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

[tomscott]

It is interesting. Generally these comments come from amateurs with gear hunger not from pros actually making images and money. Its a tool and it does what it was designed for well, its 4 years old and its time for a new one.

At the end of the day, yes it could do with a bit more DR and focus accuracy issues could do with some work but otherwise the 7DMKII is a great camera especially for the price. I was an early adopter and I paid about £900 at the time which is a bargain for a continuous AF 10fps camera.

Many newer cameras boast these sorts of stats especially mirrorless but if they dont track accurately its just wasted memory and effort.

It is true Canon doesn't make a camera to fulfill the needs of every photographer because its not possible. They are a little bit like Apple they nail whats important and give you the features you need to get the job done over and over again. There's the odd bump in the road but the products are always super polished and reliable with a service that is dependable which amateurs don't appreciate because their cameras don't get the hammer.

Again when the 6DMKII came out it was absolutely slated. Ive used most of canons top flight products over the last 10 years and it has become one of my favorite go to cameras because its fun to use and easy to produce good images in nearly any situation. The combination of a full frame sensor that improves all the downfalls of the 5DMKIII and gives super sharp images with wifi and GPS and a tilt screen. Excellent, again yes it could do with a little more DR and I wouldn't take it where weather sealing is an issue but I haven't really needed much more over what a 5DMKIV offers. It could do with an extra card slot, but ive never had a card fail in the 10 years ive been shooting professionally although its always a risk.

What they have done which nobody speaks about is make a very polished product which cuts the 5DMKIV more than £1000. The AF system for example from the 80D but it hits just as well as my 5DMKIII did (which is a more advanced system) and even the 7DMKII from my usage so far. For me its not really about money its about value, the more value the more money I make and also willing to spend. Put images side by side and I doubt anyone would be able tell the difference between any manufacturer.

It depends on where you sit, whether your a glass half full kind of guy or worry about every detail of a specification.

My Canon gear very rarely disappoints or does me a disservice. At the end of the day yes Nikon are going all out with every single product... why... because they are struggling and desperate to get people over and in this process their cameras have had manufacturing defects etc etc

Would I like some of the extra features... yes, would i like a canon D850, yes. But its not the end of the world.

From a marketing and production point of view what do they do with the next generation? DSLRs are in their final stages and improvements are few and far between. Theres little to add value and thats how companies make money by selling you another camera. Nikons strategy obviously isnt working as well as Canons yet they make great products. Canon are much more on the fence but they are selling more cameras in a difficult climate.

At the end of the day if you cant get the job done with whats available then there is something wrong. There has never been a better time to be into photography because the value for money thats available its frankly amazing.

Saying that I dont want to be the guy thats conservative, Canon does need to start competing more aggressively. On the other hand the DSLR is pretty much at the end of its life and whether its worth companies investing heavily in it is questionable too. The reason I didnt buy a 5DMKIV for £3500, its an excellent camera but I dont think its worth that amount over the 5DMKIII and 6DMKII, especially 18 months later you can find them for £2100. For most that £1400 is a trip of a lifetime. I traveled the world for 12 months and went to some of the most incredible places in the world with a fraction of the amount the gear I took cost.

I expected a hybrid 5DSR/MKIII 7-8fps with 40 odd MP which is what the D850 ended up being. Which is what I meant about value, not that the MKIV is a bad camera but its not a great value proposition imo.

Canons top flight hasnt got enough to distinguish from the prosumer market currently. Hopefully the next gen will and it will trickle down. Who knows what the next 4 years will do, we might not be talking about DSLRs.

The market is treading thin ice. There needs to be more inovation not incremental updates.

Half of these conversations get heated over tiny specification differences which make little difference in the grand scheme of things. The industry needs a change like what happened with the mobile phone. We need companies like Sony to give the bigger companies the scare they need to sort the men from the boys. We are in a transitional period and I dont think mirrorless is the answer. I dont think any of these manufacturers know what this could be.

I could see a hybrid mobile OS built into a camera that you could do more with, like apps a more open source environment similar to what magic lantern have done but official. Add this to the reliability of canons products. Anything could be done its just not happening. Companies get to the point where they are so big they protect products rather than push the boundaries. The market reducing doesnt help, but anyone who is even slightly into photography knows that even the best smartphones are pretty poor and all this DOF simulation isnt the same.

Until something changes Canon are still right up there, not worce not better. Nobody is doing anything innovative in all honestly. Investing huge money in changing systems for small spec differences is currently not a good option for anyone and although the numbers on paper are different in the real world Canon cameras perform as well as anything else on the market currently.

 

[Ozarker]

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. I don't believe any of it. 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!
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.

Just Gallup along with the field polls. The most telling part is how one sided the sum of the disaffected are: All Canon users in the doldrums and not a disaffected Nikon user in the group. I don't have a problem with anybody wanting what they want at all. It's just that there's always somebody wandering by telling us either about how Canon better get it together or they'll show Canon a thing or two and switch brands. The same people, year after year. Then, now and then, we hear about sad groups of Canon users drowning their sorrows with spec sheets as they sit around the drum circle pondering how much better their photos would be if brand x would do what brand y is doing.

Is Canon perfect? Of course not! Neither is any other brand. Just spare me the woe is me stories. Heard them all before. Nikon has heart? Please.

D500? Never knew it existed before your post. Don't care about it or the guerrilla marketing I think these lengthy and vague hit pieces are. I just take my photos (bad or good) knowing I am responsible for the final result. Best camera for the hobby? Completely subjective.

 

[Don Haines]

I now have proof that Canon is doomed!

I went for a walk in the woods yesterday with a good friend, cameras, and sunflower seeds. The goal was chickadees! I carried a 7DII and a 70-200F4IS / 17-55F2.8, he carried a D500 and a 70-200F2.8. I had a better keeper rate than he did.

Of course, there are lots of other variables.... but if the D500 is so immensely superior, then why did I have the better keeper rate for both birds in the air and for resting. Even the little birds preferred Canon

 

[Maximilian]

...
Even the little birds preferred Canon

*lol* great shot. Thanks for the laugh. 8)

 

[jeffa4444]

In 1973 I became a Canon owner for the first time, my last camera purchase was the 6D MKII, and the last lens I purchased was the EF 24-70mm f2.8L II USM at around the same time as the 6D MKII. So I don't think anyone could say I'm anti-Canon and aside from personal use I buy plenty of Canon gear for rental.

I would similarly agree with Tom Scott, however I think Haggie has a point and even hardened Canon fan boys cannot tell me they "like" every aspect of Canon cameras or like the fact some things are left out often deliberately.

The price tag for the 5D MKIV is high, very high and whilst its much better than the 5D MKIII sensor wise is it really worth the £ 1,300 more? My answer is no and that's why I have not bought it and will not buy it, for now the combination of the 5DS and the 6D MKII covers the areas I personally shoot. I was never happy with the image quality from the 7D so never bought the 7D MKII, I did much later buy the 760D for the rare times I feel I need to shoot APS-C.

The 6D MKII got slated mainly by people that never used it, and I'm sure don't know how to use it because used correctly it turns out great shots and the tilting / flippy screen is a god send when your low on the tripod shooting long exposures of water etc. or when the tripod is lower than eyeline. Would I have liked more DR? absolutely, would I have preferred a better spread of the AF points? absolutely and its these two areas in particular where I can see justification in the complaints against Canon I don't think either would have affected 5D MKIV sales because the additional AF points, tracking options, metering, weather sealing etc. all are plus points for the 5D MKIV.
The 5DS is my go to portrait camera and in combination with the EF 70-200mm f2.8L II IS USM for instance produces simply stunningly detailed shots but its not the best low light camera and extra care using it is essential, that said you would be hard pressed prizing it from me.

Another area where I think the Canon Fan Boys don't really get it is that some people like the additional features Nikon produce and many of their optics are equally as good as Canon and in some cases better.
We rent Nikon as well as Canon sure more people rent Canon but those invested in Nikon and Pros rarely change to Canon and playing with the rental cameras I can see some of the good points (I personally prefer Canon menus & control layout) as well as the not so good points.

Haggie is right Nikon with the D500 out-classed the 7D MKII on paper, sure you can relate stories like Don Haines where you "out gunned" a Nikon D500 user but Ive seen the reverse on workshops and the images from the D500 are pretty impressive that Ive been shown.

Canon does have a point to prove with the 7D MKIII, the camera will likely be much more expensive that the MKII but it will need to justify that price.

 

[Ozarker]

In 1973 I became a Canon owner for the first time, my last camera purchase was the 6D MKII, and the last lens I purchased was the EF 24-70mm f2.8L II USM at around the same time as the 6D MKII. So I don't think anyone could say I'm anti-Canon and aside from personal use I buy plenty of Canon gear for rental.

I would similarly agree with Tom Scott, however I think Haggie has a point and even hardened Canon fan boys cannot tell me they "like" every aspect of Canon cameras or like the fact some things are left out often deliberately.

The price tag for the 5D MKIV is high, very high and whilst its much better than the 5D MKIII sensor wise is it really worth the £ 1,300 more? My answer is no and that's why I have not bought it and will not buy it, for now the combination of the 5DS and the 6D MKII covers the areas I personally shoot. I was never happy with the image quality from the 7D so never bought the 7D MKII, I did much later buy the 760D for the rare times I feel I need to shoot APS-C.

The 6D MKII got slated mainly by people that never used it, and I'm sure don't know how to use it because used correctly it turns out great shots and the tilting / flippy screen is a god send when your low on the tripod shooting long exposures of water etc. or when the tripod is lower than eyeline. Would I have liked more DR? absolutely, would I have preferred a better spread of the AF points? absolutely and its these two areas in particular where I can see justification in the complaints against Canon I don't think either would have affected 5D MKIV sales because the additional AF points, tracking options, metering, weather sealing etc. all are plus points for the 5D MKIV.
The 5DS is my go to portrait camera and in combination with the EF 70-200mm f2.8L II IS USM for instance produces simply stunningly detailed shots but its not the best low light camera and extra care using it is essential, that said you would be hard pressed prizing it from me.

Another area where I think the Canon Fan Boys don't really get it is that some people like the additional features Nikon produce and many of their optics are equally as good as Canon and in some cases better.
We rent Nikon as well as Canon sure more people rent Canon but those invested in Nikon and Pros rarely change to Canon and playing with the rental cameras I can see some of the good points (I personally prefer Canon menus & control layout) as well as the not so good points.

Haggie is right Nikon with the D500 out-classed the 7D MKII on paper, sure you can relate stories like Don Haines where you "out gunned" a Nikon D500 user but Ive seen the reverse on workshops and the images from the D500 are pretty impressive that Ive been shown.

Canon does have a point to prove with the 7D MKIII, the camera will likely be much more expensive that the MKII but it will need to justify that price.

Hi Jeff,

I am not in a position to dispute anything Nikon D500 vs 7D II. I have not owned or used either. My issue is with the construction of the post: Second hand accounts of Canon users wringing their hands over it all and there's no mention of a user shrugging his shoulders saying, "I like what I have" as though there's some massive undercurrent of dissatisfaction we should all be aware of. 100% of users he polled in the field dissatisfied. I don't buy it.

Then very vague allusions about IQ, AF, etc that he says he doesn't want to get into the details about.

 

[Ozarker]

I now have proof that Canon is doomed!

I went for a walk in the woods yesterday with a good friend, cameras, and sunflower seeds. The goal was chickadees! I carried a 7DII and a 70-200F4IS / 17-55F2.8, he carried a D500 and a 70-200F2.8. I had a better keeper rate than he did.

Of course, there are lots of other variables.... but if the D500 is so immensely superior, then why did I have the better keeper rate for both birds in the air and for resting. Even the little birds preferred Canon

Don, does your little friend trade fresh eggs for the seed?

 

[amorse]

A lot of reflection on Canon's good and not-so-good value for product in here today! Seems like perspective in here is that the 5D IV is a good upgrade, but not worth the investment - and that may be fair.

I just wanted to say that as a 5D IV owner, I can certainly admit there are points of frustration but if I could begin my path of camera investment all over again, I would do almost exactly the same thing - centring around the 5D IV again. That camera has not let me down even once. I have not taken even one photo that didn't turn out which I could blame on the 5D IV. The camera has survived full on downpours, recovered well-under exposed images (whoops - my fault), taken auto focus perfectly in very low light conditions, and given me more processing room than I need (usually). Honestly, I'd be nervous to switch systems because I have so much trust in the camera.

Not to say it isn't over-priced for what it is, but I just wanted to note that there are indeed happy 5D IV owners out there!

 

[unfocused]

...My issue is with the construction of the post: Second hand accounts of Canon users wringing their hands over it all and there's no mention of a user shrugging his shoulders saying, "I like what I have" as though there's some massive undercurrent of dissatisfaction we should all be aware of. 100% of users he polled in the field dissatisfied. I don't buy it.

Then very vague allusions about IQ, AF, etc that he says he doesn't want to get into the details about.

Hits the nail on the head.

No one has suggested that the 7DII cannot or should not be improved upon. In fact, I don't know that I've ever read any post on this forum claiming that any Canon camera cannot be improved on. Every Canon camera I own can be improved upon -- and that includes the 1DxII. And, in fact, I even agreed with the original post regarding the specific areas of improvement for the next 7DII (although I would disagree with the suggestion that a narrower spread of autofocus points would be a positive. To me, that sounds like a rationalization by Nikon apologists).

What people react negatively to is a bunch of anecdotal stories that leads the poster to conclude that Canon is on the precipice of disaster and must respond to the individual's personal preferences in order to avert that disaster.

As with almost all of these threads, people rationally take exception to predictions of doom. And predictably, this prompts a response that we are just a bunch of corporate apologists who will accept any crumb that Canon hands out.

Of course the 7DIII must and will improve upon its predecessor and the competition, that's a given.

 

[jeffa4444]

A lot of reflection on Canon's good and not-so-good value for product in here today! Seems like perspective in here is that the 5D IV is a good upgrade, but not worth the investment - and that may be fair.

I just wanted to say that as a 5D IV owner, I can certainly admit there are points of frustration but if I could begin my path of camera investment all over again, I would do almost exactly the same thing - centring around the 5D IV again. That camera has not let me down even once. I have not taken even one photo that didn't turn out which I could blame on the 5D IV. The camera has survived full on downpours, recovered well-under exposed images (whoops - my fault), taken auto focus perfectly in very low light conditions, and given me more processing room than I need (usually). Honestly, I'd be nervous to switch systems because I have so much trust in the camera.

Not to say it isn't over-priced for what it is, but I just wanted to note that there are indeed happy 5D IV owners out there!

We have plenty of 5D MKIV cameras in our rental fleet, Ive used one of these multiple times before I bought the 6D MKII for personal use. The 5D MKIV is a great camera but in my opinion doesn't justify the £ 1,300 over the 5D MKIII and that's my issue. The 5DS had a number of the improvements that went into the 5D MKIV that were not in the 5D MKIII and its all about matching your requirements to your needs / desires and why Canon has five different full-frame cameras (6D MKII, 5D MKIV, 5DS, 5DSr, 1D X MKII).

 

[amorse]

A lot of reflection on Canon's good and not-so-good value for product in here today! Seems like perspective in here is that the 5D IV is a good upgrade, but not worth the investment - and that may be fair.

I just wanted to say that as a 5D IV owner, I can certainly admit there are points of frustration but if I could begin my path of camera investment all over again, I would do almost exactly the same thing - centring around the 5D IV again. That camera has not let me down even once. I have not taken even one photo that didn't turn out which I could blame on the 5D IV. The camera has survived full on downpours, recovered well-under exposed images (whoops - my fault), taken auto focus perfectly in very low light conditions, and given me more processing room than I need (usually). Honestly, I'd be nervous to switch systems because I have so much trust in the camera.

Not to say it isn't over-priced for what it is, but I just wanted to note that there are indeed happy 5D IV owners out there!

We have plenty of 5D MKIV cameras in our rental fleet, Ive used one of these multiple times before I bought the 6D MKII for personal use. The 5D MKIV is a great camera but in my opinion doesn't justify the £ 1,300 over the 5D MKIII and that's my issue. The 5DS had a number of the improvements that went into the 5D MKIV that were not in the 5D MKIII and its all about matching your requirements to your needs / desires and why Canon has five different full-frame cameras (6D MKII, 5D MKIV, 5DS, 5DSr, 1D X MKII).

Absolutely agree. I think the 6D II and 5DS together could have given me a better over-all result, but I could only afford one camera change, and the 5D IV ticked most of my boxes. I won't disagree that it is an expensive upgrade to the 5D III, but I was upgrading from a 6D and moving to a 5D III and then waiting for another upgrade cycle seemed pretty unpalatable to me. Everyone's needs are different, and in at least my situation the 5D IV was certainly the best solution. I would of loved the resolution of the 5DS (or sR) but I would have missed the low light performance.

I'm not trying to disagree with the sentiment in the room, I just wanted to note that the 5D IV is a perfect solution for some needs despite its shortcomings (price included)!

 

[AlanF]

Canon is doomed. It didn't win a single favourite gear of the year award, was trounced by Sony and beaten by Nikon.
https://www.dpreview.com/articles/2992226438/dpreview-products-of-the-year-2017

 

[neuroanatomist]

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.

+1, and if I had a nickel for every person who claimed, "If brand X doesn't do Y, I'm switching to brand Z," but did nothing of the sort, I'd use the proceeds to buy...Canon (or at least, Leica).

 

[FramerMCB]

I find it humorous that the main thrust of the OP's query has gone mostly, ignored. And that was simply, as Canon users on this forum (the supposition anyway) what would we like to see - as USERS - in Canon's next iteration of the 7D (Mk III).

Then he made a note of sharing from his own experiences in speaking with other USERS that he has come into contact with - Canon shooters mostly with a smattering of Nikonians - some topics that have come up concerning these other shooter's perspective of their own equipment and some of their perceptions concerning the "Other Guy's" (other manufacturers) stuff.

What's interesting by far to me, when these threads get really ramped-up, is this: just a few years ago Pro's were making a living shooting with Canon 5D's, Nikon D90s, etc. etc. Then (to stay in the Canon ecosphere) with 5D Mk II's and 1Ds Mk III's and Mk IV's, etc. And they seemed to get quality results...published & paid. Can one still not get the same results today with this older equipment? And we sit and argue over this body or that body, this manufacturer vs. that one, etc, etc. The bottom line is, one can achieve great results with just about any camera/system. Today it's more about which body/system allows one to do this the easiest, or what one is familiar with, or which body fits what one predominately shoots. Which body/system can allow one to push their artistic envelope, etc.

You wouldn't enter a dump truck into a Formula 1 race (or any race) but neither would one attempt to use a Formula 1 car at a strip mine or a construction site either.

I remember reading several reviews of the 6D Mk II and how down most reviewers were on the new model. Could it have been better, sure. But does it do what the people who are buying it need it to do? Of course. Why else would you buy it? Are people getting great results from it? YES. Well how could they if it's such a 'bad' model? Simple, it's not a bad model. It's a very good model. What is/was 'bad' about it was simply this: many peoples' expectations were not met concerning certain parameters, wanted more DR, more or bigger spread of the AF points, etc. It's fine to want more whiz-bang for the buck but too many of us seem to get caught up with thinking that Canon (or any Mfgr.) needs to keep up with the other guy. When in reality, they only need to keep up with the bulk of their customer's and their target market.

 

[neuroanatomist]

I find it humorous that the main thrust of the OP's query has gone mostly, ignored. And that was simply, as Canon users on this forum (the supposition anyway) what would we like to see - as USERS - in Canon's next iteration of the 7D (Mk III).

Close, but not quite accurate. The OP's point was not merely to ask what we, as users, would like to see in a 7DIII – but rather, that those wishes should drive what Canon ultimately delivers in a 7DIII:

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.

The problem inherent in the OP's entire premise is that his views and the views of the minuscule number of people with whom he has discussed the issue somehow represent a majority opinion within Canon's target market for the camera. It boils down to yet another case of, "Canon had better deliver the things I want or they are doomed," although in this case, the OP was rather more verbose than the norm in making that point.

 

[Don Haines]

I find it humorous that the main thrust of the OP's query has gone mostly, ignored. And that was simply, as Canon users on this forum (the supposition anyway) what would we like to see - as USERS - in Canon's next iteration of the 7D (Mk III).

Close, but not quite accurate. The OP's point was not merely to ask what we, as users, would like to see in a 7DIII – but rather, that those wishes should drive what Canon ultimately delivers in a 7DIII:

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.

The problem inherent in the OP's entire premise is that his views and the views of the minuscule number of people with whom he has discussed the issue somehow represent a majority opinion within Canon's target market for the camera. It boils down to yet another case of, "Canon had better deliver the things I want or they are doomed," although in this case, the OP was rather more verbose than the norm in making that point.

I took the thrust of the original post to be:

"Canon owners that are quite critical about their brand", "that this sentiment of being unhappy with Canon is growing", "the 7D Mk II no longer is the best cropped action camera: now there is the Nikon D500", "Canon is ruled by sales managers, Nikon still gives some influence to technicians with a heart for the camera”, and so on..... leading up to if Canon does not come up with a 7D3 that beats the D500, then they are doomed.

So what does camera A beats camera B mean? what are the critical criteria? does it have to win everywhere, or is it win on 51 percent of the specs.... or just win on a few critical specs? And how do we deal with different opinions of what that answer is?

I got a 7D2 because I wanted a tough, well sealed camera. I use it outside in the Canadian winter, in the rain, on canoe trips, in salt spray.... For me, tough counted more than anything else. For the next person, we get a whole new set of criteria.... and so on.... and so on.... and so on.....

There is no such beast as the "best camera". You can only say that one sells more than the other and claim that makes it more accepted by the average buyer....... but then again, 7D2 sales are dwarfed by Rebel sales, so for the average person, does that mean that the Rebel is a better camera?

The 7D2 is "comparable" to the D500.... better at some things, worse at others, but in general, in the same ballpark. When the 7D3 comes out, it will also be comparable to the D500, better at some things, worse at others... to expect anything else would be delusional. There will be no crowds of people jumping ship in either direction.

 

[FramerMCB]

I find it humorous that the main thrust of the OP's query has gone mostly, ignored. And that was simply, as Canon users on this forum (the supposition anyway) what would we like to see - as USERS - in Canon's next iteration of the 7D (Mk III).

Close, but not quite accurate. The OP's point was not merely to ask what we, as users, would like to see in a 7DIII – but rather, that those wishes should drive what Canon ultimately delivers in a 7DIII:

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.

The problem inherent in the OP's entire premise is that his views and the views of the minuscule number of people with whom he has discussed the issue somehow represent a majority opinion within Canon's target market for the camera. It boils down to yet another case of, "Canon had better deliver the things I want or they are doomed," although in this case, the OP was rather more verbose than the norm in making that point.

I took the thrust of the original post to be:

"Canon owners that are quite critical about their brand", "that this sentiment of being unhappy with Canon is growing", "the 7D Mk II no longer is the best cropped action camera: now there is the Nikon D500", "Canon is ruled by sales managers, Nikon still gives some influence to technicians with a heart for the camera”, and so on..... leading up to if Canon does not come up with a 7D3 that beats the D500, then they are doomed.

So what does camera A beats camera B mean? what are the critical criteria? does it have to win everywhere, or is it win on 51 percent of the specs.... or just win on a few critical specs? And how do we deal with different opinions of what that answer is?

I got a 7D2 because I wanted a tough, well sealed camera. I use it outside in the Canadian winter, in the rain, on canoe trips, in salt spray.... For me, tough counted more than anything else. For the next person, we get a whole new set of criteria.... and so on.... and so on.... and so on.....

There is no such beast as the "best camera". You can only say that one sells more than the other and claim that makes it more accepted by the average buyer....... but then again, 7D2 sales are dwarfed by Rebel sales, so for the average person, does that mean that the Rebel is a better camera?

The 7D2 is "comparable" to the D500.... better at some things, worse at others, but in general, in the same ballpark. When the 7D3 comes out, it will also be comparable to the D500, better at some things, worse at others... to expect anything else would be delusional. There will be no crowds of people jumping ship in either direction.

Exactly. Well stated!!! (by the way, I always appreciate your comments).

 

[coreyhkh]

I have been a loyal Canon user and used pretty much everything including the 5dmkiv and 1dx along with many high-end lenses ... 600 mkii ect and though they perform good, Canon never goes above an beyond. There last major feature was years ago with dual pixel af. I would love to see little things added two like buttons that you can see at night, higher res screens not just better sensors.

 

[aceflibble]

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.

Such wishes display a fundamental lack of understanding of how each company operates, though.

To reiterate what I said before:
- Nikon buys in their sensors and processors. This allows them more time, manpower, and money, to optimise functionality. They can get the most out of heat and power management and they can put more into focus, for example. (But in no way limited to just those features and functions.)
- Canon develops and produces their own sensors and processors. This allows them more control over production and enables them to optimise actual manufacturing, but it reduces the time, manpower, and funding they have available to make everything else work as well as possible.

Two different manufacturers operating in two different ways are going to get two different results.

It's similar to asking a PC to be as mechanically sound as a Mac. Apple buy in a lot of key parts and use a limited pool of parts to make each SKU, ensuring compatibility and consistency. PCs get made up of whateverthehell. As a result, Macs are very consistent in operation and generally have very good heat management and life expectancy, at a premium; PCs can be put together cheaper but usually are more unstable as a result, and to make them more stable requires a lot more effort and a much bigger budget.

Nikon are, essentially, Apple. Not very good at inventing anything of their own, but superb at optimising and maximising what other people have done. Canon are more like a PC; originality and a big advantage in lower-cost manufacturing, but rarely getting 100% out of the system.


And this is why sports & wildlife professionals in particular are still divided between the two. Nikon will (most likely) always have equal-or-better IQ and equal-or-better AF. It's going to take a bizarre stroke of genius for Canon to leapfrog Nikon in such a way that Nikon don't at least equal Canon. That said, Canon has more repair centres and repairs can often be done quicker and cheaper in most countries (at least for these kinds of bodies), and it's a lot easier to get exactly the right lens or accessory you need for Canon than it is with Nikon. Some shooters prefer the Canon service and flexibility; some will value Nikon's optimal quality more.

Whichever system you use, there will always be things another company does which you perceive to be better. Some of those will be things the system you currently use will eventually get, and it's merely a matter of waiting for the product line to be refreshed. Other functions or features are much less likely to come to your existing brand, and/or if they do they still not be quite as good as what another brand provides. That's the nature of having different manufacturers. If every manufacturer could just make everything that every other manufacturer does, there would be no differences between systems at all and there wouldn't really be much of a camera industry. If it was so easy for Canon to duplicate Nikon's IQ and AF systems, there would be no point in Nikon existing at all, and with Sony hot on their heels, Nikon would be gone by now. If it was so easy for Nikon to replicate Canon's depth of lenses and accessories, third-party support, lower-cost manufacturing, and global servicing, Canon wouldn't still be the biggest camera manufacturer in the world.



Will the 7D3's AF be better than the 2's? Yes, obviously. Will the IQ be better? Yes, obviously. Will it match the D500? There's a fair chance. Will it exceed the D500? Very unlikely. But then, if you value the D500 that highly, you'd have bought one by now. If you're sticking with Canon then it's probably because there is something else Canon offers which Nikon don't. There's your trade-off.

 

[9VIII]

Nikon are, essentially, Apple. Not very good at inventing anything of their own, but superb at optimising and maximising what other people have done. Canon are more like a PC; originality and a big advantage in lower-cost manufacturing, but rarely getting 100% out of the system.

If any PC/Mac analogy is going to be made, Canon is like Apple and Sony is effectively running the PC model.
Nikon is like IBM’s consumer products division...