Canon 90D Released!

I totally appreciate that the 5dmkiv is a different beast entirely and the comparison is not excatly fair. But I dunno, I guess I was expecting a little more from the sample images.

I've been using this to have a look Imaging Resource "Comparometer" ™ Digital Camera Image Comparison Page and the reds definatley look a bit pushed, especially on the cusion as soon as the ISO gets raised. There's still quite a bit of noise in the shadows at ISO1600, more than a D500 and seems on par with any other Canon cropped sensor (in fact I think just as much as the T6) only with a larger image. The constrast seems a bit lacking too to my eyes. That makes me a bit wary that if I get one I'll feel like I have similar ISO restrictions to what I have now with similar dynamic range. That makes me think that I might want to upgrade again in a few of years and if that other camera was similar price then would I not be any worse off just getting a 5dmkiv now and getting an extra couple of years out of it.

Indeed the 6Dmkii seems much better to me and the shots from the 5Dmkiv are simply outstanding.
 
I was just reading the DPreview review and came across this comment:
  • "Through-the-finder AF less accurate than competition" This sounds like it would be a negative for wildlife/bird photography. True?
 
I was just reading the DPreview review and came across this comment:
  • "Through-the-finder AF less accurate than competition" This sounds like it would be a negative for wildlife/bird photography. True?

The 90D get's it's AF system from the 80D I believe and it's a single processor. The AF on the 5Div was much snappier and though the 90D was able to track people walking just fine, the focus aquisition was not as fast or as accurate. I think the 7Dii and the 1DXii have a very similar AF to the 5Div so I would imagine they would also be significantly better.

Whither that's a positive or not depends on what you are used to and I could see most people being very happy with the AF for general use. Dedicated wildlife photographers may want to opt for a body with an AF module that's a bit faster though.
 
Well now after reading your posts I think I'll just saving up for the 5Dmkiv.
 
Well now after reading your posts I think I'll just saving up for the 5Dmkiv.

Depends on what you are wanting to shoot but unless it is Wildlife or sports, the 5D IV will pretty much be the camera I'd go to. I have a 1D mk IV and a 5D mk III.

I have a friend that has the 5D mk IV and I absolutely love the images that he gets out of it.

If you are wanting to shoot wildlife and sports, I would suggest a used 1Dx for that. They can be had for +/- 2,000 and are great.
 
Thanks for that Ron. Why would the 1Dx be preferred for wildlife?
 
Thanks for that Ron. Why would the 1Dx be preferred for wildlife?

even better AF geared towards sports, more FPS, bigger buffer, phenomenal low light performance. Fantasic camera but smaller images and an APS-H sensor. My Dad uses a 1DX so I'm reasonably familiar with it.
 
Thanks for that Ron. Why would the 1Dx be preferred for wildlife?
12 fps will help you capture peak action, the AF is so much better and the thing is built like a tank.

Thanks for that Ron. Why would the 1Dx be preferred for wildlife?

even better AF geared towards sports, more FPS, bigger buffer, phenomenal low light performance. Fantasic camera but smaller images and an APS-H sensor. My Dad uses a 1DX so I'm reasonably familiar with it.

The 1Dx is a full frame camera not a crop. The crop is the 1D mk IV but it only has 10 fps (this is what I shoot)
 
Thanks for that Ron. I just saw a review of the 5D Mk IV by Glen Bartley who shoots under the same conditions I do. He did not find substantial reasons to move up to it from the 7D ll .
 
Thanks for that Ron. Why would the 1Dx be preferred for wildlife?
12 fps will help you capture peak action, the AF is so much better and the thing is built like a tank.

Thanks for that Ron. Why would the 1Dx be preferred for wildlife?

even better AF geared towards sports, more FPS, bigger buffer, phenomenal low light performance. Fantasic camera but smaller images and an APS-H sensor. My Dad uses a 1DX so I'm reasonably familiar with it.

The 1Dx is a full frame camera not a crop. The crop is the 1D mk IV but it only has 10 fps (this is what I shoot)

High frame rate is a double-edged sword.

It can be too much of a good thing.
At 12 fps, be prepared to edit through a LOT of pics.
On Tues, I shot a high school tennis match at 18 fps, and ended up with about 3,600 frames :eek:
After HOURS of culling, I am down to 1,100 frames. But that is still a LONG way above my goal of 200 frames.

I have to rethink how I shoot at high frame rates.
My Nikon D7200 shoots at 6 fps, so the 18 fps of the Olympus, at 3x faster, was a kick in the pants.
I had to slow it down to 9 fps yesterday when I shot water polo.
 
I tend to shoot in short bursts, rather than a long continuous stream. On my D7200, a burst was usually less than 6 frames.
In fact on my D7200, many times I would fire off single shots, rather than a burst.

It is also not having to shoot multiple bursts, to get a specific shot.
At 6 fps, the specific shots I wanted (in tennis) was usually between the frames. So I shot MANY bursts, to "try " to get that one shot.
At 18 fps, I GOT those shots, so I don't have to shoot so many bursts.

I just got through uploading yesterday's tennis match. 2nd match at 18 fps.
The shot count this time was just under 900 frames. :) It would have been less than 800, but for extra shooting of a specific player, for a teacher friend of mine.
Reduction was primarily by shooting a LOT less bursts, and counting on the frame rate to get the shot.
 
Thanks for that Ron. Why would the 1Dx be preferred for wildlife?
12 fps will help you capture peak action, the AF is so much better and the thing is built like a tank.

Thanks for that Ron. Why would the 1Dx be preferred for wildlife?

even better AF geared towards sports, more FPS, bigger buffer, phenomenal low light performance. Fantasic camera but smaller images and an APS-H sensor. My Dad uses a 1DX so I'm reasonably familiar with it.

The 1Dx is a full frame camera not a crop. The crop is the 1D mk IV but it only has 10 fps (this is what I shoot)

High frame rate is a double-edged sword.

It can be too much of a good thing.
At 12 fps, be prepared to edit through a LOT of pics.
On Tues, I shot a high school tennis match at 18 fps, and ended up with about 3,600 frames :eek:
After HOURS of culling, I am down to 1,100 frames. But that is still a LONG way above my goal of 200 frames.

I have to rethink how I shoot at high frame rates.
My Nikon D7200 shoots at 6 fps, so the 18 fps of the Olympus, at 3x faster, was a kick in the pants.
I had to slow it down to 9 fps yesterday when I shot water polo.

Give me a 5D IV, 1D mk IV, 1Dx or 1Dx II and I'll shoot about the same number of images at a football game. (Been there and done that). The use of the fps is about how much time there is BETWEEN images.

Example: Use all the above camera's mentioned and take a 3 shot burst (or even 5 shot burst).

The time between images of the 5 fps vs the 12 fps is much longer and it requires more timing and "luck" to get the peak action. STOP: Can it be done? Yes absolutely because we have/had photogs doing it with 3 fps and less.

But there is a big difference.
 
Thanks for that Ron. I just saw a review of the 5D Mk IV by Glen Bartley who shoots under the same conditions I do. He did not find substantial reasons to move up to it from the 7D ll .

That is a personal choose but I personally would not agree that there isn't a big difference between the 5d IV and the 7D II. (I owned a 7D II for well over two years and it was my primary body.) I haven't shot as much with a 5D IV but I know that the sensor is better and a full frame vs a crop isn't a fair comparison.
 

Most reactions

Back
Top