EOS 90D and M6 MK II announced

John Sheehy wrote in post #18918595
Does the color look right?

I used the latest DNG converter into RAWTherapee, and the color is off a bit.

I really wish these people would shoot lens caps at the highest ISO, a medium ISO, and base ISO. That is what I want to see, as an arbitrary photo in arbitrary light with arbitrary exposure isn't a very precise indicator of noise. Exposures are good for showing color response, but they need to shoot a common scene as other cameras, like at Imaging-Resource or DPR's studio comparison tool.

Colours seemed pretty ok, no camera specific profiles yet for the 90D but the default adobe colour profiles seem to behave correctly.

apersson850 wrote in post #18918542
Why would an APS-C camera have inferior low light focusing capability?

Today, Canon's dynamic range in low light conditions (read: when using high ISO) is equivalent or better than anybody else's.

DR is not precious at high ISOs; it is simply a matter of using less gain for an ISO, something you can't do if you're already at base ISO, and that's what Canon's HTP is. The amount of noise for a given exposure is not "DR"; DR just tells you how far below clipping a certain standard noise threshold occurs. It tells nothing about noise at an absolute exposure, or how fast it gets noisier below the "bottom" of DR, or how fast it gets cleaner above it.

Well, some of their most recent cameras (6D2 and RP) do not use their newer ADC technology, and their newer ADC technology is not as good as much of the competition.

It doesn't always deliver what it is supposed to, either. When I am shooting birds through openings in trees and bushes, spot AF can hunt much more than 9-point AF does, so 9-point keeps focus closer to the subject. There's nothing worse than the lens going way out of focus to a focus distance at which nothing exists, and you can't even see if the subject is still there at all. Well, there is something worse - also hearing non-photographing birders comment on how you must be getting great shots, as the focus goes off to la la land and the subject goes back into hiding or flies away. That's the dark side of large apertures - it is very easy to lose vision through the viewfinder.

graham121 wrote in post #18918600
Colours seemed pretty ok, no camera specific profiles yet for the 90D but the default adobe colour profiles seem to behave correctly.

Maybe the DNG converter isn't as aware of these 90D's needs as Lightroom is. I get purplish tints opening the DNGs in RAWTherapee, and if I WB manually, color seems to lean towards a brownish bias. RawTherapee usually gets color right from a DNG.

Some of our asus tablets decided to go against conventional USB, so we have a couple with USB A on the one end and proprietary ends on the other. The other one that used to be more prevalent with printers was the large USB end is USB B. Not used so much any more. I think the Canon Pro printer still uses USB B, along with a few other large devices.

My experience from 25yrs of birding and 10 of taking their portraits is you cannot do a good job of both at the same time (although I do some birding by using the lens as a recording telescope -- good enough to see field marks on the LCD screen). It is a jack of all trades and master of none situation.

Have noted the same thing when using Adobe's DNG Converter (11.4, current) and then processing the DNGs in PhotoNinja. Big magenta cast for M6-2 and lesser for 90D.

russbecker wrote in post #18918623
My experience from 25yrs of birding and 10 of taking their portraits is you cannot do a good job of both at the same time (although I do some birding by using the lens as a recording telescope -- good enough to see field marks on the LCD screen). It is a jack of all trades and master of none situation.

If my main goal were to see as many birds as possible in a day, I'd leave my photographic gear home. Many birders don't understand that, and ask me what bird is hopping around in the top of a tree while they are already looking at it in their binoculars, as if I had an easier time focusing on it. The large lens seems to be all good to them, and they have no idea how far out of focus the lens can be much of the time. Binoculars and telescopes need to be focused, but, unlike ground glass and LCDs, they still allow human focus to have a small amount of adjustment, because the retina is the only place where focus happens, with no intermediate plane of focus to focus on. When I nail focus, and get a shot, I can show them more detail in the read LCD than they ever saw clearly through their binoculars, but the amount of time spent in usable focus is much less for me than them, and I often never see a bird sharply at all, because of hunting and the bird jumping out of the inner DOF zone.

I think every birder should have to shoot birds with a large aperture for two weeks before being allowed to comment to photographers about photo-ops, to get that sense of magic out of their heads.

It's also possible those DNGs are not being processed correctly. I would wait for DPP to be updated before jumping to conclusions.

Agreed, as I had stated before, there were a few releases where people went bonkers on how bad the IQ was on new cameras, but then 3rd party and Canon updated their software for changes in the raw, then about a month later or more, much of that died down. It was just announced, give everyone time to react to the news, it will likely take 1-2 months to get this all ironed out across the board.

This is definitely OT, but my 'birding' is far more about keeping detailed records about birds I see, at my place, and what they are doing (i.e. breeding, etc.) than it is maximizing the number of birds seen, something I do not concern myself with.

I also enjoy, probably more than any other photography, taking bird photos. It is very difficult to get a real, good image. Much harder than spotting with binocs; if you come away from a morning session with one or two good images it is a successful day. It is about 1000 per cent patience, and the most crucial piece of equipment is the lens -- there are a lot of camera bodies that will get the job done. However, some are better than others and it is NOT entirely about the imaging sensor but more about the AF and overall 'handling' of the camera (this is one of the areas where the 7D/7D2 will beat the 80D into the ground IMO).

I have never used a Nikon D500 but have seen a lot of images posted, usually with the elusive 500mm PF lens, that look good; however it is difficult to judge things from internet images. I have been sorely tempted to rent this combo for a couple of weeks and evaluate it myself, but haven't pulled the trigger.

gossamer88 wrote in post #18918637
It's also possible those DNGs are not being processed correctly. I would wait for DPP to be updated before jumping to conclusions.

I don't think that there is any problem with the camera, in this regard; just with converting its RAWs. RAWs are 3/4 interleaved B&W images with metadata. The metadata isn't getting through to some converters.

russbecker wrote in post #18918653
This is definitely OT, but my 'birding' is far more about keeping detailed records about birds I see, at my place, and what they are doing (i.e. breeding, etc.) than it is maximizing the number of birds seen, something I do not concern myself with.

I also enjoy, probably more than any other photography, taking bird photos. It is very difficult to get a real, good image. Much harder than spotting with binocs; if you come away from a morning session with one or two good images it is a successful day. It is about 1000 per cent patience, and the most crucial piece of equipment is the lens -- there are a lot of camera bodies that will get the job done. However, some are better than others and it is NOT entirely about the imaging sensor but more about the AF and overall 'handling' of the camera (this is one of the areas where the 7D/7D2 will beat the 80D into the ground IMO).

I have never used a Nikon D500 but have seen a lot of images posted, usually with the elusive 500mm PF lens, that look good; however it is difficult to judge things from internet images. I have been sorely tempted to rent this combo for a couple of weeks and evaluate it myself, but haven't pulled the trigger.

Birders Watchers and Bird Photographers... two completely different species

The 80D was great on a bare lens, in good light, but once things got challenging (especially if using a 1.4x), it started to hunt. I'm hoping this 90D is improved in that respect.

Russ, I'd be happy to send you some .NEF files from the combo for evaluation, if it'll help any

John Sheehy wrote in post #18918686
I don't think that there is any problem with the camera, in this regard; just with converting its RAWs. RAWs are 3/4 interleaved B&W images with metadata. The metadata isn't getting through to some converters.

That was my point.

MatthewK wrote in post #18918692
Birders Watchers and Bird Photographers... two completely different species..

Indeed, and this being a photography forum essentially dominated by Bird photographers now (based on the "birds in flight. bird portraits, etc. thread) I think it is safe to say that ANY time someone types "birding" or "birders" on POTN they mean bird photography of some sort.

CyberDyneSystems wrote in post #18918699
Indeed, and this being a photography forum essentially dominated by Bird photographers now (based on the "birds in flight. bird portraits, etc. thread) I think it is safe to say that ANY time someone types "birding" or "birders" on POTN they mean bird photography of some sort.

Yes, of course, Jake. It was merely an observation based off of encounters I’ve had out in the field with birders.

I guess I can see how my previous reply could be misinterpreted as an attempt at clarifying Russ’s birder/photog observations, but I assure you it was not.