Other than IQ at low ISO settings, say below ISO 1000.
Don't think 90D is superior to the 7Dii.
Don't think 90D is superior to the 7Dii.
Upvote
0
Don't you think having a 32Mpx sensor rather than 20Mpx is an advantage? That gives 26% more reach and 60% more pixels on target, which is something most wild-life and bird photographers want.Other than IQ at low ISO settings, say below ISO 1000.
Don't think 90D is superior to the 7Dii.
Don't you think having a 32Mpx sensor rather than 20Mpx is an advantage? That gives 26% more reach and 60% more pixels on target, which is something most wild-life and bird photographers want.
For the same display size, the low-light IQ of a 20Mpx sensor should be slightly lower, because its shot noise occupies a slightly narrower spatial frequency band.I agree to a certain extent but with the pixel density that comes along with the 32Mpx, I believe the IQ for the low light/ high ISO for the 20Mpx would be slightly higher unless the 90D 32-Mpx sensor is developed with some kind of new tech (super-BSI CMOS, etc) sensor ?
For the same display size, the low-light IQ of a 20Mpx sensor should be slightly lower, because its shot noise occupies a slightly narrower spatial frequency band.
That assumes that you need to crop an image from a higher-resolution APS-C sensor, but for some magical reason wouldn't need to crop an image of the same scene from a lower-resolution APS-C sensor. Not a practical scenario.Not when you crop the 32 MP sensor to 20 MP, making the imaging area smaller than the APS-C area of the 20MP sensor.
That assumes that you need to crop an image from a higher-resolution APS-C sensor, but for some magical reason wouldn't need to crop an image of the same scene from a lower-resolution APS-C sensor. Not a practical scenario.
...but for a different image, with more of the subject and less of the background in frame.That's exactly what AlanF's comment was talking about. The higher resolution APS-C gives the user the option to crop more and get the same final resolution.
The AF via the OVF of the 90D is good. I have posted examples of BIF using the 100-400mm II on the 90D in the thread https://www.canonrumors.com/forum/index.php?threads/eos-90d-hands-on-review.37589/ and in the Birds in Flight thread. I used to use the7DII and found it excellent for BIF, it's difficult for me to recall precisely the performance of the 7DII relative to the 90D, but I am happy with the 90D.While all of the technical speak of pixel size, sensor resolution etc. is helpful, for me? If the camera can't lock focus reliably in ovf, its a no-go. I've read a lot of talk on how wonderful the af is in the 90D with live view, I dont shoot in live view, never have and never will. For me it is not practical or possible. When I mount a 100-400 lens to the the front of a camera and am following BIF or other bird movement? Live view is not remotely possible. Im an 'old dog' and dont like new tricks that make the enjoyment of shooting BIF change into a physical endurance task....The 7Dii is still the camera for me at the end of the day. Maybe in the future they'll offer a 7Diii....
...but for a different image, with more of the subject and less of the background in frame.
If you want to compare it to the same image of the lower-resolution sensor, you need to crop equally and then upsample/downsample both crops to the same final bitmap size.
The AF via the OVF of the 90D is good. I have posted examples of BIF using the 100-400mm II on the 90D in the thread https://www.canonrumors.com/forum/index.php?threads/eos-90d-hands-on-review.37589/ and in the Birds in Flight thread. I used to use the7DII and found it excellent for BIF, it's difficult for me to recall precisely the performance of the 7DII relative to the 90D, but I am happy with the 90D.
Using mirrorless AF is often different from from the way we use AF for bird photography. Mirrorless can be much better at sticking to a large moving subject once it has locked on. But, for bird photography we need the AF to lock on fast and then we pan to keep the bird in the centre of the frame, and the OVF AF locks on faster than mirrorless. I don't think some of the so-called expert reviewers realise this.
By the way, there were lots of complaints posted in the early days about the AF on the 7DII being weak, but I was always very happy with it.
While all of the technical speak of pixel size, sensor resolution etc. is helpful, for me? If the camera can't lock focus reliably in ovf, its a no-go. I've read a lot of talk on how wonderful the af is in the 90D with live view, I dont shoot in live view, never have and never will. For me it is not practical or possible. When I mount a 100-400 lens to the the front of a camera and am following BIF or other bird movement? Live view is not remotely possible. Im an 'old dog' and dont like new tricks that make the enjoyment of shooting BIF change into a physical endurance task....The 7Dii is still the camera for me at the end of the day. Maybe in the future they'll offer a 7Diii....
No. It's to get a "picture with the subject occupying more of the total frame in the final image" with an acceptable image quality. You can get the same picture from a lower resolution sensor, but its image quality will be lower (in this case, worse than acceptable).The entire point of more pixels occupying the same amount of sensor area for birders is to be able to get a different picture with the subject occupying more of the total frame in the final image.
I have been roped into taking some portraits and have been testing the 90D with a 50/1.8 STM. The eye AF works a treat in LV. The 90D seems so have some of the best of both worlds, combining excellent mirrorless AF with rather good PD via OVF. The 90D does have some very nice features that have been developed since its tougher older brother was born.The review at DP Review is a joke with regard to the 90D's OVF AF system. Most of it was written based on using the EF 18-135mm f/3.5-5.6 IS STM that is optimized more for video shooting than stills. From all reports I've seen by people who actually know their way around a Canon AF system, the 90D is a small improvement over the 80D using OVF AF. The big difference is that the 90D's LV AF is even better than OVF AF, which was definitely not the case with the 80D, 7D Mark II, and other upper tier Canon DSLRs.
No. It's to get a "picture with the subject occupying more of the total frame in the final image" with an acceptable image quality. You can get the same picture from a lower resolution sensor, but its image quality will be lower (in this case, worse than acceptable).