Kmccarthy wrote:
I agree. The current RF-S lens selection is definitely a big issue. I'm really hoping Canon fixes that soon. If they could do a 15-85mm in the 300g range (like the 18-150mm) it would be perfect.
R10 (429g) + 300g lens = 729g --> Great!
R10+adapter (110g)+15-85mm (588g) = 1127g --> Not good
For comparison (weighed on my own scale)
SL2+18-55mm = 676g
SL2+15-85mm = 1043g
90D+15-85mm = 1289g
Incidentally, I recently picked up a used Canon G5X Mark II compact camera. It has a fast (f1.8-2.8) 24-120mm equivalent lens, 1" sensor, 4K 30p uncropped video, and a decent EVF. In most situations, I think it will beat my iphone 12pro (except HDR and ultra wide). It will probably be replacing my SL2 for quick trips. It only weighs 340g! ...Show more →
How did you find SL2 vs 90D sensor? I liked the SL2 24mp sensor, but I'd like to upgrade to the 90D sensor. If there isn't much difference between the two the SL2 is really nice though imo. I'd probably just use 90D & SL2 I'm not particularly interested in mirrorless. I've liked the x0D series for the bigger grip, and the Rebel for light weight. Simliar weight R10 could be nice.
AmbientMike wrote:
How did you find SL2 vs 90D sensor? I liked the SL2 24mp sensor, but I'd like to upgrade to the 90D sensor. If there isn't much difference between the two the SL2 is really nice though imo. I'd probably just use 90D & SL2 I'm not particularly interested in mirrorless. I've liked the x0D series for the bigger grip, and the Rebel for light weight. Simliar weight R10 could be nice.
With good glass, the 90D sensor is noticeably better than the SL2. However, with kit lenses the difference is minimal. The huge differences between the 90D and SL2 are the autofocus and frames per second. The SL2 is practically useless for moving subjects, while the 90D is very good. I’m not a big video shooter, but the 4K on the 90D is amazing. The build quality and weather sealing are also very nice. Makes the SL2 feel like a toy.
Kmccarthy wrote:
With good glass, the 90D sensor is noticeably better than the SL2. However, with kit lenses the difference is minimal. The huge differences between the 90D and SL2 are the autofocus and frames per second. The SL2 is practically useless for moving subjects, while the 90D is very good. I’m not a big video shooter, but the 4K on the 90D is amazing. The build quality and weather sealing are also very nice. Makes the SL2 feel like a toy.
Which glass did you feel you had to use? The x0D are heavier build, but also heavier. Like the Rebels' light weight really liked the SL2, I really liked the older x0D series before they made the frame (I guess you'd call it) plastic instead of metal. But the heft is nice too on the newer bodies.
Really thought the af was pretty good on the SL2. Not a sports camera but I did get BIF with it at times.
AmbientMike wrote:
Which glass did you feel you had to use? The x0D are heavier build, but also heavier. Like the Rebels' light weight really liked the SL2, I really liked the older x0D series before they made the frame (I guess you'd call it) plastic instead of metal. But the heft is nice too on the newer bodies.
Really thought the af was pretty good on the SL2. Not a sports camera but I did get BIF with it at times.
Kmccarthy wrote:
The best lens I have is the 70-300L, which works very well with the 90D. It's also relatively compact, which I like. However, apparently the very best zoom lens for the 90D is the EF 100-400mm f/4.5-5.6l is II USM
Here's a link with some good recommendations. http://www.michaelthemaven.com/?postID=5150&canon-90d-best-recommended-lenses-for-new-owners
If you think the AF on the SL2 is pretty good, the 90D will blow you away!
He actually recommended the kit lenses, but made a bit of a big deal over diffraction correction that I don't think is accurate since the SL2 has it. Not a big fan of internet files to evaluate lenses either. Good to know on the 90D af, like pick one up one of these days.
I was researching the 90D when the crop mirrorlesses started to materialize. In reviews of the 90D there were mostly negative opinions surrounding the AF especially when compared to R6 or R5. As the main reason for a crop was reach, "bad" or even "not that great" AF made the 90D a no no. The new gen AF is such a huge step forward for moving targets.
And "moving" is relative to the depth of sharp focus. If nailing focus on the eye with f/1.2 is important I would never look at DSLR anymore. For landscape at f/5.6 or 8 any not too old DSLR is totally adequate.
Z250SA wrote:
I was researching the 90D when the crop mirrorlesses started to materialize. In reviews of the 90D there were mostly negative opinions surrounding the AF especially when compared to R6 or R5. As the main reason for a crop was reach, "bad" or even "not that great" AF made the 90D a no no. The new gen AF is such a huge step forward for moving targets.
And "moving" is relative to the depth of sharp focus. If nailing focus on the eye with f/1.2 is important I would never look at DSLR anymore. For landscape at f/5.6 or 8 any not too old DSLR is totally adequate.
It's all relative. In my experience the 90D's AF is much better than the SL2. The 45 AF points and 10FPS make it much better for moving subjects. The 90D also has pretty advanced dual-pixel AF with face and eye detection when you are using the LCD (great for video). However, I fully expect that the latest mirrorless cameras with animal eye detection will take it one step further, which is why am considering getting one :-)
I've gone through the 7D, 7D Mark II, 90D, and now have moved on to the R7 (mainly for its tracking ability) after getting one for 10 days from LensRentals (and also rented an OM-1). For me personally, the 90D AF for subject tracking (birds-in-flight, field sports) was not that great. My experience with it was over about 6 months, using a variety of custom settings and L-Series lenses from the 70-200, 70-300, 100-400, and 500mm. I really wanted for it (the 90D) to be a keeper. It was sold last month to MPB after having zero interest on the B & S forum here. At the end of the day, the rentals went back and I purchased an R7 from the B & S forum. For reference, I also use the 1D Mark IV, 1DX Mark II, and M1X from Olympus. Don't get me wrong, the 90D with the battery grip is a fun camera to use with a lot of capabilities, but for me, I do need more, and the R7 gives me that at this time.
Kmccarthy wrote:
If you think the AF on the SL2 is pretty good, the 90D will blow you away!
Great to read something positive about a DSLR on here. I thought SL2 af was better than the older bodies I used to shoot basketball occasionally, and fine for general photography. DPAF in LV seemed to help accuracy on the 18-55, those tend to miss. And I prefer composing on the lcd using that lens, in general
If the 90D is that much better I'm even more interested!
Imagemaster wrote:
If you think the AF on the 90D is pretty good, the R7 will blow you away!!!
. That’s what I’m hoping for! But I will probably go for the R10. I’m just really concerned about judging focus of a far away, fast moving subject in the EVF. It’s hard to beat a OVF where you are looking directly through the lens, with super high resolution and absolutely no lag.
I have both the 90D and R7 and had the 80D before the 90D (as well as SL2 and others). I find the 90D/R7 sensor's higher resolution a significant improvement, 15%, when reach limited and I feel free to crop to 1:1 on my computer's 5K display. I agree with Kmccarthy, one needs good glass to achieve this. But there are a number of good lenses available. My general APS-C kit consists of EF-S 10-18, 35 macro, 55-250, 60 macro and EF 24-70 f4, 70-300 II, and 100-400 II. Now with the R7 add the RF 100-400 and 100-500. I traded a bunch of old equipment for the 100-500.
I find the 32 MP sensor a tad noisier than the 24 MP sensor even at low ISO at the pixel level. I say pixel level because I often use these APS-C bodies for reach. However Topaz DeNoise works a charm and I'll easily use ISO 3200 and even 6400 when needed. The 24 MP sensor benefits from Topaz at these ISOs as well. Lower ISO noise is only an issue when cropping close to 1:1 and pushing the sliders.
The 80D and 90D optical AF has been very good in my use which is usually for wildlife, including birds in flight and running cheetahs. I don't do sports, etc so I won't try to defend the AF for serious action or dedicated BIF. I really like being able to watch the wildlife through an optical viewfinder with the electronics off but at the ready for instant action when something happens. I find the R7's delay annoying but not unmanageable. I tend to turn it off when not active so the IS, etc. is not running. I find the on/off switch faster than other wakeup methods. I don't use it as a telescope for long. The 90D goes forever on a battery. The R7 has a real battery and will go a day, but carry a spare.
The R7 EVF, OTOH, lets me do things through the viewfinder that I can't with optical, like focus stacking hand held. The 90D has this with live view but I find it awkward to use hand held with any lens larger than the 35 macro. The R7's animal tracking sure helps with birds and other small critters. Also with finding a bird against a clear sky. Just open the AF field to the entire sensor and let the AF do all the work. I programmed the * button to toggle through AF fields. I never used any of those wide area focus options before. I'm certain the tracking does wonders for other action shots as well. It is really handy for focus and recompose.
I've noticed that the EF 100-400 II's IS works better on the 90D than on the R7 which is jittery at first. The RF 100-400 is more stable as is the 100-500. The 70-300 and other EF lenses seem fine on the R7.
I'm keeping both my 90D and R7 for now, as long as I have the 100-400II. The 90D can take stunning images. I never thought I'd need more. 10 FPS, CRAW, joy stick. But the R7 + 100-500 weighs a US pound less than the 90D + 100-400II. And the R7 with 100-400 f8 is a feather. Fortunately, when we travel my wife uses the R7 with kit lens and 100-400 f8 and I'll take the 5D4 or 90D and appropriate lenses. We share the R7 when I need its capabilities and this worked out fine on our last trip. We don't currently have any dedicated wildlife trips planned so the 5D4 + 24-105 f4 (+ etc.) still covers general travel photography better than APS-C.
Kmccarthy wrote:
It's all relative. In my experience the 90D's AF is much better than the SL2. The 45 AF points and 10FPS make it much better for moving subjects. The 90D also has pretty advanced dual-pixel AF with face and eye detection when you are using the LCD (great for video). However, I fully expect that the latest mirrorless cameras with animal eye detection will take it one step further, which is why am considering getting one :-)
Just try the R10 as you want superb AF in the lightest package. Getting a R7 is a wasted opportunity to go really light, a wast of money if the R10 would have been The right choice. Standing there feeling the weight of the R7 thinking about how much lighter (50%) the R10 is, having that extra bulk of a larger body, yes IBIS, yes LP-E6NH, but but... And within a few time units there comes the R20!
And a R10 will be easily sold where a )=d or 90D (if you push the buttons right...) wont, apparently. Few buyers and I understand why as the results are there to see.
Imagemaster wrote:
Maybe with your Finnish math it is, but with universal math if it was 50% lighter than the 612 gm R7, it would weigh 306 gms, not 426 gms.
You are correct, of course. But the R7 is still about 50% heavier than the R10. Which, of course, is the correct way to compare.
Jeff Nolten wrote:
I really like being able to watch the wildlife through an optical viewfinder with the electronics off but at the ready for instant action when something happens. I find the R7's delay annoying but not unmanageable. .
Jeff, thanks for the excellent insights. I particularly like your point about watching wildlife through the OVF, waiting for the right moment to take a shot. This is really one of the pleasures of photography, which I don't think will feel the same through an EVF. Anyway, I have ordered an R10. Cant hurt to give it a try!
. That’s what I’m hoping for! But I will probably go for the R10. I’m just really concerned about judging focus of a far away, fast moving subject in the EVF. It’s hard to beat a OVF where you are looking directly through the lens, with super high resolution and absolutely no lag.
