# I doubt this is even [CR1] but I guess it starts somewhere - 7D3 specs?



## Mikehit (Sep 29, 2017)

30MP sensor
4K video/30p 1.4x
12 fps
No AA filter
1D X Mark II focusing
Tilting touch screen
CFast/SD
Built-in Wi-Fi
Price around $2,000

https://www.dailycameranews.com/2017/09/first-canon-7d-mark-iii-specs-leaked-web/


----------



## Mt Spokane Photography (Sep 29, 2017)

But, it did not start with them, they copied it from someone else.


----------



## ajfotofilmagem (Sep 29, 2017)

Why should the 7D Mark ii replacement be 10 megapixel more? The great Nikon D500 is only 20.9 megapixel.
The sports and wildlife shooters (on a budget) seem to prefer at most 24 megapixel and want to have an AA filter.

The other specs seem to suit the target market of this camera.


----------



## 2n10 (Sep 29, 2017)

ajfotofilmagem said:


> Why should the 7D Mark ii replacement be 10 megapixel more? The great Nikon D500 is only 20.9 megapixel.
> The sports and wildlife shooters (on a budget) seem to prefer at most 24 megapixel and want to have an AA filter.
> 
> The other specs seem to suit the target market of this camera.



This budget wildlife/bird shooter would be happy with 20MP and no AA filter.


----------



## Ryananthony (Sep 29, 2017)

2.2x crop in 4k, I imagine that will make people lose their minds.


----------



## Sharlin (Sep 29, 2017)

12*30MP would make it by far the highest-throughput Canon camera ever, surpassing the 1DX2 and the 5Ds by a fair margin. Sounds a bit dubious. The hypothetical 5Ds2 might have a similar throughput, though, so maybe Canon can pull that off. Double DIGIC7?


----------



## Canon Rumors Guy (Sep 29, 2017)

100% false resolution wise 


http://www.canonrumors.com/canon-eos-7d-mark-iii-coming-first-half-of-2018-cr2/


----------



## unfocused (Sep 29, 2017)

The specs sound reasonably close to what I was expecting. Could be close, or could just be speculation on someone's part. I'll wait for something from Canon Rumors Guy before getting too hyped up either way. (Guess I got my answer while typing)

Still, I can't resist commenting:

I've been predicting 28mp, so I can see 30mp as possible, but pushing the upper limits. Especially in terms of noise at higher ISOs. That would put the 5Ds at 77mp. I'd be very relieved is Canon Rumors Guy is correct that resolution prediction is bogus. For sports, birds, wildlife, I'd much rather have lower noise than higher resolution.

An added 1.4 crop factor for 4K seems unlikely. That would virtually eliminate wide angle shots in video – 10-18 becomes 22-40. 

12fps sounds about right.

No AA filter would be a surprise and possibly problematic for birders, who are a key market for the 7D series.

Touch screen is long overdue. Not sure about the tilting thing if it costs any real estate on the backside of the camera.

I've been expecting Cfast. Not sure about the SD vs. CF. That means having to carry three types of cards if you use the 7D as a backup for 1DX.

Built-in wi-fi is a no-brainer.

Pricing is probably about right, although I'd prefer it to be closer to the 7DII (who wouldn't?)


----------



## Sharlin (Sep 29, 2017)

Not sure if anything else than 24 Mpix makes sense for the 7D3. The 90D, whenever it comes, could have 28 or 30.


----------



## SkySpades (Sep 29, 2017)

unfocused said:


> No AA filter would be a surprise and possibly problematic for birders, who are a key market for the 7D series.



Why would no AA filter be problematic? Nikon hasn't had AA filters in the last several generations of croppers. I used both the D7200 and D500 and shot well over 10,000 images of birds on each and never once ran into an issue with moire. If anything, birders should be clamoring for no AA filter as it increases fine detail. Shooting my 7DII + 100-400II side-by-side with the D500 + 200-500, the Nikon combo actually showed more detail even though most testing shows the 100-400II to be a sharper lens than the 200-500 - I can only surmise my results were due to the lack of AA filter on the D500.

I've been on Canon's case for years wondering why they continue to use an unnecessary AA filter in largely wildlife bodies.


----------



## zim (Sep 29, 2017)

30MP sensor. *No way, 24*
4K video/30p 1.4x. *Hope not (see cfast)*
12 fps. *Happy to stay at 10 but 12 cool as long as more fps options are available*
No AA filter * highly doubt it, that will happen on 5d hi Res bodies first*
1D X Mark II focusing.* Hope so that would be fantastic*
Tilting touch screen *hope so*
CFast/SD *if cfast is there only for video then for me that's an example of video compromising stills*
Built-in Wi-Fi. *Guaranteed!*
Price around $2,000. *No idea.  But probably around price of 7d2 release give or take a couple of hundred*


----------



## RickWagoner (Sep 29, 2017)

the 7d3 will not have a 30mp sensor on it.


----------



## preppyak (Sep 29, 2017)

Ryananthony said:


> 2.2x crop in 4k, I imagine that will make people lose their minds.


Yep. Really no excuse for it while competitors are putting out 4k in full-frame with no crop, or 4k/60 in 4/3 with lesser crop.


----------



## Skywalker6 (Sep 29, 2017)

I'm just replying to the birding specific question. I shoot birds with the 5dsr and love it. I'd much rather have the detail... especially for the smaller wildlife like song birds. I had the mark iv for a while and sold it because it looked muddy. I'd actually like to see more options for bodies without filters. I really don't like them. The AA filter on the mark iii was criminal in my opinion. Killed the detail.


----------



## EdwardNJ (Sep 29, 2017)

SkySpades said:


> unfocused said:
> 
> 
> > No AA filter would be a surprise and possibly problematic for birders, who are a key market for the 7D series.
> ...



I agree, if you're shooting wildlife you want to get as much sharpness as you can since more likely you'll be cropping either way. The AA filter may be an issue for video but I don't really see it as an issue for wildlife photographers unless you're into shooting Zebras ;D


----------



## Phil Lowe (Sep 29, 2017)

Mikehit said:


> 30MP sensor
> 4K video/30p 1.4x
> 12 fps
> No AA filter
> ...



Certain specs on this camera would compete directly with both the 5D MkIV (resolution) and 1DX MkII (burst rate). While I would love to see this happen, we all know how Canon loves to protect its big dogs. I think a more reasonable approach (from Canon's POV) would be 24MP sensor, perhaps taken from the 80D, 10fps (as it now stands), UHD 4K in a consumer codec (like the D500), which would eliminate the need to use CFast cards, and...god please...much improved dynamic range and high-ISO/low-noise improvements. While I had gotten some pretty great shots with my 7D MkII, I recently traded it and my 5D MkIII (I still have my 5D MkIV) in on the Nikon D500, which blows the 7D MkII away in every respect, including image quality. Honestly, I got tired of Canon's 4 or 5 year product development cycle, and couldn't wait for the 7D3 anymore.

As far as the lack of an AA filter for birders/wildlife shooters is concerned, the D500 doesn't have an AA filter (inexplicably, the D5 does), and moire is not a problem at all with the D500. Here's an image I recently shot with the D500 and Nikon 200-500 lens at 500mm, sitting just outside my back door...


----------



## CanoKnight (Sep 29, 2017)

A 1.4x on top of a 1.6x is Canon's middle finger to the video community.


----------



## Phil Lowe (Sep 29, 2017)

CanoKnight said:


> A 1.4x on top of a 1.6x is Canon's middle finger to the video community.



The D500 has a 15x crop on top of a 1.5x crop for 4K video. It's great for long lenses and wildlife. Not so much for anything else. Having noted that, people who complain about the crop on a 5D MkIV have never tried to shoot 4K video on a Nikon. Any Nikon. It's like having your nuts in a vice while someone is pulling out your fingernails. Not fun at all.

Video is definitely one area where Canon beats Nikon with an ugly stick.


----------



## tron (Sep 29, 2017)

Ryananthony said:


> 2.2x crop in 4k, I imagine that will make people lose their minds.


It will be crazy good to not only shoot but to video distant birds which are one of the main reasons this camera is bought


----------



## tron (Sep 29, 2017)

I truly hope that they leave it at 20mp and give these pixels 5DIV quality...


----------



## jolyonralph (Sep 29, 2017)

tron said:


> I truly hope that they leave it at 20mp and give these pixels 5DIV quality...



If you're using the same pixels as on the 5DIV you'd only get a 12 megapixel sensor at APS-C size.


My guess is that Canon are going to put a newer, better, revision of the 24mpx sensor in the 7D III which will, with fewer focus points etc, eventually work its way down to the rest of the range (90D, M5 Mark II, Rebels, etc in approximately that order)


----------



## monsieur_elegante (Sep 29, 2017)

Mikehit said:


> 30MP sensor
> 12 fps
> No AA filter
> 1D X Mark II focusing



As a birder I'm super excited about these specs. I'm strongly of the opinion that AA filters are completely unnecessary (at least in nature photography). My basic understanding is that moire is more of an issue with man-made patterns -- but more than that, I photograph birds frequently with my cousin, who is a Nikon user (D810, no AA filter). He's never had a single bird picture with any problem with moire. 

And FWIW, he also shoots events and weddings occasionally, and he's never felt the lack of an AA filter was a hindrance in any way.

Based on that alone i would very much welcome the benefits of removing the AA filter, with little to no reservation about the potential drawbacks that i personally have not seen in real-world usage (and certainly not in nature photography) .


----------



## AlanF (Sep 29, 2017)

Moire is an insignificant problem with the 5DSR for my bird photography and the absence of an AA filter gives in my limited experience with telephoto lenses about a 10% boost in resolution.


----------



## smithcon (Sep 29, 2017)

Phil Lowe said:


> CanoKnight said:
> 
> 
> > A 1.4x on top of a 1.6x is Canon's middle finger to the video community.
> ...



Looks like Nikon has changed that around with the D850, according to many prominent reviewers on Youtube. Canon still has one big advantage in that dual-pixel AF is the only system out there considered good enough for continuous AF during video, but if you are not trying to AF during video, the D850 is earning pretty high video marks. 

The 6D Mk2 is also unique with the full articulated screen, which would be another big advantage for shooting video. I wish Canon would get it's act together and back up that class-leading DPAF with some more camera development in both low-ISO DR and 4K. My lenses don't work on Nikons! 

I've not been a video guy with my DSLRs, actually, although in the past few days my interest has shifted because of a series of projects and suddenly my long dormant video interests (I specialized in video for a decade in the pre-DSLR days) have been piqued. My mind is racing with all of the wonderful IQ advantages and DOF control a full frame video camera would present me with, but there is no camera in the Canon line-up right now that serves my (and many other still/4K hybrid shooters) interests well.


----------



## JBSF (Sep 30, 2017)

I love my 7D2 and would be thrilled to see it updated with little more than the sensor from the 80D. 30mp sounds preposterously optimistic to me.


----------



## Cthulhu (Sep 30, 2017)

JBSF said:


> I love my 7D2 and would be thrilled to see it updated with little more than the sensor from the 80D. 30mp sounds preposterously optimistic to me.



Yeahhh, no thanks. For 2k I'd me very upset if all it had was 2 year old sensor slapped on it. For things that really matter (high iso) the 7dmk2 still beats the 80d.


----------



## Chaitanya (Sep 30, 2017)

30MP seems excessive, 24MP would be more than enough for sports/action. Also I hope the buffer gets a big bump up since Nikon D500 shoot upto 200frames in RAW.


----------



## Phil Lowe (Sep 30, 2017)

Chaitanya said:


> 30MP seems excessive, 24MP would be more than enough for sports/action. Also I hope the buffer gets a big bump up since Nikon D500 shoot upto 200frames in RAW.



The thing that makes the D500 so fast isn't just the size of the buffer, but the write speed of the XQD G-Series cards: 400MB/second! Even when I occasionally hit the buffer limit (I shoot raw + jpg), it's written to the card so fast that I can right back on the shutter release. Come to think of it, I wouldn't mind seeing a 7D3 with XQD cards in them.


----------



## Sharlin (Sep 30, 2017)

Phil Lowe said:


> Chaitanya said:
> 
> 
> > 30MP seems excessive, 24MP would be more than enough for sports/action. Also I hope the buffer gets a big bump up since Nikon D500 shoot upto 200frames in RAW.
> ...



CFast 2.0 can do 400MB/s as well. The 1DX2 top write speed appears to be around 250MB/s with a CFast 2 card.


----------



## SteveM (Sep 30, 2017)

I am heavily invested in Canon with other bodies and lenses and reluctant to move elsewhere, however, with this 7D mklll image quality is really paramount now. Not hugely interested in the bells and whistles, I expect the quality of the final image to at least match that of the D500, if not I will have to seriously consider what I spend this slice of money on, I am not prepared to wait a further 5 yrs for a solid D500 competitor.


----------



## privatebydesign (Sep 30, 2017)

SteveM said:


> I am heavily invested in Canon with other bodies and lenses and reluctant to move elsewhere, however, with this 7D mklll image quality is really paramount now. Not hugely interested in the bells and whistles, I expect the quality of the final image to at least match that of the D500, if not I will have to seriously consider what I spend this slice of money on, I am not prepared to wait a further 5 yrs for a solid D500 competitor.



Start divesting now then.


----------



## tron (Sep 30, 2017)

SteveM said:


> I am heavily invested in Canon with other bodies and lenses and reluctant to move elsewhere, however, with this 7D mklll image quality is really paramount now. Not hugely interested in the bells and whistles, I expect the quality of the final image to at least match that of the D500, if not I will have to seriously consider what I spend this slice of money on, I am not prepared to wait a further 5 yrs for a solid D500 competitor.


I agree but I believe the only practical way to achieve this is to keep the mpixel count to 20 just like the D500 and implement the 5DIV sensor's technology. 30Mp and CFAST are totally BS. Fast CF UDMA 7 cards can handle the rate just fine (and maybe 4K is BS for what 7DIII is for).


----------



## Sharlin (Sep 30, 2017)

tron said:


> SteveM said:
> 
> 
> > I am heavily invested in Canon with other bodies and lenses and reluctant to move elsewhere, however, with this 7D mklll image quality is really paramount now.
> ...



Again, more pixels never makes the image quality worse, except with very old/small sensors where the overhead of wiring and microlens gaps is greater the smaller the photosites are.


----------



## SteveM (Sep 30, 2017)

privatebydesign said:


> SteveM said:
> 
> 
> > I am heavily invested in Canon with other bodies and lenses and reluctant to move elsewhere, however, with this 7D mklll image quality is really paramount now. Not hugely interested in the bells and whistles, I expect the quality of the final image to at least match that of the D500, if not I will have to seriously consider what I spend this slice of money on, I am not prepared to wait a further 5 yrs for a solid D500 competitor.
> ...




Not necessary. I use one lens only for all my wildlife (not one of the big whites). That lens would be transferred to one of my full frame bodies. So if Canon can't hit the spot with the 7D mklll I would need one wildlife lens only from Nikon if that were the route I chose to take. I'm not particularly a 'birder' so I have options. The rest of my Canon gear is top drawer and fulfills it's respective job/s very well be they professional or fun.
I have high expectations in the gear I pay a lot of money for (which are always met). I expect Canon to meet these expectations in the 7D mklll.


----------



## Chaitanya (Sep 30, 2017)

Phil Lowe said:


> Chaitanya said:
> 
> 
> > 30MP seems excessive, 24MP would be more than enough for sports/action. Also I hope the buffer gets a big bump up since Nikon D500 shoot upto 200frames in RAW.
> ...


CFast and SD UHS-II(if Canon doesn't gimp on it) will certainly help alleviate the write speed issue of high-speed cameras(although compared to Sony both Nikons and Canon dont lock out while writing to card which is a big plus in field). Also both Nikon D500 and D5 have an artificial limit of 200 shots before camera locks out in order to save shutter from burning out. Most birders will be shooting in RAW and with 30MP, files are going to get huge and with 12fps amount of data to be written onto card will massive so a faster card interface would be a must(even with 24MP sensor). sadly Cameramemoryspeed hasn't yet reviewed the 1DX mk II in terms of CFast speed(or infact any CFast card for that matter) so we wont know how well the CFast works in these types of cameras.


----------



## privatebydesign (Sep 30, 2017)

SteveM said:


> privatebydesign said:
> 
> 
> > SteveM said:
> ...



They won’t. That was my point, the IQ will not match or better the D500 so get one now and be done with it if it is so important, if it isn’t so important who cares if you say you might buy this or that?


----------



## tron (Sep 30, 2017)

Sharlin said:


> tron said:
> 
> 
> > SteveM said:
> ...


They are pointless though if you cannot take advantage of cropping at 100% which is where a birding camera sometimes is used to. 5DsR can be taken advantage of this since it can be successfully cropped even at 100% with a little better IQ than 7D2 (and they have the same pixel pitch).


----------



## SteveM (Sep 30, 2017)

privatebydesign said:


> SteveM said:
> 
> 
> > privatebydesign said:
> ...




REMOVED BY MOD


----------



## Alejandro (Sep 30, 2017)

I'll do a realistic list:

24 Mpx (I'd say a polished 80D sensor).
12 fps. (14 would be a 1DX2 killer but...).
[email protected] fps. (Again, [email protected] fps would be a 1DX2 killer but... it'll sell like hot bread)
[email protected] fps.
I'd say 70/90% AF Point spread coverage. More than a few with -3 EV (If not all of them).
Dual Digic 7. (More than capable of handling 12 fps @ 24mpx).
DPAF (Of course).
CFast and CF Slots. (If not dual CFast if [email protected]).


----------



## unfocused (Sep 30, 2017)

privatebydesign said:


> ...the IQ will not match or better the D500...



I'm not sure what point you are trying to make. The 7DII is not that far behind the D500 as it is and as ISO climbs, the advantages of the D500 begins to fade. Even at lower ISO, the only significant difference is in dynamic range and given that Canon will certainly switch to on-chic ADC, that will narrow. 

Perhaps the D500 will remain marginally better, but in terms of real-world use it may not make much difference, just as the differences between the 7DII and the D500 aren't all that significant today.


----------



## dolina (Sep 30, 2017)

SkySpades said:


> unfocused said:
> 
> 
> > No AA filter would be a surprise and possibly problematic for birders, who are a key market for the 7D series.
> ...


Japanese companies are rather conservative. They're great in kaizen but little else.


----------



## RGF (Sep 30, 2017)

Specs are geared to the target audience to gain maximum excitement

The readers of rumor sites.

Don't think this is a real camera but the specs are created to cause buzz. Which they certainly do.


----------



## dolina (Sep 30, 2017)

unfocused said:


> I've been expecting Cfast. Not sure about the SD vs. CF. That means having to carry three types of cards if you use the 7D as a backup for 1DX.



I would love a body that takes CFast + SDXC UHS-II. It should have a write speed of more than 167MB/s to allow for high bit rate 4K at 60fps or better.

I would have liked it implemented as early as 2012 with the 1D C, 1D X, 5Ds R, 5D Mark III & 7D Mark II.

Although the trade off would be shorter battery life, more expensive memory cards, card readers and camera bodies.

Based on past product cycles I expect these cameras to be released within these time frame.

1D X Mark III & 5D Mark V - Before July 2020 for the Summer Olympics in Tokyo. 

7D Mark IV - September 2019 or before July 2020.

I highly doubt either of these three bodies to be out earlier than July 2019 unless sales of these specific line became threatened by Nikon.

I would love to see USB PD charging via USB-C port directly to the body. Sony has this option with their mirrorless and high end point and shoots.


----------



## Cthulhu (Sep 30, 2017)

unfocused said:


> privatebydesign said:
> 
> 
> > ...the IQ will not match or better the D500...
> ...



The d500 is noticeably sharper at any range and will produce usable images at iso ranges that every 7dmk2 owner shudders, like 6400-12800.

I want to believe Canon will have it beat, given that it had time to catch up, but I'm not optimistic as to returning to Canon's aps-c range for action shots.


----------



## unfocused (Sep 30, 2017)

Cthulhu said:


> ...The d500 is noticeably sharper at any range and will produce usable images at iso ranges that every 7dmk2 owner shudders, like 6400-12800...



I'd like to see some evidence of that. Using the DPR online comparison tool, it looks like jpg images from the D500 are cleaner, but I see no real difference in raw at either 6,400 or 12,800. So perhaps Nikon's jpg processing is a bit better, but it doesn't appear that the sensor itself is any better.

I've certainly seen some wonderfully sharp and clean images on this forum from people using the 7D II at higher ISOs. I admit that in my own experience, I never shoot above 6,400 and try to stay with a top of 3,200. That's about a stop less than I shoot the 1Dx II at. I don't own the D500, so I have no frame of reference except testing sites, which don't seem to match your statement. 

If you are really getting that much better performance with the D500, hats off to you and Nikon. I just like to see things with my own eyes.


----------



## Adrianf (Sep 30, 2017)

Personally i would be very happy to see a 7D3 with a lower megapixel count. Shock! Horror! I don't want more. I want the sensor to have much lower noise, higher ISO capability and better dynamic range. It's never the number of pixels that matters - its the quality of those pixels. I want to take bird photos in poor light, with decent shutter speeds, and that means better performance at higher ISO settings.
I doubt that much of the glass that is commonly used could usefully resolve an image onto 30mpix on a cropped sensor.
Canon has an opportunity here to really come up with something special and come up with a camera that has great performance by being realistic with the spec - but I bet they won't take it....


----------



## Cthulhu (Sep 30, 2017)

unfocused said:


> Cthulhu said:
> 
> 
> > ...The d500 is noticeably sharper at any range and will produce usable images at iso ranges that every 7dmk2 owner shudders, like 6400-12800...
> ...



Really? I thought it was pretty straightforward even on dpr's questionable test, and by the time you get rid of all the extra color noise on the 7d2 the d500 is well ahead. But then again 'm viewing in a 30" monitor.

At any rate, the internet is full of examples of the d500's image quality.


----------



## x-vision (Oct 1, 2017)

Alejandro said:


> I'll do a realistic list:
> 
> 24 Mpx (I'd say a polished 80D sensor).
> 12 fps. (14 would be a 1DX2 killer but...).
> ...



+1

30mp doesn't make sense for the 7DIII.

A 24mp crop sensor has the same pixel density as a ~60mp FF sensor. 
IMO, these are the most likely resolutions for the 7DIII and the 5DSII respectively.


----------



## Speedsurfer142 (Oct 1, 2017)

If these specs where right and it is an APS-C body than I will buy one on the spot. 
12 fps with 30mp is just what I am looking for in my Rallysport and Windsurfing photography.
No AA filter is just what I want.


----------



## snoke (Oct 1, 2017)

Good thing Canon ignore canonrumor else APS-C still 8MP.
4K video checkbox item. New shopper ignore camera without. Need CFast.
1DX II + 7DIII = CF, CFast, SD.

Current Canon only SD UHS. Slow.
SD UHS II or III?
SD UHS = 50MB/sec (Canon)
SD UHS II = 156 or 312 MB/sec (Sony/Nikon)
SD UHS III = 312 or 624 MB/sec (new!)


----------



## Mt Spokane Photography (Oct 1, 2017)

The argument about more MP has been around as long as Digital cameras. People argued when cameras went from 3 to 6 MP, and every increase since.

Canon is not going to put a sensor in a camera that does not improve the sales, and most likely is matching what other companies are working on as well.

I now have a 24 mp DSLR (SL2) and a slight jump to 30 would not be a big deal.


----------



## Phil Lowe (Oct 1, 2017)

SteveM said:


> I am heavily invested in Canon with other bodies and lenses and reluctant to move elsewhere, however, with this 7D mklll image quality is really paramount now. Not hugely interested in the bells and whistles, I expect the quality of the final image to at least match that of the D500, if not I will have to seriously consider what I spend this slice of money on, I am not prepared to wait a further 5 yrs for a solid D500 competitor.



Yep. Image quality is what ultimately made me move from the 7D2 to the D500. Not that I was getting bad images from the 7D2, but the IQ from the D500 is so much better. You can really see the difference when editing raw files from both cameras side-by-side. I just got tired of waiting for the 7D3, as well. Canon could get me back with a 7D3 having superior IQ to the D500. I just don't think Canon wants to expose its more expensive offerings to internal competition.


----------



## snoke (Oct 1, 2017)

More MP sell camera.
Go into store. Listen to consumer. "Phone A have 12MP camera. Phone B have 16MP camera. Phone B better camera."

If Sony not have 30+MP APS-C soon, Canon have good lead.
How long Sony make 24MP APS-C? Too long. Stagnate. Sony have problem? Canon capitalize.

Someone say moire problem for fabirc. Yes. Animal not wear fabric, model do. Who take many photo of people? Photographer with 1DXII/D5.


----------



## AlanF (Oct 1, 2017)

Cthulhu said:


> unfocused said:
> 
> 
> > Cthulhu said:
> ...



My experience is that the 5DSR without an AA-filter produces better IQ from a 1.6x cropped image than does the full 7DII. As the 5DSR gives me better resolution and wider field of view than the 7DII, I prefer the full frame despite the larger file sizes and slower frame rate. The FF with a 400mm prime is like having the flexibility of a 250-400mm zoom on APS-C. A 7DII without AA-filter and improved AF would be tempting, however. I would not buy a 7DIII with an AA-filter.


----------



## traveller (Oct 1, 2017)

Adrianf said:


> Personally i would be very happy to see a 7D3 with a lower megapixel count. Shock! Horror! I don't want more. I want the sensor to have much lower noise, higher ISO capability and better dynamic range. It's never the number of pixels that matters - its the quality of those pixels. I want to take bird photos in poor light, with decent shutter speeds, and that means better performance at higher ISO settings.
> I doubt that much of the glass that is commonly used could usefully resolve an image onto 30mpix on a cropped sensor.
> Canon has an opportunity here to really come up with something special and come up with a camera that has great performance by being realistic with the spec - but I bet they won't take it....



This is a great argument, it's just a shame that the facts don't support it: 

https://www.dxomark.com/Cameras/Compare/Side-by-side/Sony-a9-versus-Sony-A7S-II-versus-Sony-A7R-II___1162_1047_1035

You can always improve noise performance by downsizing, but upsizing will never increase resolution. There are speed and workflow arguments for wanting lower resolution sensors, but the noise argument doesn't hold water. 

As for lens resolution, decent lenses have withstood the increases in sensor resolution so far. I'm not sure what's so magical the extra 12.5% (average) increase in linear resolution going from 24MP to 30MP would require that justifies you proclamation of doom. Samsung demonstrated a 28MP APS-C sensor on its NX1 three years ago and their lenses were fine.


----------



## Sharlin (Oct 1, 2017)

So, because I didn't have any better things to do on a Saturday night, I plotted the throughput of a bunch of Canon bodies. 30Mpix*12fps would certainly be an unreasonable large jump; 24Mpix*12fps (plotted) fits the general trend better but would still be a noticeable jump. Source data


----------



## aceflibble (Oct 1, 2017)

I don’t understand why some posters and the front page suggest wildlife shooters wouldn’t want no AA filter when the lack of an AA filter is precisely why people have been switching to Nikon and/or accepting the slower speed of the 5DS R just so they can not have an AA.

If, for sake of argument, the 7D3 _is_ 30mp with no AA, that is *perfect* for birders and wildlife shooters. 30mp is far beyond any risk of moiré and 30mp 1.6x crop without an AA is more clean pixels on-target than any other camera in the world.

The old theory that lower pixel count means less noise hasn’t really been true for a few hardware generations now. More resolution means a cleaner image after rescaling, more options to crop without losing detail, and/or simply more effective noise reduction if you so desire. The lower resolution = quality idea simply doesn’t hold up anymore. Look at the a7s vs the a7R and how the S is only cleaner 1:1 and has _worse_ noise once the images are equalised. Not to mention that especially for birds, getting size and detail—that means higher resolution—matters far, far more than noise. Majority of wildlife print publication already accepts the 7D2’s files at ISO 1600 without reduction and the BBC shoot at 3200 for video on the 7D2. If the 7D2’s ISO 3200 is good enough for the BBC’s archival wildlife video, I’m not worried about high ISO quality on a 30mp 7D3.


... All that said, I’d rather have a lower resolution _if it meant a higher frame rate and deeper buffer_. That’s the one thing that would be more of a boon than the increased detail. 24mp with an extra 1or 2 fps and an extra 5-10 shots in the buffer would be preferable for wildlife. Speed > detail > pixel quality.


----------



## ufaforwork3 (Oct 1, 2017)

nice เล่นคาสิโนบนมือถือ


----------



## dolina (Oct 1, 2017)

enough arguing on the internet. shoot more photos.


----------



## Orangutan (Oct 1, 2017)

aceflibble said:


> 30mp is far beyond any risk of moiré


I have yet to see evidence of this. On several occasions I've encountered regrets that a bird photo was ruined by Moiré on a 5DSR. I don't know how common this is, but I'd love to see side-by-side photos of identical subjects using 5DS and 5DSR to see for myself the sharpness vs. Moiré issue.


----------



## Adrianf (Oct 1, 2017)

traveller said:


> This is a great argument, it's just a shame that the facts don't support it:



I have my own empirical facts.

I have a 7D2 and a 5D4. There are less "pixels per bird" from the 5D4 but the 7d2 hardly sees any use now. The improved dynamic range and noise performance of the 5D4 wins every time.


----------



## traveller (Oct 1, 2017)

Adrianf said:


> traveller said:
> 
> 
> > This is a great argument, it's just a shame that the facts don't support it:
> ...



The 5D4 sensor is a generation newer and superior to the 7D2's in terms of dynamic range. Per pixel noise performance should be similar between the two in a focal length limited situation (i.e. where you are cropping the 5D4 image to achieve the same subject framing). Of course, I'd be interested to actually see your image comparisons, rather than just read your statement. 

One question: what advantage would running a crop sensor camera alongside your full frame body provide if they had exactly the same pixel density? Sure, a 7D3 will almost certainly have a higher frame rate than the 5D4, but if your buying two cameras that add up to $4500+ to get both speed and sensitivity, you'd be better off just buying a 1D X2?


----------



## haggie (Oct 1, 2017)

If there is to be noan AA-filter, then I just hope that it will not be a Dual Pixel sensor. 

These Dual Pixel sensors tend to be (a bit) soft. You can get used to it (e.g. if you went from the 70D to the 80D like I did), but when you see the results of cropped camera's without Dual Pixel AF, the softness of Dual Pixel becomes evident. Even when compared to older models with a "regular" sensor.

To put it bluntly: for all the good Dual Pixel has, the 7D Mark III is an action PHOTOGRAPHY camera and will not be targeted at video enthousiast, so there is no reason at all to have this technology in it at the expense of softer images. A bit of additional "softness" in an image quickly destroys gains in more detail from a higher pixel count.


----------



## AlanF (Oct 1, 2017)

haggie said:


> If there is to be no AA-filter, then I just hope that it will not be a Dual Pixel sensor.
> 
> These Dual Pixel sensors tend to be (a bit) soft. You can get used to it (e.g. if you went from the 70D to the 80D like I did), but when you see the results of cropped camera's without Dual Pixel AF, the softness of Dual Pixel becomes evident. Even when compared to older models with a "regular" sensor.
> 
> To put it bluntly: for all the good Dual Pixel has, the 7D Mark III is an action PHOTOGRAPHY camera and will not be targeted at video enthousiast, so there is no reason at all to have this technology in it at the expense of softer images. A bit of additional "softness" in an image quickly destroys gains in more detail from a higher pixel count.



Are they soft? By coincidence, I have just been comparing my M5, which has DPAF, with my 5DSR, which doesn't, and the M5 sensor is really very good, and better than that on my 7DII.
http://www.canonrumors.com/forum/index.php?topic=33306.msg689054#msg689054


----------



## Act444 (Oct 1, 2017)

haggie said:


> These Dual Pixel sensors tend to be (a bit) soft. You can get used to it (e.g. if you went from the 70D to the 80D like I did), but when you see the results of cropped camera's without Dual Pixel AF, the softness of Dual Pixel becomes evident. Even when compared to older models with a "regular" sensor.



Is there something to this? Does the DPAF ability truly come at the cost of the sensor's resolving power? 

(I know what you mean though - the newest generation of Canon cameras ARE a bit softer in general, haven't quite been able to figure out why though. Strength of AA filter?)


----------



## Act444 (Oct 1, 2017)

Considering even the new 1DX2 has DPAF, I'm almost certain a hypothetical 7D3 will have it too - AA filter or not. 

As for the AA filter - FWIW, Canon recently added a moire reduction tool into its DPP software. This would tell me that there is a possibility of at least one future camera from them without the AA filter (I would guess the replacement for the 5DS/R). Ideally, the perfect situation would be to have an adjustable AA filter that the photographer can enable or disable depending on the subject being shot. I'd imagine you could leave such a filter turned off by default and switch it on only when shooting patterns (clothing, brick walls) or certain types of birds (detail in feathers). 

I agree about the 7D vs the 5D - I used the 7D/7D2 for action and animal photography for some time (automatically went to it due to the extra reach)...until I wanted to shoot the same thing but found myself with the 5D3 instead. Despite the loss of reach (which wasn't even as noticeable as I thought it would be), viewing the image later was a revelation. I don't think the 7D saw another click after that...at least not until I parted with it. The 5D4 (although I was initially lukewarm over it) has turned out to be a good compromise between the 5D3 and 7D2 - a little more speed and some more pixels over the 5D3 (making up part of the reach deficit) puts it right in the middle and I've found it to be a good replacement for both.


----------



## Ozarker (Oct 1, 2017)

Wow. Seems like just last week I was considering one of these. Time goes so quickly. It was actually when the 7D II was released.


----------



## Ozarker (Oct 1, 2017)

Act444 said:


> haggie said:
> 
> 
> > These Dual Pixel sensors tend to be (a bit) soft. You can get used to it (e.g. if you went from the 70D to the 80D like I did), but when you see the results of cropped camera's without Dual Pixel AF, the softness of Dual Pixel becomes evident. Even when compared to older models with a "regular" sensor.
> ...



I don't think they are softer. I had the 70D and mine was very sharp. Maybe AFMA? I think the 7D series allows that.


----------



## greger (Oct 2, 2017)

I’m not interested in most of these specs! I don’t want 30 mp or no anti-alias Filter. A fully articulating touch LCD screen is better than tilting. 24 mega pixel is going to eat up enough hard drive when I shoot raw. Canon may get my money if I buy glass. But if they start chasing mega pixels I will keep using my gear or stop taking pictures. I don’t take as many pics as in years past. As long as my 7D can take pictures, upgrading will be on hold once again!


----------



## Aussie shooter (Oct 2, 2017)

I don't think 30mp makes much sense. 24 at most but to be honest even 22 would be fine which would also give better high iso performance and improved DR providing canon go the newest tech sensor. I am personally more than happy with 10fps as more simply means more work later on searching through the myriads of throw away shots to pick the best. Tilting screen is fine but I would not be happy with a fully articulating as it would mean sacrificing space for those buttons and this is NOT a landscape camera(at least not primarily). I would be happy if they dropped the AA filter but TBH if they didn't it would not upset me too much. Getting a meter or two closer to your subject will make more difference in the long run. The one thing I think that REALLY matters apart from a new tech sensor and associated improvement in high iso performance is the incorporation on the 1dx2 autofocus system and the extra f8 autofocus points. Apart from those two things the 7d2 is already close to perfect


----------



## ExodistPhotography (Oct 2, 2017)

Mikehit said:


> 30MP sensor
> 4K video/30p 1.4x
> 12 fps
> No AA filter
> ...



28MP Sensor seems very likely, but 30 seems to large of a jump. Even if Canon could, they would still want to milk the market a bit longer. Plus it would still be high MP for an APS-C sensor. They are going to have to work on the cleaner sensor noise without a doubt.. 

4k-30p with a 1.4x?? This number is strange, Its already a 1.6x, so likely it would be around a 2.0x to 2.2x crop. Reason would be for the 4k at a 2x2 pixel bin would be around 16MP.. So wanting full sensor readout and 4k on a 28-30MP sensor isn't going to be possible without some trade off. 

12FPS is possible. Canon knows they have to compete with Nikon and Sonys latest speed demons. Possible they would have to introduce enhanced + versions of the Digic7.

No AA Filter, god I hope so.. AA can be done software side in the camera just like sharpening or even in post. There is simply no reason for there to be an physical filter at this point. NOT saying it does not need to be an option. But this is easy done with software these days.. 

1Dx II Focus Point, very likely and it would allow Canon to reuse existing hardware.

Tilting Touch Screen.. Of course.
Wifi/BT/NFC.. Of course..

Cfast & SD.. Sounds reasonable.. 

$2000 USD. Of course.. I can not see Canon raising the price tag and still being competitive.


----------



## snoke (Oct 2, 2017)

aceflibble said:


> I don’t understand why some posters and the front page suggest wildlife shooters wouldn’t want no AA filter
> ...



They post on Internet, read on Internet, don't take photo. That why.



Aussie shooter said:


> I don't think 30mp makes much sense. 24



Make perfect sense. Canon want 7D Mark III have 30-something MP. Clear advantage over Nikon/Sony.

Shopper go to store and think, "24 or 30? Same price. 30 is more so I buy it."

7D Mark III with 30MP APS-C early in 2018. Every Canon APS-C follow also have 30MP? 90D 30MP? Where Nikon and Sony now?


----------



## Sharlin (Oct 2, 2017)

ExodistPhotography said:


> 4k-30p with a 1.4x?? This number is strange, Its already a 1.6x, so likely it would be around a 2.0x to 2.2x crop. Reason would be for the 4k at a 2x2 pixel bin would be around 16MP.. So wanting full sensor readout and 4k on a 28-30MP sensor isn't going to be possible without some trade off.



2x2 pixel binning to 4K would require a 8K sensor, 46Mpix or so, like the D850. The 5D4 does 1:1 readout from 30Mpix, resulting in the unfortunate 1.7x crop. But you're right, 1.4x from 30Mpix definitely doesn't make sense. Not that this rumor is plausible anyway.

OTOH 24Mpix is just the right size for doing a 3:2 downsample to 4K.


----------



## unfocused (Oct 2, 2017)

I'm surprised that AA Filters generate such intense feelings. Personally, I can't get that worked up either way. 

The presence of an AA Filter doesn't seem to have stopped good photographers from taking great pictures and the absence of an AA Filter in the 5DsR doesn't seem to be creating a huge number of problems. 

It's a sign of how good cameras are today that internet forums are reduced to arguments over such trivial matters.


----------



## jeffa4444 (Oct 2, 2017)

Very much depends on what video abilities this camera has. CFast cards in professional cinematography use have not been a reliable format with numerous failures (used with Arri cameras). The Red Cameras Helium S35 which is "similar" to APS-C is 35.4MP 8K and has the throughput up to 300MB/s but doesn't use CFast. 
The Canon 7D MKIII will not have video or still frame rate approaching the Red Camera so high end SD cards would likely suffice at least they are more reliable than the CFast cards. 

My take is Canon could do a 30MP camera and could shoot up to 12FPS the pixel size / noise can be overcome but they will need pretty impressive processing to do so which may make a $ 2K or sub-2K camera difficult. 

Again from a video perspective a missing AA filter could be an issue moire often looking worse on a moving image.


----------



## haggie (Oct 2, 2017)

CanonFanBoy said:


> Act444 said:
> 
> 
> > haggie said:
> ...



My point with regards to the 7D Mark III is that Dual Pixel sensors are not needed for the 7D mark III because its primary audience will need it. 
Dual Pixel sensors are fantastic for video and to some extend for Live View shooting.
The primary purpose of the "7D" is photography of swift subjects, e.g. sports, aircraft in flight and birds in flight. This is never done in Live View; this is where the optical viewfinder is at it's best.
Replies in this thread show that many of this type of user want improvements in AF and better IQ. The 7D Mark II for sure is a capable camera (I am in doubt to buy it or wait for the 7D Mark III). But I have been in the position lately to compare the EOS 80D, EOS 7D Mark II, Nikon's D7300 and Nikon's D500 with images taken at (almost) the same instant. And although I am a 'Canon fanboy' for several decades, the better images of the D500 in particular are clear. 
One of the earlier responses mentioned that in post processing the D500 allows for a lot more. Well, I can confirm this. And from these (and other) side-by-side comparisons it has become clear to me that the Canon bodies that have Dual Pixel sensors are just 'softer'. 
Even compared to older cameras. 
And yes, even if images are resized to the same resolution. 

There is at least one factor that determines that images from Dual Pixel cameras will be (a bit) softer than non-Dual Pixel sensors.
Dual Pixel technology involves 2 separate photon wells. For AF purposes they are used as separate entities (by the camera's firmware - for obvious reasons in a way not made public by Canon). To get the image, these 2 separate photon wells are 'combined' to form one pixel. Again, this is done by the camera's proprietary firmware. 
When discussing the image of a Dual Pixel sensor, it is useful to realize that the limit where diffraction becomes visible in an image from a digital camera is determined by the size of the photon well and the aperture in use. The smaller the photon well, the sooner diffraction will be visible in the image. And also, the smaller the aperture, the sooner diffraction will be visible in the image.
And therefore, because a Dual Pixel sensor has smaller photon as a direct result of the Dual Pixel architecture, softer images are unavoidable. 
Other contributing factors may be the required computation to 'construct' 1 pixel from the data read from 2 separate photon wells. But that is just guessing because like I just said, what the firmware is a secret.

So from witnessing: softness in Dual Pixel sensors is a thing. And at least one technical reason for it is available.
It is for sure not a matter of "thinking" and also it is not due to unsharp images from a Dual Pixel camera with sharp images from another camera (as a result of not performing AFMA or otherwise).


----------



## Talys (Oct 2, 2017)

Likelihood of 7DMkIII not having dual pixel autofocus is zero. There is no recent Canon DSLR from Rebel to 5D series without it. It is a best in class, differentiating technology between Canon and competitors, and it doesn't matter that most people who buy these will prefer OVF for most of their shots.

Now that 6DMk2 has an articulating screen, I think that the chances of the next 7D not having one is extremely low, with the main question being how they resolve left side buttons.


----------



## Mikehit (Oct 2, 2017)

haggie said:


> Dual Pixel technology involves 2 separate photon wells. For AF purposes they are used as separate entities (by the camera's firmware - for obvious reasons in a way not made public by Canon). To get the image, these 2 separate photon wells are 'combined' to form one pixel. Again, this is done by the camera's proprietary firmware.
> When discussing the image of a Dual Pixel sensor, it is useful to realize that the limit where diffraction becomes visible in an image from a digital camera is determined by the size of the photon well and the aperture in use. The smaller the photon well, the sooner diffraction will be visible in the image. And also, the smaller the aperture, the sooner diffraction will be visible in the image.
> And therefore, because a Dual Pixel sensor has smaller photon as a direct result of the Dual Pixel architecture, softer images are unavoidable.
> Other contributing factors may be the required computation to 'construct' 1 pixel from the data read from 2 separate photon wells. But that is just guessing because like I just said, what the firmware is a secret.
> ...



Diffraction is a factor of the lens - the sensor has nothing to do with it. When viewed at the same image size, diffraction from a 40MP sensor is no different than diffraction on a 20MP sensor. The difference comes when viewing at % sizes - at any % size the image from a high MP sensor is bigger than an image of a lower MP sensor at the same %. Also, the higher MP sensor as higher resolution but 'sees' diffraction whereas the low MP sensor has less resolution. 

Also you are technically incorrect. The two wells in each pixel both lie under the same microlens and are summed to create one single pixel output so as far as image construction is concerned there is no additional resolution so diffraction is no more or less visible.

What I think is more likely is that the use of 2 diodes creates more noise and how this is managed is crucial. If Canon can create a 1Dx2 and 5DIV with DPAF and image quality very close to the Nikon/Sony cameras, I wonder what they can do if they removed DPAF and applied the same technology.


----------



## aceflibble (Oct 2, 2017)

haggie said:


> So from witnessing: softness in Dual Pixel sensors is a thing. And at least one technical reason for it is available.
> It is for sure not a matter of "thinking" and also it is not due to unsharp images from a Dual Pixel camera with sharp images from another camera (as a result of not performing AFMA or otherwise).


(Rest cut to save space)

You're comparing cameras with AA filters vs without an AA filter. There is absolutely zero grounds to assume a difference in resolving power is down to the dual pixel AF when you're contending with those far bigger differences.

As someone who has had the AA filter removed on a couple of Canon cameras with dual pixel AF as well as shooting with cameras which have no dual pixel AF and lack an AA filter by default a couple of Sonys, a Nikon, and the Fuji GFX), I've found absolutely no difference in image quality when shooting such systems with comparable/the same lenses and under comparable conditions. Which stands to reason, because there's no part of the technology of dual pixel AF that _can_ cause softer images, let alone does; Mikehit already summed up your misunderstandings there so I won't repeat them.

Yes, the D500 produces much sharper images than the 7D2 when shot with comparable lenses and conditions. So does the D850 when cropped to the same area. So does my 7D2 with the AA filter removed. So does another local shooter's 7D2 which had the AA filter removed. So does their 70D, too. I'm willing to bet hard cash that if you strip the 5D4 of its AA filter, that'll be just as sharp as well. I've got an original 7D with the filter removed as well and that camera doesn't have dual pixel, and it's no sharper than the others which do have dual pixel. Hell, I'd confidently do it to a 1Ds3 if I still had one of those knocking around.

It's the AA filter which is causing the difference in sharpness you're seeing between the cameras you mentioned. That AA filter is responsible for a huge loss of detail. It's no coincidence that the cameras you mention as being softer have AA filters and the cameras whose resolving power you prefer lack it. It's no coincidence that removing the AA filter from Canon cameras brings their sharpness up, regardless of whether they have dual pixel AF or not. 

Just look at the difference in IQ between the 5DS and 5DS R, where the two bodies are _identical_ other than the only difference that one has an AA filter and the other doesn't. If you don't 'get' the difference an AA filter makes by now you have to either have quite significantly poor eyesight or quite significantly severe confirmation bias, and its that AA filter that you're seeing softening up your Canon cameras, not the dual pixel AF.

_(Disclaimer: while I am a noted fan of removing the AA filters from most cameras, I wouldn't advise it for any sensor of 16mp or less, and in general I wouldn't suggest most people bother with it anyway as it's quite expensive, obviously voids any warranty and most of the resale value of the body, can induce colour shifts if not corrected for expertly, and for many subjects won't make an appreciable difference at a normal viewing print/size. It's basically only of use for inner-industry product archive work, wildlife, and excessively large-print landscape.)_


----------



## CombatClaret (Oct 2, 2017)

30mp is way high IMO from a company which likes to iterate as opposed to innovate. 24-28mp max. 
I could see 4k being added with some bizarre crop factor, Canon can then put '4k video' on the box despite it being a body never intended for pro video shooters.

Resolution and FPS are all that requires a little bump with price remaining the same for this to be a standard Canon update. Wifi, GPS, Touch screen etc of course it's 2017..!

I would guess it will not have a vari-angle screen to keep it in line with the 5d series idea of being a rugged, all-weather sealed camera.


----------



## neonlight (Oct 2, 2017)

The original specs certainly seem to be a wish list. 
Here's mine:
24 Mp 
No AA filter (if you "pixel peep" it is hard to see any pixel-level resolution on my 7DII images. My guess is that the AA filter "smudges" over two, and looks like more of a 10Mp sensor than 20Mp.)
tilty- flippy
all AF points F/8 compatible

and I'd be happy, since I often find I'm using a 1.4x with the 100-400 for small birds.


----------



## jolyonralph (Oct 2, 2017)

haggie said:


> My point with regards to the 7D Mark III is that Dual Pixel sensors are not needed for the 7D mark III because its primary audience will need it.
> Dual Pixel sensors are fantastic for video and to some extend for Live View shooting.
> The primary purpose of the "7D" is photography of swift subjects, e.g. sports, aircraft in flight and birds in flight. This is never done in Live View; this is where the optical viewfinder is at it's best.



I think you're confusing '7D users don't need it' with 'I personally don't need it'.

I think a lot more 7D users use the camera for general purpose photography (including Live View) and video than you think. I know of several professional cinematographers who use the 7D series for their video work.

Plus, I think we all can assume it's going to have a tilty-flippy screen. And with that you pretty much guarantee that DPAF is essential.


----------



## unfocused (Oct 3, 2017)

jolyonralph said:


> ...I think we all can assume it's going to have a tilty-flippy screen...



I'm curious what that assumption is based on. I'm neutral, so long as they don't mess with my buttons. But, I'm not sure why someone would assume that it will have a tilt or flip screen.


----------



## Ozarker (Oct 3, 2017)

unfocused said:


> jolyonralph said:
> 
> 
> > ...I think we all can assume it's going to have a tilty-flippy screen...
> ...



Because.


----------



## haggie (Oct 3, 2017)

Mikehit said:


> haggie said:
> 
> 
> > Dual Pixel technology involves 2 separate photon wells. For AF purposes they are used as separate entities (by the camera's firmware - for obvious reasons in a way not made public by Canon). To get the image, these 2 separate photon wells are 'combined' to form one pixel. Again, this is done by the camera's proprietary firmware.
> ...




I admit that have taken some large steps in my initial text in an effort to keep it short. In my text I differentiate between diffraction and the resulting effect that diffraction has on the image as captured by the camera’s sensor. 

Diffraction is a change in direction of waves (any wave!) as they pass through an opening or around a barrier. 

In photography, diffraction is indeed caused by the properties of the lens. Diffraction by a lens shows itself in an image as a pattern in the projected image. For a given lens, the aperture setting is the only variable and therefore the aperture setting determines the amount of diffraction that is ‘created’ in the image that the lens projects.

How the diffraction that is caused by the lens, is recorded (captured) by the camera’s sensor is a completely different matter. A sensor in a camera consists of photosensitive elements that capture the light. The latter may be referred to as a “photosite” or “photon well”. I want to stay away from a definitions discussion about “pixels”, “dots”, “subpixels”, etc because that may just blur the understanding, but these are not the same as the pixel in an image you can process or view.

To be able to qualitatively and quantitatively discuss the phenomenon of diffraction, usually a flat waveform entering an opening is taken. The resulting size of the diffraction pattern in case of a given lens depends on the aperture used. Just imagine that the size of the photosensitive element is tiny in comparison to the diffraction pattern. Then the sensor will not be able to capture details that would be possible if diffraction were less – or when the sensor’s photosensitive element were larger. This results in blurring, which means softer images from your camera(‘s sensor).

So you see, how the diffraction that is caused by the lens, is recorded (captured) by the camera’s sensor DOES depend on the size of the photosensitive element in the sensor. 

This is why I wrote “_When discussing the image of a Dual Pixel sensor, it is useful to realize that the limit where diffraction becomes visible in an image from a digital camera is determined by the size of the photon well and the aperture in use_”. So I deliberately wrote about diffraction visible in an image from a camera’s sensor; and the above illustrates that the size of the photosensitive element is a factor there.
I never wrote that the physical phenomenon of diffraction is caused by the lens and the pixel size, as you suggest. You just mix it all up. 









Mikehit said:


> haggie said:
> 
> 
> > Dual Pixel technology involves 2 separate photon wells. For AF purposes they are used as separate entities (by the camera's firmware - for obvious reasons in a way not made public by Canon). To get the image, these 2 separate photon wells are 'combined' to form one pixel. Again, this is done by the camera's proprietary firmware.
> ...



I already admitted that have taken some large steps in my initial text. 
But you are the one that is technically incorrect. You write “_The two wells in each pixel both lie under the same microlens_”. 
However, whether or not the photosensitive elements share a micro lens or not has nothing to do with them capturing the effect of the diffraction caused by the lens. It is all about their size.

And if by writing “_pixel output_” you mean the pixels in the raw- or jpg-image from the camera, you may be even further off.


----------



## Mikehit (Oct 3, 2017)

haggie said:


> So you see, how the diffraction that is caused by the lens, is recorded (captured) by the camera’s sensor DOES depend on the size of the photosensitive element in the sensor.


I agree. But the two photodiodes lie under a common microlens and output their image signal in a single output in so are acting as one unit - pixel size and (more importantly) pixelpitch in a 30MP sensor is the same with or without DPAF so in that respect the way they record diffraction is identical. So as far as I can see, any softening of the image due to being DPAF will be due to other properties.




haggie said:


> I never wrote that the physical phenomenon of diffraction is caused by the lens and the pixel size, as you suggest. You just mix it all up.



I know you did not say it directly but I wanted to state the obvious to make it clear no assumptions were being made. It still surprises me how many people talk about high-MP sensor having more diffraction. They don't. But the misunderstanding arises from the fact the higher (density) MP sensors make it easier to see when viewing at 1:1. 




> However, whether or not the photosensitive elements share a micro lens or not has nothing to do with them capturing the effect of the diffraction caused by the lens. It is all about their size.


If they lie under the same microlens and output a single image signal, how do they 'record' separate images to be able to show diffraction? 
Taking your logic it seems to be a 60MP image not a 30MP image.


----------



## tron (Oct 3, 2017)

jolyonralph said:


> tron said:
> 
> 
> > I truly hope that they leave it at 20mp and give these pixels 5DIV quality...
> ...


I said 5DIV quality. I do not recall saying 5DIV pixel size! (I mean to use the new 5DIV sensor technology that impoved low light iq.


----------



## haggie (Oct 3, 2017)

Mikehit said:


> haggie said:
> 
> 
> > So you see, how the diffraction that is caused by the lens, is recorded (captured) by the camera’s sensor DOES depend on the size of the photosensitive element in the sensor.
> ...





I wrote that I wanted to avoid the definitions discussion about “pixels”, “dots”, “subpixels”, etc. But apparently that is not possible. However, the concepts behind it must be clear. Although not scientific definitions, the following can make this clear.
-A “Pixel” in a photograph is the smallest entity that can hold color (among others). 
-To make a single Pixel visible, multiple composing entities are used. E.g. on a monitor screen a pixel is formed using a Red dot AND a Green dot AND a Blue dot. In a printed photograph a Yellow dot AND a Magenta dot AND a Cyan dot is used (also Black is present). To summarize: to ‘make’ a single Pixel, multiple composing items are required (I just call them ‘dot’ here).
-When capturing an image, something similar takes place. A photon wells by itself is not susceptible to color, it is just sensitive to the amount of light that hit it. A photon well can be made sensitive to only one composing color. This is achieved by placing colored ‘filters’ above it, thus making each photon well sensitive to only a specific basic color (often, but not necessarily, Red, Green and Blue). This means that the output of a photon well is not a "pixel" as usually perceived by photographers. A photon well captures one othe multiple composing elements for what is to be (!) a pixel.
-The next step is where the camera’s firmware makes a computation (and by the way, this is NOT a straightforward average due to the human eye’s sensitivity among others). This will construct an entity you might call a “pixel”. Therefore, ONLY after this step, you can talk about a “Pixel” in the usual sense.

Therefore, when you write “_If they lie under the same microlens and output a single image signal_" when talking about the photosensitive elements of a sensor, you completely misrepresent how it works. 
And from this misrepresentation you then draw a conclusion that are even more wrong ….. that you attribute to …. me! 
When you write “_Taking your logic it seems to be a 60MP image not a 30MP image_” you completely missed both the concept of "Pixel" versus "photon well" (again, the notion of the “Pixel” does not exist at that stage in the process) and also the concept of what Dual Pixel means after AF has taken place and the image is recorded by the sensor and formed by the camera’s firmware.

Furthermore, although it is hard to find any information about a specific camera, it seems very unlikely that the micro lenses are one simple geometric shape that is position above the two photon wells that form what Canon in its PR calls “Dual Pixel” sensors. That also makes your assumption a bit risky.


PM 1	In de specialist area of sensor technology, often the “photon well” is called “pixel”. But that should not be confused with what is meant with a “Pixel” in photography and graphics.

PM 2 On the internet there is also quite some misunderstanding going around on the subject of diffraction. This often results in the misconception that diffraction has no real negative effect on images from a higher resolution sensor. 
A textbook on physics and on optics is the only way to avoid wrong interpretations and faulty simplifications, but that usually requires some background in mathematics. I googled to find this web page that describes more eloquently what I just wrote (or at least meant to write  ) and that also offers some figures to illustrate it: 
https://photographylife.com/what-is-diffraction-in-photography


----------



## Leigh (Oct 3, 2017)

Since Canon's FF 5D-4 30MP sensor has obviously less DR /more shadow noise than the NIKON's D850 with it's additional 15MP, 
http://www.imaging-resource.com/PRODS/nikon-d850/nikon-d850A.HTM#shooting1
Unless they've drastically improved their sensor technology in the last few months, it's hard to believe they can produce a 30MP APS-C sensor that's even close to "acceptable" DR standards?


----------



## aceflibble (Oct 3, 2017)

Leigh said:


> Since Canon's FF 5D-4 30MP sensor has obviously less DR /more shadow noise than the NIKON's D850 with it's additional 15MP,
> http://www.imaging-resource.com/PRODS/nikon-d850/nikon-d850A.HTM#shooting1
> Unless they've drastically improved their sensor technology in the last few months, it's hard to believe they can produce a 30MP APS-C sensor that's even close to "acceptable" DR standards?


If your definition of "acceptable" is strictly "beating everything else to be #1 in the world" then no, of course they can't do that.
If your definition of "acceptable" is "enough that it covers all realistic uses" then yes they can totally do that. 35mm cameras from 10 years ago and APS-C cameras from 6-7 years ago could do that.

That said, I do still think 30mp seems like inane wishful thinking and 24 is more likely, with an outside chance of 26 or 28. More resolution helps with no AA and can compensate for noise/DR once the image is scaled to regular printing/viewing sizes, but more pixels also means it's harder to get the speed up, and the 7Ds are all about speed primarily. 1 more fps is more important for these types of camera than 2 more million pixels.


----------



## markjsmccall (Oct 3, 2017)

This causes me some intense agony. 
I have had a faithful 70D for four years. Recently its started to break down. As a little bit of prspective ot has been my first DSLR and has been my constant companion. It has taken me fro shooting in full auto with crap composition to getting my first two shots published in Athletics Weekly last month. I shoot a lot of sports and action. It has approx 110k shots on the shutter. 

I was hoping it would survive until early next year when the next gen 90D/7dmkIII would be out and i could potentially move up a rung to the 7D line or stick with the 90D. Unfortunately this week i have had contant Error 80 errors that i cant fix plus the mount is starting to work loose (I hang a 70-200 of it most of the time) and the mode dial dropped off this morning. 

I know have to decide what camera to get. Do i get a 70D/80D second hand to keep going until the 7D3 or do i just go for the 7D2 which i would also love but will be out of date next year.


----------



## ethanz (Oct 3, 2017)

markjsmccall said:


> This causes me some intense agony.
> I have had a faithful 70D for four years. Recently its started to break down. As a little bit of prspective ot has been my first DSLR and has been my constant companion. It has taken me fro shooting in full auto with crap composition to getting my first two shots published in Athletics Weekly last month. I shoot a lot of sports and action. It has approx 110k shots on the shutter.
> 
> I was hoping it would survive until early next year when the next gen 90D/7dmkIII would be out and i could potentially move up a rung to the 7D line or stick with the 90D. Unfortunately this week i have had contant Error 80 errors that i cant fix plus the mount is starting to work loose (I hang a 70-200 of it most of the time) and the mode dial dropped off this morning.
> ...



Your suggestion of a used body sounds like a good idea until the 7D3 is out. But just take heed, only Canon knows when the 7D3 will be out, so you might be waiting a while. As in, it could be late 2018 or even into 2019...


----------



## markjsmccall (Oct 3, 2017)

I know. And budget wise i am probably better going to a good used 7Dmkii 
(markjsmcccall.com for photos from the 70D if anyone is interested)


----------



## AlanF (Oct 3, 2017)

haggie said:


> PM 2 On the internet there is also quite some misunderstanding going around on the subject of diffraction. This often results in the misconception that diffraction has no real negative effect on images from a higher resolution sensor.
> A textbook on physics and on optics is the only way to avoid wrong interpretations and faulty simplifications, but that usually requires some background in mathematics. I googled to find this web page that describes more eloquently what I just wrote (or at least meant to write  ) and that also offers some figures to illustrate it:
> https://photographylife.com/what-is-diffraction-in-photography



Do you agree with the following or does your knowledge of pixel technology cut across the following? A point source of light is spread out by diffraction by the circular aperture of a lens to give a disk of light on the sensor, called the Airy Disk. Two points of light will not be resolved if they are separated on the sensor by distance less than the diameter of the Airy disk – the two disks of light will overlap to give a blur. The diameter of the Airy disk is directly proportional to the f-number of the lens and the wavelength of light, and is independent of the sensor. The diameter of the disk is exactly the same whether it falls on a 50 mpx sensor or a 20 mpx one. If the point of light gives a diffraction disk that covers 10 px of the 20 mpx sensor, it will cover approximate 16 on the 50 mpx sensor. But, just because it covers more pixels, it doesn’t mean it blurs the higher megapixel more, it blurs it by exactly the same amount. What the diffraction disk does is to waste the extra resolving power of the higher megapixel sensor – it doesn’t make it softer than the lower megapixel sensor. 

I think that this is what Mike is arguing.


----------



## Mikehit (Oct 3, 2017)

haggie said:


> I wrote that I wanted to avoid the definitions discussion about “pixels”, “dots”, “subpixels”, etc. But apparently that is not possible.



Because the definition of a pixel is fundamental to the resolution and therefore the very basis of your premise that the DPAF sensors are softer because they are more likely to show the effects of diffraction.



haggie said:


> Therefore, when you write “_If they lie under the same microlens and output a single image signal_" when talking about the photosensitive elements of a sensor, you completely misrepresent how it works.



In what way am I misrepresenting how they work? 




haggie said:


> Furthermore, although it is hard to find any information about a specific camera, it seems very unlikely that the micro lenses are one simple geometric shape that is position above the two photon wells that form what Canon in its PR calls “Dual Pixel” sensors. That also makes your assumption a bit risky.


Given the lack of information, are you making an assumption and using that assumption to say I am incorrect. 



haggie said:


> PM 1	In de specialist area of sensor technology, often the “photon well” is called “pixel”. But that should not be confused with what is meant with a “Pixel” in photography and graphics.


We seem to be talking at cross purposes. 
As far as I can tell, the information to create the image comes from a photon well. In the DPAF sensor, two photon wells are acting as a combined unit to create one pixel otuput. Please tell me where I am incorrect. 
So how do you define a 'pixel' in terms of a photographic sensor? You still have not explained that.
Are you saying a sensel and a pixel is not the same thing?


haggie said:


> PM 2 On the internet there is also quite some misunderstanding going around on the subject of diffraction. This often results in the misconception that diffraction has no real negative effect on images from a higher resolution sensor.
> 
> A textbook on physics and on optics is the only way to avoid wrong interpretations and faulty simplifications, but that usually requires some background in mathematics. I googled to find this web page that describes more eloquently what I just wrote (or at least meant to write  ) and that also offers some figures to illustrate it:
> https://photographylife.com/what-is-diffraction-in-photography



I know what diffraction is and I have never said it does not have an effect on the image. You seem to be making very general comments without actually saying anything pertinent to this discussion. That article about diffraction has nothing to do with why you think having 2 photons wells to a pixel (however you define it) as opposed to one photon to a pixel will enhance the effect of diffraction and therefore make the image softer - because that is what I believe you said originally. And you have not yet confirmed or denied that is what you meant.


----------



## dolina (Oct 4, 2017)

Anyone want to take a wager that this thread will still be active by the time the 7D3 is announced by September 2019 with drastically differing specs? 

Go out and shoot!


----------



## AlanF (Oct 4, 2017)

dolina said:


> Anyone want to take a wager that this thread will still be active by the time the 7D3 is announced by September 2019 with drastically differing specs?
> 
> Go out and shoot!


Who knows, but discussions about diffraction will continue for ever...... MikeH is right, of course.


----------



## djack41 (Oct 4, 2017)

Canon should concentrate on improving ISO and dynamic range performance. Packing 30mp onto a crop sensor seems counter to improving both.


----------



## dolina (Oct 4, 2017)

djack41 said:


> Canon should concentrate on improving ISO and dynamic range performance. Packing 30mp onto a crop sensor seems counter to improving both.


They should collaborate with Google and Qualcomm to make cameras that can best flagship smartphones.

A iPhone 8 can do [email protected]


----------



## Sharlin (Oct 4, 2017)

dolina said:


> djack41 said:
> 
> 
> > Canon should concentrate on improving ISO and dynamic range performance. Packing 30mp onto a crop sensor seems counter to improving both.
> ...



Maybe they could attach a cellphone camera on top of the viewfinder bump just for 4K purposes :


----------



## RGF (Oct 4, 2017)

dolina said:


> Anyone want to take a wager that this thread will still be active by the time the 7D3 is announced by September 2019 with drastically differing specs?
> 
> Go out and shoot!



how about still active when the 7DM4 is introduced in 2022?


----------



## Tugela (Oct 4, 2017)

Phil Lowe said:


> CanoKnight said:
> 
> 
> > A 1.4x on top of a 1.6x is Canon's middle finger to the video community.
> ...



If you are serious about shooting video on an ILC you would not be using either of them. There are far superior options out there, both Sony and Panasonic kick the snot out of Canikon in that department.


----------



## Tugela (Oct 4, 2017)

ethanz said:


> markjsmccall said:
> 
> 
> > This causes me some intense agony.
> ...



7D3 will be out in 2018, most likely it will be the flagship for the Digic 8 processors.


----------



## Tugela (Oct 4, 2017)

Talys said:


> Likelihood of 7DMkIII not having dual pixel autofocus is zero. There is no recent Canon DSLR from Rebel to 5D series without it. It is a best in class, differentiating technology between Canon and competitors, and it doesn't matter that most people who buy these will prefer OVF for most of their shots.
> 
> Now that 6DMk2 has an articulating screen, I think that the chances of the next 7D not having one is extremely low, with the main question being how they resolve left side buttons.



Actually, the latest Sony focusing system outperforms it. They claim to have the fastest sensor based AF system now. Since Sony's going forward will use the new system on their higher end cameras from the RX100s and up, the idea that PDAF is best in class in not relevant anymore. That is a talking point from the past now.


----------



## Mikehit (Oct 4, 2017)

Tugela said:


> Talys said:
> 
> 
> > Likelihood of 7DMkIII not having dual pixel autofocus is zero. There is no recent Canon DSLR from Rebel to 5D series without it. It is a best in class, differentiating technology between Canon and competitors, and it doesn't matter that most people who buy these will prefer OVF for most of their shots.
> ...



The RX100 is one of their higher end range?

I would hope the focussing on Sony A9 does outperform a Canon at less than 1/3 of the price. But as Canon and Nikon have both shown, having 'the same' focussing system as the top end camera, and having them perform the same are completely different matters. I'll believe it when I see it.


----------



## Camerajah (Oct 6, 2017)

http://pdfpiw.uspto.gov/.piw?PageNum=0&docid=09773827

After having a quick look at the above Canon patent for BSI sensor that includes a plurality of pixels arranged under micro lens, that can be MOS or CCD.

A 30mp EOS 7D Mark III is not looking to far fetch at all.


----------



## AlanF (Oct 6, 2017)

Camerajah said:


> http://pdfpiw.uspto.gov/.piw?PageNum=0&docid=09773827
> 
> After having a quick look at the above Canon patent for BSI sensor that includes a plurality of pixels arranged under micro lens, that can be MOS or CCD.
> 
> A 30mp EOS 7D Mark III is not looking to far fetch at all.


I have had a quick look at the patent. Please explain to me how it is related to 30mp 7D Mk III sensor not being far fetched?


----------



## aceflibble (Oct 6, 2017)

Camerajah said:


> http://pdfpiw.uspto.gov/.piw?PageNum=0&docid=09773827
> 
> After having a quick look at the above Canon patent for BSI sensor that includes a plurality of pixels arranged under micro lens, that can be MOS or CCD.
> 
> A 30mp EOS 7D Mark III is not looking to far fetch at all.


These are far, far too recent (by an order of several years) to have anything to do with a 7D3, if the 7D3 is to be released next year. Patents filed in this time frame won't be seen in a retail product until 2021-2022, if at all. (Reminder: the vast majority of patents that manufacturers file do not result in a public product at all, and most do not even get fully prototyped.) You're literally _years_ early.


----------



## john kriegsmann (Dec 29, 2017)

The 7Dmk 2 is terrific for sports and birds. Removing the AA filter and goosing a 1.6cropped sensor to 30 megapixels will kill this camera. The camera is pretty near perfect for its use. First rate auto focus that reliably captures birds in flight and current megapixel is perfect for sports and birding use. Could use a little boost in dynamic range similar to sensor in 80D. Also it would help to have flip screen.


----------



## tron (Jan 1, 2018)

Anyone can say whatever they like and it is supposed to compete with Nikon D500 so:

20 better Mpixels (In reality I believe it will be 24)
12 fps
better DR at low ISO (like 80D or a little better) 
better at high ISO
Touch screen 
WiFi (in addition to GPS)
Nothing else is missing and to me much I read seems like nonsense (30Mp, no AA filter, etc)


----------

