# Canon 90D Released!



## weepete (Aug 28, 2019)

Canon has released the 90D, a whopping 32.5 megapixel 10fps monster with ISO up to 25,600 and 45 cross type AF points. The specs look good, now just to break it gently to the Mrs that I want to buy one 

Canon EOS 90D Camera  - Canon UK


----------



## Dacaur (Aug 28, 2019)

I must have one!

It looks like the dual pixel auto focus works in 4k video as well.... At least, nothing says it doesn't....


----------



## Jeff15 (Aug 28, 2019)

Looks good but any idea of price.....?


----------



## weepete (Aug 28, 2019)

Jeff15 said:


> Looks good but any idea of price.....?



£1,200/$1,200 for body only


----------



## RowdyRay (Aug 28, 2019)

Wow! Definitely interested. May have to sell a kidney. Lol. 

Let's see what the reviews are like. There's always bugs or issues.


----------



## Derrel (Aug 28, 2019)

I looked at the detailed specifications sheet from Canon UK, and the camera looks very capable. With so many megapixels I was glad to see several different image ratios were possible in raw mode or jpeg. besides the standard 3 to 2 ratio, the Camera offers 4 :3, 16:9, and 1:1.


----------



## ac12 (Aug 29, 2019)

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.


----------



## ronlane (Aug 29, 2019)

ac12 said:


> 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.



No worries. We will all be in RF mount glass in the next couple of years anyway. From everything I am seeing and hearing about RF glass it is better than the EF mount glass that we all have come to love.


----------



## Derrel (Aug 29, 2019)

I agree, the RF Canon mount and the  Nikon  mirrorless lenses have been extremely good performers, better than their standard reflex system lenses. The new Nikon Z series 50 mm for example is exceptionally good at F1.8, or wide-open.


----------



## Derrel (Aug 29, 2019)

I do not have any worries about the L-series lenses and the prime lenses that Canon has released within the past few years being good enough.

I think that Canon has done some testing and that the people who buy this camera will have adequate lenses for it, although I think that the lowest-end lenses such as the early 18 to 55 non-IS kit lens ( The one that was so bad it was only sold in North America and in certain select European markets but nowhere in the orient )Will not do well on this camera sensor. I owned a copy of that 18 to 55 non-IS  and it was a  very poor performer. However that lens is now somewhat close to 15 years out of date, and it is unlikely that there are that many people still using them .

I also expect Canon to redesign any underperforming models that they currently have. as megapixel counts have gone up and up over the years, the major manufacturers have re-designed certain lenses on an as-needed basis, And I expect this to continue.


----------



## Dacaur (Aug 29, 2019)

Also consider the same thing is said every time megapixel count goes up...


----------



## photoflyer (Aug 29, 2019)

Interesting that the model in the promo is wearing camouflage fatigues.  To me that is a subtle way of expressing it's water sealing.  A key benefit for me 



Derrel said:


> I was glad to see several different image ratios were possible in raw mode or jpeg. besides the standard 3 to 2 ratio, the Camera offers 4 :3, 16:9, and 1:1.



I have often wondered about the benefit of shooting in a different aspect ratio versuses cropping in post.


----------



## Derrel (Aug 29, 2019)

photoflyer said:


> I have often wondered about the benefit of shooting in a different aspect ratio versuses cropping in post.



Depending on the camera, cropping can change the firing rate (5.0  vs 8.2 fps) in Nikon D2x...

file size, buffer issues,etc..


----------



## Raw photographer (Aug 29, 2019)

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


----------



## Derrel (Aug 29, 2019)

I went from 2.7 megapixels, to 6 megapixels, then to 8.2 megapixels,  then to 12.2 megapixels, all on APS-C.

My first full frame camera was the 12.8 megapixel Canon 5D, commonly called the 5D classic. I used that for several years, then in 2012 I bought myself a used Nikon D3X, which was a 24 megapixel full frame.

I was extremely happy with the image quality from a 24 megapixel full frame, but two years ago I bought a Nikon D610, which used a second-generation 24 million pixel full frame sensor. The image quality even at elevated ISO
levels was very good, and about a year later I bought myself a used Nikon D800. I was extremely astounded at the difference between 24 megapixels and 36 megapixels. The noise level between the two sensors was extremely close, and I think that the 36 million pixel full frame sensor is every bit as good as medium format film used to be in the 1980s. 36 million pixels offered me an incredible ability to crop images at the computer, with almost no visible loss of quality. Compared to 18 years ago with a 2.7 million pixel digital image, the degree of crop-ability is simply staggering. Compared to 12.2 million pixels 36 million pixels offered me an incredible degree of freedom to crop.

I think that 32.5 megapixels will really be a huge step upward to people who are used to 16 and 18 and 22 megapixels or less.


----------



## beagle100 (Aug 30, 2019)

Raw photographer said:


> 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 (Aug 31, 2019)

ac12 said:


> 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 (Sep 2, 2019)

ac12 said:


> 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 (Sep 2, 2019)

@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 (Sep 2, 2019)

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 (Sep 2, 2019)

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 (Sep 3, 2019)

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 (Sep 3, 2019)

Donde said:


> 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 (Sep 4, 2019)

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 (Sep 4, 2019)

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 (Sep 4, 2019)

Original katomi said:


> 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.
> ...



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 (Sep 4, 2019)

Dacaur said:


> Original katomi said:
> 
> 
> > Ok I am going to ask the other sort of questions
> ...



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


----------



## Derrel (Sep 4, 2019)

ac12 said:


> ac12 said:
> 
> 
> > 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 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 (Sep 4, 2019)

Derrel said:


> ac12 said:
> 
> 
> > ac12 said:
> ...



@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 (Sep 4, 2019)

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


----------



## Derrel (Sep 4, 2019)

I think another thing that we should consider is  generation of sensor. The new 90D has a new sensor, from a new generation of sensor technology, and for example let's consider the Sony Exmor sensors introduced into cameras in the year 2007; these sensors  simply were much better than earlier generation models. For example if we were to compare two sensors,one five years newer than the other,it's more or less even money that the newer one will outperform the older, even though both might be of the same megapixel class.


----------



## ac12 (Sep 4, 2019)

Thanks @Derrel 
I think I will recommend getting a 90D.
That can be our top-end camera, for when we need more resolution, like the class panorama pic.
And the 10fps would definitely be a help in some sports.


----------



## Derrel (Sep 4, 2019)

10 frames per second… That will  get you one more frame to choose from in many sports type situations, such as track and field or volleyball or baseball. Years ago when Canon introduced its first 10 frames per second camera, it was found in the 1Ds series, which at the time cost several thousand dollars.

At about the same time Nikon offered the  D2X, which in its high speed crop mode, offered 8.2 frames per second at 6.7 megapixels, in a camera that cost me $5000 in 2005In it's full resolution 
mode the D2x  shot at five frames per second.

 At both Rob Galbraith.com and sportsshooter.com, the feeling was that 10 frames per second offered you another frame to choose from in peak action scenarios. 10 frames per second is not fast enough to just machine gun, but if you are actively trying to time your shots, most experienced shooters felt that the 10 frames per second offered them something of real value. Here we are about 15 years later, and we now can get 10 frames per second at 32 megapixels for around $1200… Camera throughput has really been boosted to a new level!


----------



## beagle100 (Sep 4, 2019)

ac12 said:


> Thanks @Derrel
> I think I will recommend getting a 90D.
> That can be our top-end camera, for when we need more resolution, like the class panorama pic.
> And the 10fps would definitely be a help in some sports.



sure, and the new *Canon M6 ii can do 30 fps* or 14 ... if one is counting
(no flapping mirror !)
*www.flickr.com/photos/mmirrorless*


----------



## ac12 (Sep 4, 2019)

beagle100 said:


> ac12 said:
> 
> 
> > Thanks @Derrel
> ...



With an add-on EVF, sticking up and just waiting to get broken.
No thanks, I prefer an integrated EVF.


----------



## prodigy2k7 (Sep 5, 2019)

I am currently using the 7D original and am finally considering upgrading to either the 7 Mk 2 or the 3 if it ever comes out (unlikely?) or the 90D. 

I am unsure how much longer I want to wait for a 7D Mk 3. Probably not going to happen so let’s ignore that. Do you think the 90D has a auto focus system on par with 7D Mk 2? I would hope so. I guess a better question would be, what does the 7D Mk 2 have that’s better than the 90D if anything?


----------



## weepete (Sep 6, 2019)

prodigy2k7 said:


> I am currently using the 7D original and am finally considering upgrading to either the 7 Mk 2 or the 3 if it ever comes out (unlikely?) or the 90D.
> 
> I am unsure how much longer I want to wait for a 7D Mk 3. Probably not going to happen so let’s ignore that. Do you think the 90D has a auto focus system on par with 7D Mk 2? I would hope so. I guess a better question would be, what does the 7D Mk 2 have that’s better than the 90D if anything?



The 90D is the replacement for the 7Dmkii and the 80D rolled into one. Though I'm dissapointed to loose the numbering (weird I know but I'm quite fond of that). The 90D should see a slight performance increase over the 7dmkii and quite a big step up from the 7Dmk1 which is the camera I'm using too.

Lab tests aren't out yet but it looks really good on paper.


----------



## Dacaur (Sep 6, 2019)

weepete said:


> prodigy2k7 said:
> 
> 
> > I am currently using the 7D original and am finally considering upgrading to either the 7 Mk 2 or the 3 if it ever comes out (unlikely?) or the 90D.
> ...



I know that was the rumor, but I don't believe it. In a few respects the 90d is a downgrade from the 7d mkII, like AF points and gps, etc. I think we will see a 7d mkIII, or maybe they just let the line die, then the 90d does become the defacto upgrade, but if that's the case the 80d was the real upgrade to the 7dmkII.....


----------



## Derrel (Sep 6, 2019)

beagle100 said:


> ac12 said:
> 
> 
> > Thanks @Derrel
> ...


there are currently only eight lenses for the M system, and six are slow consumer grade zooms, and only two are primes, with one of them being a 35 mm and the other being a short macro lens. The M system appears to be aimed at moms and dads.


----------



## Donde (Sep 7, 2019)

Derrel do you mean the EF series lenses will not fit the new EOS 90D DSLR? Confused here.


----------



## weepete (Sep 7, 2019)

Dacaur said:


> I know that was the rumor, but I don't believe it. In a few respects the 90d is a downgrade from the 7d mkII, like AF points and gps, etc. I think we will see a 7d mkIII, or maybe they just let the line die, then the 90d does become the defacto upgrade, but if that's the case the 80d was the real upgrade to the 7dmkII.....



Point taken, Roger Machin (a production manager for Canon) hints at a 7D mkiii being currently too expensive to produce in this video 



 (at around 4:20) while saying the 90D is an upgrade for the 80D and would make a nice 2nd camera for a 7D mkii shooter. 

But he also suggests that the 80D was so close to the 7Dmkii that it hurt the sales of the 7Dmkii and that the 7Dmkii would be on the market for some time to come. 

So it's not clear if he was just trying not to hurt future sales of the 7Dmkii or if there is a replacement planned and it's not on the horizon yet. Maybe they are waiting to see if consumers will switch to the 90D or if they'll hang on for the replacement before making the call to not release a 7Dmkiii.

For me it's enough of an upgrade from the 7Dmk1. Sure 65 AF points would be great but I'd be happy with 45 and more cross type AF points than the single 1 in the 7Dmkii. GPS has never mattered to me. The only thing I really think that would give me pause is the single card slot, but maybe they've decided to keep that for the professional bodies.


----------



## weepete (Sep 7, 2019)

Test images just released here: Canon 90D Review - Samples


----------



## ac12 (Sep 7, 2019)

Donde said:


> Derrel do you mean the EF series lenses will not fit the new EOS 90D DSLR? Confused here.



EF lenses should fit the 90D

I think Derrel was referring to native M-mount APS-C lenses, for the M6.  Which are of a "consumer" grade, similar to EF-S lenses for APS-C dSLRs.
Even there you can use an EF to M adapter to use your EF lenses on the M6.


----------



## Donde (Sep 8, 2019)

Well I've been waiting for the 7D III too but the reality is I definitely under use the abilities of my 7D II. It certainly would be nice to get 32mp and shave half a pound off my walk around bird setup.


----------



## Derrel (Sep 8, 2019)

Donde said:


> Derrel do you mean the EF series lenses will not fit the new EOS 90D DSLR? Confused here.



 No, I was referring to the M-series mirrorless lenses. The M series is The small size sensor mirrorless offering from Canon... The lens lineup for the M series is extremely limited.

 above beagle was talking about how fast the M6 fires, but what good is a camera that has four  slow consumer zoom lenses, a single 35 mm prime, and a 23 mm macro lens for sports use? No 70 to 200? No 200? No 300? No 85? The M-series is basically for people who want a very small and light camera, and do not need decent lenses. Sure,there is an adapter that allows you to use EF lenses  on M series cameras, but let's be real here: the M-series has been out for years now, and is a tepid seller. At any time Canon could stop production of the M-series cameras and no one would care. A camera that has been out for it half a decade,  and which has not really gained any degree of acceptance, and is selling so slowly that Canon still has only  few slow zooms and two oddball prime lenses after roughly 5 years in production… That speaks to a serious lack of commitment to the small format mirrorless on the part of Canon.


----------



## Derrel (Sep 8, 2019)

sales of serious cameras have really taken a nosedive over the past year. We are no longer in an era in which an automatic follow up is to be expected. I predict that The Canon 7D Mark III might be quite a while in coming, just as Nikon took what seemed to be an eternity between the D300 and the D500.


----------



## ac12 (Sep 9, 2019)

Derrel said:


> Donde said:
> 
> 
> > Derrel do you mean the EF series lenses will not fit the new EOS 90D DSLR? Confused here.
> ...



And for a serious photographer, they removed the integrated EVF.
Ever try shooting fast action sports or kids with the back screen, especially with a longer lens.  For me it is an exercise in frustration.  Maybe the cell phone kids are better at it than me.


----------



## Derrel (Sep 9, 2019)

according to some people mirrorless cameras are the best cameras for every situation, and can use any lens perfectly...I am kind of surprised that the Canon corporation is wasting its time with yet another flapping mirror camera in the long line of the D-series cameras… Apparently they don't read enough TPF at Canon, Japan headquarters.lol.


----------



## Michael Smith 12 (Sep 10, 2019)

The specs are amazing. Its a perfect successor to 80D and most people are saying there wont be a 7D Mark III either.


----------



## Derrel (Sep 10, 2019)

Personally, I think that that 90D represents a new milestone in the serious amateur segment, with some of the capabilities of formerly high-end 
,top-flight professional cameras. Having an optical viewfinder and 10 frame per second firing rate, plus a 32-megapixel aps-c sensor will make the 90D a good choice for a lot of photographers.


----------



## ac12 (Sep 12, 2019)

Double edged sword.
I was shooting a HS tennis match last week with my Olympus EM1 at 9.5fps, a similar frame rate to the 90D.
I ended the day with *900* images.            WAY TOO MANY.
My normal shot count with my 6 fps D7200 is 400-500 images per game.

I usually do two, sometimes 3 culling cycles, to get the final count down to about 100-125.  This is what I upload to the yearbook library.

Culling from 900 is harder and more time consuming than culling from 400.

Culling can be hard as I sometime have to cut pics that I like.  But it forces me to select the best of the best.

I have to make sure I have an even representation of all the players.  I try to not have an over representation of any one player, which is sometimes hard to do.
I don't normally cull a player completely OUT.  I try to have at least one shot of the player.  But this condition tells me that I need to watch for and shoot more of that player the next time.


----------



## Dacaur (Sep 12, 2019)

I can see the problem, but imo it's better than the opposite problem. My t6i shoots 5fps. At a recent birthday party I photographed a water balloon fight. I got a few really cool pictures of balloons breaking on people, but way more often I would get the before and after, but not the actual best picture... Not entirely a fps issue, as it was also a buffer issue, but the 90d also has 5x the buffer vs my T6i (27 vs 6)


----------



## beagle100 (Sep 15, 2019)

Dacaur said:


> I can see the problem, but imo it's better than the opposite problem. My t6i shoots 5fps. At a recent birthday party I photographed a water balloon fight. I got a few really cool pictures of balloons breaking on people, but way more often I would get the before and after, but not the actual best picture... Not entirely a fps issue, as it was also a buffer issue, but the 90d also has 5x the buffer vs my T6i (27 vs 6)



the new Canon M6 II has a 30 FPS rate  ...  until buffer maxes out


----------



## Derrel (Sep 16, 2019)

Unfortunately the M-series from Canon has very few lenses available, despite having been in production for over five years. Currently there are only two prime lenses available…a 35 mm and a 23 mm macro...and a few pokey consumer zoom  lenses. It seems as if  Canon is not very committed to the M-series. It would seem that Canon views the M-series as an afterthought. This year,2019, Canon has not released a single lens in the EF mount nor in the M-mount,but has concentrated all of its efforts on the new full frame mirrorless System… you know the new full frame that lacks in-body image stabilization… the new full frame that is behind Nikon and Sony.


----------



## ac12 (Sep 16, 2019)

beagle100 said:


> Dacaur said:
> 
> 
> > I can see the problem, but imo it's better than the opposite problem. My t6i shoots 5fps. At a recent birthday party I photographed a water balloon fight. I got a few really cool pictures of balloons breaking on people, but way more often I would get the before and after, but not the actual best picture... Not entirely a fps issue, as it was also a buffer issue, but the 90d also has 5x the buffer vs my T6i (27 vs 6)
> ...



And the older Olympus EM1-mk2 will do 60 FPS with the e-shutter.


----------



## weepete (Sep 16, 2019)

This one is faster still...The World's Fastest 10 Trillion FPS Camera is Here And it Can Freeze Time 

Of course you need to fit anything you photograph in a research lab.


----------



## weepete (Sep 18, 2019)

A little info I had previously missed: "The Canon EOS 7Dmkii..... has been a very popular model and Canon U.S.A. has confirmed that the 90D is not it's replacement." So now I'm in two minds whither to pull the trigger or wait. Or I may yet decide just to buy a 5Dmkiv.

from Canon EOS 90D Review


----------



## Derrel (Sep 18, 2019)

their review sounds extremely good. This looks like one heck of a performance camera, for a very good price. I expect that it will give the Nikon D 500 a real run for its money  in the mid-level segment of the market. It looks like an extremely capable "do everything "offering.


----------



## ronlane (Sep 18, 2019)

The 90D vs the 5D mk IV. That's a no contest right there. The 5d4 is hands down the better camera, not even close.

You can get great images and do video with both but the difference of the images of a crop sensor vs a full frame, well it's just better.


----------



## Derrel (Sep 18, 2019)

there is no comparison between a full frame camera and a crop sensor camera in terms of maximum image quality in the worst situations. However we need to see just how well
this new Canon 32.5 megapixel sensor performs. 

 this sensor might perform extremely well… Time will tell


----------



## weepete (Sep 18, 2019)

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.


----------



## weepete (Sep 27, 2019)

Interesting comparison here: 

Image comparison: Digital Photography Review


----------



## Donde (Oct 3, 2019)

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?


----------



## weepete (Oct 3, 2019)

Donde said:


> 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.


----------



## Donde (Oct 3, 2019)

Well now after reading your posts I think I'll just saving up for the 5Dmkiv.


----------



## ronlane (Oct 3, 2019)

Donde said:


> 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.


----------



## Donde (Oct 3, 2019)

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


----------



## weepete (Oct 4, 2019)

Donde said:


> 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.


----------



## ronlane (Oct 4, 2019)

Donde said:


> 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.



weepete said:


> Donde said:
> 
> 
> > Thanks for that Ron. Why would the 1Dx be preferred for wildlife?
> ...



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)


----------



## Donde (Oct 4, 2019)

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 .


----------



## ac12 (Oct 4, 2019)

ronlane said:


> Donde said:
> 
> 
> > Thanks for that Ron. Why would the 1Dx be preferred for wildlife?
> ...



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  
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.


----------



## Derrel (Oct 5, 2019)

Trigger control...


----------



## ac12 (Oct 5, 2019)

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.


----------



## ronlane (Oct 6, 2019)

ac12 said:


> ronlane said:
> 
> 
> > Donde said:
> ...



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.


----------



## ronlane (Oct 6, 2019)

Donde said:


> 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.


----------



## ac12 (Oct 6, 2019)

ronlane said:


> ac12 said:
> 
> 
> > ronlane said:
> ...



And old habits die hard.
With the Nikon, I still find myself timing the shot and firing off SINGLE shots.

But after the tennis match, at 18 fps, I think timing and my finger has met it's match.
But even at 18 fps, that racket moves a lot in that 1/18 of a second.  
I plan to go to a faster frame rate when I shoot the 1st and 2nd singles on Thur.  Then back down to 18 for the other players.


----------



## ronlane (Oct 6, 2019)

@ac12, I still shoot 1 frame at times as well. I do it more in baseball and softball trying to time the bat on the ball. Not sure why I do it that way, probably because of the old slow frame rates that I first shot with.

At 10 fps now, I don't have to as much but I will say after shooting with the 1dx and at 12 fps, I could get use to that VERY quickly.


----------



## Derrel (Oct 6, 2019)

In another thread today we have a fellow who claims to shoot 10 to 30 frame bursts at 10 frames per second, as he has been instructed to do by Tony Northrup and some other web guy named Steve something. I tried to tell him that he would be better off working on his timing rather than firing off his normal 10 to 30 frames, and hoping to get a good shot of a machine gunned burst. He says that he typically discards 90% of his shots. 

Most of my sports work was done with the Nikon d2x which Fires at only 5 frames per second or at 8.2 frames per second in itd  2.0 X high speed crop mode. I typically shot single frames and after about six months had a very high success rate. The d2x had perhaps the shortest latency time of any camera around when it was new back in 2005. The shutter delay time was also state-of-the-art. The big problem with a reflex camera is that even though we met press the shutter oh, the mirror must be swung up before the shutter can begin its travel. In the film days most shutters on reflex cameras took around 1 30th of a second,whilr Rangefinder cameras like the Leica were extremely rapid at around 1 250th of a second.

In baseball and softball I do not think there is any way to get good ball on bat shots except by firing single shots at the correct time. 10 frames per second means that each picture is one tenth of a second away from the previous, when I expect that the baseball leaving the bat 100 miles per hour gives you a window of around 100 milliseconds at most.


----------



## ac12 (Oct 6, 2019)

@Derrel 
I recall having that exact experience shooting tennis.
I got my best hit rates, shooting timed single frames, rather than a burst at 6 fps.
Even when I am shooting the other sports, I will often shoot single frames.

But for my students, who lack the experience, I tell them to shoot at max fps, and hope for the best.  And shoot a LOT, to make up for the difference.  IOW, the brute force, "spray and pray," approach.
None of my students has the patience to learn to shoot with timing. 
With digital, it is MUCH easier to learn timing, since you get immediate feedback, and can adjust your timing on the spot.  With film, we had to wait till we processed the film, to see if we got the shot.  This was a minimum of several hours, but more like a day or two, between the shoot and looking at the negative.

Since two years ago, none of my students have shot more than the minimum they had to, to do their yearbook page.  And they wonder why they can't get good shoots.  sigh    Though I do grant that some of them have a LOT more homework than I did in high school.

Teaching high school kids to shoot is MUCH harder than I thought it would be.


----------



## Derrel (Oct 6, 2019)

One of the best things about shooting digitally is that you can see where your current shutter release timing and anticipation leads to. Fire off a photo, and then look at the display and see whether you are in front of or behind the action. Ball on bat, pole vault, high jumping and a whole host of other types of sports shots depend upon the very Peak of action being captured within a very very small slice of time. You have to anticipate with a slow camera, but with a really fast-release camera it is fairly easy to get the shot you want. One thing that you will find in highly technical reviews is the shutter lag time. On a really fast camera this is usually around 80 milliseconds.


----------



## ac12 (Oct 6, 2019)

Derrel said:


> One of the best things about shooting digitally is that you can see where your current shutter release timing and anticipation leads to. Fire off a photo, and then look at the display and see whether you are in front of or behind the action. Ball on bat, pole vault, high jumping and a whole host of other types of sports shots depend upon the very Peak of action being captured within a very very small slice of time. You have to anticipate with a slow camera, but with a really fast-release camera it is fairly easy to get the shot you want. One thing that you will find in highly technical reviews is the shutter lag time. On a really fast camera this is usually around 80 milliseconds.



On some (high end) Olympus cameras, they have a feature called "Pro Capture."    Pretty neat stuff.
If you hold down the shutter half way, it will shoot and store in buffer the last X seconds of images.  
So you can actually capture images BEFORE you trip the shutter.  This also helps to counter the EVF lag, where the EVF display is a fraction behind real time.
I have mine set up to capture 1-second of images before I trip the shutter.  
BUT, Pro Capture only works when you can setup for the shot.  It does nothing for a fast grab shot.


----------



## Derrel (Oct 6, 2019)

How well does it work for let's say tennis? I would imagine that it's not that useful, if it works the way I am thinking it works


----------



## ac12 (Oct 6, 2019)

Derrel said:


> How well does it work for let's say tennis? I would imagine that it's not that useful, if it works the way I am thinking it works



Prediction is the key.

Actually it would work for tennis.  But only for the shots that I can setup, or plan for; like the serve, a singles return, or the back player in doubles.  Then I have time to put the AF point on the player and half press.  
It does not work when I cannot figure out which player in doubles will get the ball, or if the front player gets the ball.  If the front player gets the ball, I barely have time to do a grab shot.  I cannot read a tennis game fast enough, to predict a shot to the front player.

Volleyball is where many/most of my shots are grab/quick shift from one player to another and shoot, it won't work at all for those grab shots.  I'm getting better at reading the plays, but still a LOT of grab shots.  Like on a spike, the setter will send the ball up, but I don't know which forward (left or right) will get the ball, until the ball is coming down towards that forward.  So that usually ends up as a grab shot.
Similarly a fast pass in basketball would be a grab shot, where I shift and shoot.

I am still learning to use it.

So bottom line, is Pro Capture will not work for grab shots, where I quickly move the camera to a subject and immediately shoot.  
The camera needs to be on the subject for a second or so, at half press, before you trip the shutter.

So like any tool, it has a place where it works and where it does not work.

Having said all that, Pro Capture is simply a type of timed shooting.
Instead of you shooting before you think the action will happen, the camera does.
The only real difference are:
- The buffers rolls, so you can hold the shutter at half press, and only the last X seconds will be stored.
- If you release the shutter, you flush the buffer.  So you don't keep anything if you don't shoot.
But shooting digital is essentially free, so shooting the extra shots really does not cost anything.


----------



## daveo228i (Dec 23, 2019)

A perfect example of ‘ planned obsolescence’. All the manufacturers have to do is create more megapixels, voila, the newest must have. Film will beat out pixels any day. I am sure that Canon is already working on the Canon 10xx.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro


----------



## Dacaur (Dec 23, 2019)

Uhhhh, yea, that's, litteraly, exactly how it works with technology stuff, mfg makes a product, releases it, then starts working on the next, better, product, but it's not called planned obsolescence, it's called progress. 
The alternative is we are all still using pinhole cameras....


----------

