Joystick of the 7D2
Burst rate of the 7D2
Same high ISO as the 7D2
More low ISO DR than that 7D2
More resolution than the 7D2, by quite a bit
UHS-II card slot vs 7D2 UHS-I, but single slot
Tilt/Touch LCD
Twice the battery life of the 7D2
1/16000 electronic shutter speed
4K video vs HD on the 7D2
Bluetooth/Wifi/GPS vs none on the 7D2
So yes, the 80D had some of this, but this is why I fail to see a 7D3. It would have the 65 pt AF system, but then what to differentiate it much more than the 80D for that price delta?
I bet that if they had a 7D3 with similar specs as 90D, but a much faster AF system (not so much the number of points, but a response time that makes it suitable for fast action unlike the 80/90D) and dual card slot they could easily ask $2000 for it. I think the difference in AF performance between the 80D and the Nikon D500 is HUGE; a similar jump in AF performance for a 7D3 should be possible unless Canon has not invested anything in better PDAF systems for the last 7 years or so.
Personally I don't need dual card slot and certainly not the higher weight etc. of a 7X series body, but I would sure pay a lot extra for a capable AF system (even better if they can shoehorn this in to an SL3 body though ...).
It seems that Canon is unsure about a lot of things lately, especially direction to proceed. Some of the latest statements suggest that they are going to see how well the 90D sells and depending on that - and how long it takes them to make a real ML action body below the $2500 price level - maybe invest in 7D3 production? This of course in addition to their general strategy of "milking the market" which would predict that they offer the 90D deliberately with less capable AF in order to upsell to 7D3 later on for those who need fast AF response ;(
90D has incredible AF just no buffer.
To compare: my 1999 1Dn has 36 "RAW" buffer (6.5 fps). Two decades later the 90D comes out and has 26 raw buffer?
Andrew J wrote:
90D has incredible AF just no buffer.
To compare: my 1999 1Dn has 36 "RAW" buffer (6.5 fps). Two decades later the 90D comes out and has 26 raw buffer?
And when your film camera's "buffer" is full, how long does it take to flush it so you can continue shooting?
Andrew J wrote:
90D has incredible AF just no buffer.
To compare: my 1999 1Dn has 36 "RAW" buffer (6.5 fps). Two decades later the 90D comes out and has 26 raw buffer?
The 1D has 22 frames of RAW buffer and it was released in late 2001.
Anyways, you can increase the 90D's throughput with C-Raw.
I've read many folks are finding the buffer a little too small but they have said it's fine as long as they time their burst better like the old days before spray and pray became the norm.
Personally I don't like being restricted by the camera and prefer the restraint be invoked by myself not the camera. However with that said, I think I've hit the 20 frame buffer on my 6DII maybe 3 or 4 times in the 2 years I've owned it.
The buffer is actually quite good for an xxD. I'm more concerned with the total throughput in one minute than the buffer depth because I shoot in bursts. Unfortunately it doesn't appear that the 90D is writing to UHS II in half-duplex mode or at least not as fast as it could be. Somebody needs to test this specifically.
EB-1 wrote:
The 1D has 22 frames of RAW buffer and it was released in late 2001.
Anyways, you can increase the 90D's throughput with C-Raw.
EBH
Clearly Canon is dumbing down some of the features. File that in the what's new section of your life.
A buffer that could handle 30 or 40 full RAWs, and a real 10 FPS. Suddenly you have a sports camera with a 1.6 crop
that rivals the 1DX2 and costs only $1200. Not going to happen.
Yaryman wrote:
A buffer that could handle 30 or 40 full RAWs, and a real 10 FPS.
You mean, like the 7D Mark II? Which has, of course, much smaller files. The fact that the 90D's max throughput jumped from the 80D's 168 Mpix/s to 320 Mpix/s, while retaining the ~25 RAW buffer depth, is pretty awesome. And then there's CRAW if you need more buffer. If you think that's dumbing down then I don't know what to say.
I now know for certain I had a bad Sony $110 card from Amazon. Rated 300 MB/s write speed I only got 26 RAW buffer on the 90d. My Sandisk Extreme PRO arrived and now I get 51 RAW shots non-stop. After that the buffer clears in 8.7 seconds.
EB-1 wrote:
The buffer is actually quite good for an xxD. I'm more concerned with the total throughput in one minute than the buffer depth because I shoot in bursts. Unfortunately it doesn't appear that the 90D is writing to UHS II in half-duplex mode or at least not as fast as it could be. Somebody needs to test this specifically.
EBH
No idea about this "half-duplex" mode thing but looking at the numbers over at Imaging Resource and doing some rough math it looks like you should see something around 198 frames/minute. That's if you are shooting cRaws only and let off when you hit the buffer, wait 5.6 seconds and repeat. Looks like they achieved these numbers using the Sony 64GB SF-G UHS-II SDXC card.
I'm assuming you've already seen and read those results though and that's where your "half-duplex" concern came from?
Andrew J wrote:
I now know for certain I had a bad Sony $110 card from Amazon. Rated 300 MB/s write speed I only got 26 RAW buffer on the 90d. My Sandisk Extreme PRO arrived and now I get 51 RAW shots non-stop. After that the buffer clears in 8.7 seconds.
Now that's good information to have. I was just looking at those Sony cards on Amazon today. Glad I didn't buy it yet.
Andrew J wrote:
I now know for certain I had a bad Sony $110 card from Amazon. Rated 300 MB/s write speed I only got 26 RAW buffer on the 90d. My Sandisk Extreme PRO arrived and now I get 51 RAW shots non-stop. After that the buffer clears in 8.7 seconds.
I have 2017 128GB Sony cards from another source that are fine in my Sony a7R III but not anywhere near 50 RAW on the 90D. I wonder if there is some issue with compatibility.
EB-1 wrote:
The buffer is actually quite good for an xxD. I'm more concerned with the total throughput in one minute than the buffer depth because I shoot in bursts. Unfortunately it doesn't appear that the 90D is writing to UHS II in half-duplex mode or at least not as fast as it could be. Somebody needs to test this specifically.
EBH
lighthound wrote:
No idea about this "half-duplex" mode thing but looking at the numbers over at Imaging Resource and doing some rough math it looks like you should see something around 198 frames/minute. That's if you are shooting cRaws only and let off when you hit the buffer, wait 5.6 seconds and repeat. Looks like they achieved these numbers using the Sony 64GB SF-G UHS-II SDXC card.
I'm assuming you've already seen and read those results though and that's where your "half-duplex" concern came from?
I'm looking for the continuous MB/sec. that the camera can write from buffer to card from various cards. It should be a bit higher with RAW than C-Raw since the files are larger.
Well I got out this morning and tested the AF on this little gem, it did a great job overall. I actually only used it with the 2x on the 400mm f2.8 Mk III. The snowy egret burst had 32 images and I believe around 30 came out in focus. This did amazing well considering the 2x plus the crop factor of the camera. The bare lens will only get better. I still like the files better from the 1dxII but this little camera holds it's own. I only used it handheld today. If I lost focus then it took a bit to get it back but pumping the back button focus worked well, the 1dxII is snappier to get back on target. Seeing how this works, I am really looking to what the next 1dx may be. Zone AF worked great, I hope they put that on the 1dx. I am still amazed how this lens works with extenders. While this will not replace my 1dx, I would not hesitate to recommend it, just understand what you are getting. I think it is a terrific camera at the price point just without the punch of the 1dxII files.
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?
The image quality of the 400DOII on the 7DII is very good with the 1.4, but I seldom have good shots with the 2.0 extender, while I see many photos made with FF bodies having no problem with the 2.0.
I suppose the resolution becomes too low for the smaller pixels of the 7DII. Or is diffraction at work ?
If this is true I am afraid it will be worse on a 32 mpx sensor with still smaller pixels and diffraction starting at f:5.2.
With the 1.4 extender at 560mm f5.6, IQ is very good, but at 800mm f8 I also see loss of fine detail. F8 is no longer really reliable AF wise with any DSLR, although on my Sony A7RII, it is still very accurate. But IQ even with accurate AF never reaches 1.4TC level. Diffraction will only make that more obvious on the 90D or M6II, when using the 2.0TC, but f5.6 should do very well. FWIW, I prefer the IQ of the 7DII with 400DOII+1.4TC to the IQ of the Sony A7RII. Colors are more natural, but that will be because lens and sensor are better matched.
To get RobAmy's results with the 2.0ex at 800mm on the 90D, one will have to upgrade from the 400DOII to the 400/2.8, which will add some weight and size, but will seriously lighten your wallet...!
palombian1 wrote:
The image quality of the 400DOII on the 7DII is very good with the 1.4, but I seldom have good shots with the 2.0 extender, while I see many photos made with FF bodies having no problem with the 2.0.
I suppose the resolution becomes too low for the smaller pixels of the 7DII. Or is diffraction at work ?
If this is true I am afraid it will be worse on a 32 mpx sensor with still smaller pixels and diffraction starting at f:5.2.
