amacal1 wrote:
Good point. And can you imagine the collective rabble of the internet - even this forum, alone - if the 90D were released with the same DR as the 80D? Despite the increased mp count, I imagine there would be a huge uproar if there were no increases in DR, considering how many people scream about Canon being 'behind' Sony on DR. I find it quite funny that Canon increased mp count, improved DR, and there are a number of people going, "Pfft. Who cares?"
Sooooo many people claim to care, if the result had been the other way.
It's the same old story... The pursuit of the "perfect" camera that has everything under the sun. It will never happen. All I hope is the 90D is a good performer on the AF and tracking front. DR and general image quality should be very nice based on early reports. I pre-ordered the 90D primarily to pair with my Canon 600mm f4 mkII that I picked up from someone moving to the Sony 600GM. I can't justify $12k for a lens that's going to be used sparingly (it was tough enough justifying the used mkII), but on paper the 90D should perform well for wildlife and BIF. I also spent 30+ years with Canon before buying into Sony and the A7R3 (which I do love), but I miss the Canon colors and ergonomics of a dSLR. The 90D will hopefully bring some of that back to me. I also still have a fair amount of Canon L glass which will be used on the 90D as well as the A7R3.
In spite of all the complaining, I bet this model is going to sell really well. It is the first significant upgrade in years for all of us who want to continue with our EFS and EF lenses.
Yaryman wrote:
Is anybody buying this camera based on it's DR?
I'm happy with my 80D's resolution and DR. The increased resolution of the 90D only works if the pixel level noise and DR equals or betters the 80D otherwise there is no real resolution gain. The 90D is attractive to me because 10 FPS, 32 MP, boosted face/object OVF tracking, bluetooth geotagging, focus stacking, and (less so) real 4K video add up to a real improvement. I'll wait to be sure these promises are true but pretty optimistic. If this is the last real OVF camera, it looks to be a good one.
---------------------------------------------
EB-1 wrote:
I don't know about zoos but the second one reminds me of some of the birds I've encountered in Costa Rica or Ecuador. We'll see how the 90D handles bright highlights and retains details in the dark feathers. Typically I'd use a 5D IV. EBH
Ever since the 5D3 gave us f8 AF I rarely have both a crop body and FF on my international travels where the wildlife is. The 100-400 II + 1.4X III gives pretty good reach on FF IMHO. However on last year's Kenya/Tanzania trip I convinced my wife to carry the 5D4 + 24-105 while I used the 100-400 with the 80D. I'm very happy with the images the 80D delivers. Although most of our shooting was daylight I had to use a fair amount of dehaze to bring the skies back to post card blue The 80D handled this well. Home I mostly use the 80D for local wildlife and the San Diego Zoo and Safari Park where it performs excellently. The 90D promises to do even better.
A few examples. None of these use the extender. The trick is to get close enough to the animals where any current camera should satisfy.
Camperjim wrote:
In spite of all the complaining, I bet this model is going to sell really well. It is the first significant upgrade in years for all of us who want to continue with our EFS and EF lenses.
Actually I'm not hearing the normal Canon bashing going on about the 90D like we normally hear.
Now it's more of the
"So what, we don't care about DR anymore man, that was like totally 2017 man."
OR
"Wow man like it totally doesn't do 24fps 4k video man!" What the hell has Canon been smoking man!"
But then again, I'm a 6dII owner so nothing will ever compare to the bashing this sweet little POS camera received.
Screw em all Jim. You and everyone else that is snatching one of these 90D's up are going to love the hell out of it. 100% guaranteed.
Yaryman wrote:
Is anybody buying this camera based on it's DR?
I realize the DR maybe the only thing available to analyze, but I would have to imagine a 10 fps auto focus with a 32 MB file that WORKS would be a much bigger selling point.
Just my 2¢.
I have no complaints with the DR on my 80D, or even my 6Dii, so those results will be no more than curiosity for me. It looks like a solid upgrade to the 80D in many ways, but the only things I am interested in is how much better the AF system and high ISO noise are. I am hoping real life reviews of it shows a significant improvement in both of those over the 80D, then I might be a buyer of it.
artsupreme wrote:
I didn't have time to read 7 pages....what is the verdict on the 90D DR? Are we getting a slight improvement?
The important bottom line post IMHO
snapsy wrote:
cgarcia's measurements indicate the 90D will have modestly better per-pixel DR, ie better SE at its native 32.5MP resolution vs the 80D's native 24.2MP resolution.
The more I read, the more the confusion. Cgarcia called it great news and a significant improvement and presented the data that did show a big improvement.
Well its an 8 MP resolution increase and "modestly" better at the pixel level. Is that significant and great news? Its hard to interpret and filter the significance of adjectives used on these forums. I consider it at least positive and probably means the resolution increase is real. Both CGarcia and BClaff have said the data are preliminary.
bclaff wroteon DPR:
Initial indications are that the 90D will be a lot like the 80D in PDR and Low Light ISO but naturally with more resolution.
Camperjim wrote:
The more I read, the more the confusion. Cgarcia called it great news and a significant improvement and presented the data that did show a big improvement.
Now it appears to be only "modestly better".
I think the degree of improvement is relative to one's perspective as it gets presented.
Normalized, the improvement looks bigger because of the MP increase.
Per Pixel, it looks smaller, yet improved in spite of the MP increase.
BTW, we've seen pixel increases from things like 20-24 or 24-26 ... but, this is a rather large MP increase in the realm of 33% greater. Even if the per pixel DR remained the same, that would be a plus (normalized / downsizing), but for the deep croppers, this affords a deeper crop without taking a hit (slight improvement) for the extra deep crop.
Mostly, it's gonna depend on how your play the game as to whether you see a marginal increase in DR, or a more significant one.
Either way you choose to stretch or compress the pixels ... It's Better.
I am still not sure I understand. I want to pull details out of the shadows and see decent results. It appears this will be better but I have no idea by how much.
alundeb wrote:
The 90D will be very similar to the 80D at low ISO and very similar to the 7D II at high ISO.
That would make it nearly the same as the 80D, since the 80D high ISO is already similar to the 7D II.
Hopefully, it'll be better than the 7D II on the high side.
I suppose the same as 7D II (80D) + MP's is a gain, but it would be nice if it is somewhat closer to the 6D (although, a bit unrealistic to expect APS-C to equal FF just yet).
RustyBug wrote:
I think the degree of improvement is relative to one's perspective as it gets presented.
Normalized, the improvement looks bigger because of the MP increase.
Per Pixel, it looks smaller, yet improved in spite of the MP increase.
BTW, we've seen pixel increases from things like 20-24 or 24-26 ... but, this is a rather large MP increase in the realm of 33% greater. Even if the per pixel DR remained the same, that would be a plus (normalized / downsizing), but for the deep croppers, this affords a deeper crop without taking a hit (slight improvement) for the extra deep crop.
Mostly, it's gonna depend on how your play the game as to whether you see a marginal increase in DR, or a more significant one.
Either way you choose to stretch or compress the pixels ... It's Better.
The pixel increase can be compared to a 1.15x TC (tele converter), but without the optical losses (lower contrast, longer exposure required) of a TC.
For many lenses one can doubt how significant the gain in detail from using a 1.4xTC is compared to just cropping the RAW file; often the main advantage of the TC is larger view of the subject in the viewfinder and being able to focus more accurately. The resolution/detail gain from the extra megapixels in 90D compared to 80D will be difficult to notice in most practical situations, unless one uses excellent lenses. But as there seems to be no downside to the extra megapixels (apart from higher storage / processing requirements) it is a nice improvement especially when one is focal length limited and cropping is the only solution.
The resolution of the 90D attached to a 100-400mm II at 400mm will be close enough to that of a Nikon 500mm PF on the 20 Mpx D500. And, the 400mm DO II at f/4 and with a 1.4xTC will pair beautifully with this new high res sensor. My GAS for the Nikon has been relieved.
The 400DOII+1.4ex on the 90D does seem like a very nice combo. Only problem will be AF accuracy, as it really needs to be spot-on for cropping to be successful. For that reason I am also looking at the M6II, which should be more consistent and accurate in all situations except fast action. Also, it will have no issues with mirror slap, and has the electronic shutter for perched birds. I would like to get both for a few weeks and find out which of the two bodies does better with the 400DOII and 1.4ext.
cpe1991 wrote:
The resolution of the 90D attached to a 100-400mm II at 400mm will be close enough to that of a Nikon 500mm PF on the 20 Mpx D500. And, the 400mm DO II at f/4 and with a 1.4xTC will pair beautifully with this new high res sensor. My GAS for the Nikon has been relieved.
Jeff Nolten wrote:
Ever since the 5D3 gave us f8 AF I rarely have both a crop body and FF on my international travels where the wildlife is. The 100-400 II + 1.4X III gives pretty good reach on FF IMHO. However on last year's Kenya/Tanzania trip I convinced my wife to carry the 5D4 + 24-105 while I used the 100-400 with the 80D. I'm very happy with the images the 80D delivers. Although most of our shooting was daylight I had to use a fair amount of dehaze to bring the skies back to post card blue The 80D handled this well. Home I mostly use the 80D for local wildlife and the San Diego Zoo and Safari Park where it performs excellently. The 90D promises to do even better.
A few examples. None of these use the extender. The trick is to get close enough to the animals where any current camera should satisfy. ...Show more →
It's often not possible to get as close as desirable on safari. I've used a 500/4 on the last ten safaris, often with a 1.4x (and sometimes with a 2x for smallish birds). The shorter accompanying lens is a 100-400 or 200-400. I'm curious how the 90D will do on the 500/4 II.
