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...!
According to this test the 400DOII is as good (if not better) as the 400/2.8 III with extenders on the 7DII.
RobAmy's shots with the 90D give us hope.
I never used the 7dII but I do use both the 400DO II and the 400mm F2.8 III. I sold my DOII but my wife still has one. Great lens, where it lacks to the 400f2.8 is AF speed with a 2x. The DO II is usable on my 1dx II but not all that well when using the 2x, the 1.4x is awesome on it. The AF speed with a 2x on the 400F2.8 is blazing fast, honestly I do not even know it is on that lens. The 90D actually grabbed focus faster using my 2x on the 400f2.8 vs the 1dxII with the 2x on the DO II. I am only talking BIF here, for static shots the DO II rocks the 2x. I used the DOII a lot and I am not seeing any sharpness issues between them, the DO is a great lens. My biggest issue was the AF speed at 800mm and the f8 vs f5.6 at 800mm, I gain a bit MFD also with the 400mm f2.8.
I have not tried the 90D on the DO II yet but we will, my wife may like it, as see rarely puts the 2x on her DO II. I highly suspect he 2x on the DO II with the 90D will struggle in the AF department.
I consider the 400mm f2.8 is the 400mm DO on steroids
technic wrote:
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.
(
I have a hunch, with no inside information, that there WILL be a 7D3, and it will use a slightly refined version of the same new sensor, 7-series ruggedness and operating speed, huge buffers, basically the low-budget sports/wildlife camera.
And I think that even though it's not traditional to bring out the 7-series AND 1-series together, they will both come out before the Olympics.
All speculation, mind you, but it would seem like a great approach. Maybe a 7D3 and an M5 Mk II sports-oriented M series (though I'm not sure that a sports-oriented M-series would be a big seller).
There will be a 1DX3 DSLR out before the Olympics, but there is no way Canon will create a mirrorless version at the same time, get it into the hands of testers, and issue that out as well. I just don't see two completely different designed pro FF cameras all coming out together.
Also, Canon would have already started the 7D3 design 2 years ago to have something out before the Olympics and that won't happen. The 90D was in the works most likely starting around 2016-2017.
If there is a 7D3, it will be another year+ before we see that, and knowing that Canon knows that their DSLR sales are tanking worse than expected, I doubt they threw all their R&D 3 years ago into 3 DSLRs with their push for mirrorless and RF lenses, and I doubt they would divert funds into a 7D3, or 5D5 DSLR when they have to have a mega resolution R, a pro R, and a couple new M series. Canon's imaging division is in major cost savings mode with closures of camera repair facilities, reorganization of staff and funds into their more commercial imaging divisions, etc.
I hope to be wrong, but if Canon sees a 5-6M flat annual sale of gear, I doubt they are going to sink money into all these initiatives, marketing, production, shipping, and warranty coverage for multiple new DSLRs and then their R/M lineups.
I cannot predict what is going to happen with cameras or with Canon. I can say it has been a long, long time to see much progress that would attract buyers....either new buyers or those of us who want to upgrade. I think Canon hit a home run with the 90D. Let's see if that makes a difference.
RobAmy wrote:
I never used the 7dII but I do use both the 400DO II and the 400mm F2.8 III. I sold my DOII but my wife still has one. Great lens, where it lacks to the 400f2.8 is AF speed with a 2x. The DO II is usable on my 1dx II but not all that well when using the 2x, the 1.4x is awesome on it. The AF speed with a 2x on the 400F2.8 is blazing fast, honestly I do not even know it is on that lens. The 90D actually grabbed focus faster using my 2x on the 400f2.8 vs the 1dxII with the 2x on the DO II. I am only talking BIF here, for static shots the DO II rocks the 2x. I used the DOII a lot and I am not seeing any sharpness issues between them, the DO is a great lens. My biggest issue was the AF speed at 800mm and the f8 vs f5.6 at 800mm, I gain a bit MFD also with the 400mm f2.8.
I have not tried the 90D on the DO II yet but we will, my wife may like it, as see rarely puts the 2x on her DO II. I highly suspect he 2x on the DO II with the 90D will struggle in the AF department.
I consider the 400mm f2.8 is the 400mm DO on steroids
Thanks RobAmy.
Canon reduces AF speed with extenders for all bodies except the 1D.
Maybe they forgot the 90D ?
Look forward to your tests with the DO II.
palombian1 wrote:
Canon reduces AF speed with extenders for all bodies except the 1D.
Maybe they forgot the 90D ?
IF ... this is true ... then I'd be interested in seeing how the 90D performs with the 100-400 II + 1.4X TC III combo.
Realizing that is an f/8 combo, whereas other combos are in the 5.6 or lower realm. Still, if it there is a legitimate gain to be had from the body, it should float all boats, not just the latest versions of Big Whites. If it plays real nice with Rob's glass, but not much of a difference for lesser lenses, then it's perceived gains will be met with mixed perspective.
Folks with lesser glass may not find it as much an improvement over their current body. Imo, that will be the compelling reason to / not to upgrade from the 80D. The extra MP's and couple more FPS are nice, but the AF is the weak(er) link in the 80D, imo.
The MKIII of the 1.4x and 2x have notable improvements for a subset of lenses regarding AF. Maybe different bodies with different lenses attached to either TC simply show different behavior with AF speed due to TC and lens compatibility for these AF improvements.
The 1.4x III reduces AF speed by 50% purposely, and the 2x III is reduced by 75%, again purposely within the TC. This was done to help accuracy accordingly to Rudy and Chuck. However I believe this speed/accuracy is only for select lenses (and maybe bodies)?
Shooting with the Canon EF 2x III Extender mounted results in reduction of autofocus speed. According to Chuck Westfall (Canon USA): "As with previous EF Extenders, usage of Series III EF Extenders lowers AF drive speed to improve AF performance. When Extender EF 1.4X III is used, AF drive speed is reduced by 50%. When Extender EF 2X III is used, AF drive speed is reduced by 75%. This may seem like a drawback, but in reality subject tracking performance remains quite high when Series III Extenders are used with IS II lenses. This is due to improvements in AF precision made possible by the new microcomputer in the extenders."
Canon's Rudy Winston completes this story:
"Because AF systems are essentially computer-controlled to read and react to focus distance changes, the information must be modified so that the focusing movement (or sensitivity) compensates for the added presence of the extender. In the Canon EOS system, this is done by deliberately reducing drive speed when an extender is detected. ...Show more →
This could make sense (although the MFD of the 400DOII is 3.3m).
My old 100-400 was better (let's say not so bad) with an extender than the 400 5.6.
I still use the 400 5.6 from time to time, it is very light and a great lens with sufficient light.
RustyBug wrote:
IF ... this is true ... then I'd be interested in seeing how the 90D performs with the 100-400 II + 1.4X TC III combo.
Realizing that is an f/8 combo, whereas other combos are in the 5.6 or lower realm. Still, if it there is a legitimate gain to be had from the body, it should float all boats, not just the latest versions of Big Whites. If it plays real nice with Rob's glass, but not much of a difference for lesser lenses, then it's perceived gains will be met with mixed perspective.
Folks with lesser glass may not find it as much an improvement over their current body. Imo, that will be the compelling reason to / not to upgrade from the 80D. The extra MP's and couple more FPS are nice, but the AF is the weak(er) link in the 80D, imo.
That's why I decided to throw some money to the 400 DO II a few years ago i.o. the 100-400 II.
I even doubt about the DOII with extenders on the 90D.
RonAmy showed images with the very best lens.
Sometimes I go camping and - because of risks for damage or theft - I take my old 7D with the 400 5.6 for birds and the Sigma 180 3.5 macro for butterflies and have very pleasant results.
This older gear is less critical.
Question about the buffer: When the buffer fills, are you able to squeeze off additional images as the buffer clears, but at a lower fps rate, or are you forced to wait until the buffer to fully clears?
I read the 90D manual and it's kind of unclear about this...
rscheffler wrote:
Question about the buffer: When the buffer fills, are you able to squeeze off additional images as the buffer clears, but at a lower fps rate, or are you forced to wait until the buffer to fully clears?
I read the 90D manual and it's kind of unclear about this...
It regular RAW slows to about 3FPS average in bursts of a few faster shots at a time and then about a second in between. In the C-Raw it is faster, but I did not time it.
rscheffler wrote:
Question about the buffer: When the buffer fills, are you able to squeeze off additional images as the buffer clears, but at a lower fps rate, or are you forced to wait until the buffer to fully clears?
I read the 90D manual and it's kind of unclear about this...
+1
Yes, the frame rate of FPS in the 80D isn't terrible at 8 fps for many things. BUT, if you shoot a burst, release and try to resume another burst before the buffer finishes, you're dead in the water waiting on buffer. I've learned it can be better to just stay on the shutter for a longer burst, if I think I'm going to come right back to it. Once that it starts ... it's like waiting for the freight train to clear the tracks.
Resuming at 3 fps while buffer clears is certainly better than stopped in your tracks ... but, still not inspiring.
This is part of where I think a Dual Processor is highly valuable.
Thanks EBH and Kent, for the insight. It would be used as a secondary camera for sports to complement a 1DXII. I currently use an old 1DX for this, but its shutter is going again (light band along an edge) and focus tracking consistency seems off. Thinking a cropper could provide some reach in lens limited situations.
I did not try an 80D and that kind of buffer performance would be a deal breaker for me. It wouldn't be unusable, but I'm sure I'd forget about this trait and it would cost missed moments. I tried a 7DII a couple years ago and it was OK, but found focus tracking too inconsistent compared to the 1D series. If the 90D improves on focus tracking consistency, it might work OK for what I have in mind.
An APS-C 1DXII would be ideal, but Canon doesn't make/offer one. It's unfortunate since Nikon's D500 seems to be a much closer complement to the D5 that what Canon is willing to offer.
