-= 90D owners unite! Discuss and Post Photos

Out this morning for a short walk, nothing special about these images - Apart from a shift in Exposure, Highlights and Shadows pretty much straight out of camera..

Do you have any photos of the Redstart to show us the results?

"The AF, using SPOT mode, kept up reasonably well with the Redstart; even at ISO 10000 there was good detail around the eye. Using the center point is comparable to my 7D2."

I am pleased with the 90D.. Problem was not enough light and not exposing properly. The 90D responds differently from the t7i and I finally got used to the "rhythm"

Here are a few shots of a Lewis's Woodpecker.

More images

More images ( I don't know how to upload more than 2 images using the POTN uploader)

Would be interested in seeing some images with the 500L and 1.4 TC if possible. Wondering if it is worth it over my 7d2.

Mnbruce wrote in post #18935262

IMAGE LINK: https://photos.smugmug​.com …/IMG_7806-XL.jpg&lb=1&s=A on Smugmug

Nice work, just need to remove the orange sign in the backround!!!

BLACK SADDLEBAGS DRAGON FLY

Entry for "MOST BORING PHOTOS" contest of the thread...


So I made a mistake last night of watching some YouTube blowhard bloviate about the 90D.

In his infinite wisdom he proclaimed the 90D about 5 years too late with ISO performance just mediocre, with lacklustre autofocus tracking, etc...

Wondering about the ISO factor this morning, I decided to take a whole bunch of test shots in my yard and of a couch at various ISO settings starting from 6400 up to the max 25600. Lots of boring stuff I can assure you, but doing a simple check of the shots in DPP (first time ever using it so a bit of a learning curve there on understanding what's going on) and compared these shots to ones from my 5D Mark IV performed in the same unimaginative way.

For all intents and purposes, I came to a relieving conclusion: nothing at all to worry about with the ISO performance in my book. Sure the ISO at the highest settings wasn't as clear as on the Mark IV, but this camera isn't the Mark IV and doesn't claim to be. All of the images were useable even up to the highest 25600 - you couldn't crop them much at the highest ISO and perhaps not make any sales, but definitely good enough for sharing and perhaps even printing with some knowledge of how to touch up ISO imperfections.

I hope this is useful for anyone wondering about the ISO performance of the 90D - others sure have shown autofocus and sharpness with good glass to be more than acceptable!


Here's a sample of our brown backyard with a well-chewed dog toy at ISO 25600. I didn't do anything to the photos in DPP except bring them in and export (don't know how to do anything else, yet).

Eric K. wrote in post #18935335
For all intents and purposes, I came to a relieving conclusion: nothing at all to worry about with the ISO performance in my book. Sure the ISO at the highest settings wasn't as clear as on the Mark IV, but this camera isn't the Mark IV and doesn't claim to be.

It doesn't even make sense to compare FF and APS-C, IMO, without being very specific about optics and usage.

How often would one actually shoot both cameras at the same ISO, if they were not cropping the FF? The subject distance and/or the lens would likely be different. If they did crop the FF, it would lose its alleged IQ advantage. The 5D4 has more visible noise at ISO 25600 when it is cropped to 1.6x than the D90. The D90 provides a superior "film" or "emulsion" in a smaller format. If you want to compare the 5D4 to the 90D, you really should upsample the 5D4 to 167% to compare to the 90D at 100% pixel view.

You have to get closer, and change perspective, if possible, with the same lens, or get a bigger lens 1.6x as long and with 1.6x the entrance pupil diameter, to get the alleged FF benefit above base ISO.

John Sheehy wrote in post #18935342
It doesn't even make sense to compare FF and APS-C, IMO, without being very specific about optics and usage.

How often would one actually shoot both cameras at the same ISO, if they were not cropping the FF? The subject distance and/or the lens would likely be different. If they did crop the FF, it would lose its alleged IQ advantage. The 5D4 has more visible noise at ISO 25600 when it is cropped to 1.6x than the D90. The D90 provides a superior "film" or "emulsion" in a smaller format. If you want to compare the 5D4 to the 90D, you really should upsample the 5D4 to 167% to compare to the 90D at 100% pixel view.

You have to get closer, and change perspective, if possible, with the same lens, or get a bigger lens 1.6x as long and with 1.6x the entrance pupil diameter, to get the alleged FF benefit above base ISO.

I'm waiting for Brian @ thedigital picture to give us the side by side results of every iso with those drop down menus so you can compare / contrast every conceivable iso and camera body.

Pending still: "...I have no reservations about the image quality I'm seeing from this camera but will wait to critically evaluate image quality until we can lab test this model. Canon said I should expect no loss of image quality or increased noise levels from this imaging sensor relative to the previous 24 MP models."

https://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/Ca​non-EOS-90D.aspx

Really curious how it looks compared to the 80d and Nikon D500 (that 500pf is looking tasty).

John Sheehy wrote in post #18935342
It doesn't even make sense to compare FF and APS-C, IMO, without being very specific about optics and usage.

How often would one actually shoot both cameras at the same ISO, if they were not cropping the FF? The subject distance and/or the lens would likely be different. If they did crop the FF, it would lose its alleged IQ advantage. The 5D4 has more visible noise at ISO 25600 when it is cropped to 1.6x than the D90. The D90 provides a superior "film" or "emulsion" in a smaller format. If you want to compare the 5D4 to the 90D, you really should upsample the 5D4 to 167% to compare to the 90D at 100% pixel view.

You have to get closer, and change perspective, if possible, with the same lens, or get a bigger lens 1.6x as long and with 1.6x the entrance pupil diameter, to get the alleged FF benefit above base ISO.

John,

Your points are taken, but a lot of what you're talking about is too far into the weeds for me: the only purpose of my personal testing (and sharing with the forum) was a simple test of the camera's ISO range that I felt would be useful for those reviewing the thread who are wondering whether or not they should change or upgrade their camera.

The primary point of my post was to say that the ISO performance of the 90D was quite good from what I was able to find during these simple unimaginative tests, even up to the highest ISO settings.

I was not attempting to directly test the 90D with the 5D Mark IV. I only mentioned that I compared it with the 5D Mark IV because it's my other camera right now and I found it useful as a reference as I reviewed the output of the 90D. I wasn't trying to compare pixels to pixels but rather how do the overall photos look next to each other. I didn't want to get too lost in the details like upsampling or ensuring my perspectives were absolutely the same for each camera and shot...

Lol..... My friends were in a hurry to see the photos from yesterday, so in a hurry last night I was not paying attention. I only noticed later and texted her that l would send another version. I then posted here not thinking until I saw my post, but figured nobody would say anything, they would just think " how the &#$*&" did he miss that? Guess I was wrong.