arbitrage wrote:
This is how I felt all the time comparing my 1DX and 1DX2 files to the 7D2 and 80D files.
Same but versus my 5D4. Also like the inexpensive XP files over the croppers, despite the slightly reduced ability to pull up shadows. The full framers just have the edge when the ISO goes up.
Still pondering the 90D for situations where I can shoot 1600 or below. Of course, I'm relying on people that have already gotten the 90D to provide the needed info to make a decision.
Tom_W wrote:
Still pondering the 90D for situations where I can shoot 1600 or below. Of course, I'm relying on people that have already gotten the 90D to provide the needed info to make a decision.
You are living in the past. There have been plenty of images posted. I just finished looking at some of mine.
The 90D will provide outstanding results at ISO 6400. ISO 12800 is still pretty good but will require a bit extra sharpening after noise reduction. ISO 25600 is useable for family type, informal snapshots where content is more important than image quality and the audience is not so judgemental.
Tom_W wrote:
Still pondering the 90D for situations where I can shoot 1600 or below.
Camperjim wrote:
You are living in the past. There have been plenty of images posted. I just finished looking at some of mine. The 90D will provide outstanding results at ISO 6400...
Don't be too hard on Tom. There are a number of us that are still taking in the early reviews. I'm waiting to see how Photons to Photos and DxO measurements look when they finalize those.
And I still haven't seen enough responses that this is indeed a 10 FPS camera when used the way a wildlife shooter would. One yes, one no so far by my count.
The early reports sound great. But most of us already have great cameras so we can afford to be patient.
I would need the 90D to be as good as the 7D2 at high ISOs, without normalization. If I have to normalize the resolution down to gain an ISO advantage, then I will just keep a 7D2 in the bag. So I just need to check out files like typically found in the TDP reviews, or the studio comparison raws from dpreview.
Based on the raw files I've now viewed, I'm impressed with what I've seen. Full sized images @ ISO 6400 look very nice to me. Yes, there is detail loss and some noise but nothing like I was expecting out of a 32.5mp cropper. It's getting difficult to hold off from picking one of these up.
My interest is to use this on my 500 f/4 II without the need for a 1.4x tele especially in low light when fighting high ISO and flirting with dangerously slow ss.
I'm still blown away every time I open new images I just shot with my 6DII where I've been able to fill the frame shooting at f/4 with just the naked 500 without a tele. I'm hoping the AF and tracking prove to be decent on this little guy. If reports come in that it does well then that'll probably be the last straw and I'll cave like the weak man that I am.
lighthound wrote:
Based on the raw files I've now viewed, I'm impressed with what I've seen. Full sized images @ ISO 6400 look very nice to me. Yes, there is detail loss and some noise but nothing like I was expecting out of a 32.5mp cropper. It's getting difficult to hold off from picking one of these up.
My interest is to use this on my 500 f/4 II without the need for a 1.4x tele especially in low light when fighting high ISO and flirting with dangerously slow ss.
I'm still blown away every time I open new images I just shot with my 6DII where I've been able to fill the frame shooting at f/4 with just the naked 500 without a tele. I'm hoping the AF and tracking prove to be decent on this little guy. If reports come in that it does well then that'll probably be the last straw and I'll cave like the weak man that I am. ...Show more →
With you 100%. On my 5dmkiv, the af really takes a hit with any tc attached to the 500f4. Though I love the native lens (even wide open) it simply doesn’t mesh well for me with the tc’s. Interestingly the same 1.4x iii tc which muddles up my 500f/4 is fine on my 100-400 paired to the 5dmkiv. Is it a voltage issue or something else, I simply don’t know.
Good thought though I don’t know if they have them. I want to send my 500 f/4 in for a check though as a gold member it will cost a fortune in shipping (I no longer live close to a service center any more).
One of the reasons I bought a mirrorless is so that I can use 1.4x and 2x on my long slow lenses, like the Sigma 150-600. I simply cannot get the DSLRs to focus at all due to the aperture now being smaller than f8.
Not good for BIF, but great for about everything else.
For those wondering about the high ISO performance, I did test this.
As has been mentioned, the images seem to get noisy quicker than other bodies. However, using the simple sliders in LR, it cleans up really well and fairly quickly and then needs just a touch of sharpening. Those who use other methods I think would be able to do a better job. This was actually one of the best things about the camera.
Sharlin wrote:
The R and RP are about to get a firmware update which appears to greatly improve eye AF and subject acquisition. It should be available on Sep 26. Most likely the 90D and the M6 II come with similar improvements built in.
However, I'll bet the newer sensor has faster read speed so will always be better than EOS R.
Pixel Perfect wrote:
IQ surely is great, but let's see how the AF handles fast erratic action and against busy background. The 90D really needs big improvement over 80D.
+1 Nice IQ
+1 if it is suppose to be the hybrid of the 80D & 7D2 to stave off the 7D3, it'll need a big jump from the 80D.
Now that I think of it, a 90D that proves to NOT be the AF performing successor to the 7D2 will be a perfect "setup" for introducing a 7D3 to the market about 6-9 months later.
Tom_W wrote:
Still pondering the 90D for situations where I can shoot 1600 or below.
Camperjim wrote:
You are living in the past. There have been plenty of images posted. I just finished looking at some of mine. The 90D will provide outstanding results at ISO 6400...
Jeff Nolten wrote:
Don't be too hard on Tom. There are a number of us that are still taking in the early reviews. I'm waiting to see how Photons to Photos and DxO measurements look when they finalize those.
And I still haven't seen enough responses that this is indeed a 10 FPS camera when used the way a wildlife shooter would. One yes, one no so far by my count.
The early reports sound great. But most of us already have great cameras so we can afford to be patient.
The 90D is a fine, general purpose budget camera. It's not a super wildlife, sports, or landscape body, but can produce very nice 32 MP images for those that can work within the inherent limitations. People need to have realistic expectations.
My copy of the 90D is surprisingly good at ISO 1600, though ISO 6400 is far from outstanding. I'd reserve that description for the FF/FX bodies 24MP and under.
EB-1 wrote:
The 90D is a fine, general purpose budget camera. It's not a super wildlife, sports, or landscape body, but can produce very nice 32 MP images for those that can work within the inherent limitations. People need to have realistic expectations.
My copy of the 90D is surprisingly good at ISO 1600, though ISO 6400 is far from outstanding. I'd reserve that description for the FF/FX bodies 24MP and under.
EBH
My 80D is also very good at ISO 1600 when there is sufficient light (so you can ETTR without getting subject motion or camera shake) and plenty of detail in the subject. However, in conditions where I really need the High ISO like for fast moving subject (fast shutter speed, limited DOF, harsh lighting) the noise and DR at 1600 ISO often looks plain ugly. And when using Liveview for a bit longer in such situations, you get some extra shadow color banding as a bonus
The AF system makes the 80D and 90D suitable for general photography and NOT for real action. AF is very slow and often doesn't know what it is doing ...
BTW regarding those who plan to use the 90D instead of a TC I wonder if they understand that the 90D is basically just a 1.14x TC and NOT a 1.4x one.
> BTW regarding those who plan to use the 90D instead of a TC I wonder if they understand that the 90D is basically just a 1.14x TC and NOT a 1.4x one.
Well, it depends on what you compare to. Comparing the 90D with the 1DX II, the 90D gives a similar number of pixels per subject as the 1DX II with a 2X teleconverter. So, when evaluating AF, image quality and high ISO performance, the question to ask might be: how do the pixel-level results (detail, noise, focus) of the 90D (without TC) compare to 1D X II with 2X?
ilkka_nissila wrote:
> BTW regarding those who plan to use the 90D instead of a TC I wonder if they understand that the 90D is basically just a 1.14x TC and NOT a 1.4x one.
Well, it depends on what you compare to. Comparing the 90D with the 1DX II, the 90D gives a similar number of pixels per subject as the 1DX II with a 2X teleconverter. So, when evaluating AF, image quality and high ISO performance, the question to ask might be: how do the pixel-level results (detail, noise, focus) of the 90D (without TC) compare to 1D X II with 2X? ...Show more →
You said it perfectly, my files with the 1dx Mark II hold up better with the 2x in my opinion. The 90D is a nice little camera at the price point vs the 1dxII but I prefer the 1dxII for the overall look.
EB-1 wrote:
The 90D is a fine, general purpose budget camera. It's not a super wildlife, sports, or landscape body, but can produce very nice 32 MP images for those that can work within the inherent limitations.
