Canon 90D Released!

[beagle100]

HAHA my camera body is only 10.1 megapixels, now i feel like im living in the stone age!

you are ... but your pics probably look very similar to 32 megapixels
www.flickr.com/photos/mmirrorless

 

[Original katomi]

With a 32MP sensor, that is really going to push the limits of the APS-C lenses to where they have to get the IQ up to what a L series lens would do. Or what good is more MP when the lens won't resolve at that level.

I use l glass where I can on my crop sensor canon where I can. I want to squeeze every bit IQ that I can into the image

 

[ac12]

With a 32MP sensor, that is really going to push the limits of the APS-C lenses to where they have to get the IQ up to what a L series lens would do. Or what good is more MP when the lens won't resolve at that level.

I was just doing some number crunching, in preparation for putting in a request to buy a 90D for the high school yearbook.

We currently have the 24MP T7i, which is about 4000 x 6000 pixels.
I computed the 32MP 90D at about 4650 x 6975 pixels.
This is only about 16% more linear pixels in the H or V axis.
While nice to have, I don't think that 16% is a significant increase in linear resolution. 20+% is what I would consider significant. So just based on sensor resolution, this is giving me second thoughts about the 90D.

For a similar cost to an APS-C 90D + 18-135 USM, we could get a 26MP full frame 6D-mk2 + 24-105 STM.

When you are at the top end of the APS-C cameras, you close on/overlap the bottom end of the FF cameras.​

Or TWO refurbished T7i + 18-135.

Keep in mind, that the high school yearbook students are 15-17 years old, not adults. And we currently do not have dedicated photographers (the staff is not large enough). The editors shoot their own pictures.

 

[RowdyRay]

@ac12, I understand what you're saying. But, figured there would be some other improvements. And there are. Look at the specs. Here's what we know so far....32MP, 10 fps, Digic 8. Let's put that into perspective. The 80D is 24mp, 7 fps, Digic 6. The T7i/77d are 24mp, 6 fps, Digic 7.

It really depends on what you intend to do with it. Sounds like huge improvements for amateur wildlife photographers. All is speculation until it's actually released/tested/reviewed by those more experienced than I. Could be all smoke and mirrors.

 

[Dacaur]

Yea the 32mp sensor isn't even in the top 10 things that make me want to upgrade to this camera. If it's #1 in your list, maybe a low end FF is the way to go for you.
#1 thing I'm excited for is the 4k video with dual pixel AF.... No video isn't 100% of why I have a DSLR, but needing HD video was why I did my last camera upgrade, and ended up with a T6i. It takes great pictures, but I'm excited to move to the next step. Micro focus adjustments, weather sealing, Bluetooth, top deck display, 1300 shot battery life, 1/16000 electric shutter speed etc, etc...
Personally, I'd rather have the extra zoom the crop sensor gives me with a high end crop body than go with a low end FF and need more expensive lenses...

 

[ac12]

Yup agree, there is more than just the 32MP.
But that has now dropped in value as one of the primary reasons for upgrading, once I did the pixel analysis. I won't get get enough linear increase in resolution, to make it a primary reason to upgrade to the 90D.
My initial hope was that it would eliminate the desire to go FF for a higher MP sensor for large group shots. It looks like stitching is still a tool we have to use.

6fps up to 10fps, now that will make a difference.
Lot more pics to sort through, but a better chance for the kids to get "the shot."

A better AF system is always appreciated in shooting sports, especially low light (outside night games or in our dim gym).

We rarely use the 80-200/2.8, because it is too heavy for the smaller students. So we use lighter but slower lenses; f/5.6 lenses now, with f/4 lenses planned to be purchased this year.​

Face AF tracking, I have to see to determine how it works and if it is practical. In my experience, in sports where the players "mix it up," like football and basketball, tracking does not work. But if it does, that would be soo cool, less out of focus faces.

While video is not of interest to us, at the moment.
If the "4k frame grab" is what I think it it, the idea of being able to pick out a high quality still image from a video, with enough resolution to be usable is really cool, and useful.

 

[Donde]

The 32MP should certainly be great for cropping. I wonder if this would be a good replacement for the 7D II for bird photography.

 

[ac12]

The 32MP should certainly be great for cropping. I wonder if this would be a good replacement for the 7D II for bird photography.

Just understand that 32MP is AREA (H x V)
The LINEAR increase (H or V) may be less than you expect, and thus not give you the ability to deep crop.

 

[Original katomi]

Ok I am going to ask the other sort of questions
Q. The more pixels on a given size sensor with a given is diffraction going to get worse...
I used an app and it seemed to suggest that the higher pixel count on a given sensor with the a len set at the same f stop the diffraction would be worse.
Q. Even if above is not a problem to you. Will your printer/method of viewing the images produced be able to reproduce that gain in IQ or are you just throwing away that extra I Q the camera gives you when you print/view the image.
Q. For the type of photography you do is it worth it or is it just a nice to have
For me.
I look at the above and many other Qs and the answer is
My printer! Method of viewing would not give me the extra IQ from the camera
And last, an upgrade like this would not be worth it for my type of photography, it would just be a case of
Just having the latest. Not something that would benefit me or my style of photography

 

[weepete]

Speak for yourselves, I've skipped a generation so I'm coming from a position where I'm using the old 18mp 7Dmk1, at 5,184×3,456 the prospect of 6,960×4,640 is extremely appealing. But it's not just that, I use tthe controls on the more advanced bodies and loosing them would be pain. But it looks to me the 90D is aimed at pretty much what I like to shoot which is landscape and widlife.

 

[Dacaur]

Ok I am going to ask the other sort of questions
Q. The more pixels on a given size sensor with a given is diffraction going to get worse...
I used an app and it seemed to suggest that the higher pixel count on a given sensor with the a len set at the same f stop the diffraction would be worse.
Q. Even if above is not a problem to you. Will your printer/method of viewing the images produced be able to reproduce that gain in IQ or are you just throwing away that extra I Q the camera gives you when you print/view the image.
Q. For the type of photography you do is it worth it or is it just a nice to have
For me.
I look at the above and many other Qs and the answer is
My printer! Method of viewing would not give me the extra IQ from the camera
And last, an upgrade like this would not be worth it for my type of photography, it would just be a case of
Just having the latest. Not something that would benefit me or my style of photography

What's true today may not be true tomorrow.
Example. My old 10mp camera. It was great when I got it, I would review images on my TV and they looked great. But technology Marches on. Then I got a 4k tv. Suddenly my images all looked like garbage. They were the same as the day before, it's just suddenly I was able to see that my IQ wasn't as good as it could be. Enter my 24mp t6i, and now reviewing on my 4k tv, images look great again. Everything I took with my old camera? Well, I review pictures of major life moments and go "dang, I wish I had had a better camera. Even though 10mp was once the Pinnacle of technology, it looks like crap today in comparison....
Moral? Just because you can see/use the extra IQ today, doesn't mean you won't be thankful for it in the future.... Your printer today might not be able to print the difference between 24 and 32mp, but your printer in 5 year's just might....

 

[Original katomi]

Ok I am going to ask the other sort of questions
Q. The more pixels on a given size sensor with a given is diffraction going to get worse...
I used an app and it seemed to suggest that the higher pixel count on a given sensor with the a len set at the same f stop the diffraction would be worse.
Q. Even if above is not a problem to you. Will your printer/method of viewing the images produced be able to reproduce that gain in IQ or are you just throwing away that extra I Q the camera gives you when you print/view the image.
Q. For the type of photography you do is it worth it or is it just a nice to have
For me.
I look at the above and many other Qs and the answer is
My printer! Method of viewing would not give me the extra IQ from the camera
And last, an upgrade like this would not be worth it for my type of photography, it would just be a case of
Just having the latest. Not something that would benefit me or my style of photography

What's true today may not be true tomorrow.
Example. My old 10 no camera. It was great when I got it, I would review images on my TV and they looked great. But technology Marches on. Then I got a 4k tv. Suddenly my images all looked like garbage. They were the same as the day before, it's just suddenly I was able to see that my IQ wasn't as good as it could be. Enter my 24mp t6i, and now reviewing on my 4k tv, images look great again. Everything I took with my old camera? Well, I review pictures of major life moments and go "dang, I wish I had had a better camera. Even though 10mp was once the Pinnacle of technology, it looks like crap today in comparison....
Moral? Just because you can see/use the extra IQ today, doesn't mean you won't be thankful for it in the future.... Your printer today might not be able to print the difference between 24 and 32mp, but your printer in 5 year's just might....

True. I will go stand in the corner and be quiet, for a time at least.

 

[Derrel]

With a 32MP sensor, that is really going to push the limits of the APS-C lenses to where they have to get the IQ up to what a L series lens would do. Or what good is more MP when the lens won't resolve at that level.

I was just doing some number crunching, in preparation for putting in a request to buy a 90D for the high school yearbook.

We currently have the 24MP T7i, which is about 4000 x 6000 pixels.
I computed the 32MP 90D at about 4650 x 6975 pixels.
This is only about 16% more linear pixels in the H or V axis.
While nice to have, I don't think that 16% is a significant increase in linear resolution. 20+% is what I would consider significant. So just based on sensor resolution, this is giving me second thoughts about the 90D.

For a similar cost to an APS-C 90D + 18-135 USM, we could get a 26MP full frame 6D-mk2 + 24-105 STM.

When you are at the top end of the APS-C cameras, you close on/overlap the bottom end of the FF cameras.​

Or TWO refurbished T7i + 18-135.

Keep in mind, that the high school yearbook students are 15-17 years old, not adults. And we currently do not have dedicated photographers (the staff is not large enough). The editors shoot their own pictures.

I thought the same thing between 24 and 36 mega pixels… That there would be very little improvement in resolution. But cropping heavily into the D800
36-megapixel files as opposed to 24 megapixel files from either the D3x or the D610 showed a substantial real world increase in image resolution between the 36 megapixel sensor and the 24 megapixel sensor. Remember in the case of the 90D sensor, we're not just talking about percentage of difference,but possible generational improvements as well. Even though the difference is only 16% in linear resolution, I fully expect that a 60D user coming from an 18 megapixel sensor will see a huge real world increase. users from earlier generation Canon cameras should see a marked improvement in resolution. Like I said, I myself had computed the difference between 24 and 36 and thought that there would be a slight increase. No, it was a very _significant_real world increase, allowing me to use a 28-80 zoom lens, and to heavily heavily crop away 50,60,70% of the Picture and to still make high-quality portraits when shooting at F7.1 with studio flash.

 

[ac12]

With a 32MP sensor, that is really going to push the limits of the APS-C lenses to where they have to get the IQ up to what a L series lens would do. Or what good is more MP when the lens won't resolve at that level.

I was just doing some number crunching, in preparation for putting in a request to buy a 90D for the high school yearbook.

We currently have the 24MP T7i, which is about 4000 x 6000 pixels.
I computed the 32MP 90D at about 4650 x 6975 pixels.
This is only about 16% more linear pixels in the H or V axis.
While nice to have, I don't think that 16% is a significant increase in linear resolution. 20+% is what I would consider significant. So just based on sensor resolution, this is giving me second thoughts about the 90D.

For a similar cost to an APS-C 90D + 18-135 USM, we could get a 26MP full frame 6D-mk2 + 24-105 STM.

When you are at the top end of the APS-C cameras, you close on/overlap the bottom end of the FF cameras.​

Or TWO refurbished T7i + 18-135.

Keep in mind, that the high school yearbook students are 15-17 years old, not adults. And we currently do not have dedicated photographers (the staff is not large enough). The editors shoot their own pictures.

I thought the same thing between 24 and 36 mega pixels… That there would be very little improvement in resolution. But cropping heavily into the D800
36-megapixel files as opposed to 24 megapixel files from either the D3x or the D610 showed a substantial real world increase in image resolution between the 36 megapixel sensor and the 24 megapixel sensor. Remember in the case of the 90D sensor, we're not just talking about percentage of difference,but possible generational improvements as well. Even though the difference is only 16% in linear resolution, I fully expect that a 60D user coming from an 18 megapixel sensor will see a huge real world increase. users from earlier generation Canon cameras should see a marked improvement in resolution. Like I said, I myself had computed the difference between 24 and 36 and thought that there would be a slight increase. No, it was a very _significant_real world increase, allowing me to use a 28-80 zoom lens, and to heavily heavily crop away 50,60,70% of the Picture and to still make high-quality portraits when shooting at F7.1 with studio flash.

@Derrel was it partially the better lens you had on the D800?
I was expecting it, but was still surprised at how better the image on my D7200 was with the Nikon 70-200 vs the kit 18-140. That allowed me to crop deeper into the image shot with the 70-200. I did not need to go to FX, I just needed better glass.

 

[Derrel]

no , not a better lens--- but in fact the same one that I had had for 15 years, the relatively cheap 28 to 80 D, which is an old film kit lens from the 1990s. I shot that lens on crop frame ,and then on the D3X which was 24 megapixels, and then on the D610 which is also 24 megapixels, and then on the D 800 which is 36 megapixels. with high-grade glass the D800's 36 megapixel sensor is astounding.

I recently sold off some of my highest-end glass. what I am saying is that the 36 mega pixel resolution of the D800 offers significantly more real world and practical resolution than 24 million pixels did, even with a relatively pedestrian optic, which is what the 28 to 80 mm zoom is.

With a really good tele prime such as the 180 mm f/2.8 AF-ED, the D800 is simply amazing. what I am saying is this:the difference between 24 megapixels and 36 megapixels is real and it is a much bigger difference than I would've ever, ever thought. since the pixels are larger on a full frame camera then on a crop sensor camera, there is a little bit less of a need for Xtreme Optical supremacy. I would expect that there are plenty of Canon lenses that will make this camera really shine