-= 90D owners unite! Discuss and Post Photos

Dandelion Seeds

Canon 90d a close up shot with Nifty Fifty, nice and dark as intended

Iso: 500 f: 1.8 s: 1/125

Beauty!!!

I only have a 300/2.8 to try it on and I'm not motivated to do a lot of additional testing since, for my purposes, if it doesn't work on the 600/4, it's of little use to me and I would never have bought it.

Also, it's less of a problem in the field, but that's only because the MFA is only a few units off critical focus at zero with both TCs. If the camera needed a big change in MFA to be on critical focus, it wouldn't work at all, since that is the problem - it won't take an MFA setting.

David_Wales wrote in post #19059670
Dandelion Seeds

Canon 90d a close up shot with Nifty Fifty, nice and dark as intended

Iso: 500 f: 1.8 s: 1/125

Hosted photo: posted by David_Wales in
./showthread.php?p=190​59670&i=i19485687
forum: Canon Digital Cameras

They look like they're dancing. Excellent!

GLAZ1947 wrote in post #19059198
I may be totally wrong on this but after following this discussion for a while I am wondering if the whole problem is you are comparing a $1200 camera to a $5000 camera and expecting the same results. I have not experienced any focusing problems with my 90D and my 400mm L lens granted it's not the 600 nor do I use an extender. Just some food for thought. I hope you solve your problem as it seems really frustrating.
Rene

Thanks for your reply. I do think that you've missed the point, but let me address your comment in detail.

Despite the price difference, the camera is supposed to be well suited for sports and wildlife where long lenses like mine are the norm and AF accuracy is critical. But, an additional problem is that the camera will not take a microfocus adjustment (MFA) and there are plenty of camera bodies in it's price range that do that just fine.

If critical focus could be achieved with an MFA, the relatively poor repeatability of the AF compared to the 5dsR would be excusable for, as you say, the 5dsR is more expensive. Or maybe it would work just as well.

I've also worked extensively with 7dii and 5dii bodies and never had this problem with those, which are more nearly in the same price range.

All in all, I think my expectations are reasonable.

cdmazoff wrote in post #19059283
OMG!! Don't let the 7D ii crowd know that their camera isn't perfect. But as the other member suggested: Get a 1DX iii and quit whining.

No thanks, megapixels trump (if you'll excuse the expression) bells and whistles for my work. What I don't understand is why Canon and the others think that high pixel count is only of interest to novices and casual photographers and don't put the best of everything by way of hardware on the 5ds models.

FrankKolwicz wrote in post #19059842
No thanks, megapixels trump (if you'll excuse the expression) bells and whistles for my work. What I don't understand is why Canon and the others think that high pixel count is only of interest to novices and casual photographers and don't put the best of everything by way of hardware on the 5ds models.

Frankly, I think the fault lies not just with Canon, but also with a lot of Pros and some serious amateurs. In my experience, many people who shoot things that almost always get cropped do not judge results at the subject level, but at the pixel or full image level, so much of the potential market actually believes that the 90D has more noise for their focal-length-limited results than the cameras with lower pixel density, like the 1Dx series. The 90D is actually a hair cleaner than the 1Dx3 when the latter is cropped 1.6x, at medium and high ISOs, but most people, even if they owned both cameras, would never notice this, because they never scale their results equitably to serve uniform subject size. They will bask in the apparent sharpness and cleanliness of the larger pixels, with no regard for the fact that their subject is small; they will bask in those qualities in FF images, too, even when they have to wind up throwing most of the sensor area away, or have to make the main subject more lost in the final photo than they really wanted, by including extra environment.

Thus, the demand for 1Dx3-like AF with a 90D-like sensor is not there, except for a very few "awake" focal-length-limited photographers.

FrankKolwicz wrote in post #19059840
Despite the price difference, the camera is supposed to be well suited for sports and wildlife where long lenses like mine are the norm and AF accuracy is critical. But, an additional problem is that the camera will not take a microfocus adjustment (MFA) and there are plenty of camera bodies in it's price range that do that just fine.

If critical focus could be achieved with an MFA, the relatively poor repeatability of the AF compared to the 5dsR would be excusable for, as you say, the 5dsR is more expensive. Or maybe it would work just as well.

Frank, please clarify - what do you mean by "will not take MFA"? I have MFA'd my 100-400 II on the 90D, apparently successfully. It is set at +4 for the bare lens and +13 for the lens with the 1.4X III. These values are similar to what I found with my 7DII. The body seems to AF fine with the lens at these settings.

Thank you. I won't say how many shots it took to get it right, but I will say I spent some time deleting.

Stay Safe.

Thank you. Took so many shots to get one reasonable one. Nifty Fifty not best lens for close up work, but pleased with final result.

Safe Safe.

Regarding 90D AF.

My copy is nailing focus almost 100% of the time although I am a slave to centre spot AF. I don't care much for the fact the 90D will use closest AF point when using groups of points, guaranteed to mis-focus.

That said, I am using the cheapy 100-400 mk2 as opposed to a giant 600mm.

Archibald wrote in post #19059934
Frank, please clarify - what do you mean by "will not take MFA"? I have MFA'd my 100-400 II on the 90D, apparently successfully. It is set at +4 for the bare lens and +13 for the lens with the 1.4X III. These values are similar to what I found with my 7DII. The body seems to AF fine with the lens at these settings.

Perhaps he was talking about the fact that even after getting MFA right on average, he still gets a little variation in controlled, repeatable focus situations.

That could be some play in the combined 90D+lens AF system, but it could also be that the play is there with other combos, too, but not noticeable when the pixel density is lower. He compares to the 5Dsr, which has 60% the pixel density of the 90D.

The higher the pixel density, the more repeatably accurate the auto-focus system needs to be to get a certain high percentage of keepers judged by the sharpest possible 100% pixel views that you have seen from that sensor. The 90D would need much more accurate AF than the 1Dx3 would need to get 100% of images in maximum appreciable focus, judged at 100% pixel magnification. What would be a little off on the 90D might look well-focused on the 1Dx3, or any 20MP FF or 8MP APS-C like the 20D and 30D.

fordmondeo wrote in post #19060011
Regarding 90D AF.

My copy is nailing focus almost 100% of the time although I am a slave to centre spot AF. I don't care much for the fact the 90D will use closest AF point when using groups of points, guaranteed to mis-focus.

That said, I am using the cheapy 100-400 mk2 as opposed to a giant 600mm.

Good to hear Fordmondeo,Regarding the 90D I've never seen so much variation in quality as I had with the 90D.I really want to like this camera and get one but a lot of the posts I've seen there seems to be alot of noise along with alot of OOF shots, could be user error but the noise at low ISO's give me pause at getting one.Like everyone I've been waiting for a 7DMKIII update but it looks like this camera isn't it.
Paul

PNPhotography wrote in post #19060180
Good to hear Fordmondeo,Regarding the 90D I've never seen so much variation in quality as I had with the 90D.I really want to like this camera and get one but a lot of the posts I've seen there seems to be alot of noise along with alot of OOF shots, could be user error but the noise at low ISO's give me pause at getting one.Like everyone I've been waiting for a 7DMKIII update but it looks like this camera isn't it.
Paul

Light *IS* noise. There is no solid, fluid light. The smaller the pixels, the more you will see a slight speckling in 100% pixel views at a low ISO, with any given size monitor pixels. That's not the camera making noise. That is light being what it is; noise, now resolved better. If you don't want to see it, get a monitor with much higher PPI, which is the real solution, as that sublimates the noise, but still shows all the extra natural detail captured, but most large monitors have large pixels, so it is hard to appreciate the extra pixel density.

Next time you have a 100% pixel view on your monitor from the 90D at a low ISO, take a walk backwards while looking at the monitor, or just squint. The noise just disappears, because it is not substantial; just heightened in visibility by high magnification and gratuitous sharpening.

For what it's worth. I snapped this yesterday with this lousy camera I got (called a Canon 90D) that is guranteed not to be able to do this. So, big deal that I trashed 400 shots. The thing is the sun was out, the morphine was working, the 10 fps was working (got a sandisk 300mb/s UHS-II card) and had a very nice time.

Tricky little buggers, ain't they!!

It's a beginning