# No 7d iii in 2019!



## Cryve (Sep 19, 2018)

Recently a list of camera certifications for 2019 got posted.

There are only 3 cameras that "could" be the 7d iii:

the K437 (32 mp dslr)
the K435 (24 mp dslr)
the K436 (24 mp dslr)

It cant be the K437 because there is no way that they are gonna use a 32mp sensor for a high fps sports cam.
And it also cant be the K435 and K436, because they only have 4 batterly level indications (7d series has 6).

Unles im missing something important, this means that there will be NO 7d iii in 2019. That's really depressing, i was looking forward to it.


----------



## YuengLinger (Sep 19, 2018)

Big deal.


----------



## zim (Sep 20, 2018)

4 bars 6 levels, the last two are flashing and blank


----------



## Cryve (Sep 20, 2018)

zim said:


> 4 bars 6 levels, the last two are flashing and blank



True, but i think it was clear what i meant.
No 7d iii in 2019 either way :/


----------



## zim (Sep 20, 2018)

I don't think the original source is clear at all. 
ps I hope you're very wrong as it's a 'big deal' to me!


----------



## Cryve (Sep 20, 2018)

zim said:


> I don't think the original source is clear at all.
> ps I hope you're very wrong as it's a 'big deal' to me!



Its a big deal to me aswell. I really really hope im wrong, but i dont see where and how.


----------



## Aussie shooter (Sep 20, 2018)

It'll be a bummer if it doesn't come out next year. That was the one camera I would have considered upgrading to. All the other stuff is interesting but no more.


----------



## Treyarnon (Sep 20, 2018)

Can someone remind me when the certification for EOS R was posted ... because I can remember quite a bit a of surprise when that camera was announced?
It does beg the question how reliable are these certification leeks when predicting future releases.


----------



## Keith_Reeder (Sep 20, 2018)

YuengLinger said:


> Big deal.


Why? Because it doesn't support your laughable "end of EF" conspiracy theories?



Where's the "Ignore User" button when you need it..?


----------



## Hector1970 (Sep 20, 2018)

I'd say there will be one and it will be mirrored. I'd be happy if it had a better sensor - it works pretty good other than that.
Of course 12 FPS would be nice.
It will be a minor upgrade but slightly better than the II


----------



## Keith_Reeder (Sep 20, 2018)

Cryve said:


> It cant be the K437 because there is no way that they are gonna use a 32mp sensor for a high fps sports cam.


I'm not convinced that this rules out a 7D Mk III - it's not hard to speculate that 32mps at a high frame rate is achievable these days; and from a wildlife point of view there's a _lot _to recommend lots of pixels on subject, for cropping purposes.


----------



## Cryve (Sep 20, 2018)

Hector1970 said:


> I'd say there will be one and it will be mirrored. I'd be happy if it had a better sensor - it works pretty good other than that.
> Of course 12 FPS would be nice.
> It will be a minor upgrade but slightly better than the II



i would like that too but its unreasonable. dpaf and the autofokus on the new eos R is too slow/inacurat for high speed tracking like you need for sports and wildlife. It may be good for fast focus acquiring on a slow moving subject but the fokus tracking for fast moving subjects isn't there yet for canon.


----------



## Cryve (Sep 20, 2018)

Keith_Reeder said:


> I'm not convinced that this rules out a 7D Mk III - it's not hard to speculate that 32mps at a high frame rate is achievable these days; and from a wildlife point of view there's a _lot _to recommend lots of pixels on subject, for cropping purposes.



That would probably be a dream camera, but its very unlikly. Fuji only got to 26 mp from 24 with the xt3 and the canon 7d ii only has 20mp. That would be a 12 mp jump. Its wishful thinking but there is truly no way the 7d iii or ANY aps-c camera will have anywhere near 30mp in the next year(s). 

on top of that lenses just cant keep up with that. you get far far far better results upgrading your lens then to get a few mp more on a new sensor. Not even the 12.000 dollar big whites reach maximum sharpness on aps-c sensors.


----------



## Cryve (Sep 20, 2018)

Treyarnon said:


> Can someone remind me when the certification for EOS R was posted ... because I can remember quite a bit a of surprise when that camera was announced?
> It does beg the question how reliable are these certification leeks when predicting future releases.



i just looked and the last updated certification list was from August 17th. I dont know if it included the eos R.
https://www.canonrumors.com/updated-modules-registered-for-certification/

so there is still a chance. a little spark of hope. But the list of certifications for 2019 was already six or more cameras. I dont know
if there is still room for a 7d iii


----------



## YuengLinger (Sep 20, 2018)

Keith_Reeder said:


> Why? Because it doesn't support your laughable "end of EF" conspiracy theories?
> 
> 
> 
> Where's the "Ignore User" button when you need it..?


Because I've never really seen the point of the 7D series. In terms of size The 7D is about as big as a 5D, but the sensors have been less than stellar. And I've never seen any shots that prove a cropped sensor actually provides more reach.

There are more than enough threads about Canon's plans for the EF mount. Go to one of those and I'll be happy to continue that discussion.

Keith, I'm glad you think something I wrote is laughable. You obviously need a good laugh now and then. I hope it lightened your mood!


----------



## BeenThere (Sep 20, 2018)

One bar is sufficient to get hammered.


----------



## padam (Sep 20, 2018)

Looking at the timeline, the 7D line is being refreshed at a slower rate. At least it just means that it may receive a bigger upgrade later down the line.

One of these bodies could have a more advanced AF system and shooting speed being close to the 7D Mark II while also gaining much better video quality and features, so it may prove to be an overall upgrade for some people, but the body won't be as tough.


----------



## NetMage (Sep 20, 2018)

YuengLinger said:


> Because I've never really seen the point of the 7D series. In terms of size The 7D is about as big as a 5D, but the sensors have been less than stellar. And I've never seen any shots that prove a cropped sensor actually provides more reach.



The original 7D was the first professional APS-C camera and had the best sensor at the time. It was a general purpose camera that handled everything well, with fast shooting for sports and high resolution for range.
The next generation moved the line in a more sports oriented direction, which compromised.sensor performance for speed, and I think was a mistake.
I hope any 7D III moves back to being a general purpose camera with the best sensor Canon has in APS-C.

And if you haven't seen the reach advantage provided by smaller high resolution sensors on ILC then you just haven't been looking.


----------



## Keith_Reeder (Sep 20, 2018)

Cryve said:


> on top of that lenses just cant keep up with that. you get far far far better results upgrading your lens then to get a few mp more on a new sensor. Not even the 12.000 dollar big whites reach maximum sharpness on aps-c sensors.



Sorry, Cryve, that theory _is not _borne out in practice - my 7D Mk II/500mm f/4 Mk II combo is _ridiculously _sharp.


----------



## Keith_Reeder (Sep 20, 2018)

YuengLinger said:


> Because I've never really seen the point of the 7D series. In terms of size The 7D is about as big as a 5D, but the sensors have been less than stellar.


So when you wrote "big deal", you meant "I don't understand anything about the subject under discussion, but I'm going to comment anyway..."

_Uh-huh..._

How about you contribute only when you actually have at least a basic grasp of the point?



> And I've never seen any shots that prove a cropped sensor actually provides more reach.



_Jeez..._

Is it, is it not, true that for a given distance to subject and focal length, a subject will appear larger in the frame of an image from a crop camera than from a full-frame? (The direct inverse of the fact that a full frame sensor is "wider" than a crop sensor")?

There's your reach..!

You're right - you _really _don't understand this stuff.


----------



## privatebydesign (Sep 20, 2018)

So playing devils advocate for a moment, what do those for whom this is a "big deal" need from a MkIII that the MkII doesn't give you? I'm not talking about inevitable evolution, a few more MP and a a couple of fps increase, they are both almost certainly modest bumps that aren't going to make a huge difference. Even moving to the modern sensors would only give you benefits below 400iso and I'd expect few 7D series users are shooting their sports and wildlife below 400 iso most of the time as you just can't get the shutter speeds. What's the "big deal"?


----------



## YuengLinger (Sep 20, 2018)

Keith_Reeder said:


> Is it, is it not, true that for a given distance to subject and focal length, a subject will appear larger in the frame of an image from a crop camera than from a full-frame? (The direct inverse of the fact that a full frame sensor is "wider" than a crop sensor")?
> 
> There's your reach..!



There's your illusion of reach. Please don't act like this is the first time you've been exposed to the debate about cropped vs full frame. I was expressing an opinion. Kind of like rolling my eyes.


----------



## Don Haines (Sep 20, 2018)

As someone who has both crop and FF cameras (7D2, 5D2, 6D2) my observations are:

On a lower quality lens and poor light - FF has a reach advantage
On a lower quality lens and good light - no significant difference.
On a high quality lens and poor light - no significant difference
On a high quality lens and good light - crop has a reach advantage

but anyway, you are all missing the big reason for the 7D2..... you have a mini 1DX at a fraction of the price!


----------



## YuengLinger (Sep 20, 2018)

Don Haines said:


> As someone who has both crop and FF cameras (7D2, 5D2, 6D2) my observations are:
> 
> On a lower quality lens and poor light - FF has a reach advantage
> On a lower quality lens and good light - no significant difference.
> ...


Yes, you and PBD have gotten to the heart of the matter. Good points you've made here, and, I believe, previously. 
I can't get excited about a new 7D because, as PBD says, high ISO goes with nature photography when the light is most pleasing yet stopping motion/blur are most difficult. And unless there is a truly astounding leap in sensor tech, yet another APS-C sensor in a slightly tweaked body as big as a FF seems, well...What is the big deal?


----------



## applecider (Sep 20, 2018)

Don how about throwing a crop vs full frame with 1.4 extender into the discussion.

My observation is that it is in good light with big whites a wash. What is yours?


----------



## applecider (Sep 20, 2018)

It’s a big deal because the Nikon D500 with the 200-500 lens is an affordable consumer combo. 

The auto focus there is reportedly excellent. Competition would be good.


----------



## privatebydesign (Sep 20, 2018)

applecider said:


> It’s a big deal because the Nikon D500 with the 200-500 lens is an affordable consumer combo.
> 
> The auto focus there is reportedly excellent. Competition would be good.


That the two companies make comparable gear isn't a big deal, that they leapfrog each other every few years also isn't, switch (either way) if the feature set is compelling enough, don't if it isn't.

The D500 and 200-500 is a good combo in comparison and I have seen many more of them than 7D-400 f5.6 recently at the popular local birding spots, having said that there is an aspect of the pissing contest to a lot of the gear buying decisions around here and it's funny because I am seeing fewer Sony cameras since the first tidal wave of Sony publicity/social media abated and people have learned the pros and cons of Sony ownership first hand.

I'm still not seeing a "big deal" aspect to the question of a 7D MkIII though, the D500/200-500 combo is as much about the lens than the body.

Turn it around, if Canon were to come out with a 7D MkIII and a 200-500 IS with the IQ of the venerable 400 f5.6 and you could only afford one, how many 7D MkII owners would take the new body with modest resolution and fps boosts along with improved IQ below 400iso instead of the new glass? I know I'd jump at the glass.


----------



## tron (Sep 20, 2018)

privatebydesign said:


> So playing devils advocate for a moment, what do those for whom this is a "big deal" need from a MkIII that the MkII doesn't give you? I'm not talking about inevitable evolution, a few more MP and a a couple of fps increase, they are both almost certainly modest bumps that aren't going to make a huge difference. Even moving to the modern sensors would only give you benefits below 400iso and I'd expect few 7D series users are shooting their sports and wildlife below 400 iso most of the time as you just can't get the shutter speeds. What's the "big deal"?


I used to use 7DII for birding. But I read what AlanF mentioned about 5DsR and bought it. He was right. It has better IQ up to about ISO 1000 than 7DII. Since it has the same pixel density I sacrificed speed for IQ. The difference is not huge but it's there. So I would welcome this IQ increase (and a little more due to even newer sensor) in 7DIII and I would be satisfied even if there was no other improvement over 7DII (10fps are more than enough, I am OK with fixed back screen and I do not care for video).


----------



## Cryve (Sep 20, 2018)

privatebydesign said:


> So playing devils advocate for a moment, what do those for whom this is a "big deal" need from a MkIII that the MkII doesn't give you? I'm not talking about inevitable evolution, a few more MP and a a couple of fps increase, they are both almost certainly modest bumps that aren't going to make a huge difference. Even moving to the modern sensors would only give you benefits below 400iso and I'd expect few 7D series users are shooting their sports and wildlife below 400 iso most of the time as you just can't get the shutter speeds. What's the "big deal"?



For me its the better sensor. I currently shoot with the 80d because it has the best canon apsc sensor.

I want the controlls (joystick etc.) And focusing and shutterspeed etc. Of the 7d series with a good sensor. Basicaly i want the nikon d500 but from canon.


----------



## Graphic.Artifacts (Sep 20, 2018)

You can pick up a new 7D Mark II for about $1400 US. Not sure how much more Canon could offer at that price. On chip ADC would be very nice but I don't know if Canon would upgrade just for that and they didn't put it in the 6D II. The logical place to roll that out next would be the 5DSR II and that doesn't seem to be on the horizon either.

Otherwise what more can they do. The frame rate is already right on the edge of functional IMO. Even under the best of circumstance the AF at 10 FPS throws up a lot of clunkers. How much faster can they flap that little mirror without getting into IDX level build construction. It also has the potential to be an excellent APS-C/Super 35 video camera for field work but that doesn't seem likely given Canon's track record on video features in their DSLR's. I'd want high frame rates/slow motion for that and that seems to be an issue accross the line.

If Canon didn't put CFast in the 5D Mark IV seems unlikely they'd go that route in an APS-C given the price point and target buyer.

I'd be surprised if we saw a 7D Mark III until Canon has a compelling reason to update. I don't think I'd upgrade unless Canon has some new tech we haven't seen in current models. The existing camera seems fine for it's intended use.

edit: In my experience the biggest issues with the 7D Mark II and the reason I don't really use it that much these days is that it doesn't take any "additional crop" very well. As soon as you start drilling in to improve the composition things go south very quickly. When I can use the entire frame I'm usually very happy with the results. The problem is that it's very difficult to do that when you are doing sports/wildlife with primes. Too close and the subject bleeds out of the frame. Too loose and the IQ really suffers. I've found I need the extra real estate of a FF camera to consistently end up with the framing that I want. It's not really a knock on APS-C because I've found that you can acheive excellent results for a variety of subjects. It's just that I've found that for difficult subjects the "reach" doesn't necessarily translate to a better final image.


----------



## tron (Sep 20, 2018)

They could put SD UHS-II in combination with the traditional Compact Flash and increase the buffer space.


----------



## Cryve (Sep 20, 2018)

> I'd be surprised if we saw a 7D Mark III until Canon has a compelling reason to update. I don't think I'd upgrade unless Canon has some new tech we haven't seen in current models. The existing camera seems fine for it's intended use.



you are probably right, and i am currently looking into buying a used 7d ii. I just dont want to downgrade imagequality wise from my 80d. I just wish the 7dii didnt have an aa filter and was better in low and high iso. Otherwise its a nice camera.


----------



## privatebydesign (Sep 20, 2018)

Cryve said:


> you are probably right, and i am currently looking into buying a used 7d ii. I just dont want to downgrade imagequality wise from my 80d. I just wish the 7dii didnt have an aa filter and was better in low and high iso. Otherwise its a nice camera.


That depends entirely on where in the iso range you shoot. Sub 400 iso you could see a difference between them, over 400 iso you won't.
http://www.photonstophotos.net/Charts/PDR.htm#Canon EOS 7D Mark II,Canon EOS 80D
https://www.dpreview.com/reviews/im...=1&x=0.9419494976920991&y=-1.0903796778238335


----------



## Jack Douglas (Sep 21, 2018)

I can't imagine I'd go back to crop but I have to say I really liked the 1D4's 1.3 crop. If that camera could have had better high ISO capability and a few more MPs I doubt I would have dumped it. 

Something that may be forgotten with comparisons between a camera with and without extender or between FF and crop is the ability to see the distant subject enlarged when shooting results in more precise placement of the AF point where you want it and also aids in picking out subjects in the trees etc. Of course if you can't later crop to enlarge that little birdie and still have a stellar photo, it doesn't prove much. 

I know it's considered a no no but my nature shots are often cropped, sometimes significantly because I'm reach limited for the FL I use. However, moving from 300 X2 to 400 X2 seemed to have helped more than the numbers would suggest.

Jack


----------



## AlanF (Sep 21, 2018)

As tron and others have mentioned, removal of the AA-filter on going from 7DII to the equal pixel density 5DSR significantly improved the resolution by about 10%. Lensrental also found this difference between the 5DSR and 5DS. The noise and actual resolution also depend on the RAW converter. I find DxO much better than DPP for getting the best from the high density sensors like the 7DII and 5DSR.

I use both the 5DIV and 5DSR routinely for bird photography and heavy cropping. At low iso, the 5DSR is very significantly sharper and gives me about 40% more reach e.g., 5DSR + 100-400mm II ~ 5DIV ~ 400mm DO II for resolution. 5DSR + 100-400mm II better than 5DIV + 100-400mm II + 1.4xTC. In all cases, the 5DSR is slightly better than the same lens with the 5DIV + 1.4xTC and has 1 stop advantage. For high isos, up to iso6400, the 5DSR is as good noise wise as the 5DIV, allowing for scaling. The 5DIV wins for speed and AF.

I would expect a new 7DIII without an AA-filter to perform similarly, and I would pre-order one.


----------



## Aussie shooter (Sep 21, 2018)

privatebydesign said:


> So playing devils advocate for a moment, what do those for whom this is a "big deal" need from a MkIII that the MkII doesn't give you? I'm not talking about inevitable evolution, a few more MP and a a couple of fps increase, they are both almost certainly modest bumps that aren't going to make a huge difference. Even moving to the modern sensors would only give you benefits below 400iso and I'd expect few 7D series users are shooting their sports and wildlife below 400 iso most of the time as you just can't get the shutter speeds. What's the "big deal"?



Improved AF system. Dual digic 8's would simply give more processing power to improve AF as well as sensor performance, buffer etc . F8 af across the board and not just center point. And improvements in high iso and dynamic range will be nice(a lot of us also use the camera for landscapes etc). Other small things like illuminated buttons would be nice.


----------



## YuengLinger (Sep 21, 2018)

Aussie shooter said:


> Improved AF system. Dual digic 8's would simply give more processing power to improve AF as well as sensor performance, buffer etc . F8 af across the board and not just center point. And improvements in high iso and dynamic range will be nice(a lot of us also use the camera for landscapes etc). Other small things like illuminated buttons would be nice.


These are modest but sensible updates. F8 AF would put it where it should be for a modern sports/action shooter. But I'd still say, unless Canon introduces a significantly improved APS-C sensor, just spend more and get a 5D IV or, fingers crossed, the next, better performing, R body many of us are waiting for.


----------



## tron (Sep 21, 2018)

YuengLinger said:


> These are modest but sensible updates. F8 AF would put it where it should be for a modern sports/action shooter. But I'd still say, unless Canon introduces a significantly improved APS-C sensor, just spend more and get a 5D IV or, fingers crossed, the better performing R body many of us are waiting for.


I do have a 5DIV and I love it. But when someone needs a 7DII (or 5DsR) there is a big chance (let's say there is roughly a 50% chance: birding vs landscaping) that he/she is Focal Length limited. So a 5DIV doesn't cut it. I hope you are not referring to the EOS R which is useless in that case (a little worse than 5DIV) but a future high MPixel R style body...


----------



## privatebydesign (Sep 21, 2018)

Aussie shooter said:


> Improved AF system. Dual digic 8's would simply give more processing power to improve AF as well as sensor performance, buffer etc . F8 af across the board and not just center point. And improvements in high iso and dynamic range will be nice(a lot of us also use the camera for landscapes etc). Other small things like illuminated buttons would be nice.


But that's my point, that is all incremental, it would all be nice to have and in an incremental update you will get some of it, but none of it is a "big deal".


----------



## YuengLinger (Sep 21, 2018)

tron said:


> I do have a 5DIV and I love it. But when someone needs a 7DII (or 5DsR) there is a big chance (let's say there is roughly a 50% chance: birding vs landscaping) that he/she is Focal Length limited. So a 5DIV doesn't cut it. I hope you are not referring to the EOS R which is useless in that case (a little worse than 5DIV) but a future high MPixel R style body...


Yes, I mean the NEXT, better performing, R series body.


----------



## AlanF (Sep 21, 2018)

YuengLinger said:


> Yes, I mean the NEXT, better performing, R series body.


Do you think that Canon will make a high megapixel FF sensor with fast enough AF in the near future? I would have thought a fast 20 mpx APS-C would be more likely.


----------



## tron (Sep 21, 2018)

I want to believe there will be an announcement for 7DIII in Q3 2019 even if we will get it very late 2019 or early 2020 according to the gap between the 7D and 7DII announcements.


----------



## YuengLinger (Sep 21, 2018)

AlanF said:


> Do you think that Canon will make a high megapixel FF sensor with fast enough AF in the near future? I would have thought a fast 20 mpx APS-C would be more likely.


I can't even speculate on what sensor tech Canon is sitting on or working on...But your question does raise another interesting question: Will Canon offer a cropped version of the EOS R or just leave APS-C mirrorless to the M bodies? In other words, a 7D equivalent as a mirrorless? (Fast FPS, rugged.) And would that open the door to yet another line of lenses, "RF-s" as cheaper, smaller options?


----------



## Aussie shooter (Sep 21, 2018)

privatebydesign said:


> But that's my point, that is all incremental, it would all be nice to have and in an incremental update you will get some of it, but none of it is a "big deal".



True. But it that case you would have to say the NOTHING is a big deal. Everything is incremental. Why would anyone EVER upgrade to another camera?These are features that would make a difference to a photographer that skill alone could not achieve. In some cases, quite noticable differences. Far bigger differences than moving to a mirrorless could make. Far bigger differences than moving to an equivalently priced FF could make. The 7d2 is a professional camera despite being apsc. It is an incredible bit of kit but many photographers are not in a position to understand just how good it is. There is very little that can be improved on it and atm the only way to get a better bit of kit for the same job would be to spend 25k on a 1d series body and big white. So any improvement on a setup that would only cost 3k would be much appreciated.


----------



## tron (Sep 21, 2018)

The sensor is the most important if not the only one that needs an improvement in 7DII. And I am not paranoid. I think that even if Canon includes it's latest (2016+) sensor technology (and probably remove the AA filter) it would be just fine. Other important and doable upgrade points would be an AF system with all points working at f/8 and bigger buffer. 10fps and 20Mpixel seem just OK to me..


----------



## Cryve (Sep 21, 2018)

tron said:


> The sensor is the most important if not the only one that needs and improvement in 7DII. And I am not paranoid. I think that even if Canon includes it's latest (2016+) sensor technology (and probably remove the AA filter) it would be just fine. Other important and doable upgrade points would be an AF system with all points working at f/8 and bigger buffer. 10fps and 20Mpixel seem just OK to me..



jeah, i agree with you and 20mp is totaly fine. the 21mp d500 takes sharper pictures than the 24mp d7200 because it doesnt have an aa filter.

They have to release a new sensor eventualy and i beleve it is gonna be a 24mp sensor, so that the "90d" and the 7diii can share it, just like the 7dii and 70d do.
Canon wants to be economical, i dont think they will make an extra sensor just for the 7d iii.


----------



## privatebydesign (Sep 21, 2018)

Aussie shooter said:


> True. But it that case you would have to say the NOTHING is a big deal.


Exactly. Things like affordable FF digital sensors, 4K video (love it or hate it) are big deals if you need or want that functionality, it seems nobody can list a 7D MkIII feature that would be that big deal.

I was just interested in what those that are clamoring for a 7D MkIII considered a "big deal". We have to be honest, DSLR's are mature products, cameras and imaging products might have a long way to go but for the DSLR advocates out there we probably need to be thinking that there aren't any more 'big deal' moments out there for us just modest increments. Another stop of DR, a couple of fps, tweaked AF algorithms and illuminated buttons aren't going to make an iotas difference for most 7D MkII users and would elicit the usual DOA/I'm jumping ship/Sony have been doing that for years catcalls.


----------



## tron (Sep 21, 2018)

privatebydesign said:


> Exactly. Things like affordable FF digital sensors, 4K video (love it or hate it) are big deals if you need or want that functionality, it seems nobody can list a 7D MkIII feature that would be that big deal.
> 
> I was just interested in what those that are clamoring for a 7D MkIII considered a "big deal". We have to be honest, DSLR's are mature products, cameras and imaging products might have a long way to go but for the DSLR advocates out there we probably need to be thinking that there aren't any more 'big deal' moments out there for us just modest increments. Another stop of DR, a couple of fps, tweaked AF algorithms and illuminated buttons aren't going to make an iotas difference for most 7D MkII users and would elicit the usual DOA/I'm jumping ship/Sony have been doing that for years catcalls.


I do not think so. I believe that 7DII users have some special needs (like birding) and at least in this Forum you saw 7DII users caring for the most important thing like sensor IQ and not much about bells and whistles. I have never cared about Sony (well except in the past for their walkmans, mini disks, etc) and I cannot think of a Sony camera as a direct competitor to 7DII. Maybe Nikon's D500 (especially with the latest 500 5.6 lens) for people who have no serious investment in Canon lenses but not Sony.


----------



## Ozarker (Sep 21, 2018)

tron said:


> I do not think so. I believe that 7DII users have some special needs (like birding) and at least in this Forum you saw 7DII users caring for the most important thing like sensor IQ and not much about bells and whistles. I have never cared about Sony (well except in the past for their walkmans, mini disks, etc) and I cannot think of a Sony camera as a direct competitor to 7DII. Maybe Nikon's D500 (especially with the latest 500 5.6 lens) for people who have no serious investment in Canon lenses but not Sony.



I have to agree with PBD and think his point of asking what would be a big deal from those knocking incremental updates is a valid question. I myself would like to know that because I am ignorant as to what would be the special needs. I don't shoot birds anymore, but I used to. I don't shoot sports anymore either. But I would like to know what the big improvements might be because those improvements might carry over into a camera of the future that I might use for what I do (mostly portraits and fashion / editorial). A lot of things people get upset over are not a big deal and I think some people really do believe that if they got what they want in an update will make them better photographers. That isn't true.


----------



## tron (Sep 21, 2018)

CanonFanBoy said:


> I have to agree with PBD and think his point of asking what would be a big deal from those knocking incremental updates is a valid question. I myself would like to know that because I am ignorant as to what would be the special needs. I don't shoot birds anymore, but I used to. I don't shoot sports anymore either. But I would like to know what the big improvements might be because those improvements might carry over into a camera of the future that I might use for what I do (mostly portraits and fashion / editorial). A lot of things people get upset over are not a big deal and I think some people really do believe that if they got what they want in an update will make them better photographers. That isn't true.


I got over the IQ by getting the 5DsR. It gets me better images below ISO 1000 and I am able to remove the noise by one-stage process. Back when I was using 7DII I had to use two denoising programs to achieve a similar result. So no better photographs but much simpler Post Processing for me. I already mentioned that I do not need other things like better video or tilting screen or more megapixels or more fps. It is just that 5DsR is more suitable for still subjects that makes me wish for 7DIII.


----------



## Ozarker (Sep 21, 2018)

tron said:


> I got over the IQ by getting the 5DsR. It gets me better images below ISO 1000 and I am able to remove the noise by one-stage process. Back when I was using 7DII I had to use two denoising programs to achieve a similar result. So no better photographs but much simpler Post Processing for me. I already mentioned that I do not need other things like better video or tilting screen or more megapixels or more fps.



I always wondered whether I might need a 5DsR type camera. That might be the case in the future for me.

I shot birds with the 70D and it was "okay". I just think I sucked at shooting birds. At the time I lived in the desert and it was very hard to get close without spooking them. There were some local golf courses full of waterfowl, especially in the winter. But there was also always a horrific glare I could never get over. People are far more variable in how they look so I think that's why I took that route. Far easier.  Birds are really tough.


----------



## tron (Sep 21, 2018)

And I am one of 7DII users (although less now since I mostly use 5DsR) that does not consider jumping ship at all! Some whine but do not actually use their equipment. My 7DII must have gotten more than 50K clicks before I switched to 5DsR and it got me many good shots in combination with 400 DO II and 500 II lenses.


----------



## tron (Sep 21, 2018)

To tell the truth the advantage of 5DsR is that with a big zoom like 100-400 it can be used as a landscape camera in addition to a birding one.


----------



## AlanF (Sep 21, 2018)

Cryve said:


> jeah, i agree with you and 20mp is totaly fine. the 21mp d500 takes sharper pictures than the 24mp d7200 because it doesnt have an aa filter.


The Nikon D7200 also doesn't have an AA-filter! It has an excellent reputation for IQ as well.


----------



## privatebydesign (Sep 21, 2018)

tron said:


> I do not think so. I believe that 7DII users have some special needs (like birding) and at least in this Forum you saw 7DII users caring for the most important thing like sensor IQ and not much about bells and whistles. I have never cared about Sony (well except in the past for their walkmans, mini disks, etc) and I cannot think of a Sony camera as a direct competitor to 7DII. Maybe Nikon's D500 (especially with the latest 500 5.6 lens) for people who have no serious investment in Canon lenses but not Sony.


If you'd read the thread you'd realize that makes no sense. You say the only thing that will make a 'big deal' moment for the majority of 7D MkII users in a 7D MkIII would be increased IQ. I already posted that the majority of 7D mkII users are not shooting below 400iso and that is the only area where you are going to see actual visible IQ improvements with current sensor technology, the best APS-C sensors are no better (visually) than the 7D MkII is above 400iiso.


----------



## AlanF (Sep 21, 2018)

privatebydesign said:


> If you'd read the thread you'd realize that makes no sense. You say the only thing that will make a 'big deal' moment for the majority of 7D MkII users in a 7D MkIII would be increased IQ. I already posted that the majority of 7D mkII users are not shooting below 400iso and that is the only area where you are going to see actual visible IQ improvements with current sensor technology, the best APS-C sensors are no better (visually) than the 7D MkII is above 400iiso.



If you had read my posts and tron's you would see that both of us find that the 5DSR with its absence of an AA-filter has better IQ than the 7DII. And that is not just below iso400 but goes up to iso 1000 or more.


----------



## tron (Sep 21, 2018)

privatebydesign said:


> If you'd read the thread you'd realize that makes no sense. You say the only thing that will make a 'big deal' moment for the majority of 7D MkII users in a 7D MkIII would be increased IQ. I already posted that the majority of 7D mkII users are not shooting below 400iso and that is the only area where you are going to see actual visible IQ improvements with current sensor technology, the best APS-C sensors are no better (visually) than the 7D MkII is above 400iiso.


I didn't say that there are other APS-C sensors better now. I cannot/don't know. I mentioned that up to about ISO 1000 5DsR (which has the same pixel density with 7DII) is better than 7DII (at pixel level) which makes Post Processing much easier for me. So since at the same pixel level there is already a better Canon sensor since 2015 they could also include 5DIV's sensor technology in future 5DsRII and 7DIII cameras. In such context a 7DIII would have visible IQ improvements in general and not only below ISO 400.


----------



## Cryve (Sep 21, 2018)

There are so many things that could be improved that make a big difference to most people, even though it seems small when you look at each individually.

*Body:*
Variangle screen
touch-functunality
higher resolution screen
Iluminated buttons
faster, better silent shutter
better buffer 
(maybe: 12 fps)

*Focussing system:*
Wider af coverage
better low light focus
fokus at f8 for all points
more accurate focus

*Image sensor:*
no aa filter
litte mp bumb (22 or 24)
better dynamik range
better high iso performance (achivable trough bsi or even better proccesing: double digit 8 proccesors)


----------



## Jack Douglas (Sep 21, 2018)

Wouldn't it be really nice to know the future ... or not. I was never more enthused about an upcoming camera than the 7D2 and was hard pressed to bow out but glad I did. I bought a used 1D4 instead thanks to Edward Lang and came to appreciate certain 1 level features. A 1 level camera with more MP was my desire and maybe the Rx will be the prescription for my gas.

Jack


----------



## Jack Douglas (Sep 21, 2018)

Cryve said:


> There are so many things that could be improved that make a big difference to most people, even though it seems small when you look at each individually.
> 
> better high iso performance (achivable trough bsi or even better proccesing: double digit 8 proccesors)





Cryve said:


> better high iso performance (achivable trough bsi or even better proccesing: double digit 8 proccesors)



A must for the uses most associated with the camera.

Jack


----------



## tron (Sep 21, 2018)

@Cryve: I do not think better processing on camera can improve RAW IQ only JPEG.


----------



## Cryve (Sep 21, 2018)

tron said:


> @Cryve: I do not think better processing on camera can improve RAW IQ only JPEG.



Could be, i am not completly sure. 

At some point we are photon limited anyway, i dont know at what point though. maybe we are already and it only comes down to sensor architecture changes to increase the pixel size and light amount gathered (with bsi for example). Does anyone know?


----------



## privatebydesign (Sep 21, 2018)

AlanF said:


> If you had read my posts and tron's you would see that both of us find that the 5DSR with its absence of an AA-filter has better IQ than the 7DII. And that is not just below iso400 but goes up to iso 1000 or more.


So that would mean a 7D MkIII with a stop of DR improvement and no AA filter would be a 'big deal' for some users. And that's fair enough, I was, and said, I was just playing devils advocate for the fun of it.


----------



## privatebydesign (Sep 21, 2018)

Cryve said:


> better dynamik range
> better high iso performance (achivable trough bsi or even better proccesing: double digit 8 proccesors)



But nobody else makes an APS-C with appreciably higher DR over 400 iso or high ISO performance.

http://www.photonstophotos.net/Charts/PDR.htm#Canon EOS 7D Mark II,Canon EOS 80D,Nikon D500,Olympus OM-D E-M5 Mark II,Pentax K-5 IIs,Sony ILCE-6500

What makes you think Canon will?


----------



## Cryve (Sep 21, 2018)

privatebydesign said:


> But nobody else makes an APS-C with appreciably higher DR over 400 iso or high ISO performance.
> 
> http://www.photonstophotos.net/Charts/PDR.htm#Canon EOS 7D Mark II,Canon EOS 80D,Nikon D500,Olympus OM-D E-M5 Mark II,Pentax K-5 IIs,Sony ILCE-6500
> 
> What makes you think Canon will?



The nikon d500 is about 1 stop better. Could be because it has a bigger sensor, but if not i would appreciate it from canon aswell. 
Only the d500 and 7dii are specialy made for high iso, maybe thats why the other cameras dont offer appreciable higher dr at higher isos.


----------



## privatebydesign (Sep 21, 2018)

Cryve said:


> The nikon d500 is about 1 stop better. Could be because it has a bigger sensor, but if not i would appreciate it from canon aswell.
> Only the d500 and 7dii are specialy made for high iso, maybe thats why the other cameras dont offer appreciable higher dr at higher isos.


No, aove 400iso the D500 is never close to 1 stop of DR better than the 7D MkII.

http://www.photonstophotos.net/Charts/PDR.htm#Canon EOS 7D Mark II,Nikon D500

From 800 up there is a fag paper between them.


----------



## Cryve (Sep 21, 2018)

privatebydesign said:


> No, aove 400iso the D500 is never close to 1 stop of DR better than the 7D MkII.
> 
> http://www.photonstophotos.net/Charts/PDR.htm#Canon EOS 7D Mark II,Nikon D500
> 
> From 800 up there is a fag paper between them.



you are right. now i see it. The tiny difference is most likely because of sensor size.


----------



## AlanF (Sep 21, 2018)

The D500 has two pluses over the 7DII that I would like to see the 7DIII catch up with. Firstly, is the IQ. But, secondly, the more important is the AF - it is much better because of Nikon's algorithms that detect movement. I was in a bird hide last weekend next to a guy with a D500 and 300mm f/2.8 and 1.4xTC. He was able to get sharp shots of a kingfisher zipping across against a background. There is no way I could even attempt to capture that.


----------



## Aussie shooter (Sep 21, 2018)

AlanF said:


> The D500 has two pluses over the 7DII that I would like to see the 7DIII catch up with. Firstly, is the IQ. But, secondly, the more important is the AF - it is much better because of Nikon's algorithms that detect movement. I was in a bird hide last weekend next to a guy with a D500 and 300mm f/2.8 and 1.4xTC. He was able to get sharp shots of a kingfisher zipping across against a background. There is no way I could even attempt to capture that.



Are you serious? He was actually tracking a kingfisher against a background. I have been able to get some sharp shots of kingfishers flying in front of a distracting background but it involves prefocusing where I think they will fly and just letting rip when they take off.


----------



## AlanF (Sep 22, 2018)

Aussie shooter said:


> Are you serious? He was actually tracking a kingfisher against a background. I have been able to get some sharp shots of kingfishers flying in front of a distracting background but it involves prefocusing where I think they will fly and just letting rip when they take off.


Yes. He showed them to me on the screen. I have some in flight where I have been lucky because I have prefocussed on them perching and they have flown off sideways. His shot was of one coming towards us diagonally.


----------



## AlanF (Sep 22, 2018)

Cryve said:


> Could be, i am not completly sure.
> 
> At some point we are photon limited anyway, i dont know at what point though. maybe we are already and it only comes down to sensor architecture changes to increase the pixel size and light amount gathered (with bsi for example). Does anyone know?


You are in a photon limited region when the DR or S/N decreases with decreasing light. If they don’t, then the circuitry is much noisier than than the shot noise from the photons. The sensor is clearly photon limited when DR or S/N increases linearly with decreasing iso. As light levels increase and you approach base iso you can clearly see how the poorer sensors have DR level off while the best sensors are still in the linear region.


----------



## Aussie shooter (Sep 22, 2018)

AlanF said:


> Yes. He showed them to me on the screen. I have some in flight where I have been lucky because I have prefocussed on them perching and they have flown off sideways. His shot was of one coming towards us diagonally.


That's crazy. But i would like to see the whole series to see if it really was tracking it against a distracting background or if there were just one or two lucky shots. I have my doubts any camera could accurately track a target like that. Even with a superior af system. But i would love to be proven wrong.


----------



## Keith_Reeder (Sep 22, 2018)

tron said:


> I mentioned that up to about ISO 1000 5DsR (which has the same pixel density with 7DII) is better than 7DII (at pixel level) which makes Post Processing much easier for me.



I'd love to know what you're doing for that to be true: I _routinely _use my 7D Mk II in 4000-8000 ISO light (and worse), and get noise-free (that's not hyperbole - it's literally the case) conversions straight out of the Raw converter. < 4000 ISO light is "a sunny day" for me...

In fact, below about 8000 ISO the images are essentially indistinguishable from < 1000 ISO tiles. I used to be a pretty solid advocate of selective NR using Topaz DeNoise (which _is _excellent) but I haven't used it in something like three years. I simply don't need it. I have _no _qualms about using the 7D Mk II in poor light.

This is not a particularly good image - it's just a bank vole that lives under a feeding station at RSPB Loch Garten, Scotland, good practice for shooting handheld at 1,000mm - but it's at 10,000 ISO, with _no_ additional "PP" NR after conversion, only some selective sharpening of the little critter.

By way of IQ comparison, same subject at 1250 ISO.

No meaningful difference in noise terms...

Pixel density is an irrelevance when discussing noise, too - sensor size size yes (which is why _the_ only reason the 5DsR improves on crop bodies); pixel density, no.

Stupid-sharp images too - the idea that a 7D Mk III might not get an AA filter is actually a worry, as I get more moire in fine feather detail now, than I'd like...

Is this not sharp enough? 1000mm handheld, too...

Of how about this?

How much sharper could this even _be_?

I laugh when I see people complaining about the 7D Mk II not being "sharp enough" - it's sharp enough for my buddy Nigel Blake, one of the best pro wildlife/fast jet 'togs in the UK... He uses FF cameras too, but has no problem at all with reaching for his 7D Mk II when he needs the reach.


----------



## Keith_Reeder (Sep 22, 2018)

Aussie shooter said:


> That's crazy. But i would like to see the whole series to see if it really was tracking it against a distracting background or if there were just one or two lucky shots. I have my doubts any camera could accurately track a target like that. Even with a superior af system. But i would love to be proven wrong.


It _is _down to luck - and, to be fair, the skill of the photographer.

Nikon AF does seem to deliver on "_tends to focus on the nearest subject_" slightly better than Canon, but it's as true to say that it simply isn't as reactive as Canon AF, so it will sometimes hold onto a subject against a cluttered background (or not...) when (depending on the AF mode/settings in use) a Canon's AF might start looking elsewhere.

But it's pretty marginal, and it's _not_ a given that a Nikon will deliver when a Canon won't. I realise that sometimes any advantage is worth having, but Nikon's "superiority" in this use-case is wildly oversold by Nikon users.


----------



## AlanF (Sep 22, 2018)

Aussie shooter said:


> That's crazy. But i would like to see the whole series to see if it really was tracking it against a distracting background or if there were just one or two lucky shots. I have my doubts any camera could accurately track a target like that. Even with a superior af system. But i would love to be proven wrong.


I saw them, believe me please. Here is a link to an earlier post where I gave a link to the album of a guy arbitrage who now shoots with Nikons and A9 to get such shots routinely https://www.canonrumors.com/forum/i...anon-has-a-hard-time.35824/page-2#post-744081
https://www.flickr.com/people/[email protected]/
You took part in that thread. Rather than admit that he could take such shots, there was the usual flak sent up and the conversation turned to the noise in one of the shots.
If you don't want to believe what I saw and that Nikon and Sony can outperform Canon in difficult tracking situations, so be it - it doesn't make a damn of difference to me.


----------



## Aussie shooter (Sep 22, 2018)

AlanF said:


> I saw them, believe me please. Here is a link to an earlier post where I gave a link to the album of a guy arbitrage who now shoots with Nikons and A9 to get such shots routinely https://www.canonrumors.com/forum/i...anon-has-a-hard-time.35824/page-2#post-744081
> https://www.flickr.com/people/[email protected]/
> You took part in that thread. Rather than admit that he could take such shots, there was the usual flak sent up and the conversation turned to the noise in one of the shots.
> If you don't want to believe what I saw and that Nikon and Sony can outperform Canon in difficult tracking situations, so be it - it doesn't make a damn of difference to me.




Don't misunderstand me. I am not questioning your integrity. I have no doubt you saw the shots and i have no doubt they were sharp. I was just asking if the whole series was sharp or if it was just one or a few out of a pile that was. And i said i would love to be proven wrong. I also don't doubt that sony and nokon do better at tracking. I know they do. And i know canon have work to do in that.
Ps. That album is stunning


----------



## AlanF (Sep 22, 2018)

Thanks for that. He had a series of sharp shots. He was a serious guy, camouflaged from head to toe, with his camouflaged gear suspended from hooked webbing. I like my Canon gear, but I want Canon to keep up and overtake the others.


----------



## Aussie shooter (Sep 22, 2018)

Do you know what focusing 'case' he was using. When it comes to quick birds darting around I tend to use single point but keeping that on a little kingfisher or swallow is basically impossible. Can he actually track a little bird against a background with a zone focus case?


----------



## AlanF (Sep 22, 2018)

Aussie shooter said:


> Do you know what focusing 'case' he was using. When it comes to quick birds darting around I tend to use single point but keeping that on a little kingfisher or swallow is basically impossible. Can he actually track a little bird against a background with a zone focus case?


Sorry, I don't know for sure but it was probably a zone focus. (When I track birds in flight, I use the centre 9 points, which is great against a clear background. You have to be very precise if you stick to the centre point.) Where the Nikon scores is that the AF recognises movement and so can pick up a moving object against a static background. I have been using a Sony RX10 IV as all-purpose travel camera and am very taken with its AF. It recognises objects and remains glued to them, be they flying or on the ground. Point the camera at a bird on the ground and its shape gets surrounded by little green dots in the viewfinder and it gets locked on as it hops around. The same is true for a flying bird. Canon should start using these more sophisticated algorithms.


----------



## privatebydesign (Sep 22, 2018)

While we have all seen great shots from Alan and we can trust that he saw what he saw, there is a counter to that. You could stand two people next to each other with the same camera and lens, Canon or Nikon, and they would get different results, on another day the results could be reversed.

I don't see any difference in the single anecdotal account than that, the guy had his gear dialed in and was on his game.


----------



## Durf (Sep 22, 2018)

AlanF said:


> Sorry, I don't know for sure but it was probably a zone focus. (When I track birds in flight, I use the centre 9 points, which is great against a clear background. You have to be very precise if you stick to the centre point.) Where the Nikon scores is that the AF recognises movement and so can pick up a moving object against a static background. I have been using a Sony RX10 IV as all-purpose travel camera and am very taken with its AF. It recognises objects and remains glued to them, be they flying or on the ground. Point the camera at a bird on the ground and its shape gets surrounded by little green dots in the viewfinder and it gets locked on as it hops around. The same is true for a flying bird. Canon should start using these more sophisticated algorithms.



I often use the center points cluster with my 80D for birds/squirrels etc hopping around and it works rather quite well most of the time; even for bees and butterflys (with the right lenses). I occasional like to sit at the little airport here and take shots of older small planes taking off and have been quite impressed with this 80D with this type of shooting too. If the llight is good even the 150-600mm Sigma focuses VERY accurately on this 80D. 

I'll run this 80D for 2 or 3 more years and likely replace it with a 90D or 7D3 if they are available. (I have no interests in a mirrorless for what I do).

If the 7D3 has what I want I'll likely be shooting with it in a few years from now.....


----------



## Act444 (Sep 22, 2018)

Graphic.Artifacts said:


> edit: In my experience the biggest issues with the 7D Mark II and the reason I don't really use it that much these days is that it doesn't take any "additional crop" very well. As soon as you start drilling in to improve the composition things go south very quickly. When I can use the entire frame I'm usually very happy with the results. The problem is that it's very difficult to do that when you are doing sports/wildlife with primes. Too close and the subject bleeds out of the frame. Too loose and the IQ really suffers. I've found I need the extra real estate of a FF camera to consistently end up with the framing that I want. It's not really a knock on APS-C because I've found that you can acheive excellent results for a variety of subjects. It's just that I've found that for difficult subjects the "reach" doesn't necessarily translate to a better final image.



This has been my experience as well...coming from someone who once was sold on APS-C as the "reach king" and had no initial interest in FF for that reason. Then, over time, I began to run up against its weaknesses (high ISO performance, detail resolution indoors, etc.) and eventually went through a period where I used both (FF for general shooting, APS-C for sports and animals/birds)...then, a couple years ago I went to an ice skating event where I brought both a 5D3 and a 7D2, and found I was so satisfied with the 5D results that the 7D never left the bag. The problem with a lot of these shows is the poor lighting which demands high ISO usage (I'm talking 6400+ here), the 7D, or any crop sensor, just doesn't cut it and any "reach" advantage is wiped out entirely. Then, a bit later, I was out with my 5D3 shooting another event and came across some birds which I was able to get close enough to. I was stunned by the detail in the feathers, etc. The images were MUCH more crop-friendly as well. I let the 7D go shortly thereafter and have not bought another APS-C DSLR since.

Haven't abandoned APS-C entirely though, still utilize it in the form of the M6. But that camera is a significant size savings over a DSLR. I find it to be a great "bridge camera" between my phone and my full-size 5D...


----------



## dak723 (Sep 22, 2018)

AlanF said:


> Thanks for that. He had a series of sharp shots. He was a serious guy, camouflaged from head to toe, with his camouflaged gear suspended from hooked webbing. I like my Canon gear, but I want Canon to keep up and overtake the others.



I do not mean to quote you specifically, but this is one of the reasons many of us shake our heads. You want Canon to "overtake the others." Many other posters continually whine and complain that Canon isn't as good as Sony or Nikon in this or that. They *should be better* than the others??

It just doesn't work that way. All of these companies have patents. All of these companies have only so much money to spend on R&D. The camera business - as we all know - is not flourishing. but rather in a difficult situation. Some brands will be better at AF tracking, others better at AF for stills, others better for video, others for color, others for durability, others for heat management, others for lenses, etc. The idea that one company will have all the best patents and technical know-how in everything is an unrealistic dream.

This seems to be so obvious that it needs not be said. And yet a huge number of forum users can't grasp this basic reality. And thus their constant frustration. 

Any sort of mature comment such as, "Be happy with the gear you have because every DSLR or mirrorless camera made today is far better and can do far more than any similar camera ever could before," is usually met with scorn and derision.

The choice, alas, is up to each individual. Be happy with what you have, or be frustrated. It is your choice and has very little to do with your camera.


----------



## Aussie shooter (Sep 22, 2018)

privatebydesign said:


> While we have all seen great shots from Alan and we can trust that he saw what he saw, there is a counter to that. You could stand two people next to each other with the same camera and lens, Canon or Nikon, and they would get different results, on another day the results could be reversed.
> 
> I don't see any difference in the single anecdotal account than that, the guy had his gear dialed in and was on his game.


To a degree you are correct. I clearly remember my trip to the arctic last year where i was shooting with a 7d2 while next to me for 10 days was a fella with a d500 and 200-500. I consistently got better shots of all subjects but that was due primarily to experience. However. I know damn well that my 7d2 cannot 'track' a small fast bird against a distracting background in any zone focus setup.single point or single with 4 helpers are the only option and even then it is unlikely to be successful. So if sony and nikon are showing it can be done then it would be nice if canon can catch up. And just to clarify that I have to say that I have no problem with lager subjects. Raptors are easy as. Even down to seagulls are fairly manageable i am talking about the really small, fast and erratic birds. Kingfishers, swallows etc. Against mudflats, rippled ocean water thick and close vegetation.


----------



## Jack Douglas (Sep 22, 2018)

Brand hopping has limited benefits for a couple reasons. Companies see-saw on best features and a user has to come up to speed using the gear. I think constant hopping would simply frustrate me. I was so pleased with Canon's menu system and general ergonomics after I left Nikon so I have no desire to go back for a marginal IQ or AF advantage. Some say Sony is worse so no way for me. As far as swooping darting swallows are concerned, I can't possibly follow them with my 400 lens. So I just try other tricks and don't sweat it.


----------



## Aussie shooter (Sep 23, 2018)

Jack Douglas said:


> Brand hopping has limited benefits for a couple reasons. Companies see-saw on best features and a user has to come up to speed using the gear. I think constant hopping would simply frustrate me. I was so pleased with Canon's menu system and general ergonomics after I left Nikon so I have no desire to go back for a marginal IQ or AF advantage. Some say Sony is worse so no way for me. As far as swooping darting swallows are concerned, I can't possibly follow them with my 400 lens. So I just try other tricks and don't sweat it.



Agree. I will never go to nikon or sony. They just feel uncomfortable in my hand and completely unintuitive to use. Canon have always and likely will always just feel 'right'. And I don't think brand hoppers understand that. Tbh i don't think many who arent wildlife or action photographers understand that completely. I can shoot landscapes with any camera i use. I can shoot lightpainting or street with any camera. But not wildlife.


----------



## AlanF (Sep 23, 2018)

dak723 said:


> I do not mean to quote you specifically, but this is one of the reasons many of us shake our heads. You want Canon to "overtake the others." Many other posters continually whine and complain that Canon isn't as good as Sony or Nikon in this or that. They *should be better* than the others??
> 
> It just doesn't work that way. All of these companies have patents. All of these companies have only so much money to spend on R&D. The camera business - as we all know - is not flourishing. but rather in a difficult situation. Some brands will be better at AF tracking, others better at AF for stills, others better for video, others for color, others for durability, others for heat management, others for lenses, etc. The idea that one company will have all the best patents and technical know-how in everything is an unrealistic dream.
> 
> ...



Like you said, don’t take it personally. There are some who treat a brand like a religion and can’t stomach any criticism as if it is an attack on their beliefs; there are others who believe in making do with what they have and are content; there are some who want to strive for improvement; and there are trolls who enjoy whingeing. You choose your own position. Mine is you should respect what you have or do but strive to improve and keep ahead of the crowd.


----------



## Durf (Sep 23, 2018)

Jack Douglas said:


> Brand hopping has limited benefits for a couple reasons. Companies see-saw on best features and a user has to come up to speed using the gear. I think constant hopping would simply frustrate me. I was so pleased with Canon's menu system and general ergonomics after I left Nikon so I have no desire to go back for a marginal IQ or AF advantage. Some say Sony is worse so no way for me. As far as swooping darting swallows are concerned, I can't possibly follow them with my 400 lens. So I just try other tricks and don't sweat it.



I'll shoot Canon for the rest of my life; I also just love the way they feel and work for me. The Nikon 810 and now the 850 both feel great in my hand but nothing feels like Canon. I also just love the sound of a mirror/shutter working......so I doubt I'll ever buy a mirrorless for my main shooter. I may buy a "Canon" FF mirrorless someday if it has a IBIS system specifically to shoot my large collection of vintage Takumar;s and Pentax lenses, but even then that would really just be splurging on an unnecessary camera. (these old lenses work just fine adapted on my 6D2).

Personally, brand hopping is out of the question for me; it doesn't matter how much better another brand makes a camera compared to Canon as my mid to lower range "outdated" Canon cameras I use right now I can just about do anything I need them to do. (and produce great results).

If one constantly focuses on what their gear can't do rather than what it can do they will totally cripple their craft and never get any satisfaction with photography....

I grab the gear I have and make it work and have a blast and enjoy using it every time I go out.....(unless the mosquito's are really bad and I forget my bug spray at home!)


----------



## privatebydesign (Sep 23, 2018)

AlanF said:


> Mine is you should respect what you have or do but strive to improve and keep ahead of the crowd.



Well said.


----------



## Jack Douglas (Sep 23, 2018)

Durf said:


> I'll shoot Canon for the rest of my life; I also just love the way they feel and work for me. The Nikon 810 and now the 850 both feel great in my hand but nothing feels like Canon. I also just love the sound of a mirror/shutter working......so I doubt I'll ever buy a mirrorless for my main shooter. I may buy a "Canon" FF mirrorless someday if it has a IBIS system specifically to shoot my large collection of vintage Takumar;s and Pentax lenses, but even then that would really just be splurging on an unnecessary camera. (these old lenses work just fine adapted on my 6D2).
> 
> Personally, brand hopping is out of the question for me; it doesn't matter how much better another brand makes a camera compared to Canon as my mid to lower range "outdated" Canon cameras I use right now I can just about do anything I need them to do. (and produce great results).
> 
> ...



That's it exactly. "If one constantly focuses on what their gear can't do rather than what it can do they will totally cripple their craft and never get any satisfaction with photography...."


Jack


----------



## Mikehit (Sep 23, 2018)

tron said:


> I got over the IQ by getting the 5DsR. It gets me better images below ISO 1000 and I am able to remove the noise by one-stage process. Back when I was using 7DII I had to use two denoising programs to achieve a similar result. So no better photographs but much simpler Post Processing for me. I already mentioned that I do not need other things like better video or tilting screen or more megapixels or more fps. It is just that 5DsR is more suitable for still subjects that makes me wish for 7DIII.


Are talking about focal length limited situations or similar framing?


----------



## Graphic.Artifacts (Sep 23, 2018)

Act444 said:


> This has been my experience as well...coming from someone who once was sold on APS-C as the "reach king" and had no initial interest in FF for that reason. Then, over time, I began to run up against its weaknesses (high ISO performance, detail resolution indoors, etc.) and eventually went through a period where I used both (FF for general shooting, APS-C for sports and animals/birds)...then, a couple years ago I went to an ice skating event where I brought both a 5D3 and a 7D2, and found I was so satisfied with the 5D results that the 7D never left the bag. The problem with a lot of these shows is the poor lighting which demands high ISO usage (I'm talking 6400+ here), the 7D, or any crop sensor, just doesn't cut it and any "reach" advantage is wiped out entirely. Then, a bit later, I was out with my 5D3 shooting another event and came across some birds which I was able to get close enough to. I was stunned by the detail in the feathers, etc. The images were MUCH more crop-friendly as well. I let the 7D go shortly thereafter and have not bought another APS-C DSLR since.
> 
> Haven't abandoned APS-C entirely though, still utilize it in the form of the M6. But that camera is a significant size savings over a DSLR. I find it to be a great "bridge camera" between my phone and my full-size 5D...



Totally agree. I llike the 7D II and have had some decent sucess but (IMO) ultimately if you want to shoot wildlife you will get better results by finding ways to put yourself closer to your subject rather than adding on extra glass or using a higher density sensor. That being said, I see lots of great images takes with APS-C so YMMV. I'd love to have a compact APS-C kit for travel but the M's don't really work for me. Single cardslot means I have to carry some sort of back-up gizmo so I don't worry 24 hrs a day about my files being lost or stolen and that more or less eliminates the size advantage. If Canon made a more robust M with dual slots I'd be on board since I think the image quality is pretty good.


----------



## AlanF (Sep 23, 2018)

Graphic.Artifacts said:


> Totally agree. I llike the 7D II and have had some decent sucess but (IMO) ultimately if you want to shoot wildlife you will get better results by finding ways to put yourself closer to your subject rather than adding on extra glass or using a higher density sensor. quality is pretty good.


Of course we all try to get close as possible for shooting wild life and use our field craft, and the closer the better. But, if you can't get close, you have no choice but to use longer glass and high density sensors or go for a nice walk instead. And what do you do about birds in flight? Photograph only the close ones, give up on the small or far ones because your lens is too short or do you hire a helicopter and chase them?


----------



## Jack Douglas (Sep 23, 2018)

Graphic.Artifacts said:


> Totally agree. I llike the 7D II and have had some decent sucess but (IMO) ultimately if you want to shoot wildlife you will get better results by finding ways to put yourself closer to your subject rather than adding on extra glass or using a higher density sensor. That being said, I see lots of great images takes with APS-C so YMMV. I'd love to have a compact APS-C kit for travel but the M's don't really work for me. Single cardslot means I have to carry some sort of back-up gizmo so I don't worry 24 hrs a day about my files being lost or stolen and that more or less eliminates the size advantage. If Canon made a more robust M with dual slots I'd be on board since I think the image quality is pretty good.



I don't fret too much about two card slots but I'm not making money off a shoot. On the other hand if I were concerned, I think I'd carry a handful of cards and just swap out every so often, which is really easy if they are SD or smaller. So far, in 7 years I've never had a card issue but know I could
So, in summary, I'd say you're exaggerating a bit.

I have my various issues and wishes regarding a camera but almost daily I'm reminded of how much I appreciate the high ISO capability of the 1DX2. Could I achieve the same with a 7D2 with lots of NR? If I were regularly filling the frame I think virtually any camera would do. There are reasons I usually don't fill the frame, like lens $$$, lens weight, and the challenge of always getting close to fearful creatures no matter what the lens. Not to mention, how many folk can fill the frame with a fast moving subject.

EDIT - Alan beat me to it.

Jack


----------



## Graphic.Artifacts (Sep 23, 2018)

AlanF said:


> Of course we all try to get close as possible for shooting wild life and use our field craft, and the closer the better. But, if you can't get close, you have no choice but to use longer glass and high density sensors or go for a nice walk instead. And what do you do about birds in flight? Photograph only the close ones, give up on the small or far ones because your lens is too short or do you hire a helicopter and chase them?


I think you should do whatever works for you. I think it's mainly a matter of intent. If you want to capture the best image possible of a small bird for ID purposes and sharing with folks of similar interest heavy cropping and shooting through a lot of wet mushy air may be perfectly suitable. Digiscoping is a perfect example of this and more power to those folks.

My point is more that you can't turn a mediocre photo into a great one by adding extenders or cropping but you may be able to do that by getting closer. (edit. at least I can't. I can't speak for everyone)

But the helicopter thing sounds like fun.


----------



## Graphic.Artifacts (Sep 23, 2018)

Jack Douglas said:


> I don't fret too much about two card slots but I'm not making money off a shoot. On the other hand if I were concerned, I think I'd carry a handful of cards and just swap out every so often, which is really easy if they are SD or smaller. So far, in 7 years I've never had a card issue but know I could
> So, in summary, I'd say you're exaggerating a bit.
> 
> I have my various issues and wishes regarding a camera but almost daily I'm reminded of how much I appreciate the high ISO capability of the 1DX2. Could I achieve the same with a 7D2 with lots of NR? If I were regularly filling the frame I think virtually any camera would do. There are reasons I usually don't fill the frame, like lens $$$, lens weight, and the challenge of always getting close to fearful creatures no matter what the lens. Not to mention, how many folk can fill the frame with a fast moving subject.
> ...


 I travel for extended periods out of a 35L backback and I don't bring a laptop so it's more a question of having two cards in case one gets lost or stolen. Before the 5D's had two slots I carried a Wolverine back up gizmo but I never felt entirely safe. Now I keep the second set of cards on a lanyard in a waterproof case and with me at all times and I am much happier and more relaxed. If you have never lost anything or had any gear stolen that's cool but I'm not so lucky. I have had a few issues with reading cards as well but thats not really the issue for me. With two slot Canon camera's you can also cross-write between cards to make an addition copy to send home. It's a must have for a travel camera IMO.


----------



## AlanF (Sep 23, 2018)

Graphic.Artifacts said:


> I think you should do whatever works for you. I think it's mainly a matter of intent. If you want to capture the best image possible of a small bird for ID purposes and sharing with folks of similar interest heavy cropping and shooting through a lot of wet mushy air may be perfectly suitable. Digiscoping is a perfect example of this and more power to those folks.
> 
> My point is more that you can't turn a mediocre photo into a great one by adding extenders or cropping but you may be able to do that by getting closer. (edit. at least I can't. I can't speak for everyone)
> 
> But the helicopter thing sounds like fun.



Not all air is wet or mushy or spoiled by heat haze, and often conditions are perfect for long distance shots. If the mediocre photo is mediocre because your lens is too short and your sensor too low resolution, then you certainly could have taken a good shot by using the right gear with a longer lens and better resolution camera instead.


----------



## Jack Douglas (Sep 24, 2018)

I think that folk who do not do too much wildlife photography, at least not seriously (like Alan does ), don't always appreciate the nuances and the challenges of finding the little critters and getting a clear of obstacles photo. There can be many issues or alternately the subject may show up literally under your nose such that your lens is too long! A good example would be a friendly chipmunk or Jackdaw in a mountain park. 

Likewise, I don't have much of a clue about the challenges in portrait photography but I do find it interesting to hear about them. We share and learn.

Jack


----------



## Keith_Reeder (Sep 24, 2018)

Jack Douglas said:


> I think that folk who do not do too much wildlife photography, at least not seriously (like Alan does ), don't always appreciate the nuances and the challenges of finding the little critters and getting a clear of obstacles photo.



That's where fieldcraft, and behavioural knowledge of the subject, come in.

A new camera or lens won't give you those skills...


----------



## Valvebounce (Sep 24, 2018)

Hi Jack, Kieth.
For some critters yes field craft can help, on the other hand, I have yet to find any sort of field craft that can get me closer to planes in flight or race cars on a circuit. I climbed to the top of the cliffs at Bournemouth and the planes were still the same distance away, the cliffs slope away from the flight line!  I suppose I might get 6ft closer to the cars at Goodwood if I can get a job as a press photographer but that is a whole hula factory of hoops to jump through! 

Cheers, Graham.


----------



## AlanF (Sep 24, 2018)

Keith_Reeder said:


> That's where fieldcraft, and behavioural knowledge of the subject, come in.
> 
> A new camera or lens won't give you those skills...


Yes Keith, you have all of those skills, we don't and as you write under your avatar: "No apologies for not suffering fools gladly..."


----------



## Jack Douglas (Sep 24, 2018)

CR for the humour.

Jack


----------

