Everybody seems to be forgetting that the 90D is rumoured to have 2 digics. Doesn’t sound like a normal 80D upgrade to me. We’ll see soon enough..
Canon EOS 90D and Canon EOS M6 Mark II announcements coming at the end of August
- Thread starter Canon Rumors Guy
- Start date
Don't be obtuse. You know I was talking about the s variant of the 1D series.
The question is whether or not Canon would make a lower tier/price point body an equal or better replacement for a once upper tier/price point function. The answer is yes, they have.
You're the one introducing misrepresentations.
Wanting a feature is perfectly reasonable. Threatening consequences if you don’t get that feature is silly. Unless you happen to own a few million shares of CAJ, your threat is meaningless. Neither Canon nor anyone on this forum care if you buy the 90D, buy a Nikon D500, or buy a soggy piece of toast.
I just retired my 7DMKII to back up status, not because there was anything wrong with it, but because it has over 380,000 clicks on a shutter rated for 200,000! That camera has been to seven continents, the Arctic and Antarctic, and Africa multiple times and only had routine sensor cleaning. Best, most reliable piece of equipment I've ever owned. Bought another one a couple of months ago because I can't keep waiting forever waiting for Canon to come out with a better camera to replace it.
Catherine
It is very interesting reading all the coments, mostly disliking what the rumored specs of the 90D are going to be. Personally, I have multiple caneras and use the one that fits the work I'm going to do. I'm sure that Canon has done its homework and the 90D will end up being a success, even if it isn't what everyone is looking for. Reguardless of the end resulting specs, I am very excited to give this camera a try with and open mind.
You think after years of spamming these forums with nonsense, the person they were addressing deserves any respect?Did your professional studies include any lessons on respect to others?
Last edited:
So is there no difference "noticeable in real world photographs" or is the 80D better "when you have to increase the exposure or push the shadows"?
Please make up your mind.
Or is that you want to deny any measurable difference that shows the 7D Mark II is slightly better than the 80D at ISOs above 400 while still maintaining that the 80D is noticeably better in processing?
Which looks better in processing is as much about the different algorithms being used for each sensor by the specific raw conversion application as it is about the sensor itself. When using Canon's DPP 4, I find the capabilities of the 7D Mark II every bit as good as the 80D at high ISO settings. YMMV.
Here are some "real world photographs" shot under pretty crappy lighting.
Image taken under extremely poor limited spectrum flickering lighting at a high school football stadium. ISO 3200, f/2.8, 1/800, 200mm. Shot with an EOS 7D Mark II + EF 70-200mm f/2.8 IS II. Processed with Canon's DPP 4. (Brightness +0.67; CT set at 3700, WB set at -1B, -2M; Standard PS; gamma adjusted +3, 0, 0 to crush the shadows in the background outside the stadium; Contrast -1, Shadows +1, Highlight -2 (to preserve details in white jerseys), color saturation -2; NR 8 (Lum), 10 (Chr); extensive HSL adjustments in blue and purple bands to reduce color casts on white nylon jerseys created by the limited spectrum lighting.) Cropped from 5472x3648 (3:2) to 3270x2453 (4:3)(62% diagonal linear, 40% areal).
Same stadium and camera/lens, but shot at a slightly brighter spot near the 50 yard line. ISO 3200, f/3.2, 1/500 at 200mm. Processed with Canon's DPP 4. (Brightness +0.33; CT set at 3700, WB set at -1B, -2M; Standard PS; gamma adjusted +3, 0, 0; Contrast -1, Shadows +1, Highlight -2 (to preserve details in white jerseys), color saturation -2; NR 8 (Lum), 10 (Chr); extensive HSL adjustments in blue and purple bands to reduce color casts on white uniform created by the limited spectrum lighting.) Cropped from 3648x5472 (2:3) to 3483x4644 (3:4)(81% areal) .
But then again, even the 7D can do pretty well at ISO 3200 with enough light. EOS 7D + 70-200mm f/2.8L IS II at 200mm. ISO 3200, f/2.8, 1/1600. Processed with Canon's DPP 3. I'm too lazy to reinstall DPP 3 just to look up the processing settings I used back in 2013, but I seem to remember having to pull, not push, on this one. The singer was illuminated by a bright spotlight, the rest of the stage was not and I was using slower Tv on the other members of the band. (The full sized uncropped image was too large for the limits here on CR. This is an uncropped version downsized from 3456x5184 to 1536x1024.
Last edited:
Agreed. But when someone claims one sensor is "noticeably better" than another and the measurable data shows otherwise...
Which kind of proves the point about which is more robust than the other.
The 80D has a shutter rating of 100,000
The 7D Mark II has a shutter rating of 200,000
Additionally, the 7D Mark II has a superior AF system and a superior light meter (150,000 RGB+IR pixels in 252 zones vs. 7560 RGB+IR in 63 segments). These things are important when shooting sports/action in dim light. The color metering is critical when shooting straight to JPEG to meet tight publishing deadlines.
It was just luck it wasnt the 7D2 instead, you might have missed how it happened and the general point I was making. Many of the things you're listing are claimed specs vs reality. In my view they often arent so meaningful in practise. I still have to watch for the same situations with metering but overall its very reliable for either. Shutter counts are still ultimately a matter of trust and luckily are generally vast underestimates. Durability is still extremely good even with the so called flimsy 80D, but the same issues with be lethal for either.
Much of it is more about piece of mind in my view.
You can claim it is just a spec, but here's the reality of the 80D shutter life versus the reality of the 7D Mark II shutter life. A 7D Mark II has a better chance of making it to 500,000 actuations than an 80D has of making it to 150,000.
Last edited:
Unless the three samples of 7D2 which made it over 500,000 made it to exactly 1,000,000, I’m not convinced the evidence supports that claim.
I missed there were no data on the right for the bottom line.
So let's change it to a 7D Mark II has a better chance of making it to 500,000 actuations than an 80D has of making it to 150,000.
I think that might be confusing absence of data with a finding. Theres very different sample sizes.
If you take a look at the 60D or 70D with larger samples, you see a much closer match in overall patterns to the 7D2, with the majority of failures at 10-35k, and a fair chance of some very good numbers afterwards. Still not a completely fair comparison given lots of caveats (user base, age rates, selection bias etc) but interesting.
Using that data I have a 44% chance of getting 250k-500k with a 70D and a 58% chance with a 7D2. I mean sure its measurable, but they're both pretty awesome in my view.
If you take a look at the 60D or 70D with larger samples, you see a much closer match in overall patterns to the 7D2, with the majority of failures at 10-35k, and a fair chance of some very good numbers afterwards. Still not a completely fair comparison given lots of caveats (user base, age rates, selection bias etc) but interesting.
Using that data I have a 44% chance of getting 250k-500k with a 70D and a 58% chance with a 7D2. I mean sure its measurable, but they're both pretty awesome in my view.
I would only be interested in that if the viewfinder were about a million times better than the ones in the R and RP. Those are just awful, compared side-by-side with my 7D Mark II. Blurry when panning, low-res, brightness doesn't match the scene, crushed blacks, blown whites - close to unusable in difficult conditions.
Oh, and I'd need at least 1,000 shots + 3 hours of viewfinder on time per battery charge.
This is my problem with mirrorless and why I wish Canon would put their up coming high resolution sensor in a 5Ds/5DsR mark II. I can shoot through an EVF, and in some situations even appreciate the exposure preview. But I generally prefer an OVF.
Every year EVFs are "as good as an OVF!" and then the next year there are improvements, and we hear again how "this time it really is as good!" I guess one year they might finally be right
Spamming with nonsense? Even if your arguments might be actually wrong, it does not mean you are necessarily spamming or trolling. So yes, I actually think, that even then you are entitled for a non-arrogant response.