a result, the rest of the construction tends to suffer a little bit and things like heat and data flow don't get as much time to be optimised.

Canon invent or significantly rework something. A year later, Nikon do the same thing better. Canon make another breakthrough. Nikon top it. That's the pattern. It always will be. Canon were the top sports/wildlife SLR; Nikon topped them. The next Canon will likely 'win' again as, though they're unlikely to quite keep up in image quality, they have the chance to improve on functionality. (As was the case with the 1D-vs-Dx battle for a while, where Canon were better for IQ but worse for functionality, then in the same year that Nikon became the best for IQ, Canon took over for functionality).

Same goes for autofocus. If the 7D2's isn't good enough for you, nothing will please you. If you're expecting a huge leap forward, be prepared for disappointment. If you're expecting something on par with the D500, yeah, fair enough. Even so, in practical terms it isn't a deal-breaker. I've used the D500 and its AF is great, but I've yet to find anything that only it could keep up with where a 7D2 would fail. Will the 7D3's AF be better? Probably. Will it really make that much difference anyway? Not likely.

And considering that the majority of the finalists of the Wildlife Photographer Of The Year competition this past year were using bodies from before the D500, I wouldn't say it matters too much anyway what the 7D3 turns out to be. The 1D and D[5] bodies don't have anywhere near the top image quality that either company makes, yet they're still the most-used for professional wildlife and sports because of functionality and durability. IQ and AF are what 'internet' photographers obsess over because those things are easy to measure and compare, but the reality is that the people who are actually going out and doing the real work either 1) skip these 'middle' bodies and go straight to the very top bodies, or 2) are doing just fine with older bodies so anything a newer body does is good enough.



You're thinking about it too hard, and you're thinking about it in inappropriate, unrealistic terms.
 

retroreflection

EOS 90D
May 19, 2015
124
5
You, me, each of us is just one pixel in the image of the photography market. No matter how many other pixels you talk to, you will never see the big picture. No matter how much you try to think it out you will never see the big picture.
Canon responds to their image of the photography market. Their image is influenced by their history and their strategy. Individuals at Canon decide how to chase millions of customers.
Accept the reality of your insignificance, and maybe you can focus on things you can influence.

You might think you are being reasonable when you say you only want what is technically feasible ... at a reasonable cost. But no customer has the data, so that is just an excuse for getting mad at a spec sheet. And you are talking about an unannounced spec sheet. Do not make a habit of prepping yourself for anger. Stress hormones without purpose are bad for you. Makes you shaky, too. Bad for sharpness.
 

CanonFanBoy

Purple
CR Pro
Jan 28, 2015
5,579
3,978
Irving, Texas
Just last week I talked to my nephew's girlfriend's mother's great aunt who was at an air show and then a "safari" for birds where she met fifteen D500 owners that were ready to jump ship for Pentax. The general consensus (We know how this works because we all poll other snapshotters when out in the field about their feelings about their gear.) is that while Nikon has heart, Pentax offers medical insurance and a 401k along side the kit lens. ::) ::) ::)

These fictional ship jumping field polls really get tiring. :eek:
 

CanonFanBoy

Purple
CR Pro
Jan 28, 2015
5,579
3,978
Irving, Texas
Sporgon said:
Love CR for the humour, had a chuckle at this. When Canon brought out the 7D how long did it take Nikon to produce something similar ? Years ! I guess they weren't listening to their customers ! ;D

I suspect that this is a case of fictionitis convolutis. Gets funnier every time somebody happens upon groups of disgruntled Canon users behind the duck blind. :eek: I don't believe any of it. :p I wouldn't believe it if the disgruntled were Nikon users either. Sony users? Now that I might believe.
 

haggie

EOS 90D
May 11, 2016
153
53
CanonFanBoy said:
Sporgon said:
Love CR for the humour, had a chuckle at this. When Canon brought out the 7D how long did it take Nikon to produce something similar ? Years ! I guess they weren't listening to their customers ! ;D

I suspect that this is a case of fictionitis convolutis. Gets funnier every time somebody happens upon groups of disgruntled Canon users behind the duck blind. :eek: I don't believe any of it. :p I wouldn't believe it if the disgruntled were Nikon users either. Sony users? Now that I might believe.

It was only a matter of time before someone would try to disqualify the poster, or the people whose opinions were expressed. Congratulations, CanonFanBoy, you have won this time! :D
You have no problems calling me a liar when I try to start a discussion and exchange of views based on what I have seen as a noteworthy mindset with many Canon users. The use of many emoticons does not hide your apparent objective to disqualify the whole subject by discrediting me. Not chique, my ‘boy’! :) 8) ::)

There seems to be understanding for what Canon does, and in particular for what they (might) NOT do. I find that rather peculiar. And even more peculiar: some people on the forum seem to go a bit further and justify that Canon will NOT make a major improvement in the new 7D Mk III. They even defend NOT getting something in advance.

Do they want to lower expectations? For whom then?
They certainly do not have the best interest in mind of all those enthusiast users that want the best camera for their hobby of action photography.
And responses like yours, dear CanonFanBoy, clearly are not aimed at getting some kind of sincere and true discussion and exchange of views from another angle.


Several responses mention that the 7D Mk II is a fine camera, which it is. And then some quickly jump to the conclusion that if you cannot get good images with that, then the photographer is the problem.
Of course, there is always room for improvement in technique as well as ‘knowing your camera’.
But still, even if you have that D500 or the 7D Mk II, there will be situations where the technology is not capable of delivering an image with good exposure and perfect focus. And that will no doubt last for many more years, probably forever. The fact that the photographer has no control over many aspects in action photography (e.g. lighting) is a contributing factor here.
It are experiences with exactly those hard circumstances that explain why some action photographers want better AF, for instance. And there is nothing unreasonable in that! And it also does not necessarily mean a lack of expertise!

To illustrate this by again mentioning the D500 that obviously upsets some they lose good manners: seeing that the D500 does better in specific areas like image quality (and therefore in some specific post-processing) and AF performance (especially with specific fast and erratically moving subjects) explains why some Canon users conclude that such improvement is not impossible and therefore are not too much to ask in Canon's next high-end crop camera - the 7D Mk III.