-= 90D owners unite! Discuss and Post Photos

CyberDyneSystems wrote in post #18937616
Interesting Matthew,

When I used to shoot 1D (1.3 X-factor) with the 500mm f/4, I rarely used a T-Con. Yes I would reach for the 1.4x, 2x and even stack (you used to be able to stack them with the MK II versions) if the situation provided, but my "normal" was most certainly bare lens.

All this talk about NOT using the 1.4X with the 5D4, and it's not being of use is amazing to me!

I didn't say that one should not put a 1.4x on their 5D4 with a given lens if that was what they had at hand, to avoid cropping. What I said was that if you have a 90D to choose from, too, that you may consider not using the 5D4+TC option, as it offers very little in the way of more light, and has the AF-interfering 1.4x higher open f-number than the 90D with the same angle of view, and the small contrast and light losses from the TC.

f/5.6 OVF AF is still in the range where cameras can be pretty snappy. In the "reach progression" discussion, it was an f/5.6 lens that turns to an f/8 lens with the TC, and f/8 AF is a bit more dodgy.

Who is claiming that? Certainly not me. I use TCs for 95% of my photography, because otherwise I'd be cropping towards pixelated images with more color aliasing. I shoot 5 inch birds from 50 feet away all the time. The bigger your pixels, the more you benefit from using a TC instead of cropping, but TCs are not a good optical alternative to higher pixel density.

What I said is that the 5D4+1.4x likely has little or nothing on the bare 90D, overall, at least for maximum IQ, using a zoom lens. With a 400/5.6 prime, there would be no question; everything is in the 90D's favor over the 5D4+1.4x, except that the 5D4+1.4 goes a little bit wider (140mm 35mmEQ vs 160mm, and 100mm for the bare 5D4). Think of it like this: put the 1.4x on the 5D4, and it becomes a 30MP 1.4x-crop virtual camera that can't AF at all in OVF mode with f/8 in additional optics, and AFes with f/5.6 additional optics like the bare body at f/8, and the TC contrast losses are like the baffles don't absorb enough stray light, and the slight aberrations act like a stronger-than-standard AA filter.

I'm not saying that a 5D4 can't get better detail with a 1.4x than with cropping; what I am saying is that higher pixel density, be it from a future 83MP Canon or the 90D, is more useful than a TC. With an 83MP FF, then the "R83" -> "R83+1.4x" "reach progression" makes optimal sense with no need for any 32.5MP APS-C (unless a 60MP APS-C is available ).

John Sheehy wrote in post #18936190
Sounds like you're always going to get closer and/or use max focal length in a zoom, so your methodology has ruled out any possible benefit of an APS-C, even for backup.

The benefit I have been hoping for for years is that I want FF image quality at cheap crop sensor prices. . I think that whenever a new 1.6 crop is released, this is what most people are secretly hoping for. . Eventually that will come, but how many more years or decades will I have to wait? . I mean, if I finally get the IQ I want at the price I want to pay, but am 90 years old and can't hike anymore, then what good will it do me?

The 5D4 would be an excellent camera and fit my needs pretty well. But I can't afford it. . So I am waiting for something to come along that I can get for $400 or $500 that will give me the same image quality that the 5D4 gives, at the same ISO levels, with at least as many pixels. . If the 90D would provide that level of IQ, then in 4 or 5 years when used prices drop to $400, it would be a great buy for me. . But it doesn't seem to have IQ + or > the 5D4, so that is why I am disappointed.

For me, pixel density is not the benefit that 1.6 crop sensors have over FF sensors. . The benefit, to me, is price and price alone. . Pixel density is only good for people who can't figure out how to get close enough.

.

John Sheehy wrote in post #18936211
If you can fill the frame with the 5D4, at, say 400/5.6 and had to zoom out to 250mm with the 90D, the AF would be better with the 5D4, giving similar pixel resolution of the same composition, with less noise and more background blur. If you're at 400mm with both all the time, and cropping the 5D4 more, the 5D4 will AF better, but will have a lot less resolution and a little more noise once you crop the 5D4 image and show it at the same size as the 90D. You can use more "TC" on the 5D4, but then the AF is weaker than it is at f/5.6. This is all much more complex than "A is better than B".

This is very well written and explains things in a manner that is very easy to understand. . Thank you for writing this out in a way that is so clear and pertinent.

.

Eric K. wrote in post #18936185
I’m thinking that the 90D would become my primary camera over a Canon Mark IV?

... what am I missing to think I should use the 90D over the Mark IV?

.
Which Canon Mark 4 are you talking about?

Do you mean the 1D mark 4 or he 5D Mark 4 ?

.

Capn Jack wrote in post #18937195
Don't forget the effects of dark current and amplifier Johnson noise

Capn' there is so much to consider that has slipped my mind I am almost afraid to put my 1.4XIII and my 100-400mkII on my 7DII in case it goes into meltdown as I get into it's reach progression zone (whatever that is).
And I am absolutely certain that John has not considered Nyquist's theorem in his thesis when he is discussing the electronics.

Now! On a more serious note, has anyone considered the possibility of noise generated within the battery, worsening the S/N ratio? Just a thought.

CyberDyneSystems wrote in post #18937616
Interesting Matthew,

When I used to shoot 1D (1.3 X-factor) with the 500mm f/4, I rarely used a T-Con. Yes I would reach for the 1.4x, 2x and even stack (you used to be able to stack them with the MK II versions) if the situation provided, but my "normal" was most certainly bare lens.

All this talk about NOT using the 1.4X with the 5D4, and it's not being of use is amazing to me!
With the 5D4 in Africa, I had the 1.4x on all the time! This was a first for me, but it was also the first time I really was using that lens with an FF sensor. 500mm on FF plus 1.4x is VERY close to the framing/field of view of the 1D's 1.3 Xfactor with the 500mm.

On the 5D4's FF using bare lens seemed short out of the box after over a decade shooting 500mm on 1.3x.

If anyone can actually show me how that 1.4XIII on the 500mm f/4L IS II, mounted to a 5D4 was in some way reducing image quality or hurting my "reach progression" all I can say is my images certainly did not show it.

Gallery photo:
posted by CyberDyneSystems originally in forum: Canon Digital Cameras

Gallery photo:
posted by CyberDyneSystems originally in forum: Wildlife

Gallery photo:
posted by CyberDyneSystems originally in forum: Birds

Gallery photo:
posted by CyberDyneSystems originally in forum: Wildlife

Jake, when I saw those superb pictures I nearly rushed out bought a 90D, but then I read the image data at the top of the pics. I don't own a 5D4 but I do agree with your comments.

Managed to get out this weekend between the showers!

Tom Reichner wrote in post #18937697
The benefit I have been hoping for for years is that I want FF image quality at cheap crop sensor prices. . I think that whenever a new 1.6 crop is released, this is what most people are secretly hoping for. . Eventually that will come, but how many more years or decades will I have to wait? . I mean, if I finally get the IQ I want at the price I want to pay, but am 90 years old and can't hike anymore, then what good will it do me?

"FF image quality" is a moving target! In some respects the IQ of the 90D is drastically better than, say, the original 5D. But in others, well, you simply can't break the laws of physics.

Higher iso - straight out of camera "Converted to jpeg"

iso 2000 - SOOC - poor lighting but I'm way more than happy with the images this camera produces..

PIXELS PER EGRET
I am not sure this comparison will be helpful to anyone considering a 90d, but it illustrates my motivation for purchasing one, to replace my 7dii. I am often "reach limited" in my bird photography. My arthritic hands prevent me from stepping up to a 500 mm lens. The 400DOii + 1.4iii suits me pretty well, my entire rig weighs 7 1/4 pounds. My thought was that the increased pixel density of the 90d would allow more attractive cropped images, what someone recently referred to as "pixels per duck".

This Great Egret was across the lake from my vantage point, no way to approach more closely. He was hunting slowly, and posing attractively, so I took some shots, even though the distance was around 75 yards. Processing in DPP4 and PhotoShop Elements, the first is the entire sensor and the second a 4x6 crop. I am pretty happy with this result and several others like it.

mikeivan wrote in post #18937766
This Great Egret was across the lake from my vantage point, no way to approach more closely.

.
It should be possible to get much closer. . I would think that if the Egret uses the lake regularly, then you can wait in a blind at the waters' edge, and eventually, after many hours or a few days, the Egret will come close to the blind and you will be able to fill the frame the way you want to. . Bird photography is a game of patience, and such efforts are actually rather commonplace within the bird photographers' fraternity.

.
Sorry for the off topic post, but when I see people write things like Mike wrote here, I just can't help myself. People needn't be anywhere near as "reach challenged" as they seem to think they are when it comes to wildlife or birds.

.

Sharlin wrote in post #18937760
"FF image quality" is a moving target! In some respects the IQ of the 90D is drastically better than, say, the original 5D. But in others, well, you simply can't break the laws of physics.

For those alleged laws to be favorable to the larger sensor, requires shallower DOF, unless you are at base ISO with no need for a shutter speed that forces you above base ISO.

That usually means 1 of 3 things:

You get closer with the same lens.
you use a bigger lens.
You're in a zoom's range, and use the longer end on the larger sensor.

The larger sensor is not like a more sensitive, larger satellite dish that picks up more signal from any object. The entrance pupil does that.

John Sheehy wrote in post #18937649
Well, you'd have to consider what part of the graph I posted your photography would fall on. Many people fall on the right end or beyond the right, where the 90D keeps giving detail. This was about a zoom, which favors a larger sensor, too. With a 400/5.6 prime, the 5D4 only would give better IQ when it allowed a wider angle of view that you needed; none of the graph trends to the left of their peaks would exist; only the peaks and their MP-decimated decline to the right. The 5D4 would be a downgrade for me, for most of what I shoot with my 7D2 and now my 90D. I will probably replace my 6D FF (which I use for very wide angles and when I want minimal DOF) with a 83MP R camera, if it is released.

Why would the zoom favor the larger sensor?
What is MP-decimated?

John Sheehy wrote in post #18937783
For those alleged laws to be favorable to the larger sensor, requires shallower DOF, unless you are at base ISO with no need for a shutter speed that forces you above base ISO.

That usually means 1 of 3 things:

You get closer with the same lens.
you use a bigger lens.
You're in a zoom's range, and use the longer end on the larger sensor.

The larger sensor is not like a more sensitive, larger satellite dish that picks up more signal from any object. The entrance pupil does that.

Alleged laws? Which ones do you find to be alleged laws of physics?

Sharlin wrote in post #18937760
"FF image quality" is a moving target! In some respects the IQ of the 90D is drastically better than, say, the original 5D. But in others, well, you simply can't break the laws of physics.

Sensor tech advancements eventually allowed 1.6 and 1.3 crop sensors to overtake the full frame 5DC sensor when it comes to noise performance. . They didn't have to break the laws of physics, they just had to advance the technology to overcome the weaknesses of those older sensors.

I am not asking for Canon to break the laws of physics. I am asking them to continue to come up with more ways of advancing sensor tech so that sensors can continue to get better - much better - instead of just being satisfied with the plateau that they seem to have hit.

If every single pixel (sensel) had its very own color filter array, completely dedicated to just getting that one pixel perfect, we would then have a camera with over 30 million color filter arrays, all working together to get all 30 million pixels absolutely perfect. At this point noise would simply not exist, because every single pixel (sensel) would have an entire evaluative and processing engine working to ensure that it is perfectly represented in the RAW file. . I'm not talking about Foveon sensor tech - I am envisioning something way beyond the Foveon model - like, way, way, way beyond that - like something hundreds, or thousands, of times better than that Foveon stuff.

Of course, what I envision may take tens billions of dollars of R&D, but eventually I think we will have this kind of tech. It might take 50 or 100 or 200 years, but I think that this type of perfection that we all long for will someday be realized.

.