Haven't been on this board for quite a while so please excuse my question if this has been answered before. My 7D mk2 has over 250,000 clicks on it with no problems but I do not expect it to last forever. Am getting tired of waiting for a 7Dmk3. My questions are: Is the 90D a suitable replacement for the 7Dmk2? I use my 7D a lot for college basketball games. Would the 90D capture fast action? Also, how is the resolution of the 90D as compared to the 7D? Thanks in advance of your responses.
90D resolution is very good. More detail and cleaner files at the same time (7D2 though good, was before 5D4 and all the advances in Canon sensor tech that came with it) Off the top of my head, that 90D sensor right now has the highest pixel density of any Canon ILC. This is what many refer to as "reach". 90D has lots of it!
If an R7 is to arrive on the scene, it is rumored it will have a mirrorless version of the 90D sensor, and that will be a good thing!
I've not shot a 90D enough to offer a strong opinion on how the AF compares. However, again, the "post 5D4" bodies do have some AF advances that the 7D2 lack, like better functionality @ f/8 and with t-cons.
CyberDyne wrote:
90D resolution is very good. More detail and cleaner files at the same time (7D2 though good, was before 5D4 and all the advances in Canon sensor tech that came with it) Off the top of my head, that 90D sensor right now has the highest pixel density of any Canon ILC. This is what many refer to as "reach". 90D has lots of it!
If an R7 is to arrive on the scene, it is rumored it will have a mirrorless version of the 90D sensor, and that will be a good thing!
I've not shot a 90D enough to offer a strong opinion on how the AF compares. However, again, the "post 5D4" bodies do have some AF advances that the 7D2 lack, like better functionality @ f/8 and with t-cons....Show more →
One correction needed.
I believe the Canon 90D has the highest pixel density sensor of ANY commercially available camera on the market from any manufacture.
I own both the 90D and the R5. The 90D is a fantastic camera with crazy resolution and "artificial reach" but it's been collecting dust ever since I got the R5. The AF capabilities of the R5 are far superior to the 90D which is important to me for what I shoot.
The OP should seriously add the R6 or R5 to his/her consideration for their next camera IMHO. Especially considering shooting basketball games. If for no other reason than getting that amazing AF system.
godfreyz wrote:
I have a ton of EF lenses...70-300, 100-400, 70-200, 24-70, 600 etc to name a few...would they work on an R5/R7?
I haven't bothered buying any new RF lenses. All my EF lenses perform flawlessly on the R5 and many people report their old EF lenses perform even better when adapted to the new RF bodies.
If all your EF glass is ver II then you're all set. The older ver I lenses also work fine but some of them can not reach the full 12 fps in mechanical shutter mode.
Another advantage of the new RF bodies is they offer focus peeking which many folks with old manual focus EF glass seem to really enjoy. Lots of other benefits but I'll leave it at that for now.
Contrary to what some are suggesting above, the 90D AF is not similar or superior to 7DII AF; especially for action the 7DII is way better (much faster and much more capable). Also while 90D clearly has the edge for noise and resolution at low ISO, for high ISO (from 1600ISO or so) the 7DII seems to be slightly better in practice.
I use the 80D which has basically the same PDAF system as the 90D and it is a dog for real action; NOT recommended because the PDAF system is way too slow and tracking options are limited compared to 7DII. The 90D also has significantly lower frame rate and smaller buffer. If you need the performance of the 7DII for action (and don't need other goodies of a 90D like better low ISO IQ, more advanced Liveview AF, tilt screen etc.) then I suggest buying a used 7DII or waiting for the mythical R7. Refurbished 7D2 was very cheap over here one year ago, don't know if there is still stock of bodies in close to new condition.
godfreyz wrote:
Haven't been on this board for quite a while so please excuse my question if this has been answered before. My 7D mk2 has over 250,000 clicks on it with no problems but I do not expect it to last forever. Am getting tired of waiting for a 7Dmk3. My questions are: Is the 90D a suitable replacement for the 7Dmk2? I use my 7D a lot for college basketball games. Would the 90D capture fast action? Also, how is the resolution of the 90D as compared to the 7D? Thanks in advance of your responses.
You should probably look at the 5D4, as well. AF is supposed to be excellent though I'm not sure if the frame rates match the 7D2. High ISO should be better by a good margin.
a counterpoint to what technic said. Yes, the 7DM2 has a very snappy AF system but, as many on FM have reported (myself included), that AF system is also quite inconsistent. Some feel their experiences with the 7DM2 AF system have been good and don't understand what people are complaining about but there are more than enough comments to substantiate this as a real problem (note: somebody did a poll on FM about this and there was a lot of AF dissatisfaction). From my own personal experience, the AF on the 7DM2 was quite inconsistent with BIF or when using the 1.4x II TC on my 100-400 II.
The OP mentions basketball games. If small birds are not of interest, then the next question is whether it is money that is restricting the OP to considering only the 7DM2 and the 90D? There are a number of good options for a bit more money.
If the OP doesn't plan on shooting much BIF or using a TC on a lens at f/5.6 (so f/8, single point AF), and doesn't need to go above 3200 ISO, then the 7DM2 is a very nice camera.
To clarify the ISO comment, if not looking to make large prints, 6400 ISO is fine. If using Topas Denoise AI, I suspect 6400 ISO would be fine for almost all purposes. i have experimented with TDA on 12,800 ISO shots out of the R5 and have been extremely impressed by the results. YMMV.
godfreyz wrote:
Haven't been on this board for quite a while so please excuse my question if this has been answered before. My 7D mk2 has over 250,000 clicks on it with no problems but I do not expect it to last forever. Am getting tired of waiting for a 7Dmk3. My questions are: Is the 90D a suitable replacement for the 7Dmk2? I use my 7D a lot for college basketball games. Would the 90D capture fast action? Also, how is the resolution of the 90D as compared to the 7D? Thanks in advance of your responses.
If I were in your position I would continue to use the 7D/2 and wait and see what Canon does regarding a RF mount APS-C replacement for the 7D series. IMO, buying this camera would be your best move as it will have killer AF, burst rates, video etc. and very likely the 32mp sensor from the 90D and M6/2.
Someone posted a rumor of an R aps camera, but I don't think even the rumor said this year. Canon already has the dslr and M series for aps and I am really not sure where their aps is headed.
The 90D looks appealing to me as an upgrade at some point. I don't really shoot action but if it got Swallows like in Daves/lighthounds post, dang! Definitely not bad
I've been shooting with a 90D since Fall 2019 and it's a darn tootin' little cam. I like the VF—big for APS-C—and the LCD overlay is quasi EVF like with icons and grids. The DPAF for video and LV is great, better than my EOS M6, and works well for low light stage productions. The only thing I don't like is the image preview is slow compared to my 80D and 6D2.
godfreyz wrote:
Haven't been on this board for quite a while so please excuse my question if this has been answered before. My 7D mk2 has over 250,000 clicks on it with no problems but I do not expect it to last forever. Am getting tired of waiting for a 7Dmk3. My questions are: Is the 90D a suitable replacement for the 7Dmk2? I use my 7D a lot for college basketball games. Would the 90D capture fast action? Also, how is the resolution of the 90D as compared to the 7D? Thanks in advance of your responses.
I am in the same situation you are. I am not considering a new camera that is less than the specs for the R6. I do Div. III basketball plus high school for the media and still need 12,800 ISO with 1000 fps, while I prefer 1600 fps. I am hoping my 7D II holds out until I finish raising funds for the R6 & adaptor. I may look into the R5, but am not sure the ISO at 12,800 would hold up. The camera will have been on the market for a year by the time I buy so I can have more reference material. Good luck.
I think the 90D is a fantastic camera with superb features and capability, but I think that it's an upgrade from the 80D, not the 7D MkII. Yes, it has a newer sensor with better overall performance and definitely much greater resolution, but I prefer the AF in the 7DII over the 90D. I especially like that the AF in the 7DII is a 65pt, all cross sensor system (with its own dedicated processor separate from the other processor for the rest of the camera) with amazing customization possibilities, but in addition to that it is a more rugged camera overall with a higher level of weather sealing and durability. I have recently added the R6 to my gear and the AF on it is in a whole different league. The Eye-focus AF is freakishly good and 20fps with the electronic shutter is ridiculous and I am seriously in love with the camera, but I will be keeping my 7DII because it is a reliable and most capable beast of a camera. The two will work well together. If I were you and were considering upgrading, I would either acquire an R6 for it's other-worldly AF or I would keep your 7DII and wait for the R7, as it's sounding like it's a real thing. My personal preference would not be to move to the 90D as I don't see that as an upgrade. Please understand though that this is not meant to demean the 90D in any way, because I do think that it's an incredibly capable camera and 'lighthound's' pictures above are evidence of how impressive the 90D can be in the hands of an obviously immensely talented photographer, but my personal preference leans towards the 7DII, and camera choice often comes down to personal preference.
Ray Swindle wrote:
I am in the same situation you are. I am not considering a new camera that is less than the specs for the R6. I do Div. III basketball plus high school for the media and still need 12,800 ISO with 1000 fps, while I prefer 1600 fps. I am hoping my 7D II holds out until I finish raising funds for the R6 & adaptor. I may look into the R5, but am not sure the ISO at 12,800 would hold up. The camera will have been on the market for a year by the time I buy so I can have more reference material. Good luck....Show more →
I've shot youth sports in dungeons so I feel your ISO pain. Compared to the 7D2, either the R6 or R5 will blow you away at that ISO.
godfreyz wrote:
I have a ton of EF lenses...70-300, 100-400, 70-200, 24-70, 600 etc to name a few...would they work on an R5/R7?
All will work and all will benefit from the vastly improved AF systems on the current mirrorless (though the R is not as good as the R5/6).
If those are the V1 lenses (100-400, 24-70, 600), you will be limited to about 8fps mechanical or EFCS, but still able to get up to 20fps with the full electronic shutter.
