SD/SDHC/SDXC (UHS-I support)
That is listed for 80d.
The 90d has UHS-II support! So entirely new ballgame for those that get a fast card. Under lab conditions on my 90d I get 51 RAW buffer with this card: https://www.adorama.com/idsdxpu264.html
Andrew J wrote:
RAW only, 100 ISO, manual focus, everything off in camera. None of the extras do anything to a raw file anyway. 51 shots in 5 seconds.
That's encouraging news Andrew. I added that specific SD card to my cart the other day when you mentioned your findings. If I end up picking one of these up I'll certainly grab that specific card.
What were the 51 images of? Was there a lot of details in the scene and well focused?
Just took a look at the DPreview image comparisons and compared the 90D @ ISO 3200 vs my 6DII @6400.
I must say I like what I'm seeing. Add in the extra pixels per duck and it gets even better.
At ISO 6400 on the 90D it looks like things are getting a little rough for my taste but still decent and easily corrected in post albeit with loss of detail. To be expected I suppose at this pixel density.
Andrew J wrote:
SD/SDHC/SDXC (UHS-I support)
That is listed for 80d.
The 90d has UHS-II support! So entirely new ballgame for those that get a fast card. Under lab conditions on my 90d I get 51 RAW buffer with this card: https://www.adorama.com/idsdxpu264.html
Canon claims 27 raws before the buffer fills. I'm puzzled why they wouldn't have used a UHS-II card and claimed 51.
I think we can remove any doubts about the buffer.
I doubt the buffer memory itself is much larger than the 80D. However, assuming top-end UHS-II write speeds around 180mb/s (I think the R is in that range?) there should be no buffer issues with this camera. That is for full CR3:
(1) ~50ish at 10fps
(2) Unlimited at 6fps
What were the 51 images of? Was there a lot of details in the scene and well focused?
-------------------------------------------
I've done the test as listed 5 different times same result. Indoors or out with a 400 5/6L.
The real world tests are all over the place and seem to be greatly impacted by ISO and scene detail.
Jeff Nolten wrote:
DPR has the 90D[/url] up on their comparison tool. Noise looks comparable but the detail bump is noticeable.
Noise looks better than the 80D & 7D2 ... almost on par with Nikon's D500. Looks like a lighter AA filter than the 80D (detail bump). Color and tonality looks a bit better (less of that nasty blue noise), as well as deeper black.
That of course assumes many things regarding DPR, but taken at face value, the IQ looks respectable both on a per pixel basis and on a scaled down perspective. Nothing to really complain about here. Even comparing against the 6D2, it holds its own when downsampled equitably in the upper ISO's.
I don't think the IQ side of things is going to be any major hindrance for many tasks, even if it means some downsampling with all those MP's at times.
So far the charts and studio examples I have seen do not seem to reflect what I see with this camera. The final result is a combination of the sensor and how the software works with the image files. When I use DPP to process an image at ISO 6400 it is clean with almost no hint of noise. A slight amount of extra sharpening and the result matches images at ISO 100. That did not happen with the previous Canon 24 mp sensor or the older 18 mp sensor. I cannot get results at ISO 12800 to match ISO 100 but the results are close and certainly acceptable.
Well sure, you have just moved well beyond the native ISO of the 7D2 or 80D, and that is all digitally enhanced. You don't want to go past the stated native ISO of each body, and actually you will want to stay almost a stop below that.
I wouldn't use the 90D past 16000 personally, and I am pretty tolerant of noise and can process images pretty darn well. I chose 6400, because that is about the limit of most folks on a crop body before they give up.
TeamSpeed wrote:
Well sure, you have just moved well beyond the native ISO of the 7D2 or 80D, and that is all digitally enhanced. You don't want to go past the stated native ISO of each body, and actually you will want to stay almost a stop below that.
I wouldn't use the 90D past 16000 personally, and I am pretty tolerant of noise and can process images pretty darn well. I chose 6400, because that is about the limit of most folks on a crop body before they give up.
6400
Just for clarity, in case some folks didn't pick up on it. This is under the tungsten lighting. It is also from the dark side of the image (i.e tungsten shot is NOT evenly illuminated), Upper Left Corner, the black area between the yellow tube of paint and the spool of black thread. Not quite to the far left edge, but still a pretty dark area of less than optimal illumination via tungsten ... i.e. a challenging (read, some underexposure, poor light color quality, high iso) area, imo.
Also for clarity, NOTE the highlighted icon for the equalized images (set above the scene) for downsampling, and the highlighted icon for the full image. As mentioned above, both the per pixel and the equalized comps seem to tell the same story.
RustyBug wrote:
Noise looks better than the 80D & 7D2 ... almost on par with Nikon's D500. Looks like a lighter AA filter than the 80D (detail bump). Color and tonality looks a bit better (less of that nasty blue noise), as well as deeper black.
That of course assumes many things regarding DPR, but taken at face value, the IQ looks respectable both on a per pixel basis and on a scaled down perspective. Nothing to really complain about here. Even comparing against the 6D2, it holds its own when downsampled equitably in the upper ISO's.
I don't think the IQ side of things is going to be any major hindrance for many tasks, even if it means some downsampling with all those MP's at times.
