Of course, I have no problem accepting and admitting to faults.
If you can articulate how a product which is such a market flop that it forces the company to immediately pivot to another product isn’t a “failure,” I'm happy to say I’m wrong.
Canon EOS 90D and Canon EOS M6 Mark II announcements coming at the end of August
- Thread starter Canon Rumors Guy
- Start date
If you can articulate how a product which is such a market flop that it forces the company to immediately pivot to another product isn’t a “failure,” I'm happy to say I’m wrong.
You’re providing feedback to other users on features important to you, and you’re not providing it to anyone who can act on your feedback. In regard to the cameras supposedly being announced this month, your feedback is irrelevant since it’s far too late to change anything about them.
Canon doesn’t really care if you don’t buy Canon, you’re one person. Canon has a long history of making cameras that the majority of ILC buyers want to purchase. They’ve done so successfully for >16 years without your feedback.
I can’t speak for others, but I’m not especially concerned about Canon’s profit. It’s solid enough that there’s no worry about them exiting the ILC market. Regardless, as an individual you are essentially irrelevant to their profit.
It’s good to know you’re not ovine. Otherwise I’d be quite curious about a keyboard that works for hooves.
No for me not enough for sport. In fast moving sports it can be difference between capturing something and not
Yes the number of photos is a pain but worth it if you capture that moment.
The pro capture feature that Olympus have would be very useful on a mirrorless high FPS from Canon.
Wow! That’s a whole lot of speculation without any real knowledge. Canon is holding back on features for an APS-C DSLR because they think that will cause customers to rush out and buy a full frame mirror less camera and a slew of lenses all of which would require an investment of several multiples more than the DSLR.
Yeah I’m sure that’s canon’s strategy.
Well, that brings up the long dispute of "why shoot video with a DSLR when you have a special video canera" such as the C200? Which is, in more than once sense a mirrirless camera.
By the way, I had a differnt idea, why not a "selective" mirror on the DSLR, such mirroers are mede so when you put them in a specific charge, they become morror and when you don't they are blank. I think that this can be a good solution, though never tried it myfelf
I'd like to point out that if the 90D for whatever reason becomes a flop at specs, Canon will do nothing because they don't care. I'd like to point out that if the 90D for whatever reason becomes a flop at sales, Canon will just lower the price a little bit faster than they intended to do. There is no reality where Canon will give us a mirrorless 90D sooner.
Yes, that’s true, especially if the 90D is all polycarbonate. Maybe it will be something like a mix of some metal and some polycarbonate, like Nikon does with some models. I guess we will see shortly.
No. I'm saying the geometry of both the EF-M mount and the R mount mean a 2mm thick adapter without optics is physically impossible.
I'm pretty sure no one has said you can't get any keepers with an 80D. What we have been saying is that overall, the 7D Mark II is more optimized as a sports/action/wildlife camera than the 80D while also acknowledging that the 80D is also better at some other tasks.
Beyond that, anyone who uses a Canon DSLR at one of the "+1/3 stop" ISO settings (i.e 125, 250, 500, 1000, 2000) obviously doesn't understand how Canon artificially pull/pushes non full-stop ISOs. When using ISO 2000, for instance, the sensor is using analog amplification for ISO 1600, then digitally pushing exposure by 1/3 stop after ADC, which also pushes all of the noise by 1/3 stop. As a result, ISO 3200 is about as clean with Canon sensors as ISO 2000 is. In fact, under typical conditions ISO 1250 can be cleaner than ISO 125! Shooting at "+1/3 stop" ISO settings is the equivalent of shooting at the next lower full stop ISO and exposing to the left by 1/3 stop. Shooting at -1/3 stop ISO settings (e.g. 160, 320, 640, 1250, etc.) is the equivalent of shooting at the next highest full ISO setting and shooting 1/3 stop to the right.
Last edited:
You can claim you were talking to another user here, but the (same) comment you quote (twice) above was in reply to a comment you made that was a direct reply to a comment I made comparing the 7D Mark II to the 80D. More than once in your reply you said that the 7D Mark II was not as much of an improvement over the 7D as the 80D was an improvement over the 7D.
Last edited:
I completely agree on the sports/action front but I thought we were talking about ISO.
Based on the maturity level displayed in your posts, I was doing 10,000 pages of collateral reading a semester in grad school a decade before you were born.
N
The difference in DR between the two models isn’t really noticeable in real world photographs. Like I said, the quality of the colours from the 80D files when you have to increase the exposure or push the shadows is better. I prefer the files from the 80D.
With my 80D noise becomes a major issue at ISO's above 1250, and even at ISO 1250 there's quite a lot of noise in most of my shots. I can clean the images up quite well at ISO 1250 but anything over that becomes a major task in post. ISO 2000 on my 80D is basically unusable. (I'm shooting in the woods all the time and dealing with major highlights and shadows in each image also).
I've noticed if I'm shooting birds or airplanes in low light with the sky as a background, shots at ISO 2000 are sometimes usable/savable.
I've been heavily using my 80D since it was released in 2016, I pretty much know every trick/setting with it to get the most out of it.
Regardless, some of the best wildlife shots I've ever got has been with the 80D.....
Out of curiosity I used the DPReview comparison tool to compare high ISO RAWs from both, and I honestly can't find a meaningful difference. Perhaps there's a DxO graph that says there should be a difference, but it's not one I could pick out of randomly shuffled prints.
Then again, I don't see much difference between any of the latest APS-C sensors with the exception of Fuji. The real jump in high ISO comes from going to FF, with Fuji crop looking like it's in between a typical crop and typical FF sensor.
Sensors have been pretty efficient at capturing and counting photons for a while now. For a given format (given sensor size), I would not expect any major gains in high ISO. I don't think the coming 90D or M6 II will 'blow away' either the 7D2 or 80D in terms of high ISO. If you're pushing their limits now, then go FF.
Yah, there’s a significant difference between ‘measurable’ and ‘visible’.
Yup. Hence why the whole Sony fanboy arguments based around DR are so much tripe. You notice a meaningful difference between a mediocre crop sensor(such as the 7d2 has compared to newer generation sensors) and a top of the line new gen FF sensor because you are looking at 3 stops. Current gen FF sensors are within a stop or so and in the real world you see very little difference in the hands of a capable photographer