I'm thinking the 90D is Canon's trial balloon to see what the market is for mirrored cameras now after all the attention on mirrorless. They probably have the design of the 7D3 finalized and maybe have some prototypes around, but don't want to commit to a manufacturing run without a better feel for the market. So I hope we all buy 90Ds and we'll wait to see what Canon does.
Tom_W wrote:
That's pretty much where I sit - it's just hard to knock my 5D4 off its pedestal as my all-around camera. The files are fine, even as I get into situations where I need ISO 3200 or 6400. The disadvantage - pixels-per-duck is less on the big sensor. But through the 80D, I haven't found an APS-C body that works for me in those situations where I need to crank the ISO to keep some reasonable shutter speed.
Now, if the 90D is close at 3200, then I can certainly justify it for its pixel density, because instead of a 1.4X teleconverter and a stop of light lost, I can get similar field of view performance. In other words, if the 90D can give me at 600 mm and ISO 1600, what the 5D2 does at 840 mm and ISO 3200 (accounting for the 1 stop lost to the telecon), then it might well be worth my purchase.
I'm seeing some great results here from Rob and others, and it really looks promising in good light. And still will be a strong contender for a second (third) body. But what will get me running to the store, instead of walking, is seeing great results in the field.
Of course, I could wait for the mythical 7D III, as I've been waiting for that 3D for 15 years.
It's all good - seeing these advances, these improvements, all help. The stiff competition is doing all of us from hobbyists to professionals a lot of good as great alternatives come out on the market. ...Show more →
Not only that, more often than not I found that I ended up cropping in on that 840mm shot. I'm looking forward to testing my junky 600 III out on this new 90D
MatthewK wrote:
Not only that, more often than not I found that I ended up cropping in on that 840mm shot. I'm looking forward to testing my junky 600 III out on this new 90D
I'd gladly take that "junky 600 III" off your hands for a reasonable (for me) price!
I'm plagued with the evil 500 II, as well as the absolute pedestrian Sigma Contemporary 150-600 (which the 90D probably out-resolves).
I hate the 150-600, it is terrible having the ability to shoot at 1200mm with working AF. Also it is terrible by itself on a crop body, I probably should sell mine.
On a serious note, it's not like Canon just up and went to go design and produce the 90D just this year. It was in the works back in 2016, or early 2017 at the earliest, before any of us knew about the R, RP and RF mount. So I doubt this is some market research body, this is/was one of the last DSLRs that Canon had in the works, and they will likely now be much more cautious on what projects they start on.
Seeing the DPR stuff (face value) makes me consider the 90D as an upgrade to the 80D, on IQ basis.
Looking at the corresponding data from P2P, it seems to be on par with the 80D, but shadow improvement noise seems to be different from the 7D2 at the higher ISO's.
Still curious to learn about the buffer & AF, but I'll probably have to get my hands on it to get a feel for that.
I'm still thinking that a 7D3 could be in the works, so I may wait on the 90D to pass it's 6 month price point, and either garner a price reduction, or the announcement of the 7D3.
Imo, if Canon does have a 7D3 in the wings, they'll announce it just before they drop the price on the 90D. Then after sales of the 90D drop off for folks going after the 7D3, then they'll drop the 90D to re-invigorate 90D sales.
If they drop the price of the 90D (around 6-8 months from now), WITHOUT any announcement of the 7D3, then I think that'll be the final signal regarding no 7D3 ... and likely some version of a 7R announcement along the way instead.
Back to the 90D, it almost has me thinking about an APS-C lens for the UWA end to carry as a single body rather than both APS-C & FF.
RustyBug wrote:
Seeing the DPR stuff (face value) makes me consider the 90D as an upgrade to the 80D, on IQ basis.
Looking at the corresponding data from P2P, it seems to be on par with the 80D, but shadow improvement noise seems to be different from the 7D2 at the higher ISO's.
Still curious to learn about the buffer & AF, but I'll probably have to get my hands on it to get a feel for that.
I'm still thinking that a 7D3 could be in the works, so I may wait on the 90D to pass it's 6 month price point, and either garner a price reduction, or the announcement of the 7D3.
Imo, if Canon does have a 7D3 in the wings, they'll announce it just before they drop the price on the 90D. Then after sales of the 90D drop off for folks going after the 7D3, then they'll drop the 90D to re-invigorate 90D sales.
If they drop the price of the 90D (around 6-8 months from now), WITHOUT any announcement of the 7D3, then I think that'll be the final signal regarding no 7D3 ... and likely some version of a 7R announcement along the way instead.
Back to the 90D, it almost has me thinking about an APS-C lens for the UWA end to carry as a single body rather than both APS-C & FF....Show more →
Let me know what testing on the 90D you're interested in Kent. I'll do my best.
I just snagged Rob's from him for a very generous price (Thanks Rob!) and will be doing some comparisons using the 100-400II and the 500II. Maybe both with and without a 1.4x but for sure on the 100-400II.
The BIF opportunities aren't that great around my area but I'll be looking for something with feathers to click on soon.
Your comment about a APS-C lens for the UWA has got me rethinking my plan to sell my 17-55. It'll be interesting to see if it can resolve well enough on this high mp little beast. I haven't used that lens in years. Hmmmm
With my luck they'll release the 7D3 in the spring but by that time I'll know if the 90D is all I'll need or not. I'm actually hoping if they do release it, that it'll be a mirrorless body.
Let us know how it performs with the 100-400 is ii and 500 f/4 is ii; two of my go to lenses. On my 5dmkiv’s the former is a rock star for BIF and still good with static objects with the 1.4x tc whereas the 500 f4 is great but really becomes less accurate withe the 1.4x.
lighthound wrote:
Let me know what testing on the 90D you're interested in Kent. I'll do my best.
I just snagged Rob's from him for a very generous price (Thanks Rob!) and will be doing some comparisons using the 100-400II and the 500II. Maybe both with and without a 1.4x but for sure on the 100-400II.
The BIF opportunities aren't that great around my area but I'll be looking for something with feathers to click on soon.
Your comment about a APS-C lens for the UWA has got me rethinking my plan to sell my 17-55. It'll be interesting to see if it can resolve well enough on this high mp little beast. I haven't used that lens in years. Hmmmm
With my luck they'll release the 7D3 in the spring but by that time I'll know if the 90D is all I'll need or not. I'm actually hoping if they do release it, that it'll be a mirrorless body. ...Show more →
Well, as you know ... I'm tapped at the 100-400 II + 1.4X III on the long end. How it rolls on the AF with the f/8 combo (native 5.6 also) is of interest. That, and if the buffer hangs you up if you try to resume shooting after a burst that is still buffering.
BTW ... I "liked" your post, but really wanted to "Dislike" it out of jealousy for Rob's camera.
Mostly, just put it through your own paces, and I'll watch & listen vicariously for a bit.
Reading Yaryman's review using the 90D for sports (presumably through the viewfinder), he wasn't nearly so pessimistic about its AF tracking ability. I wonder if DPR was using face tracking to follow the dude on the bicycle? Don't think I'd depend on face tracking for the highest speed/accuracy. Typical of DPR they go to great pains to make sure we know that any Canon product is not class leading.
technic wrote:
We have come a long way from the initial - totally unrealistic - "at least three stops better High ISO than 80D" to "in some ways on par with 7D2 for High ISO" and "slightly better High ISO than 80D". Agree that it would be nice if the 90D sensor combines the best of 7D2 and 80D, but I'm unconvinced that this is true (it may be true in some conditions though).
I think the claims of superb AF performance (compared to e.g. 80D) will go down the same path as those for sensor performance, once the initial hype dies down. Nothing more than slight improvements and obviously, there was no reason technically to expect anything else; magic doesn't exist in technology....Show more →
DPR is clearly confirming my last point, little change compared to 80D. Which doesn't mean AF is bad, just that it has significant limitations that may matter depending on subject, shooting conditions etc.
Through-the-viewfinder autofocus tracking should, in theory, be more reliable than the EOS 80D thanks to an updated metering sensor. But any jumps in image recognition capability seem hampered by an autofocus system that is essentially unchanged from its predecessor, with somewhat limited coverage and poor out-of-the-box accuracy.
It can be fixed by tuning the highly customizable AF system, which they refuse to do. That is fine but they don't even say "we refused to adjust the most basic tracking settings for our conditions."
Andrew J wrote:
It can be fixed by tuning the highly customizable AF system, which they refuse to do. That is fine but they don't even say "we refused to adjust the most basic tracking settings for our conditions."
Without digging into the manual, I'm not sure how "customizable" the 90D AF system is. It's not as sophisticated as the one in the 7D2 or 5D4.
Tom_W wrote:
Without digging into the manual, I'm not sure how "customizable" the 90D AF system is. It's not as sophisticated as the one in the 7D2 or 5D4.
It has exactly the same settings as the higher-end models. It just lacks the presets for quickly switching between scenarios.
Andrew J wrote:
It can be fixed by tuning the highly customizable AF system, which they refuse to do. That is fine but they don't even say "we refused to adjust the most basic tracking settings for our conditions."
Well, the DPR guys have weird aversion aversion to the Custom Functions menu, and given that the AF settings are there, they're probably pretending they don't exist at all.
Tom_W wrote:
Without digging into the manual, I'm not sure how "customizable" the 90D AF system is. It's not as sophisticated as the one in the 7D2 or 5D4.
Several of the review comments about AF echo what the DPR guys were saying at the Canon sponsored Georgia race track photo event. I wonder how much further research or review they did before writing the final review?
That said, the 5D4 has use cases each of which have the configuration sliders set to a different optimization. The 80D and 90D only have the sliders so you only get one optimization configuration. Also when comparing back to the 7D2 which had dual digic processors, one for image capture and one for AF processing, the 90D only has one to do both. So I think the AF and frame rate will suffer on the 90D in certain situations compared to the 7D2 because of this. I really like my 80D and the 90D will only improve on it but a 7D3 with dual digic 8s would satisfy many more serious users. The 5D4 also has dual digic processors though this is not hyped like the 7D and 1D series.
