RobAmy wrote:
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.
These large FF sensors are as yet unbeatable. I use to be an Olympus shooter with 4/3 and what I took away from that, is that although theoretically, a high density small sensor with a lighter, shorter lens can replace a lower density large sensor with a larger, heavier lens, in practice this does not hold.
That is why I feel less urgency to get the higher mp bodies at each release, and am more inclined to save up for a longer and brighter lens, and speaking of such:
The real star here seems to be the 400mm f2.8. Is it possibly the best lens Canon ever made?
I have plans to save up for a Canon 500/4II to add to the super agile, fast and portable 400DOII, but would I possibly be even better off getting this newest 400/2.8? I already have 1.4 and 2.0 extenders, and would get to 800mm f5.6.
800mm f8 with the DOII just loses too much light i.m.o. and especially with the 1.6 crop sensor, loses clarity. 560mm f5.6 with the 1.4TC is perfect for me though, but reach is just a bit too short for many situations.
Any thoughts on that?
ChrisMak wrote:
These large FF sensors are as yet unbeatable. I use to be an Olympus shooter with 4/3 and what I took away from that, is that although theoretically, a high density small sensor with a lighter, shorter lens can replace a lower density large sensor with a larger, heavier lens, in practice this does not hold.
Well, I don't think it's meant to hold at all, not even theoretically. Photons on sensor are a finite resource. But if you're reach-limited (for example, because the extra reach isn't worth thousands of eurodollars to you) a small high-density sensor gets you more detail than cropping from a large low-density one. And in general, unless you're particularly wealthy, the question is always "is it worth it to pay 200% or 300% in money and weight for the xxx% increase in quality?". The answer to that question is very much subjective.
Of course it is subjective, we are fortunate enough to live in a free world, so nobody will force expensive big whites on anyone. I've seen a lot of discussion go by, sometimes helpfull, sometimes nonsensical. You get and invest in what works for you, so if you feel 30% more pixels will truly get you more reach, then go for it. In my opinion, although cropping get's you more reach, like I experienced going from the 16mp Sony sensor to the 24 mp Sony sensor, you generally also lose some of the image quality. To my eyes that is very real, and reason to invest in a few very good lenses instead of a new camera each time a higher mp sensor comes out.
I think it's safe to say that with wildlife, we are all reach limited quite frequently regardless of how long the glass is we're using. I shoot frequently at 700mm and still have to crop often.
If I had to guess, I'd say that 95% or more of the wildlife images we see posted or printed have been cropped to some degree. Obviously we all try to fill that frame but "nature" doesn't always cooperate with our request. Or if you're like me you have to correct the camera tilt slightly on almost every damn image.
The more PPD (pixels per duck) the better in my book so long as the IQ is there to begin with. If we can fill the frame great, if not then 32.5mp on a cropper with nice IQ gives us a little more wiggle room when needed. But as mentioned, the benefits are subjective.
Old FF ISO are easily beat today with current APS-C, so the generation of FF vs APS-C has to be considered.
Older FF DR is dismal with Canon compared to current APS-C as well, so same issue here too.
Even with newer FF, once you go to a very high pixel density (ala the 5DS), it starts to lose its edge and starts to match the APS-C, for example 100% pixel views, DR, etc of the 5DS vs 7D2, where they are pretty darn close.
One cannot generically say that FF is just unbeatable by crop, unless one says "when comparing same generation models, and keeping the FF pixel densities down as compared to the crop".
ChrisMak wrote:
These large FF sensors are as yet unbeatable. I use to be an Olympus shooter with 4/3 and what I took away from that, is that although theoretically, a high density small sensor with a lighter, shorter lens can replace a lower density large sensor with a larger, heavier lens, in practice this does not hold.
That is why I feel less urgency to get the higher mp bodies at each release, and am more inclined to save up for a longer and brighter lens, and speaking of such:
The real star here seems to be the 400mm f2.8. Is it possibly the best lens Canon ever made?
I have plans to save up for a Canon 500/4II to add to the super agile, fast and portable 400DOII, but would I possibly be even better off getting this newest 400/2.8? I already have 1.4 and 2.0 extenders, and would get to 800mm f5.6.
800mm f8 with the DOII just loses too much light i.m.o. and especially with the 1.6 crop sensor, loses clarity. 560mm f5.6 with the 1.4TC is perfect for me though, but reach is just a bit too short for many situations.
Any thoughts on that?
Chris I just love this 400mm Mk III. I had the DO II also and sold it for the Mk III. It feels almost lighter than the DO II due to the balance. I had the 600mm Mk III also but decided on the 400mm, I love the weight, MFD, shorter length and the way it works with the extenders are incredible. It was the best decision for me, probably the best lens I have ever used.
Photons to Photos has revised (not much) 90D data. Bottom line looks to be that the DR matches the 80D across the range, the high ISO read noise matches the 7D2 while the low ISO read noise is in between the other cameras. I guess not bad for a 32 MP crop sensor.
Jeff Nolten wrote: Photons to Photos has revised (not much) 90D data. Bottom line looks to be that the DR matches the 80D across the range, the high ISO read noise matches the 7D2 while the low ISO read noise is in between the other cameras. I guess not bad for a 32 MP crop sensor.
Sounds like the absolute DR isn't raised, per se ... rather it holds the line with the increase in MP. If you consider the jump in MP (~50%) from the 7D2 > 90D, holding the DR there on the high end isn't a bad thing. One other thing to note, the DXO color score of the 7D2 was 75, with the 80D at 85. So while the DR might be holding, if the 90D is like the 80D that'll be a gain over the 7D2 for a given DR.
Not having shot it yet, it mostly sounds like an 80D with more MP and a slight boost in FPS. Since the 7D2 had DUAL Digic 6, and the 90D only has SINGLE Digic 8 (iirc), I'd think the single processor could come up a bit shy (even if 8 vs. 6). Battery life spec seems to be a decent gain also over the 80D.
Early yet, but the AF performance gains will be the most watched difference, imo ... @ meh vs. nice vs. wow
Will be curious to learn how it performs with "mere mortal" glass like the 100-400 II + 1.4X III.
Each processor is many times more powerful than the prior, for example, the Digic 8 can process 4,000% more image data than the prior version. The same is true for calculations around AF, etc.
TeamSpeed wrote:
Each processor is many times more powerful than the prior, for example, the Digic 8 can process 4,000% more image data than the prior version. The same is true for calculations around AF, etc.
Understood ... but how that performance gain is allocated / distributed may not translate into equitable performance in a given area. I expect it to be better, but will it be better 80D+ territory, or will it be 7D3 territory? I'm not expecting the latter without a dual setup.
Kinda like the diff between an onboard GPU with the CPU vs. dedicated CPU & dedicated GPU.
From TDP:
While the 90D's conventional DSLR phase-detection AF system is not as high-performing as the systems found in Canon's 1- and 5-series models, it works well and I much prefer it over the AF system in the 70D and previous XXD models. This camera's Dual Pixel AF performance is as good or better than any EOS model available at review time. https://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/Canon-EOS-90D.aspx
I find it interesting that the comparison is mentioned as "much prefer" against the "70D and previous" ... rather than something like "much better than 80D". Of course, this is from the armchair at this point ... but, I don't hear anyone raving that it is in 7Dx territory.
Still kinda strikes me as 80D+ (i.e. not 7D2 + 80D).
Gotta get my hands on one to know for sure.
That is because he previously states that it seems the 90D shares the same type of AF system in the 80D, and thus he prefers that system on the 90D (and 80D) over the ones found on the 70D and prior. In other words, he prefers the 45 AF system over the older AF systems found on the APS-C lineup.
TeamSpeed wrote:
That is because he previously states that it seems the 90D shares the same type of AF system in the 80D, and thus he prefers that system on the 90D (and 80D) over the ones found on the 70D and prior. In other words, he prefers the 45 AF system over the older AF systems found on the APS-C lineup.
Gotcha ... but, did I miss something that indicated a significant improvement in AF performance from 80D > 90D ... 7Dx-ish
I suspect we will find that the 90D AF speed is right there with the 7D2, but with the 45 point system, so a compromise between the xxD and 7D lines.
I think this is indeed the last xxD where they took some of the 7D DNA and put it in the camera, and there also won't be a 7D3. Probably a bit too much like the 80D though than the 7D2.
TeamSpeed wrote:
Probably a bit too much like the 80D though than the 7D2.
+1 That's what it sounds like to me.
At the end of the day, sounds like it's still (a better) XXD, with some XD ... i.e. not exactly the best of both worlds, just some (i.e. fps) of the XD.
