Canon 7D MK iii

Depending on what Canon offers I might get rid of my 5D4. We'll see. I once owned a Tokina 11-16 that I thought was spectacular and I would get it again. Mind you loads of new lenses have been released since then. Another lens I regret selling in order to buy new toys.

Keltab wrote in post #18730355
I too am finally learning more of the post-processing skills I need. It is helping me more than grabbing the next camera as it comes out. GAS I still deal with, but my cameras serve me very well now, and hopefully for quite some time.

Same here.

For my aviation photography post processing skills, composition, panning, and capturing the right moment are far more important than new gear.

But...I'm a gear-head, and the latest & greatest cameras and lenses interest me. And if and when the 7DIII is released, I'll be all over it, and maybe buy it.
Although it may only make an incremental improvement in my photos.

Ah-keong wrote in post #18775061
Relax, you can hold on to the current purchase until there is one that ticks most of your wants....
meanwhile I would just stick on to my purchase and enjoy it....

I decided not to trade the 80D for a 7Dii, and since I wanted a second camera body and have been thinking full frame at the same time I got a used 5D mkii, BUT after using it for 2 weeks I returned it, the controls were too different from my 80D. I am not old (funny how 65 used to be old now that I am there it isn't) but between my age and the stroke I had about 19 years ago at age 46, in pressure situations or trying to do something quick the controls were causing me to lose shots, years of the 40,50 70 and 80D's. Also with extremely bad knees, can't kneel down, the flippy screen was big. I ended up getting the 6D Mk II. The controls except for one, the Q quick screen is in a slightly different place, that bugs me and I have to think which camera it is but it is not that bad.
Yes the 80D has high noise at high ISO but the 6Dii is great there, so low ISO and sports it is the 80D, for high ISO and general shots the 6Dii

The bottom line? I have stopped worrying about the 7Diii. I am happy with the 80D and the 6Dii and that really is the bottom line. As much of a gear head that I am ( I have 6 ZWO ASI CMOS cameras for Solar Imaging and Astro Imaging (see the sun folder at http://www.jeffpadellp​hotography.com ) and 8 telescopes, I can satisfy my itch.

But never say never and I will watch the new products and can see "adding" a mirrorless for certain situation...

6D mkii

SYS wrote in post #18774019
The latest on 7D MK III

https://fstoppers.com …rriving-early-2019-319048

Really hope this to be true. Whenever I purchase a new camera body, I always wait until at least a year or more after it's on the market like I've with 5D IV most recently, for example, but 7D III is going to be an exception.

It may be true, but don’t hold your breath. These “rumors” have been going around for more than a year. The photo clickbait sites know there is a lot of interest in a 7D Mark III, so every few months they say it’s coming soon. People get all excited and click through to the article. Eventually they’ll be right and they’ll be able to say “see, we told you so.”

Mike

Honestly

I dont know why anyone wants a 7D111

Please let me know why you are so interested with the way canon is now going with R mounts

The AF system on the 7D2 sucks compared to the 1Dx2 AF system. Performance is just not there

When I see the results spme people are getting with the EOS R and TC use, it makes me wonder why the 7D is a consideration any longer

lets be honest, the only real reason we all want a 7D is for reach needs.

When you start comparing ISO results to a 5D4 and a 1Dx2 and spotty the AF performance of a 7D2 camera, I think a TC on the newer full frame bodies is a better option. I absolutly do not miss the 7D2 and I cant see enough opportunity for sensor performance on the 1.6 sensors to see why a 7D3 would be a consideration.

My last eagle trip 2 weeks ago was a 300 F/2.8 and a 1.4 . these are straight off files

HOSTED PHOTO
please log in to view hosted photos in full size.

HOSTED PHOTO
please log in to view hosted photos in full size.

umphotography wrote in post #18778782
Honestly

I dont know why anyone wants a 7D111

Please let me know why you are so interested with the way canon is now going with R mounts

The AF system on the 7D2 sucks compared to the 1Dx2 AF system. Performance is just not there

- 7D2 AF: Some of us, (most) have no issue with the 7D2 AF. There is a huge long thread here with thousands of brilliant examples of what this body can do in capable hands, with complaints being the vast minority.

- Vs. 1Dx2 = MATH: Some of us see the value in a body that offers 90% of the performance of the 1Dx series for less than 1/5 the cost.

As for Vs. EOS-R, I don't really see the comparison right now, but if forced to answer I would proffer;

- Vs. EOS-R: Some of us weight the AF tracking of fast moving objects high above other AF aspects, this would in fact be the bulk of the 7D audience. It's what the body was made for. I have yet to see in the images posted on this forum or in any video review, a strong argument for EOS-R af tracking ability of fast moving objects. Add to that 10 FPS vs. 3.

- RF Mount: As of yet, the primary 7D lenses are not available in RF mount. If I were to shell out for a new version 3 7D, it would be to use with my current substantial investment in lenses, so no advantages to be gained (or possible to date) by going RF.

- Some of us live in the present. What may be possible in the future with RF mount does not effect us right here and now.

umphotography wrote in post #18778782
Honestly

I dont know why anyone wants a 7D111

Please let me know why you are so interested with the way canon is now going with R mounts

The AF system on the 7D2 sucks compared to the 1Dx2 AF system. Performance is just not there

When I see the results spme people are getting with the EOS R and TC use, it makes me wonder why the 7D is a consideration any longer

lets be honest, the only real reason we all want a 7D is for reach needs.

When you start comparing ISO results to a 5D4 and a 1Dx2 and spotty the AF performance of a 7D2 camera, I think a TC on the newer full frame bodies is a better option. I absolutly do not miss the 7D2 and I cant see enough opportunity for sensor performance on the 1.6 sensors to see why a 7D3 would be a consideration.

Ooh. Sizzle. Not sure whether to respond with snarkiness, condescenscion, or just ignore this post because it is such obvious trolling.

Reason 1: I can buy FOUR 7D2's for the price of a 1Dx2, and at least two for the price of a 5D4.

Reason 2: There are actually one or two people posting here who aren't professional photographers and can't justify the most expensive equipment as a business expense. Go figure.

Reason 3: Some people choose crop sensor cameras because they feel they are the best tools for the type of shooting they do. They have analyzed the pros and cons of crop versus full frame and decided to go with crop. The days when crop was simply the cheaper alternative to full frame are long past.

Reason 4: I have used a 7D2 since early 2018 and have probably taken close to 10K shots with it. I have not been disappointed at all by its AF performance, dynamic range, or ISO results. When the images have not met my expectations (quite a lot out of 10K shots!), I don't recall a single instance where the fault has not been my own. Maybe I just don't know any better because I've never used a 1Dx2, but I'm quite pleased with my results.

Reason 5: Your needs, your shooting style, and your priorities for the equipment you purchase do not necessarily reflect those of everybody else, either on POTN or in the world at large. Sorry to have to be the one to break it to you.

As for the EOS R, I agree that it is a very compelling first entry into the RF line, but it is just a first entry. There will be others, and maybe even a 7D2/3-killer sooner or later. I, for one, find it very exciting, and I will be very interested to see where Canon goes with it. Personally, I don't have any need for a 24-70mm F/2 lens right now.

If you're not interested in a 7D3, don't waste your time (or anybody else's) posting to the 7D3 rumor threads.

umphotography wrote in post #18778782
My last eagle trip 2 weeks ago was a 300 F/2.8 and a 1.4 . these are straight off files

Hosted photo: posted by umphotography in
./showthread.php?p=187​78782&i=i177159871
forum: Camera Rumors and Predictions

Hosted photo: posted by umphotography in
./showthread.php?p=187​78782&i=i124638765
forum: Camera Rumors and Predictions

Awesome shots!

Mike

CyberDyneSystems wrote in post #18778898
- 7D2 AF: Some of us, (most) have no issue with the 7D2 AF. There is a huge long thread here with thousands of brilliant examples of what this body can do in capable hands, with complaints being the vast minority.

- Vs. 1Dx2 = MATH: Some of us see the value in a body that offers 90% of the performance of the 1Dx series for less than 1/5 the cost.

As for Vs. EOS-R, I don't really see the comparison right now, but if forced to answer I would proffer;

- Vs. EOS-R: Some of us weight the AF tracking of fast moving objects high above other AF aspects, this would in fact be the bulk of the 7D audience. It's what the body was made for. I have yet to see in the images posted on this forum or in any video review, a strong argument for EOS-R af tracking ability of fast moving objects. Add to that 10 FPS vs. 3.

- RF Mount: As of yet, the primary 7D lenses are not available in RF mount. If I were to shell out for a new version 3 7D, it would be to use with my current substantial investment in lenses, so no advantages to be gained (or possible to date) by going RF.

- Some of us live in the present. What may be possible in the future with RF mount does not effect us right here and now.

My hands are very capable and performance is no where near to what 1Dx1 or 1Dx2 performance is. I have owned all 3 and finally got fed up and sold off the 7D2. Plus we have 1.5 stops better ISO performance with the 1Dx bodies.2 stops with the 1Dx2.... I have plenty of nice shots with the 7D2. But I get a lot more with the 1Dx bodies. For wildlife needs when its dusk or dawn The boost in ISO performance really comes in handy. I used the 7D1 and 7D2 for a number of years. I really noticed the performance when I got back on a 1Dx. It rarely misses shots and the 1Dx2 is even better. I found myself putting on a TC and using the 1Dx2 more because performance was notably better. Its wasnt a capable hands issue........ so I sold it off

umphotography wrote in post #18778782
Honestly

I dont know why anyone wants a 7D111

lets be honest, the only real reason we all want a 7D is for reach needs.

I photograph fast moving aircraft at a distance. Reach is important for me.
The fps on the EOS R leaves me wanting. Perhaps later iterations of the camera
will spark my interest.

And I'm a hobbyist only, cost will limit what camera gear I buy.
Sure, the 1DX II is superior to the 7DII. But I can't afford it.

I'm looking forward to what the 7DIII will offer.

So you can change your first sentence...strike out the word anyone.

The 7D2 AF system is quite capable and does 10fps. There won't be a 7D2 equivalent mirrorless for a while, and the EOS R is just a 6D3 in mirrorless form.

umphotography wrote in post #18778782
Honestly

I dont know why anyone wants a 7D111

Please let me know why you are so interested with the way canon is now going with R mounts

You seem to get carried away whenever you become infatuated with a new product.

The R may be the best of Canon's AF for relatively static things and in very low light or with high open f-numbers, but it does not perform as well as the 7D2 for AIServo with moving subjects. It does not AF as fast in good light as PDAF. The R with a TC to make up for lower pixel density does not AF as fast as the R without a TC, and has more noise at double the high ISO as the 7D2. The R is detached from realtime viewing, noticeable when moving the lens around quickly, following an active subject, according to some users. This is a current drawback of all EVF systems.

That's quite an exaggeration. The 7D2 doesn't have the AF it may have had if it was designed and manufacturers a few months later, but in fact, it was one of the best AF Canons at the time of its release. The only thing better was the higher power to drive the AF motors on 1-series cameras, and the 1DxII with its more advanced AF with f/8 at all points was yet to be released. To extrapolate that since the old 7D2 doesn't now have state-of-the-art AF that the 7D3 AF will likely "suck" doesn't make any sense. Canon has always given the 7D series good AF for its time of design.

Do you know how big the subjects are supposed to be, or do you just look at "sharp" on the screen and get impressed? People don't show you turds in forums, especially unpolished ones. The degree to which people are impressed with web-image "magic" is downright scary. It is very easy to make a sharp web image; there is little challenge there. Soft web images are usually due to poor post-processing.

Pixels-on-subject is what interests me. "Reach" is a nonsense concept, IMO. A lens projects a subject on a sensor, and the sensor size crops the image circle, and the pixel density resolves the sensor area. The value of a small sensor is fast readout with high pixel density, by not having a lot of pixels to deal with, as you would with a 50MP FF.

That's no difference for the 5D4, and a small difference for the 1DxII, if you're talking about "reach" (I would think of performance per unit of sensor area). A 1.6x crop from the 5D4 has visually the same noise intensity as the 7D2 at high ISOs. The 7D2 sensor is like a smaller piece of the 5D4 film; same high-ISO noise, but more resolution. The 1DxII is only a little bit better than the 7D2, as again, almost all of the large difference attributed by most people is based on pixel-level and image-levels views. If you do not see this obvious fact, then you have not been comparing the results properly. Pixel-level views are BS, and image-level views are BS when you have to crop the FF; if you put a 1.4x on the FFs, they need 2x the ISO of the 7D2.

The idea of comparing different sensor sizes at the same ISO pervades digital photography culture, but is total bunk. You do not use different size sensors to create the same image at the same ISO. The larger sensor absolutely must use a shallower DOF to get the same ISO with the same FOV, and that is facilitated by a larger lens with a larger entrance pupil, and is not guaranteed by the large sensor. With the same DOF and FOV, the FF needs 2.56x the ISO. Back to focal-length-limited, a FF would need about 1.6x the focal length with 1.6x the entrance pupil diameter, to get the same ISO with the same shutter speed as the 7D2, but you can put that bigger, longer lens on the 7D2, too, if you want, and step it up, provided.the FOV is not too narrow.

and spotty the AF performance of a 7D2 camera, I think a TC on the newer full frame bodies is a better option. I absolutly do not miss the 7D2 and I cant see enough opportunity for sensor performance on the 1.6 sensors to see why a 7D3 would be a consideration.

My last eagle trip 2 weeks ago was a 300 F/2.8 and a 1.4 . these are straight off files

Hosted photo: posted by umphotography in
./showthread.php?p=187​78782&i=i177159871
forum: Camera Rumors and Predictions

Hosted photo: posted by umphotography in
./showthread.php?p=187​78782&i=i124638765
forum: Camera Rumors and Predictions

Nice, but not proof of much except that focus was achieved or very close, and with the background far away, the system only has to choose between two distinct depths. Even Rebels will get the focus sometimes; you just might delete more photos and people only show their successes, generally. The fact that I see sharpening halos suggests that they could have been a little bit off focus in such a downsized image (30MP to about 1.44MP; not a sharpness challenge at all). What I see is an "eagle trip", not a camera testimonial.

umphotography wrote in post #18778942
My hands are very capable and performance is no where near to what 1Dx1 or 1Dx2 performance is. I have owned all 3 and finally got fed up and sold off the 7D2. Plus we have 1.5 stops better ISO performance with the 1Dx bodies.2 stops with the 1Dx2.... I have plenty of nice shots with the 7D2. But I get a lot more with the 1Dx bodies. For wildlife needs when its dusk or dawn The boost in ISO performance really comes in handy. I used the 7D1 and 7D2 for a number of years. I really noticed the performance when I got back on a 1Dx. It rarely misses shots and the 1Dx2 is even better. I found myself putting on a TC and using the 1Dx2 more because performance was notably better. Its wasnt a capable hands issue........ so I sold it off

You have fallen into the common trap of failing to attribute results to optics and opportunity, and attributing it to camera instead.

If a person has an APS-C and a FF, if you look at all of the photos, yes, the best ones noise-wise at the same specific high ISOs will be FF images, at the image level, and at the pixel level (unless the FF pixels are also small, like the 5Ds) . The real question is why. It is easy to forget that you used the 5D4 when the subjects were closer and larger, or chose a bigger lens to use with the FF, which gave shallower DOF for the same FOV. Correlation is not causation. A larger sensor does not cause a better capture; it allows a better capture, in some, but not all situations, and it fails to allow that with equal FOV and DOF, or in focal-length-limited situations.

^^ Don't hold back John, tell us how you really feel.

I wouldn't get too worked up by Mike's posts, he always loves the newest and greatest, and thinks whatever the release, it is the best thing ever. I remember the posts over the years very well, as I followed his thoughts on any new release. I think we all have a bit of that at some point or another, don't we? I appreciate his passion for new gear.

I personally cannot wait to see what the 1D type of mirrorless comes out, I hope it is a home run and I have the funds to get it. It will make the 7D2 obsolete, but not a bad camera. If they do announce a 7D3 though as a DSLR here in 2019, I think people are going to pause a bit before purchasing, because they, probably like me, are going to think about what they might be able to get with mirrorless and when. I am not sure there is going to be as huge a market for the 7D3 as there was with the 7D2.

To provide context on Mike's current assessment of the 7D2, here are past posts.

umphotography wrote in post #17298248
Dont know why people think this 7D2 is not gonna be a good camera for portraits. Im testing mine right now and the results are awesome. Put a 50L on it and shooting some casual stuff to see how the DOF is gonna look...it looks great. Fires all my ocf set ups, cant wait to get my studio built and put some clients in front of it. Honestly dont know why everyone is saying its for Wildlife and sports. Put some fast glass on it and it does a fantastic job.

Im impressed with the camera. Its gonna do a heck of a job for everything i do. Have a wedding December 13th. Its gonna have a 50L,135L and a Tokina 11-16 screwed to it the entire day. I think its gonna blow my expectations away.

umphotography wrote in post #17312577
This 7d2 BLOWS the 7D original away. AF is killer. these are straight offs with a little sharpen in PS

Hosted photo: posted by umphotography in
./showthread.php?p=173​12577&i=i129515013
forum: Canon EOS Digital Cameras

Hosted photo: posted by umphotography in
./showthread.php?p=173​12577&i=i171303860
forum: Canon EOS Digital Cameras

umphotography wrote in post #17381855
I have the 7D2 and Its basically the same AF as the 1Dx. When i experimented with the 1Dx is did not give auto ISO its fair day in court. But I have with the 7D2. It fricken Rocks. To me for shooting sports and wildlife, I cant imagine not using it in varying light. Highly accurate. I was tracking this eagle through branches in horribly low light. I set my settings and auto ISO hit this at 5000

So its kicks serious butt and I will change the way I approach what im doing

Guess what

AWB works pretty dam good as well

Hosted photo: posted by umphotography in
./showthread.php?p=173​81855&i=i196094378
forum: Canon EOS Digital Cameras

@John, just to clarify things a bit, putting a 1.4x on the 5D4 to provide the same basic view as the 7D2 without a TC, but then causing one to increase the ISO 1 stop still yields better quality images ISO-wise on the FF. They are closer obviously due to the 1 stop difference, but the 5D4 still is the winner in this scenario. So if you want to really play the "make everything equal between the 7D2 and 5D4 for view optically and compensate with ISO", the 5D4 still wins.

Where the EOS R beats out the 5D4 is the fact that it will AF even at f11, where the 5D4 stops at f8. You can put a 2x on something like the 100-400 or 150-600 and the mirrorless will AF, the 5D4 and 7D2 won't even try due to AF checks in the firmware. Even my M50 beats the 5D4 and 7D2 in this regard. That is pretty amazing IMO, seeing that my $500 APS-C can AF at 800mm or even 1200mm, where my other two cameras cannot. The EOS R has a better AF system yet, so that makes it very compelling for many shooters. Couple this with the fact that the EOS R seems to have some version of the 5D4 sensor, and now you have a body that rivals the 5D4 for wildlife shooters.

Example of a 5D4 1.4x vs 7D2 using a 100-400 at 1 stop ISO difference, through DPP, using the same recipe on both with zero noise reduction... Here is the overall scene after I cropped out to a 1.6 FOV on the 5D4 results. 7D2 top, 5D4 bottom...

HOSTED PHOTO
please log in to view hosted photos in full size.

HOSTED PHOTO
please log in to view hosted photos in full size.