# Another EOS 7D Mark III Wishlist Makes the Rounds, Along With Some Opinion [CR0]



## Canon Rumors Guy (Oct 12, 2017)

```
Another list of recycled specifications for the EOS 7D Mark III is making the rounds.</p>
<p><strong>Canon EOS 7D Mark III Rumoured Specifications:</strong></p>
<ul>
<li>28mp Sensor (It was 30mp a few weeks ago) [<a href="http://www.canonrumors.com/a-canon-eos-7d-mark-iii-specification-list-surfaces-cr0/">see here</a>]</li>
<li>4K video [<a href="http://www.canonrumors.com/a-canon-dslr-rumor-roundup-heading-into-2018/">see here</a>]</li>
<li>More video oriented features [<a href="http://www.canonrumors.com/a-canon-dslr-rumor-roundup-heading-into-2018/">see here</a>]</li>
<li>Tilt-able touchscreen (Likely a feature for pretty much every Canon DSLR going forward)</li>
<li>A higher end feature set when compared to other APS-C DSLRs from Canon [<a href="http://www.canonrumors.com/a-canon-dslr-rumor-roundup-heading-into-2018/">see here</a>]</li>
<li>A “new generation” of APS-C sensors from Canon</li>
<li>Same introductory price as the EOS 7D Mark III</li>
</ul>
<p>I think we’ll be seeing a lot of these lists over the next couple of months, as Canon is going to be relatively quiet for the remainder of 2017. The PowerShot G1 X Mark III is coming and they have to start shipping the brand new tilt-shift lenses and the EF 85mm f/1.4L IS.</p>

<p>I personally don’t think Canon needs to up the resolution for the EOS 7D Mark III to make it attractive to buyers, but they could definitely improve dynamic range, image detail, autofocus performance, speed up frame rate, improve ISO performance and add the long overdue 4K video with C-Log for an APS-C camera.</p>
<p>I think things will start getting a little clearer as we get closer to CES in early 2018, while we don’t expect a DSLR to be announced for that show, we’ll likely see a a prosumer DSLR announcement some time in February of 2018.</p>
<p><em>thanks Ari</em></p>
<span id="pty_trigger"></span>
```


----------



## ahsanford (Oct 12, 2017)

Same introductory price as the EOS 7D Mark III

#circularreference

- A


----------



## ahsanford (Oct 12, 2017)

I keep playing the MP x FPS game in my head for how a 7D3 might play out.

The basic current state and assumptions are as follows:

1) FPS and MP won't go down with a 7D3.
2) Fastest throughput for a Canon rig to date = 16 x 20 = 320 MB/s
3) Fastest APS-C SLR competitor = D500 (same as 7D2) = 20 x 10 = 200 MB/s

Using the current state and the fastest Canon offers as a lower and upper bound, a 24 MP x 12 fps rig would sit nicely in between. 20% bump in res, 20% bump in speed. Seems like a nice Canon upgrade.

BUT, the competition (admittedly in a pricier class) has really raised the roof on throughput of late:

Sony A99-II = 42 x 12 = 504 MB/s (in fairness, that's an SLT, the mirror's not flapping away)
Sony A9 = 20 x 24 = 480 MB/s (mirrorless)
Nikon D850 = 45.9 x 9 = 413.1 MB/s (SLR)

I'm not saying Nikon has an 18-20 fps crop SLR coming -- the mirror box and shutter would not be cheap to pull that off -- but they _could_ roll in a much higher res sensor at a modest fps boost (wouldn't require a super pricey mirrorbox and shutter) and land with a 36 x 12, 40 x 10, etc. and try to scoop a relatively modest 24 x 12 7D3 for detail.

- A


----------



## Phil Lowe (Oct 12, 2017)

The problem with raising the resolution for any Canon APS-C camera is that Canon's APS-C sensor is smaller than Nikon's (or Sony's). The D500 comes in at almost 21MP, which is why a 22MP 7D3 would be a competitive bump in resolution without sacrificing too much in high-ISO/low-noise performance. IMHO, even 24MP for what should be a nighttime sports camera would be too much. But realistically-speaking, 20MP is still fine with me as long as it has much cleaner raw files up to ISO 3200 and the 5DMkIV's awesome dynamic range. And please, just keep it at 10FPS but give it the 1DX MkII's AF system, and drop the AA filter already. I don't have it on my D500, and have not run into any situation yet where I needed it. (I have the Canon 5D4 but recently traded my 5D3 and 7D2 in for the D500...keeping one foot in the Canon camp just in case the 7D3 is a D500 killer. Doubt it will be, but one can hope!)


----------



## jolyonralph (Oct 12, 2017)

I think it would be very unlikely for the 7DIII to be >24mpx, unless Canon have some wonderful new sensor tech that they've kept very quiet about.

I also think 22mpx is the sweet spot for this camera.


----------



## Chaitanya (Oct 12, 2017)

28MP is nearly a 40% bump up in resolution and generally for a High-fps camera its not something that will bode well with its target shooters. Maybe we will see that 28MP sensor on 80D replacement but 7D mk 3 highly unlikely.


----------



## RGF (Oct 12, 2017)

My guess is 22-24 MP with similar FPS. 

Making higher MP will deleteriously S/N. In the end I think Canon will make an incremental improvement, not major jump.


----------



## Hector1970 (Oct 12, 2017)

For me I've no interest in higher resolution.
I don't see personally much use for that with the 7DIII.
I need better image quality and FPS.
Dynamic range is not that important for me personally.
I thought from the start that the 7DII image quality was poor. I thought it was because they crammed so many megapixels on the sensor. It's ISO performance was poor, that's an important think for sports photography. Canon have improved in this area.
If they don't increase the FPS then its a dead duck to me.
It's a huge help in sport. 
The mirrorless are capable of going well beyond the mirrored cameras.
For the 7DII they should match the 1 DXII for FPS
(as I assume there is a new 1 DXIII coming for the World Cup in 2018) which will need more FPS to highlight it as a flagship camera.


----------



## [email protected] (Oct 12, 2017)

Many of us use both crop and full frame Canon rigs. Interestingly, when we wring our hands about these feature lists, that sensor size enormously effects the relative benefit/curse of the upgraded features. There are diminishing rates of return that start to come into play, particularly with the 7 series' crop sensor size. 

The basic compromise AHSanford correctly sets out is the megapixels versus frame rate question. (Plainly it's not just a simple calculation of available throughput. Canon is perfectly happy underwhelming its cpu and cache by downplaying fps just because, such as in the 5D4.) Here are the two points I wanted to make:

ON RESOLUTION:
I do a lot of cropping with wildlife shooting. I'm more often than not at 1:1 magnification in Lightroom, estimating whether or not the medium in which the shot is going to be published will make the relatively low resolution output I'm about to export look like crud. So it was magical when the 5D4 came out with the unexpectedly large megapixel boost to 30. It went half-way to making the full frame sensor perform like a crop for the purposes of magnification. And I know, from having borrowed the 5DSR, that it could go to 50 and not break up.

This cannot happen on crop with current technology. Things get very muddy now at the 20 megapixels as it is, in good part because the crop sensor size makes the pixels very small, and we're taunting physical limits. I do hope that Canon can expand that ceiling using some the tech they've recently introduced, like on-chip ADCs, etc. But going from 20 to 28 megapixels will give significantly less benefit than seen on the full frame sensor. 

I want the extra stop of shadow drawing that I get with the 5D4 files. So if Canon uses the new tech to have a 1.5 stop advantage, I'd rather than put only a small portion of that against allowing an increase in resolution, but the brunt of it against giving more dynamic range and file malleability. Going from 20 to 24 mp seems small, but it's a 30.5 percent decrease in pixel surface area. Put another way, if 10 photons were going to hit that pixel, now it would only see 7. This is why having a 5D4 that got boosted to 40mp would have been a fine idea, and a 7D3 that got boosted to 28 would have been wasting image quality on more pixels. 

THE THREE LIMITATIONS OF FPS:
1) This will sound crazy, but there is such a thing as *too many frames per second* in a situation. Generally, people who are fans of mashing shutter buttons to get long strings of shots separated by mere milliseconds do this only in specific circumstances. And in those circumstances, 50 frames per second wouldn't be too much, buffer willing. But most times a 10-12 fps rate is more than adequate, or at least a compromise with our future selves later at night culling through the 95 percent of the shots we're going to throw away. This issue of too many FPS or too few, depending on the situation, is solved with a variable shutter button. Don't give me a menu option to change fps. People who vary fps don't have time for menus between shot recognition and click. The shutter depress needs to be graduated. We're using back-button focus anyway, so the "half press" should be dedicated to a modulated frame rate. 

2) As a group, we often have underestimated the benefits of more frames per second in the past. Back when we thought 7 was high, 16 sounded stupid. The current 7D2's 10 is pretty good, but you'll notice more keepers (and even more non-keepers) if you shoot a 1 series with the higher fps. Having moved up and down in this fps continuum, I see a diminishing rate of returns somewhere between 12 and 16 fps. This is an interesting number because the industry has sort of arrived here, which means soon it will not be a good distinguishing factor between camera lines such as the 7 series versus the 1 series. Just in time for mirrorless to take away the limitations of the mirror mechanism. Sure, mirrorless will give us 40 fps, but at that point, it's just video, and Canon's motion JPEG format starts to seem prescient. 

However, *now that we're at this upper limit of utility, I think we tend to overestimate the value of more frames per second*. To put it simply: if I were offered the same camera at 7 fps versus one at 8 fps, I'd sacrifice a lot to get the extra frame. I'd pay 15-20 percent more. If I were offered a 15 versus a 16 fps camera in different colors, my color preference would be more important. And I don't really give a damn about camera colors. What would make me buy a different camera is the buffer size - something that never makes the spec lists prior to launch, which has always been a mystery to me. 

UPSHOT: 
Give us 24mp, 15 fps, 1 stop of extra (ISO performance +/or file malleability +/or dynamic range) geared to the high end of the ISOs, which is where 7D2 shooters are pegged.


----------



## zim (Oct 12, 2017)

18 -> 20 -> 22mp
8 -> 10 -> 12fps

I doubt it's going to be any more complicated that this


----------



## C-A430 (Oct 12, 2017)

Hector1970 said:


> For me I've no interest in higher resolution.
> I don't see personally much use for that with the 7DIII.
> I need better image quality and FPS.
> Dynamic range is not that important for me personally.
> ...



7Dii is Canon best low light crop camera so far (!), even though it is oldest in the line-up.

Although DxO gives 80D higher "sports score", on various websites RAW files of 7Dii at high ISO are cleaner.
80D behaves like 70D, but with higher DR yet DxO gives it much higher Sports score (1135 ISO vs 926 ISO for 70D, 7Dii is only 1082 ISO)

https://www.dxomark.com/Cameras/Compare/Side-by-side/Canon-EOS-80D-versus-Canon-EOS-7D-Mark-II-versus-Canon-EOS-70D___1076_977_895


----------



## greger (Oct 12, 2017)

24 mega-pixels I can live, with 28 is too many! Fully articulating is better than tiltable. If Canon can increase the usability of higher ISO images, I would jump on this as soon as it’s announced.


----------



## James Larsen (Oct 13, 2017)

A Canon 7DII with the addition of a flip touchscreen of the 80D, with a better sensor (speaking DR wise), and 4k video would be an immediate buy for me. Please, Canon, please. Give me something like this in the 7dIII!


----------



## wsmith96 (Oct 13, 2017)

If we could get the 5D MkIV sensor technology into the 20MP 7D sensor, I'd be fine with that. Put the rest of the upgrade into cleaner hi-iso images and video capabilities. The flip touch screen would be icing on the cake. I don't see a need to upgrade fps, but putting in the 1DXII auto focus system would be great.


----------



## csibra (Oct 13, 2017)

ahsanford said:


> Same introductory price as the EOS 7D Mark III
> 
> #circularreference
> 
> - A


This is a [CR3] ;D


----------



## kaptainkatsu (Oct 13, 2017)

Hector1970 said:


> (as I assume there is a new 1 DXIII coming for the World Cup in 2018) which will need more FPS to highlight it as a flagship camera.



More likely the 2020 Olympics


----------



## haggie (Oct 13, 2017)

Although there (suddenly) is a lot of talk about video features for the 7D Mark III, I sincerely hope this does not drive up the price of the replacement for the 7D mark II.

No doubt there are users that would like to have better video in a crop body than available right now. I liked the video in the 70D and also like the video in my 80D. But it is not 4K. 

From Canon’s perspective it might make sense to include 4K in the replacement for the 7D Mark II. The successor for the 7D Mark II will surely have a high data throughput to allow for higher fps. Therefore, much of the hardware “infrastructure” that is also required for 4K video will have to be present in this new camera.
This fact makes it interesting for Canon to incorporate 4K video, because it will be a feature that may be sold for a high returns for this new camera and yet have relatively low repetitive (extra) costs in manufacturing. 

If Canon's Sales Department wants to target a new video audience with the 7D Mark III, they may be tempted to raise the price beyond what it would have been if the 7D Mark III did not have these advanced video features. They are in the business of making money.

I just hope that the price of the 7D Mark III will not substantially go up as a result of incorporating 4K video – or any advanced video features for that matter. 
Like many others, I would like a capable crop camera for action photography, and am willing to pay for fast autofocus and better IQ (including better DR). 
But not so much for video features that are not of interest for me.


----------



## unfocused (Oct 13, 2017)

haggie said:


> Although there (suddenly) is a lot of talk about video features for the 7D Mark III, I sincerely hope this does not drive up the price of the replacement for the 7D mark II.
> 
> No doubt there are users that would like to have better video in a crop body than available right now. I liked the video in the 70D and also like the video in my 80D. But it is not 4K...



While I don't believe video features add to the cost of cameras (increased sales offset any additional costs and at their heart, all digital cameras are video cameras anyway), I've long felt that it made the most sense to designate the XXD series camera as the video-optimized camera in the APS-C line and keep the 7D series focused primarily on stills. 

I don't know if Canon agrees though.


----------



## johnhenry (Oct 14, 2017)

28m ---> 26.5m

4k Video ---> some kind of cropped 4k or none at all

They keep lowering expectation for their cameras as the rumor mill gains accuracy. Just like the 6D Mark II


----------



## Adrianf (Oct 15, 2017)

I feel that Canon's objective is simple. The Nikon D500 has a slight advantage in performance over the 7D2. Canon needs the 7D3 to be better, in every way, than the D500, but not by much. If they can't do that, then eventually the D500 replacement will blow Canon's crop cameras off the map. It should be a game of leap-frog - that's healthy competition, and drives development targets. The other thing is, too many megapixels and we'll all need the fanciest glassware to keep up.


----------



## neonlight (Oct 23, 2017)

It will probably be what the 7DII should have been


----------



## James Larsen (Oct 28, 2017)

If it's got 4k video I'll sell my 80D and upgrade to this.


----------



## haggie (Oct 29, 2017)

If the EOS 7D Mark III has: 

- improved AF in particular tracking accuracy for moving subjects – in particular for brownish/greenish subjects;
- about 1 stop better DR across the whole range up to 1600 ISO;
- around 20 to 24 Mpixel;
- better sharpness (preferably with an AA-filter, but leave it out otherwise);
- an LCD screen with higher resolution (and possibly, but not necessarily, articulating);
- no price premium due to e.g. 4K video

then I will most certainly get it. 

As soon as this becomes clear from reliable tests and reviews, I will get the EOS 7D Mark III right after it becomes available – even when the price is, as usual, very high due to skimming the market.
And I know a few people who will do the same then.

By the way, I will still keep my 80D then.


----------



## RGF (Oct 31, 2017)

Adrianf said:


> I feel that Canon's objective is simple. The Nikon D500 has a slight advantage in performance over the 7D2. Canon needs the 7D3 to be better, in every way, than the D500, but not by much. If they can't do that, then eventually the D500 replacement will blow Canon's crop cameras off the map. It should be a game of leap-frog - that's healthy competition, and drives development targets. The other thing is, too many megapixels and we'll all need the fanciest glassware to keep up.



Given that the 7D3 will be introduced severals after the D500, the 7D3 needs to be clearly superior. Technology marches forward, Canon needs to raise the bar with the 7D3.


----------



## ahsanford (Oct 31, 2017)

RGF said:


> Given that the 7D3 will be introduced severals after the D500, the 7D3 needs to be clearly superior. Technology marches forward, Canon needs to raise the bar with the 7D3.



There's that word again: _"Need."_

I always recommend thinking twice before projecting your expectations as a consumer on to Canon. They. don't. care. about what you think you need or what you believe you are entitled to for price point X in market segment Y. They care about their own assessment of _the minimum they need to do to not lose you_ when the 7D3 is announced, in other words: what you think you need/deserve for $1699 is not what you'll leave the company for if it doesn't happen.

Will the 7D3 be better than the 7D2 in general? Obviously.

Will the 7D3 be better than the 7D2 in a specific metric you care about? Depends on what it is, but sure, it's possible.

Will the 7D3 be better than the D500? Probably in places we already take for granted (DPAF) or in incremental 'as time rolls on' moves a 7D3 would have gotten regardless of the D500 existing (+2 fps, + a few more MP, etc.). 

But Canon *isn't* on the hook to deliver (say) 14 stops of base ISO DR because time and time again the market has shown that Canon doesn't need to deliver that to maintain market share, ASP, etc.

Again: Canon only has to do enough that you'll begrudgingly stay in the fold plus some small factor of satefy buffer in case their marketing assumptions were off. To put any more into a camera with a locked in starting price would just undermine their profit margins.

- A


----------



## csibra (Jul 24, 2018)

ahsanford said:


> Will the 7D3 be better than the 7D2 in general? Obviously.


Well, it's not obvious. The 6DII is not better than 6D in general, because imaging sensor quality is the most important part, and that is worse than the previous version.


----------



## stilscream (Jul 25, 2018)

The 7d would be a prime lineup to start into mirrorless. 
Slim the body ever so slightly and lighten the body without changing the battery. 
Give us, please 
-12-15fps 
-24mp
- uhs2 SD and CF CARD
4K at 24/30fps and at least 120fps 1080 in respectable codecs. 
-EF mount capable. 
Fully articulating screen. 
Catch up to Sony circa 2016

Work on a series of lighter weight lenses that don’t sacrifice IQ much


----------



## streestandtheatres (Jul 25, 2018)

Sure 12fps would be good, but I think 10 is plenty for me. What I'd most like is an increase in the quality of the sensor. And I'd like to loose the AA filter (I use a 5DSR a lot and have had zero problems).

I'd also like an AF mode that worked between for subjects that are totally still and then suddenly move. I find that if the AF is set to erratic movement then it often wanders off my subject if nothing is moving, and then when my subject does move it's too slow to keep up.
I'd also like a slightly bigger body, especially if it could accommodate a larger battery. At the moment battery life with GPS active is not so great.

I'm not fussed about video, and I haven't ever thought it needed an articulating screen. I find it a bit weird that it has a pop-up-flash.



stilscream said:


> The 7d would be a prime lineup to start into mirrorless.
> Slim the body ever so slightly and lighten the body without changing the battery.
> Give us, please
> -12-15fps
> ...


----------



## Adelino (Jul 26, 2018)

stilscream said:


> The 7d would be a prime lineup to start into mirrorless.
> Slim the body ever so slightly and lighten the body without changing the battery.
> Give us, please
> -12-15fps
> ...



Sounds like a beefy M series rather than a 7DIII


----------



## neonlight (Jul 29, 2018)

My wish list-
sharper images, maybe if they left out the AA filter
24 MP would be enough
12 fps would be enough
improved high ISO performance (but I'd give up fps for this)

I wonder if they'll do a 5Ds/5Dsr with the 7DIII so you can choose whether to have the aaf or not.


----------



## justaCanonuser (Aug 16, 2018)

Shooting with a 7D2 frequently (wildlife, birding), my 7D3 wish list for Canon is:
(1) stick with a moderate pixel pitch not more than 24 MP, smaller pixels only mean stronger diffraction blur kicking in at f >= 7.1 plus the need for faster shutter speeds in action to get sharp images on the pixel level, i.e. to make really use of smaller pixels;
(2) substantial improvement of low-light performance;
(3) substantial improvement of the phase detection AF sensor so it matches the good performance of the recent 5D series;
(4) stick with OVF/SLR principle, because shooting wildlife with a long tele I don't want to drain the battery whenever I peer through the viewfinder to check whether something interesting is going on;
(5) implement really competitive 4K video that can also be used for nice high-speed stills;
(6) touchscreen to make focusing easier during video shooting with the great DP AF, like with a 80D sort of camera.


----------



## stevelee (Aug 17, 2018)

As has been noted in other threads, video frame grabs are blurry because of the low shutter speeds, not so much because of low resolution. With static subjects, 4K will make better looking grabs than 1080p, but if the subject is not moving, why not just make one still shot?

One could, I guess, set a higher shutter speed if one planned just to use frame grabs and not the jerky video.


----------



## Robwhit025 (Aug 24, 2018)

I find 10 frames is enough. Obviously more would be better. Current resolution works for me too. Can't see any need for more. I'd even be happy with slightly less. I just want far better ISO performance, slightly better DR and while I don't really use it/require it, more options for 1080x60 and maybe 1080x120 and 4kx30. I don't use video much though. 
The 7D2 has served me well but the 1DX2 and D4 at work have left me wanting more from my 7D.


----------

