ephotozine: "There's a clear increase in detail captured when compared to the Canon EOS 80D, however, despite the additional pixels on the sensor, and therefore smaller pixels, the noise performance of both cameras is quite similar," Is the only key 'image quality' comment I can find.
Cameralabs: "The image quality, as you’ve seen, certainly has the potential to beat 24 Megapixel rivals, but not by a huge margin and crucially only when fitted with a quality lens."
digital camera world: "Canon’s new sensor does not provide the definitive step up in resolution that the figures left us hoping for. Worse, the increased pixel density does appear to have had an effect on the EOS 90D high ISO performance."
And on....
The only sensor improvement any of these reviews seem to list is resolution, not DR (it's the same), not high iso performance (its the same), bit depth (the same), color reproduction (its the same).
I stand by my comments, if people are looking for an image quality improvement over their 80D they will be disappointed, with a slight caveat, unless resolution is the be all and end all of your measurement of IQ. Now for a few people, like yourself, who is often focal length limited, that is a good reason to get one, for anybody that never found 24MP limiting (I'd venture that is vastly more common) then getting a 90D will ONLY add more MP to your 'image quality'.
I do not equate resolution to image quality in and of itself, assuming you have enough for your uses, and the numbers we are talking about don't show an improvement in color reproduction due to more sampling, tonality or any other metric most photographers would include when talking about image quality.
There's also faster readout that allows higher video frame rates without cropping to only the center of the sensor. That's a big part about what DPR was gushing about over this sensor compared to competing 24MP APS-C sensors in competing cameras.
Upvote
0