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



## haggie (Dec 10, 2017)

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 (Dec 10, 2017)

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 (Dec 10, 2017)

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 (Dec 10, 2017)

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


----------



## Sporgon (Dec 10, 2017)

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


----------



## dak723 (Dec 10, 2017)

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 (Dec 10, 2017)

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 (Dec 10, 2017)

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 (Dec 10, 2017)

_“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 (Dec 10, 2017)

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 (Dec 10, 2017)

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 (Dec 10, 2017)

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;
> ...



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 (Dec 10, 2017)

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!
> 
> ...



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 (Dec 10, 2017)

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 (Dec 10, 2017)

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 (Dec 10, 2017)

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 (Dec 11, 2017)

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.


----------



## Ozarker (Dec 11, 2017)

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.


----------



## Ozarker (Dec 11, 2017)

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.  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.


----------



## haggie (Dec 11, 2017)

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
> ...



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.


----------



## tomscott (Dec 11, 2017)

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 (Dec 11, 2017)

haggie said:


> CanonFanBoy said:
> 
> 
> > Sporgon said:
> ...



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 (Dec 11, 2017)

I now have proof that Canon is *******!

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 (Dec 11, 2017)

Don Haines said:


> ...
> Even the little birds preferred Canon


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


----------



## jeffa4444 (Dec 11, 2017)

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 (Dec 11, 2017)

jeffa4444 said:


> 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.
> 
> ...



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 (Dec 11, 2017)

Don Haines said:


> I now have proof that Canon is *******!
> 
> 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 (Dec 11, 2017)

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 (Dec 11, 2017)

CanonFanBoy said:


> ...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 (Dec 11, 2017)

amorse said:


> 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 (Dec 11, 2017)

jeffa4444 said:


> amorse said:
> 
> 
> > 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.
> ...



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 (Dec 11, 2017)

Canon is *******. 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 (Dec 11, 2017)

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.
> 
> 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 (Dec 11, 2017)

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 (Dec 11, 2017)

FramerMCB said:


> 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:



haggie said:


> 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 *******," although in this case, the OP was rather more verbose than the norm in making that point.


----------



## Don Haines (Dec 11, 2017)

neuroanatomist said:


> FramerMCB said:
> 
> 
> > 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).
> ...



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 *******.

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 (Dec 11, 2017)

Don Haines said:


> neuroanatomist said:
> 
> 
> > FramerMCB said:
> ...



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


----------



## coreyhkh (Dec 12, 2017)

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 (Dec 12, 2017)

haggie said:


> 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 (Dec 12, 2017)

aceflibble said:


> 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...


----------



## neuroanatomist (Dec 12, 2017)

9VIII said:


> aceflibble said:
> 
> 
> > 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.
> ...


----------



## Sporgon (Dec 12, 2017)

Canon will respond to the D500. They'll take the (horrible) pop-up flash off the 7DIII


----------



## KeithBreazeal (Dec 12, 2017)

A stunning photograph is the result of the photographer, not the camera make or model.
Back in the "old days", film technology was more important to me than any one other thing.
Getting the grain levels down and more accurate color reproduction was the biggest concern. Pushing Tri-X to ASA 1600 in the darkroom was insanity but the only way to shoot night sports.
We are so spoiled with today's technology. My upgrades in camera bodies is driven by what I want to accomplish next in my journey.
Don't forget about customer support- that's really a big thing. Canon has invested heavily in it. When I broke a lens in half, Canon charged me $59 despite only salvaging the front lens group. When my 100-400 lock ring started sticking, they said it would cost $250. They actually had to replace the inner barrel assembly but stuck to their estimate. 
I think Canon's biggest concern should be their lens performance versus price point. I have jumped ship lately with a Tamron and Sigma. Price point and performance is huge. There are trade-offs, but I think Canon really needs to focus in this area.


----------



## RGF (Dec 12, 2017)

neuroanatomist said:


> 9VIII said:
> 
> 
> > aceflibble said:
> ...



Here is my take

Canon has become big (but not dumb, fat, and happy). They are innovating a controlled way, goal is no screw ups. Perhaps sort of like MS, not IBM. Not an underdog like Apple.

Nikon is sees the light at the end of the tunnel - could their end. They need to do things to increase their chance of survival. Big products but limited array of them (D850). Perhaps like Apple before the Mac was introduced.

Sony is a tease. Great products that are not finished (or well thought out if they want to convert the current dSLR masses). Perhaps like Sun or Digital.


----------



## snappy604 (Dec 12, 2017)

interesting and rather mean/condescending replies to this topic. While there is some interesting insights and differences of view, the delivery could use some work.

I'm also of the camp that I've more or less stopped investing in Canon, but haven't yet jumped ship due to investments. I normally agree that they take turns leapfrogging aspects of technology, but this cycle seems excessively long and Canon isn't innovating/giving ME what I want for the price point. 

Its pretty telling their latest release the 6d mkii was on sale for $509 off and with a bonus of about $300 in accessories in less than half a year after release. I still didn't buy as it felt like a lukewarm release, it gives the impression of being behind the others and missing on a few key areas for me (such as the autofocus spread being so narrow).

I still continue to hope for something exciting given how much it costs to change, but I'm voting with my wallet and I've stopped investing in them for now.


----------

