Generally, you should see very little differences between "standard" profiles, regardless of their moniker. Remember that any canned profile from Adobe is an average, and there is no way to know how your camera body performs under similar conditions.
I find the camera-specific profiles for the 7D to be poor as well, Terje - I use Adobe Standard instead and it's much better.
So my question is, should not the "camera standard" be much closer to the "correct" profile than the "adobe standard"? I thought the "camera standard" was made for Canon 7D, but that does not seem to be correct. Have I misunderstood something?
The camera standard profile is supposed to approximate the jpeg rendering of your camera in its default (standard) settings. So certainly this is not what we would call "correct". It approximates what Canon thinks looks great and is based more on aesthetic considerations than on a desire to get correct color. It basically represents a reverse engineering by Adobe of Canon's "secret sauce". The in-camera jpeg renderings are far from colorimetrically correct. The Adobe standard is based on calibrations using color charts done at Adobe. They are very lightly tweaked for pleasant color (mostly skin) but not by as much as the Canon profiles your camera uses. The Adobe standard profile should be pretty close to correct. When you generate your own profile, you get correct rendering for your specific camera. This compensates for variation between copies of the camera and for color differences in your lenses/filters/lighting conditions. Normally that should not be too far from Adobe Standard. The X-rite software tends to generate a more contrasty profile than Adobe Standard in my experience but the difference in color is not that large.
Thanks for a good explanation!