How you relate to the issue, is the issue.
- Jul 13, 2012
Almost any 7D M2 replacements wlll be better than the current model. Not saying that the current model is bad, just an update will of course be better.No, it doesn't. It only needs to "beat" (whatever that means in the Real World) the 7D Mk II.
I'm a typical (probably the typical) 7D Mk II user, and nothing on God's Green Earth is going to make me chuck in my 500mm f/4 Mk II and 100-400mm Mk II to move to Nikon just because the D500 is (say) better at very high ISOs than my current body (or even, if it comes to it, the 7D Mk III). I might move to a 1D-X, but not to the D500.
There are precious few sport/wildlife "serious enthusiasts" out there, who would throw in what they're currently using - which will doubtless be serving them extremely well - to move to another brand, just for one "must-have" feature their camera supposedly lacks. It just doesn't happen in anything like the numbers internet forums suggest.
So no satisfied Nikon D500 user is going to chuck it for a 7D Mk III, no matter how good it might be - just like the many 7D Mk II users out there now, who are still 7D Mk II users, even though the D500 is available.
And there are even fewer completely brand-uncommitted photographers who are coming in, completely cold, to sport or wildlife photography: if there were, you might have a point, but they're a rare beast indeed.
So it follows that all Canon has to to is keep its 7D Mk II users happy by rolling out a better camera than it.
But is that enough? Unless the camera is a significantly improvement over the current model, users may sit on their wallets. Significant improvement could be interpreted as matching or exceeding D500 performance in key areas and the 90D or its successor (whatever that will be called).