p.1 #2 · Canon 90D - A Bird Photographers Perspective
I was disappointed by your review. The least you could have done (and still have a chance to correct) is to post bird photos and especially BIF photos that you took with the 90D.
Here are some of mine that I hope will give a better idea of 90D's capabilities
p.1 #3 · Canon 90D - A Bird Photographers Perspective
cdmazoff wrote:
I was disappointed by your review. The least you could have done (and still have a chance to correct) is to post bird photos and especially BIF photos that you took with the 90D.
Here are some of mine that I hope will give a better idea of 90D's capabilities
Sorry, but almost any camera (including cheap long zoom compacts) can take bird pictures of that quality level and difficulty. Flying ducks (or bigger birds) are a very easy subject for the AF system as they move relatively slow and predictably. My 80D with e.g. the 100-400II has no problem with resting birds or flying herons, but anything more challenging is a problem especially in less than great light.
p.1 #4 · Canon 90D - A Bird Photographers Perspective
cdmazoff wrote:
I was disappointed by your review. The least you could have done (and still have a chance to correct) is to post bird photos and especially BIF photos that you took with the 90D.
Here are some of mine that I hope will give a better idea of 90D's capabilities
I get you do not like the review but instead of putting down what Glenn did, make your own review and improve on his. I never understand how someone can complain about other reviews when they never offer one themselves. Video reviews are harder than you think if you never did one.
I agree with many of his findings, using and selling the 90D myself.
p.1 #5 · Canon 90D - A Bird Photographers Perspective
Excellent photos Rob! I have been using the 90D almost daily since the day it was released and have been reviewing it on another site, so please allow me to comment. I do not understand his comments about the noise being worse than that from the 7DII and that it's useable only up to iso 800. I find the noise is very well suppressed using PhotoNinja on RAW via .dng files and am going to higher isos. I don't think my views are unique here - you can compare it with the 7DII in https://www.dpreview.com/reviews/canon-eos-90d-review/5 using the dpr comparator and "COMP" setting and see that at the same output size it is at least as good as the 7DII at high isos. Most reviews are very happy about the IQ quality.
p.1 #6 · Canon 90D - A Bird Photographers Perspective
cpe1991 wrote:
Excellent photos Rob! I have been using the 90D almost daily since the day it was released and have been reviewing it on another site, so please allow me to comment. I do not understand his comments about the noise being worse than that from the 7DII and that it's useable only up to iso 800. I find the noise is very well suppressed using PhotoNinja on RAW via .dng files and am going to higher isos. I don't think my views are unique here - you can compare it with the 7DII in https://www.dpreview.com/reviews/canon-eos-90d-review/5 using the dpr comparator and "COMP" setting and see that at the same output size it is at least as good as the 7DII at high isos. Most reviews are very happy about the IQ quality. ...Show more →
I never used the 7DII so I can not compare it to that. I only compared to my 1dx II and the EOS R which I have and I find the noise not great at all compared to the other bodies, so for me I did sell it per my taste. That said I think it is a great camera for the cost and I really enjoyed a few of the features and would still recommend it. For me the noise hurt some of the detail that I like to see, not in all cases but the higher ISO's. I really did not see the point of having a high MP body if I did not gain detail for the end results.
p.1 #7 · Canon 90D - A Bird Photographers Perspective
RobAmy wrote:
I never used the 7DII so I can not compare it to that. I only compared to my 1dx II and the EOS R which I have and I find the noise not great at all compared to the other bodies, so for me I did sell it per my taste. That said I think it is a great camera for the cost and I really enjoyed a few of the features and would still recommend it. For me the noise hurt some of the detail that I like to see, not in all cases but the higher ISO's. I really did not see the point of having a high MP body if I did not gain detail for the end results.
...Show more →
I also use a 5DIV that has the same sensor as your R. In good light at low iso, the 90D outresolves the 5DIV by its full 1.6x crop factor. At very high iso, it's not worse than the 5DIV when downrezzed to the same output size. What's important with these high density sensors is to use a RAW converter with the best noise suppression that goes easy on detail. I find Adobe pretty bad but DxO PL PRIME and NoiseNinja on RAW do a fantastic job. I am now happy being able for a lot of the time to carry the 90D with the bare 100-400mm II lens and get similar IQ to the much heavier 400mm DO II + 2xTC on a 5DIV, which is the limit of what I can take with me on a walk.
p.1 #8 · Canon 90D - A Bird Photographers Perspective
Hi Rob, I don't think I put him down at all.. My point was that his argument would have been stronger had he included examples that were pertinent. So I offered some examples.. If any one put anyone down it was Glenn dissing my work.. Basically he hit below the belt. So.. I used to teach in a university (one of the best) and hold a PhD. If one of my students had submitted a review with such a lack of evidence, I would have sent it back for a rewrite. As far as my own review, I thought the photos made my point, they show some of the cameras capabilities re birds and BIF.
RobAmy wrote:
I get you do not like the review but instead of putting down what Glenn did, make your own review and improve on his. I never understand how someone can complain about other reviews when they never offer one themselves. Video reviews are harder than you think if you never did one.
I agree with many of his findings, using and selling the 90D myself.
p.1 #10 · Canon 90D - A Bird Photographers Perspective
cpe1991 wrote:
.........What's important with these high density sensors is to use a RAW converter with the best noise suppression that goes easy on detail. I find Adobe pretty bad but DxO PL PRIME and NoiseNinja on RAW do a fantastic job........
I have never tried DXO or Noise Ninja, but the free Canon DPP software does a great job of noise reduction while retaining details. It also includes a diffraction correction algorithm which is very powerful and is overall a pretty decent substitute for Lightroom. The big downside is slow processing but perhaps that is what it takes to apply all of the enhancements.
p.1 #11 · Canon 90D - A Bird Photographers Perspective
cdmazoff wrote:
Hi Rob, I don't think I put him down at all.. My point was that his argument would have been stronger had he included examples that were pertinent. So I offered some examples.. If any one put anyone down it was Glenn dissing my work.. Basically he hit below the belt. So.. I used to teach in a university (one of the best) and hold a PhD. If one of my students had submitted a review with such a lack of evidence, I would have sent it back for a rewrite. As far as my own review, I thought the photos made my point, they show some of the cameras capabilities re birds and BIF.
I fail to see Glenn "dissing" your work. He started a the thread and did not add additional follow up. I would recommend you read your initial statement and realize that the following comment, "The least you could have done (and still have a chance to correct)", comes across rude, and unfortunately creates the perception that you act entitled and lack both tack and emotional intelligence. This is further validated by your need to bring up a title and stance you would take with those that you educated in a previous life.
p.1 #12 · Canon 90D - A Bird Photographers Perspective
Camperjim wrote:
I have never tried DXO or Noise Ninja, but the free Canon DPP software does a great job of noise reduction while retaining details. It also includes a diffraction correction algorithm which is very powerful and is overall a pretty decent substitute for Lightroom. The big downside is slow processing but perhaps that is what it takes to apply all of the enhancements.
Try a free trial download of them as you might be pleasantly surprised. I first used DxO PRIME on 7DII images and it transformed the range of high isos I could use. (I have nothing to do with the companies other than buy their software).
p.1 #14 · Canon 90D - A Bird Photographers Perspective
equetefue wrote:
I have been using Topaz Denoise Ai with great success.
There are good reports about it. There is a reason why people use Topaz and Ninja etc - they are better than PS, LR and DP (in our opinion, which may be fact as well).
p.1 #15 · Canon 90D - A Bird Photographers Perspective
I tend to agree with cdmazoff‘s original assessment: what is a bird photographer’s perspective when the review does not contain a single bird photograph?
However, it was not the OP who dissed him. That dissing was rather uncalled for.
p.1 #16 · Canon 90D - A Bird Photographers Perspective
A review on the 90D from a Bird Photographer's perspective but no pictures of birds?
I had zero issues with the 90D when chasing birds on the ground or in flight. I did have issues with the lens/converter combination but I cannot blame the camera. Focusing was fine, fps was capable and the end result was good.
I guess it's the headline that waters down the review. Had it been "My Thoughts on the Canon 90D" or something more generic the review would sit better. Not everyone is going to like the 90D but I would have liked to have seen some subject matter examples illustrating the problems or successes the 90D presents.
p.1 #17 · Canon 90D - A Bird Photographers Perspective
RobAmy wrote:
I never understand how someone can complain about other reviews when they never offer one themselves. Video reviews are harder than you think if you never did one.
Rob, I admire your photography work and the effort you put in sharing it with the world. That said...
I never understand how someone can complain about a Ford car when they never offer a car themselves. Making a car is harder than you think if you never did one.
... or a bike, camera, sushi. May we complain about a bus ride if we never offered one ourselves?
Maybe OP is sharing his review out of good will, but it is also true that he is promoting his site and a purchasable guide. I don't mind that he does. I also don't mind other people offering criticism, with which I may or may not agree.
p.1 #18 · Canon 90D - A Bird Photographers Perspective
boxigen wrote:
Rob, I admire your photography work and the effort you put in sharing it with the world. That said...
I never understand how someone can complain about a Ford car when they never offer a car themselves. Making a car is harder than you think if you never did one.
... or a bike, camera, sushi. May we complain about a bus ride if we never offered one ourselves?
Maybe OP is sharing his review out of good will, but it is also true that he is promoting his site and a purchasable guide. I don't mind that he does. I also don't mind other people offering criticism, with which I may or may not agree. ...Show more →
I understand people complain about everything today, my point was it was a direct attack against someone who shared something they did. Instead of making someone feel bad or call them out publicly, send them a PM with your suggestions. Like most reviews, I take what I want from it, good or bad but no need to attack someone for doing it. Just like calling out the quality of photos posted to prove the point, no need for it, again send a PM.
BTW, complaining about a Ford car is different than telling someone directly the Ford they own is a piece of crap. More so on a public forum.
I will leave it here, sorry Glenn for bringing this another direction.
