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.
The DPR studio shots don't tell the whole story (and I don't mean what someone else is claiming, that ISO 12800 is almost as good as ISO 100 ...). Studio shots don't tell you how High ISO performance is in the conditions that matter in practice, which IMHO is primarily for action with very fast shutter times (and often with harsh lighting instead of nice diffused studio lights). I agree that there is nothing to really complain about, but difficult to say how it compares in practice with e.g. D500.
When I compare fast action images from my 80D with those from D500 at high ISO like 3200 and above, the difference is pretty huge to the advantage of D500 - much bigger than the DPR studio shots or certain noise measurements suggest. Probably this is mainly related to the noise character of the sensors with short exposures.
IndyFab wrote:
Image is great, but lets hear your verbal thoughts on the 90D Keith..
BTW who are we looking for on the sidelines shooting a NFL game, always like to see a fellow FM'r
Quick thoughts.
I was also shooting with 1DX. With every method I found possible, 90D can't match 1DX 10 fps in auto servo.
It may be possible in live view, but I was shooting through view finder. Seems like I got a good solid 8 fps. Shot in full JPG & cRAW on
San Disk extreme pro 170 MB card. Could get a least 30 photos before buffer filled. Not really a problem.
I was using the camera more than I would in normal situations. Sometimes the action was to close for a 640mm effect lens.
That said, it was great when action was 40 yards out, and I did even use it with 1.4 tele-converter for an effective 896 mm lens.
Would like to use with battery grip as camera doesn't feel right vertical with big lens attached. I thought I did read that using a
battery grip might slow down the FPS. ( that could be wrong, not sure )
I shot mostly at f4.0 on my 400mm 2.8. Even on my 1DX, I shot at 3.5 or 3.2. I just feel the lens is sharper that way.
When using the 1.4 tele, I shot at f5.0 or f5.6. I pretty much do same with 1DX on the lens.
Long story short, I thought the camera was worth the $1200 and made a more effective long lens vs using the 1.4 converter.
Might try to shot using live view, but I need to take my reading glasses to use live view, while I can see fine looking through viewfinder without glasses.
Here are some of my first attempts at large BIF and the 90D/600mm f4 mkII. I'm still in the learning phase of the 90D and BIF in general. I'm fairly please with my initial tests in less than ideal conditions (including numerous mosquitoes and dwindling light). In future tests I'll hone my skills on tracking, pushing higher ISO, and general technique. I would have preferred higher shutter speed for the flight images.
Yaryman wrote:
Quick thoughts.
I was also shooting with 1DX. With every method I found possible, 90D can't match 1DX 10 fps in auto servo.
It may be possible in live view, but I was shooting through view finder. Seems like I got a good solid 8 fps. Shot in full JPG & cRAW on
San Disk extreme pro 170 MB card. Could get a least 30 photos before buffer filled. Not really a problem.
I was using the camera more than I would in normal situations. Sometimes the action was to close for a 640mm effect lens.
That said, it was great when action was 40 yards out, and I did even use it with 1.4 tele-converter for an effective 896 mm lens.
Would like to use with battery grip as camera doesn't feel right vertical with big lens attached. I thought I did read that using a
battery grip might slow down the FPS. ( that could be wrong, not sure )
I shot mostly at f4.0 on my 400mm 2.8. Even on my 1DX, I shot at 3.5 or 3.2. I just feel the lens is sharper that way.
When using the 1.4 tele, I shot at f5.0 or f5.6. I pretty much do same with 1DX on the lens.
Long story short, I thought the camera was worth the $1200 and made a more effective long lens vs using the 1.4 converter.
Might try to shot using live view, but I need to take my reading glasses to use live view, while I can see fine looking through viewfinder without glasses. ...Show more →
Thanks for sharing your thoughts Keith, much appreciated !!
technic wrote:
The DPR studio shots don't tell the whole story (and I don't mean what someone else is claiming, that ISO 12800 is almost as good as ISO 100 ...). Studio shots don't tell you how High ISO performance is in the conditions that matter in practice, which IMHO is primarily for action with very fast shutter times (and often with harsh lighting instead of nice diffused studio lights). I agree that there is nothing to really complain about, but difficult to say how it compares in practice with e.g. D500.
When I compare fast action images from my 80D with those from D500 at high ISO like 3200 and above, the difference is pretty huge to the advantage of D500 - much bigger than the DPR studio shots or certain noise measurements suggest. Probably this is mainly related to the noise character of the sensors with short exposures....Show more →
Which is precisely why I look a lot at the tungsten / underexposed areas. High ISO in those conditions are (of the DPR's) likely more telling. As to the diff between D80 vs. D500 ... no surprise there, given the seeming amount of diff between the D80 vs. D90 (taking DPR @ face value).
Yaryman wrote:
Quick thoughts.
I was also shooting with 1DX. With every method I found possible, 90D can't match 1DX 10 fps in auto servo.
It may be possible in live view, but I was shooting through view finder. Seems like I got a good solid 8 fps. Shot in full JPG & cRAW on
San Disk extreme pro 170 MB card. Could get a least 30 photos before buffer filled. Not really a problem.
I was using the camera more than I would in normal situations. Sometimes the action was to close for a 640mm effect lens.
That said, it was great when action was 40 yards out, and I did even use it with 1.4 tele-converter for an effective 896 mm lens.
Would like to use with battery grip as camera doesn't feel right vertical with big lens attached. I thought I did read that using a
battery grip might slow down the FPS. ( that could be wrong, not sure )
I shot mostly at f4.0 on my 400mm 2.8. Even on my 1DX, I shot at 3.5 or 3.2. I just feel the lens is sharper that way.
When using the 1.4 tele, I shot at f5.0 or f5.6. I pretty much do same with 1DX on the lens.
Long story short, I thought the camera was worth the $1200 and made a more effective long lens vs using the 1.4 converter.
Might try to shot using live view, but I need to take my reading glasses to use live view, while I can see fine looking through viewfinder without glasses. ...Show more →
Gotcha @ 8 fps through the VF.
about the buffer? How is it if you rattle off say 10-15, release, resume to rattle off another burst of 10-15? Does it make you wait for the buffer to finish processing the first burst, before you can resume (like the 80D does), or can you resume without skipping a beat while it is still buffering?
Andrew J wrote:
400 iso af gets 26 raw buffer in under 3 seconds. Viewfinder shows 22 buffer. Buffer clears in under 5 seconds. With the 300MB/s card.
Well the 7D2 and 90D are very similar at ISO12800, which is close to the 7D2 final native ISO setting, with the 90D edging out both in quantity of noise and fact that resolution will help reduce that. Basically the sentiment that others had where the 90D seems to combine the best of the 80D low ISO DR with the 7D2 high ISO holds true, which is a very good thing.
I was hoping that the 90D was a bit closer to the 5D4 though at high ISO, but that didn't happen.
The M50 seems to hold up better in the DPReview studio shots, however I have that camera, and it doesn't do that well, so I have to question the studio results, even in tungsten setting. Strange...
about the buffer? How is it if you rattle off say 10-15, release, resume to rattle off another burst of 10-15? Does it make you wait for the buffer to finish processing the first burst, before you can resume (like the 80D does), or can you resume without skipping a beat while it is still buffering?
---------------------------------------------------------------------
With the 300MB/s write speed card it writes about 5 a second. ISO, tracking settings, and scene detail all seem to play a part in write speed. I believe it is better than you describe the 80d being, but the question is subjective and dependent on what you shoot. I don't see any waiting until I use up 26 shots in a row and then have 5+ shots available in a second.
TeamSpeed wrote:
Well the 7D2 and 90D are very similar at ISO12800, which is close to the 7D2 final native ISO setting, with the 90D edging out both in quantity of noise and fact that resolution will help reduce that. Basically the sentiment that others had where the 90D seems to combine the best of the 80D low ISO DR with the 7D2 high ISO holds true, which is a very good thing.
I was hoping that the 90D was a bit closer to the 5D4 though at high ISO, but that didn't happen.
The M50 seems to hold up better in the DPReview studio shots, however I have that camera, and it doesn't do that well, so I have to question the studio results, even in tungsten setting. Strange...
As previously noted ... DPR taken at face value (variables & assumptions, notwithstanding).
They haven't posted up the ISO invariance yet for the 90D. While the 80D isn't ISO invariant as much as say the D500, it will still be interesting to see if the 90D improves (or just matches) in the low ISO arena as well.
TeamSpeed wrote:
Well the 7D2 and 90D are very similar at ISO12800, which is close to the 7D2 final native ISO setting, with the 90D edging out both in quantity of noise and fact that resolution will help reduce that. Basically the sentiment that others had where the 90D seems to combine the best of the 80D low ISO DR with the 7D2 high ISO holds true, which is a very good thing.
I was hoping that the 90D was a bit closer to the 5D4 though at high ISO, but that didn't happen.
The M50 seems to hold up better in the DPReview studio shots, however I have that camera, and it doesn't do that well, so I have to question the studio results, even in tungsten setting. Strange...
We have come a long way from the initial - totally unrealistic - "at least three stops better High ISO than 80D" to "in some ways on par with 7D2 for High ISO" and "slightly better High ISO than 80D". Agree that it would be nice if the 90D sensor combines the best of 7D2 and 80D, but I'm unconvinced that this is true (it may be true in some conditions though).
I think the claims of superb AF performance (compared to e.g. 80D) will go down the same path as those for sensor performance, once the initial hype dies down. Nothing more than slight improvements and obviously, there was no reason technically to expect anything else; magic doesn't exist in technology.
technic wrote:
We have come a long way from the initial - totally unrealistic - "at least three stops better High ISO than 80D" to "in some ways on par with 7D2 for High ISO" and "slightly better High ISO than 80D". Agree that it would be nice if the 90D sensor combines the best of 7D2 and 80D, but I'm unconvinced that this is true (it may be true in some conditions though).
I think the claims of superb AF performance (compared to e.g. 80D) will go down the same path as those for sensor performance, once the initial hype dies down. Nothing more than slight improvements and obviously, there was no reason technically to expect anything else; magic doesn't exist in technology....Show more →
Isn't this always the way things go!! Give it 6months and the real truth will emerge once the "must defend my new toy" syndrome eases off.
I do think the noise based on the DPR comparisons is looking better than 80D and 7D2 when compared at equal output. More like D500 but can retain more detail with all the extra MPs. That all looks good to me.
Six months from now the 90D I bought will still be the same camera with the same performance. It is not going to change.
What are others going to think? It doesn't really make much difference to me. The 90D was very much needed as I was shooting my backup camera due to water damage to my primary camera. Who knows, maybe Sony or Nikon will come out with something really much better. Years from now that will certainly be the case.
Six months from now....my guess would be strong sales for the 90D. Some photographers still will not like it, no GPS, something about a missing video speed, not full frame, not fast enough, only 1 memory card. Some will not care about the image quality or resolution. They shoot to paste on forums or Facebook.
Where are all these claims such as "three stops better High ISO than 80D" or "superb AF performance compared to 80D" and other non realistic findings reported here on FM? Maybe I've missed reading these claims here but from what I have read here on FM from people that have actually used this body the reports seem to be very realistic and not overly "hyped" at all.
A few observations I've noted from the extremes are... One member made a huge jump forward from a T series body to the 90D and seems extremely happy with the 90D and another member took a fairly large step backwards from the 1DXII to the 90D and has shared their honest opinions and findings good or bad.
From what I have seen, I think Canon people in general are more guarded about expressing what they think of the "new toy" probably of fear that the ship jumpers will pour back in here and pile on them or receive ridicule of some type. I suspect this alone is why few people participate here on the Canon gear thread any more. Me personally, well I'm just a freak and proudly display my lackluster POS Canon 6DII images here. If you don't like them then kiss my ass and move along.
If anything, I'd say the "must defend my new toy" syndrome is coming from people that have jumped ship and find the need to come over to the Canon forum to try their best to trash anything that is remotely positive for Canon owners. Likely because they can't stand the fact they dumped a fortune into the switch and might have to consider switching back someday. They'll never admit it though as denial is a powerful psychological primitive defense mechanism.
They crawl out of the woodwork in a desperate attempt to cast some type of negative information AKA "Fake news" no matter how pathetic of an attempt it may be. Case in point - the firmware 1.4 update thread.
Here's another random thought.
Has anyone else noticed that when DPR or others release their comparisons/findings and the data they present show whatever Canon product as bad or lacking (think 6DII DR) then suddenly these findings are oh so real and highly accurate. Yet when findings are revealed that are actually a good thing for Canon users then we hear comments such as "I'm not convinced that this is true" or it's just a "must defend my new toy" syndrome and that it's not real.
Sure we all like to give praise to any new product we purchase. That's only natural especially after having studied or researched the item and made the decision to put our hard earned money on the table. But I fail to see much of that going on here that I've read. And even if people do, who cares? It's everyone's prerogative to voice their opinions of the products they own. God knows we have to read and see enough negative crap all the time about just about everything in our daily lives. I welcome hearing the good stuff over the normal negative bad stuff all the time.
Rant off...
If this little 90D intrigues you then pick one up and try it out to see if it's a fit for you. If not, return or sell it and move on.
We all just need to get out there and snap some shots folks! Stop studying charts and graphs and over analyzing individual pixels of an image and just get out there and enjoy our passion for photography.
The 90D is obviously an evolution more than revolution. That said, it's got some unique features that nobody else has.
The D500 is the obvious competitor but even that is not completely fair, especially in terms of noise comparison-- the 90D puts down 2x as many pixels per duck. The 90D has a 20% smaller sensor and 60% more pixels. Of course its noisier.
In good light it's a very compelling camera. In bad light you should be switching to FF anyway.
mb126 wrote:
The 90D is obviously an evolution more than revolution. That said, it's got some unique features that nobody else has.
The D500 is the obvious competitor but even that is not completely fair, especially in terms of noise comparison-- the 90D puts down 2x as many pixels per duck. The 90D has a 20% smaller sensor and 60% more pixels. Of course its noisier.
In good light it's a very compelling camera. In bad light you should be switching to FF anyway.
That's pretty much where I sit - it's just hard to knock my 5D4 off its pedestal as my all-around camera. The files are fine, even as I get into situations where I need ISO 3200 or 6400. The disadvantage - pixels-per-duck is less on the big sensor. But through the 80D, I haven't found an APS-C body that works for me in those situations where I need to crank the ISO to keep some reasonable shutter speed.
Now, if the 90D is close at 3200, then I can certainly justify it for its pixel density, because instead of a 1.4X teleconverter and a stop of light lost, I can get similar field of view performance. In other words, if the 90D can give me at 600 mm and ISO 1600, what the 5D2 does at 840 mm and ISO 3200 (accounting for the 1 stop lost to the telecon), then it might well be worth my purchase.
I'm seeing some great results here from Rob and others, and it really looks promising in good light. And still will be a strong contender for a second (third) body. But what will get me running to the store, instead of walking, is seeing great results in the field.
Of course, I could wait for the mythical 7D III, as I've been waiting for that 3D for 15 years.
It's all good - seeing these advances, these improvements, all help. The stiff competition is doing all of us from hobbyists to professionals a lot of good as great alternatives come out on the market.
about the buffer? How is it if you rattle off say 10-15, release, resume to rattle off another burst of 10-15? Does it make you wait for the buffer to finish processing the first burst, before you can resume (like the 80D does), or can you resume without skipping a beat while it is still buffering?
