Will it be worth waiting for?

[geonix]

Hello all.

What do you think? Will the 7D III (or whatever it will be named) be worth waiting for or not? I'm asking myself this question since Canon has proven lately again, that it has no scruples to offer new cameras that are technologically outperformed by the competition models that are on the market for years now.

Considering the most likely improvements from the current 7D II to the 7D III:
- slightly more MP
- slightly more fps (maybe 11-12 fps??)
- touchscreen

How big are the chances that something more revolutionary will find its way into the 7D III?
- CFast slot
- Buffer like or better than the D500
- fully articulated touch-screen (80D like)

Especially the AF, which has always caused discussions on the 7DII. How likely could the 7DIII get an all new AF sensor that improves AF tracking and speed with more than 64 focal points? How likely will it match or exceed the D500 AF performance?

At the time, I'm inclined to be pessimistic about it and switch to a D500. If I hadn't such a wonderful Canon tele prime lens that I would miss at Nikons.

 

[ajfotofilmagem]

I think that all the quoted questions must be met, except for the fully articulated screen.

The great mystery continues to be:
How big will the advancement in image quality, in high ISO? And if this will surpass the D500.

 

[geonix]

The great mystery continues to be:
How big will the advancement in image quality, in high ISO? And if this will surpass the D500.

True. With all these issues I forgot the IQ

 

[H. Jones]

I wouldn't be surprised at all if the 7D Mark III gets a CFast slot, 12 FPS, and an unlimited buffer like the 1DX Mark II. I could also see it getting a decent MP boost to either 26 or 30 mp, but that would really depend on the card slot.

4K/touchscreen/expanded DPAF goes without saying I'd think on this one, especially following the M50.

I think the only challenge is that CFast is so expensive at the moment that, even as a 1DX Mark II user, I haven't found myself buying that many additional cards for it. But if Canon includes a 64GB card like the 1DX2, I don't think it would be a big deal for most, since a huge chunk of prosumers are big fans of SD cards anyway.

What will be of most interest to me, though, is what we're not expecting. 7D series has always been a big one for introducing/expanding new features/ergonomics that get sent up the line to the 1DX and 5D, so I'm watching that very intently.

 

[DaveGrice]

I'm currently in wait & see mode for this one as well. I'm reasonably happy with my 7D2, but it's admittedly irritating to see the tech available in the D500, and the resulting images, with no confirmed response from Canon. I really need to at least see a factory-issued announcement of a 7D3 by end of 2018 to continue to feel good about this one.

At a minimum, if AF and high ISO are addressed sufficiently, I'll consider it a must-buy.

Enhanced FPS and MP both would be great if they got enhancements but I'm actually good with where the 7D2 sits.

Touch-screen, not even asking for a flippy version, would be icing on the cake.

 

[Pitbullo]

Canon will do what Canon does, very well... they will make a camera that ticks the least amount of boxes to out sell the competition. They don’t care about specs, but sales. The Sony A7iii made everybody go WOW from the spec sheet. Nikon D500 and D850 went all in, punching above their weight class. Canon don’t play that game. They are masters of re-using tech, maximizing profit and marketing. What they will deliver is a solid, reliable tool that makes them money in the loads, and all the forum techies split, some praising the camera, others going “what the hell are they doing? Is this what we have been waiting years for?” So, will it be worth waiting for? It depends. It will come with very few gimmicks, but solid functions. It will be solid and reliable, a proper tool. And it will have some really really stupid limitations put in by the marketing team, that will annoy the socks off half the Internet forums. The usual Canon way. It will be worth the wait for those who won’t be affected by the limitations put in. It won’t be a jack of all trades, but just enough camera to make people upgrade, and not bother to jump ship. Nothing more, nothing less.
And the winner is, as always, Canon.

 

[Talys]

What do you think? Will the 7D III (or whatever it will be named) be worth waiting for or not? I'm asking myself this question since Canon has proven lately again, that it has no scruples to offer new cameras that are technologically outperformed by the competition models that are on the market for years now.

I've just spent the last 3,500 or so photos on one of those cameras that "technologically outperform" Canon (the Sony A7R3). The question, really, will be: what do you want use the 7DIII for?

There is no question that the A7R3 has some nice technological features, but in my opinion, it cannot come close to the utility of a DSLR for birding, wildlife or sports -- which are the kinds of things that you should want a 7D3 for, right?

There are some things the A7R3 is just terrible for. Not only the action stuff, but also low light flash photography (I'm happy to elaborate extensively if anyone is interested).

Second, there is a question of technological implementation. A lot of technology is really cool, but is really awkward to use in practice. The Sony has TONS of features, but many of them are mutually exclusive in various shooting modes, and to toggle between them is not fluid to say the least, which means that I have to force myself to use a feature, and in the end, the contribution towards good photography is probably negative.

Third, I have used a Nikon D850 as well, though nowhere near as extensively. It is a beautiful camera, period. But lenses matter. The ultra-popular 200-500 frankly, feels cheap next to a an L lens like a 100-400LII. It's in the league of the Sigma 150-600, but in my opinion these two lenses have opposite problems: the 200-500 has subpar/inconsistent image quality (inferior to the Sigma 150-600); but the Sigma has subpar autofocus. I mean, both are very usable in both respects, but neither are anywhere near (much more expensive) professional glass.

Canon has some really stellar lenses, and many for better prices than the competition, and that matters. Canon has ALL the lenses I dream of, principally 400/4DO and 200-400/4+TC1.4.

Fourth, Canon has Dual Pixel autofocus. Is this important to you? If not, in the moment, the Nikon may give you what you want in a body. But if live view focusing is important to you at all, the Nikon is bloody unusable. The way I'd describe it is that Canon DPAF is a generation ahead of Sony's live view autofocus, and three generations ahead of Nikon's live view autofocus.

And finally, are accessories important to you? Nikon has a good ecosystem of third party accessories, and Canon's is second to none, with options that range from super-cheap to ultra-premium in every accessory category you can imagine. Sony is painfully barren, often with a choice between nothing, bad third party choices, and expensive (and sometimes bad) first-party options. I mean, try to find a decent remote trigger for an A7R3.

So, in the end, it's all about what you want and need. If the D500 will make you happy, go buy a D500. You can have one today, instead of waiting for a 7D3. But frankly, it doesn't have a mountain of super exciting technology; I think after a few days of shooting with it, the D500's tech stuff will dribble down to a couple of features you like.

If it's really a 7D3 you'd like to wait for, try to imagine what features are realistically going to be implemented, and if any of those matter to you. I'd say, realistically:

- 4k video is almost certain
- Definitely touchscreen
- Definitely a small FPS bump
- Definitely a better buffer
- Most likely CRAW like M50 -- which also means a buffer bump

- Not a whole lot more than 24 megapixels
- Autofocus improvements -- but let's be honest, 7DII is already awesome
- Slightly better ISO performance, but everyone tells me not to hold my breath for this getting a lot better
- Maybe pupil AF in live view mode, I mean, why not?
- Most likely either a tilting screen (a la Nikon/Sony) or possibly an articulating screen like 6D2/M50.
- WiFi & Bluetooth upgraded to current tech (which is very good)
- Some combination of UHS-II or CFast support

 

[unfocused]

... they will make a camera that ticks the least amount of boxes to out sell the competition...”

I immediately dismiss anyone who says this in reference to the 7D series, which has always been groundbreaking and industry leading. Canon has never scrimped on the 7D. At the time of introduction the original 7D was far superior to anything the competition offered. So much so that Nikon didn’t even bother trying to compete. The 7D II had the best feature set of any crop frame camera at the time and was essentially a mini 1Dx. Except for sensor performance at base ISO, it still competes very well against the D500. At higher ISOs, where most people use these cameras the performance is nearly identical.

When the 7D III is finally introduced it will likely be evolutionary rather than revolutionary simply because there isn’t that much left to improve - on chip ADC and Canon’s latest autofocus improvements, coupled with the obvious features like 4K video and full touch screen.

 

[dak723]

Hello all.

What do you think? Will the 7D III (or whatever it will be named) be worth waiting for or not? I'm asking myself this question since Canon has proven lately again, that it has no scruples to offer new cameras that are technologically outperformed by the competition models that are on the market for years now.

If you truly believe your statement above, then you should definitely switch to another brand. I have a feeling that you will find that no one is years ahead of anyone else.

 

[Pitbullo]

... they will make a camera that ticks the least amount of boxes to out sell the competition...”

I immediately dismiss anyone who says this in reference to the 7D series, which has always been groundbreaking and industry leading. Canon has never scrimped on the 7D. At the time of introduction the original 7D was far superior to anything the competition offered. So much so that Nikon didn’t even bother trying to compete. The 7D II had the best feature set of any crop frame camera at the time and was essentially a mini 1Dx. Except for sensor performance at base ISO, it still competes very well against the D500. At higher ISOs, where most people use these cameras the performance is nearly identical.

When the 7D III is finally introduced it will likely be evolutionary rather than revolutionary simply because there isn’t that much left to improve - on chip ADC and Canon’s latest autofocus improvements, coupled with the obvious features like 4K video and full touch screen.

Well, you may dismiss it, but it is still what I think will happen. It does not mean it will be worse than the D500, just a tad better (in a few key areas) to make it the better choice. I don't think they will go all in, but do just enough to beat the competition, as stated in my earlier post. Canon my have done things a bit different when the 7D was launched (as they did with the 5DII, thrashing the competition), but lately they have not done this, and I don't think they will change strategy with the 7DIII.

 

[reef58]

... they will make a camera that ticks the least amount of boxes to out sell the competition...”

I immediately dismiss anyone who says this in reference to the 7D series, which has always been groundbreaking and industry leading. Canon has never scrimped on the 7D. At the time of introduction the original 7D was far superior to anything the competition offered. So much so that Nikon didn’t even bother trying to compete. The 7D II had the best feature set of any crop frame camera at the time and was essentially a mini 1Dx. Except for sensor performance at base ISO, it still competes very well against the D500. At higher ISOs, where most people use these cameras the performance is nearly identical.

When the 7D III is finally introduced it will likely be evolutionary rather than revolutionary simply because there isn’t that much left to improve - on chip ADC and Canon’s latest autofocus improvements, coupled with the obvious features like 4K video and full touch screen.

Well, you may dismiss it, but it is still what I think will happen. It does not mean it will be worse than the D500, just a tad better (in a few key areas) to make it the better choice. I don't think they will go all in, but do just enough to beat the competition, as stated in my earlier post. Canon my have done things a bit different when the 7D was launched (as they did with the 5DII, thrashing the competition), but lately they have not done this, and I don't think they will change strategy with the 7DIII.

What is all in? What do you expect to be missing that is a realistic add?

 

[Ozarker]

At the time, I'm inclined to be pessimistic about it and switch to a D500. If I hadn't such a wonderful Canon tele prime lens that I would miss at Nikons.

Just switch to Nikon and use one of these adapters. That way when Canon leapfrogs Nikon you can just take your glass off the adapter and use it on your new Canon when the Canon side of the fence has greener grass. This way you can switch back and forth whenever you want and still keep the nice Canon glass. You can also get an adapter from EOS to Sony if you switch to Sony. Also Fuji, etc...

https://www.adorama.com/cicannikadp.html?gclid=EAIaIQobChMItpiSuLH22QIVhDyBCh01HQPFEAQYAiABEgL4EPD_BwE

 

[geonix]

I've just spent the last 3,500 or so photos on one of those cameras that "technologically outperform" Canon (the Sony A7R3). The question, really, will be: what do you want use the 7DIII for?

...

Third, I have used a Nikon D850 as well, though nowhere near as extensively. It is a beautiful camera, period. But lenses matter. The ultra-popular 200-500 frankly, feels cheap next to a an L lens like a 100-400LII. It's in the league of the Sigma 150-600, but in my opinion these two lenses have opposite problems: the 200-500 has subpar/inconsistent image quality (inferior to the Sigma 150-600); but the Sigma has subpar autofocus. I mean, both are very usable in both respects, but neither are anywhere near (much more expensive) professional glass.

Canon has some really stellar lenses, and many for better prices than the competition, and that matters. Canon has ALL the lenses I dream of, principally 400/4DO and 200-400/4+TC1.4.

Fourth, Canon has Dual Pixel autofocus. Is this important to you? If not, in the moment, the Nikon may give you what you want in a body. But if live view focusing is important to you at all, the Nikon is bloody unusable. The way I'd describe it is that Canon DPAF is a generation ahead of Sony's live view autofocus, and three generations ahead of Nikon's live view autofocus.

And finally, are accessories important to you? Nikon has a good ecosystem of third party accessories, and Canon's is second to none, with options that range from super-cheap to ultra-premium in every accessory category you can imagine. Sony is painfully barren, often with a choice between nothing, bad third party choices, and expensive (and sometimes bad) first-party options. I mean, try to find a decent remote trigger for an A7R3.

So, in the end, it's all about what you want and need. If the D500 will make you happy, go buy a D500. You can have one today, instead of waiting for a 7D3. But frankly, it doesn't have a mountain of super exciting technology; I think after a few days of shooting with it, the D500's tech stuff will dribble down to a couple of features you like.

If it's really a 7D3 you'd like to wait for, try to imagine what features are realistically going to be implemented, and if any of those matter to you. I'd say, realistically:

- 4k video is almost certain
- Definitely touchscreen
- Definitely a small FPS bump
- Definitely a better buffer
- Most likely CRAW like M50 -- which also means a buffer bump

- Not a whole lot more than 24 megapixels
- Autofocus improvements -- but let's be honest, 7DII is already awesome
- Slightly better ISO performance, but everyone tells me not to hold my breath for this getting a lot better
- Maybe pupil AF in live view mode, I mean, why not?
- Most likely either a tilting screen (a la Nikon/Sony) or possibly an articulating screen like 6D2/M50.
- WiFi & Bluetooth upgraded to current tech (which is very good)
- Some combination of UHS-II or CFast support

My main interest is indeed nature and bird photography. Sometimes sports or generally speaking 'human action'. I sold my 7D II a year ago because the results after a 2 week Scotland trip were downright disappointing. The AF was so unreliable and often (not always) produced unsharp images when the camera was telling me everything is fine and focused.

You are right with the lenses. Canon's lens portfolio is unmatched (far from perfect) but Nikon is also not bad. Most reviews agree that the 200-500 IQ is better than the Tamron/Sigma competition. The 300mm f4 PF looks like a very nice lens and according to Nikon rumors, they are developing more PF lenses.

I still haven't decided yet, but I will borrow a D500 (+200-500 +300) for a 3-days trip this spring and try it out.

 

[Ozarker]

I've just spent the last 3,500 or so photos on one of those cameras that "technologically outperform" Canon (the Sony A7R3). The question, really, will be: what do you want use the 7DIII for?

...

Third, I have used a Nikon D850 as well, though nowhere near as extensively. It is a beautiful camera, period. But lenses matter. The ultra-popular 200-500 frankly, feels cheap next to a an L lens like a 100-400LII. It's in the league of the Sigma 150-600, but in my opinion these two lenses have opposite problems: the 200-500 has subpar/inconsistent image quality (inferior to the Sigma 150-600); but the Sigma has subpar autofocus. I mean, both are very usable in both respects, but neither are anywhere near (much more expensive) professional glass.

Canon has some really stellar lenses, and many for better prices than the competition, and that matters. Canon has ALL the lenses I dream of, principally 400/4DO and 200-400/4+TC1.4.

Fourth, Canon has Dual Pixel autofocus. Is this important to you? If not, in the moment, the Nikon may give you what you want in a body. But if live view focusing is important to you at all, the Nikon is bloody unusable. The way I'd describe it is that Canon DPAF is a generation ahead of Sony's live view autofocus, and three generations ahead of Nikon's live view autofocus.

And finally, are accessories important to you? Nikon has a good ecosystem of third party accessories, and Canon's is second to none, with options that range from super-cheap to ultra-premium in every accessory category you can imagine. Sony is painfully barren, often with a choice between nothing, bad third party choices, and expensive (and sometimes bad) first-party options. I mean, try to find a decent remote trigger for an A7R3.

So, in the end, it's all about what you want and need. If the D500 will make you happy, go buy a D500. You can have one today, instead of waiting for a 7D3. But frankly, it doesn't have a mountain of super exciting technology; I think after a few days of shooting with it, the D500's tech stuff will dribble down to a couple of features you like.

If it's really a 7D3 you'd like to wait for, try to imagine what features are realistically going to be implemented, and if any of those matter to you. I'd say, realistically:

- 4k video is almost certain
- Definitely touchscreen
- Definitely a small FPS bump
- Definitely a better buffer
- Most likely CRAW like M50 -- which also means a buffer bump

- Not a whole lot more than 24 megapixels
- Autofocus improvements -- but let's be honest, 7DII is already awesome
- Slightly better ISO performance, but everyone tells me not to hold my breath for this getting a lot better
- Maybe pupil AF in live view mode, I mean, why not?
- Most likely either a tilting screen (a la Nikon/Sony) or possibly an articulating screen like 6D2/M50.
- WiFi & Bluetooth upgraded to current tech (which is very good)
- Some combination of UHS-II or CFast support

My main interest is indeed nature and bird photography. Sometimes sports or generally speaking 'human action'. I sold my 7D II a year ago because the results after a 2 week Scotland trip were downright disappointing. The AF was so unreliable and often (not always) produced unsharp images when the camera was telling me everything is fine and focused.

You are right with the lenses. Canon's lens portfolio is unmatched (far from perfect) but Nikon is also not bad. Most reviews agree that the 200-500 IQ is better than the Tamron/Sigma competition. The 300mm f4 PF looks like a very nice lens and according to Nikon rumors, they are developing more PF lenses.

I still haven't decided yet, but I will borrow a D500 (+200-500 +300) for a 3-days trip this spring and try it out.

Did you turn off IS for moving subjects? Have you AFMA your lenses for the 7D II? Were the unsharp images with your Tamron 100-600? If so, how did that lens compare to your Canon 300 f/4 and 1.4x III TC? Did you AFMA the Canon 300mm / TC combination for the 7D II? What are you using now since you sold the 7D II?

If your AF is working that way despite Micro AF adjustment of the lens I would send the camera in. My 7D II has no such issues. But it took me some time to find the right AF settings fitting my style. Since I found them 90% (or more) of my BIF shots (medium to large birds flying more or less straight) are pin sharp. Haven't really tried song-birds or any other smaller more eratically flying subjects yet.

My main interest is indeed nature and bird photography. Sometimes sports or generally speaking 'human action'. I sold my 7D II a year ago because the results after a 2 week Scotland trip were downright disappointing. The AF was so unreliable and often (not always) produced unsharp images when the camera was telling me everything is fine and focused.

90% is a pretty darn good keeper rate. Most would be very happy eith that. I know I would be.

 

[Pitbullo]

... they will make a camera that ticks the least amount of boxes to out sell the competition...”

I immediately dismiss anyone who says this in reference to the 7D series, which has always been groundbreaking and industry leading. Canon has never scrimped on the 7D. At the time of introduction the original 7D was far superior to anything the competition offered. So much so that Nikon didn’t even bother trying to compete. The 7D II had the best feature set of any crop frame camera at the time and was essentially a mini 1Dx. Except for sensor performance at base ISO, it still competes very well against the D500. At higher ISOs, where most people use these cameras the performance is nearly identical.

When the 7D III is finally introduced it will likely be evolutionary rather than revolutionary simply because there isn’t that much left to improve - on chip ADC and Canon’s latest autofocus improvements, coupled with the obvious features like 4K video and full touch screen.

Well, you may dismiss it, but it is still what I think will happen. It does not mean it will be worse than the D500, just a tad better (in a few key areas) to make it the better choice. I don't think they will go all in, but do just enough to beat the competition, as stated in my earlier post. Canon my have done things a bit different when the 7D was launched (as they did with the 5DII, thrashing the competition), but lately they have not done this, and I don't think they will change strategy with the 7DIII.

What is all in? What do you expect to be missing that is a realistic add?

I am quite sure that every feature Canon decides to add to the 7DIII will be very functional and working properly. Canon is very good at this. With all in I mean something like Sony did with the A7III. Going head to head with the 6DII, but feature wise it is more of a competition to the 5DIV. At least on paper. I do think Canon is more "honest" in their specs than Sony. What you see is what you get, usually. Sony have impressive specs, but does not always stack up in real world use. It seems like the two latest Nikons, D500 and D850 both delivers in real world, and spec wise.
So, I will stand by my prediction, that Canon will just add enough features and specs to the 7DIII, and not over do it by any means.

 

[Talys]

My main interest is indeed nature and bird photography. Sometimes sports or generally speaking 'human action'. I sold my 7D II a year ago because the results after a 2 week Scotland trip were downright disappointing. The AF was so unreliable and often (not always) produced unsharp images when the camera was telling me everything is fine and focused.

You are right with the lenses. Canon's lens portfolio is unmatched (far from perfect) but Nikon is also not bad. Most reviews agree that the 200-500 IQ is better than the Tamron/Sigma competition. The 300mm f4 PF looks like a very nice lens and according to Nikon rumors, they are developing more PF lenses.

I still haven't decided yet, but I will borrow a D500 (+200-500 +300) for a 3-days trip this spring and try it out.

You're going to hate a Sony, so don't even go there

The Nikon D500 is a fine camera. I actually prefer the D850, though, to be honest, despite the reach of the D500. This is because despite fewer pixels at distance, if you are using a 200-500, you will usually end up with higher ISO's in order to accommodate faster shutter speeds at f/5.6 or slower.

The reality is that once you get to even ISO 640-800, never mind 1000+, the photos after post taken from the same spot on D850 will be superior, in my opinion. I didn't always believe this; I used to prefer crop cameras too, but as I went from predominantly bird portraits on a tripod to birds in flight handheld or with a monopod, my opinion changed dramatically.

On the Canon end, I would also now choose a 6DII or 5DIV over a 7D series, for the same reason: I don't own the glass to let me shoot at ISO 100-400 at the shutter speeds that I want.

The other thing I would keep in mind is that more megapixels makes a surprisingly little difference as to how far you can crop. I mean, you CAN crop something very deeply, but it won't ever turn out to be a great picture. All the really awesome pictures are still ones that fill up a quarter or more of the frame, whether it's 25 megapixels or 50 megapixels.

And finally, I would say that after trying many, many cameras, I always go back to continuous center point autofocus and manually tracking the subject. It is EXTREMELY reliable, and is dependent only on my ability to track the subject. In comparison, all of the smart autofocus systems like Canon iTTR or Nikon 3D or Sony lock-on AF gives me a mixed bag of the camera saying that the subject is in focus... but it's soft in post.

Frankly, the thing that changed my life the most in bird in flight photography was the Canon 100-400LII. Given the choice between a 5DMkIV + Sigma 150-600 or a 6DII + Canon 100-400LII (prioritizing where you spend the money), I would choose the latter every time.

It's the finest zoom lens I've ever used, and certainly the nicest handheld telephoto one. After using it, the 200-500 Nikon feels decidedly toy-like, though obviously, the 200-500 has a very nice reach, and is significantly cheaper as well.

Good luck on your trip and let us know how the D500 turns out!

 

[geonix]

Did you turn off IS for moving subjects? Have you AFMA your lenses for the 7D II? Were the unsharp images with your Tamron 100-600? If so, how did that lens compare to your Canon 300 f/4 and 1.4x III TC? Did you AFMA the Canon 300mm / TC combination for the 7D II? What are you using now since you sold the 7D II?

If your AF is working that way despite Micro AF adjustment of the lens I would send the camera in. My 7D II has no such issues. But it took me some time to find the right AF settings fitting my style. Since I found them 90% (or more) of my BIF shots (medium to large birds flying more or less straight) are pin sharp. Haven't really tried song-birds or any other smaller more eratically flying subjects yet.

My main interest is indeed nature and bird photography. Sometimes sports or generally speaking 'human action'. I sold my 7D II a year ago because the results after a 2 week Scotland trip were downright disappointing. The AF was so unreliable and often (not always) produced unsharp images when the camera was telling me everything is fine and focused.

90% is a pretty darn good keeper rate. Most would be very happy eith that. I know I would be.

I wouldn't make that 90% statement again today. True, at first I was quite happy wit the 7D II. In 2015 up to early 2017. First I used a Tamron 150-600, with AF mirco adjustment I really got most BIF shots (that was mostly bigger birds like geese, herons, ducks, raptors) sharp. But that was only true for lower ISO shots (ISO 100-640). I sold the Tamron and (over the past years) got a 100-400 IS II and a 400mm f4 DO IS II. All were AF adjusted to the 7D II. But since 2017 the keeper rate dropped significantly. The camera didn't fall to the ground and my technique didn't change either. What caused this, I don't know. At a camera store and Canon service they tested it and found it to be 'as good as usual'. But after that trip last year I've had enough, at some pretty unique photo opportunities I couldn't get satisfying results. I sold it to the camera store which had checked it earlier.

Since than I use an 80D as crop body and in single point AF servo it works pretty well, although I didn't shoot BIFs a lot since then. With a 5D IV I also got very good results. What I miss though is the speed (10fps) on a crop body. Before the 7DII I didn't care about fps much. But with very fast action, like an osprey diving to catch a fish or a peregrine manoeuvering in front of a seabird colony, 10fps are much better than 6-7 fps (provided they are sharp).

 

[Don Haines]

Hello all.

What do you think? Will the 7D III (or whatever it will be named) be worth waiting for or not? I'm asking myself this question since Canon has proven lately again, that it has no scruples to offer new cameras that are technologically outperformed by the competition models that are on the market for years now.

Considering the most likely improvements from the current 7D II to the 7D III:
- slightly more MP
- slightly more fps (maybe 11-12 fps??)
- touchscreen

How big are the chances that something more revolutionary will find its way into the 7D III?
- CFast slot
- Buffer like or better than the D500
- fully articulated touch-screen (80D like)

Especially the AF, which has always caused discussions on the 7DII. How likely could the 7DIII get an all new AF sensor that improves AF tracking and speed with more than 64 focal points? How likely will it match or exceed the D500 AF performance?

At the time, I'm inclined to be pessimistic about it and switch to a D500. If I hadn't such a wonderful Canon tele prime lens that I would miss at Nikons.

Just my guesses here... no inside info or even wise insight

I would guess 24Mpixels....
The frame rate stays the same, but with UHS-2 SD card the buffer becomes infinite...
The touchscreen and user interface is a given.....
I'd put 50/50 odds on an articulating screen....

High ISO may not improve, but look for even better noise characteristics and as a result, a small bump in DR

I would expect 4K video....

I would expect the AF to stay the same.... perhaps a few more points, but essentially the same.... It is at almost 1DX2 levels now, not much more space to grow....

I expect to see metering on the AF point....

There really isn't that much more to improve on..... it is a darn fine camera already. I would expect that most 7D2 owners would skip over this one, but for anyone upgrading from a lower model, it will be compelling...

 

[reef58]

... they will make a camera that ticks the least amount of boxes to out sell the competition...”

I immediately dismiss anyone who says this in reference to the 7D series, which has always been groundbreaking and industry leading. Canon has never scrimped on the 7D. At the time of introduction the original 7D was far superior to anything the competition offered. So much so that Nikon didn’t even bother trying to compete. The 7D II had the best feature set of any crop frame camera at the time and was essentially a mini 1Dx. Except for sensor performance at base ISO, it still competes very well against the D500. At higher ISOs, where most people use these cameras the performance is nearly identical.

When the 7D III is finally introduced it will likely be evolutionary rather than revolutionary simply because there isn’t that much left to improve - on chip ADC and Canon’s latest autofocus improvements, coupled with the obvious features like 4K video and full touch screen.

Well, you may dismiss it, but it is still what I think will happen. It does not mean it will be worse than the D500, just a tad better (in a few key areas) to make it the better choice. I don't think they will go all in, but do just enough to beat the competition, as stated in my earlier post. Canon my have done things a bit different when the 7D was launched (as they did with the 5DII, thrashing the competition), but lately they have not done this, and I don't think they will change strategy with the 7DIII.

What is all in? What do you expect to be missing that is a realistic add?

I am quite sure that every feature Canon decides to add to the 7DIII will be very functional and working properly. Canon is very good at this. With all in I mean something like Sony did with the A7III. Going head to head with the 6DII, but feature wise it is more of a competition to the 5DIV. At least on paper. I do think Canon is more "honest" in their specs than Sony. What you see is what you get, usually. Sony have impressive specs, but does not always stack up in real world use. It seems like the two latest Nikons, D500 and D850 both delivers in real world, and spec wise.
So, I will stand by my prediction, that Canon will just add enough features and specs to the 7DIII, and not over do it by any means.

You still didn't answer which feature(s) you think Canon may exclude. I am curious.

 

[Talys]

You still didn't answer which feature(s) you think Canon may exclude. I am curious.

I'll play this game

I think the 7D3...

- Will have a little less DR than some other cameras
- Will have a competitive FPS gripless, but will not be faster FPS with grip
- May not have fully articulating screen (it might have a flip down a la Sony/Nikon, to accomodate side buttons)
- May not get Pupil AF, even in live view
- May not have scaled 4k (ie perhaps it is center crop)
- Will not get USB-C
- Will not get any smaller
- CFast or UHS-II -- I don't know

Just my guess!!