As usual we still have the same poster who does not have the camera offering all sorts of opinions.
I have had mine since the day after it was released and am still very impressed. I suspect a great deal of the improvement is due to software not just the sensor design. When I jumped from 12 to 18 mp, I could see quite a difference in image quality. The jump from 18 to 24 was barely noticeable. Now the jump from 24 to 32 is again very noticeable. That includes resolution, but this thread is about dynamic range and high ISO performance. The improvement over the previous Canon 24 mp sensor versions is again very noticeable. I am especially happy with the high ISO performance. For the first time, I have largely switched to auto ISO. The only time I would be concerned about auto ISO is when I want to make a decision to jump to ISO settings higher than the default 6400.
I had a 90D loaner for about a month and shot it alongside a 1DXII. I thought up to ISO 3200 noise was OK. Luminance noise really wasn't bothersome. It was there, but fine. Chroma was a bit worse, I thought, with respect to what I saw in Lightroom. With chroma NR, colors in general felt off. Kind of plasticky and blurred. Sure, the 1DXII's 20MP FF sensor is a different thing. I felt its colors were more vibrant and 'alive' when comparing the same scenes. I liked the 90D's colors at low ISOs better, but still not as much as the 1DXII's. It could also be a LR thing. At this point, DPP isn't really an option for me due to workflow considerations.
LR hasn't figured .CR3 files out yet. But its what I use and part of the consideration about whether an upgrade is really an improvement. I'm saying this having a M6II with the same sensor and not sure I really want to use DPP.
Sadly I must agree, LR processes 90D RAW rather poorly. The color and noise handling of DPP are much better. Plus, LR sometimes does really whacky stuff to color temperature...
Gochugogi wrote:
Sadly I must agree, LR processes 90D RAW rather poorly. The color and noise handling of DPP are much better. Plus, LR sometimes does really whacky stuff to color temperature...
So far, same with the M6 ii, but hopefully, they'll catch up soon.
You can add my opinion to the last 3 who expressed disappointment in Lightroom handling of the 90D files. If you do high production volume, then using DPP is an issue. I only process limited numbers of images and for my own use. DPP is definitely worth it for overall processing but especially for handling high ISO noise or noise from expanding details in the shadows.
Another huge advantage of DPP is the possibility of using DLO and diffraction correction. The 90D has amazing detail even at f/20 and beyond but only when DC is used with DPP.
It is a shame. Canon came out with a really good camera and software to match but most users will still use Adobe software and not realize what they are missing. That seems to be what happened to the DPR reviewers who then downplayed the noise reduction and overall image quality.
Yeah, DPP has some advantages there in terms of lens optimization and the diffraction correction feature, but Adobe really needs to get on the ball. They need to get a better read on the 90D and M6ii. Possibly the RP too, though they ought to get a pretty close read from the 6D2.
I'm kind of not wanting to have to use 2 different programs to develop images, especially since I'm already using 2 computers (laptop and desktop). Nevertheless, if there's an image that I really want to tweak, I'll run it through DPP. But the speed and other features keeps me in LR most of the time.
I would DEFINITELY recommend DPP, if you are having any color issues.
I was doing that, even on the 30D. Haven't used Adobe much, for one reason or another but tended to get better looking photos in DPP, with a minimum of effort, vs other raw processors. I tested one photo for sharpness and DPP seemed better there, too. Although I'm not sure I was doing sharpness correctly, but that could lead to a bigger advantage for DPP, too.
Some, if not all, raw processors wreck the photo, with aut then you have to hope against hope you can get it back. DPP sees the in-camera settings, and looks better. Closer to what you saw on the lcd.
I'm figuring I'll use DPP until Adobe gets their act together. I read an Adobe forum post by a claimed Adobe engineer who said they were working on the new raw file format. This was for recreating the camera color profiles but I suppose analyzing noise characteristics might be part of it.
I use Lightroom to manage my raw library so I have the originals to revisit in the future. Using DPP I'll have to keep the raws and the TIFFs. Don't like that idea.
