fbpixel

Moderators: Greg Downing, E.J. Peiker

All times are UTC - 5 hours

  
« Previous topic | Next topic »  
Reply to topic  
 First unread post  | 29 posts | 
by WJaekel on Wed Oct 02, 2019 8:16 am
User avatar
WJaekel
Forum Contributor
Posts: 584
Joined: 30 Jun 2007
Location: Germany
Neilyb wrote:
EGrav wrote:
Sure they did. 7DM2.



The image quality (IMO) was far from pro and don't get me started on the AF. I had two an neither was up to pro level. All IMO of course. ;) 


I also had a lot of trouble with the Servo-AF of my first 7d2 and there was a big discussion here, too, after the 7d2 was introduced. My second 7d2 is much better regarding AF - especially in combo with the 100-400 II . But shooting bursts, the Servo-AF still isn't accurate all the time and certainly not on the level of the 1Dx2 or Nikon's D500. As to IQ, the 7d2 is not bad in good light at lower ISOs, IMO. See i.e. Glen Bartley's images, too, who is shooting exclusively with the 7d2:  http://www.glennbartley.com/gallery.htm .However, once you need to shoot in less favourable conditions, noise and DR are limiting factors. That's why I was hoping for the improvements of the 90D regrading IQ and AF - apart from the appealing bump in resolution. While the sensor seems to be greatly improved from all I've read so far, the reports regarding the tracking AF are mixed as posted above. Since I've seen some positive comments and examples from nature photographers, too, the final jury still is out - despite the negative conclusions at DPreview, see i.e. https://www.flickr.com/photos/robamyphotos/ and other images at Fredmiranda, POTN etc.
But as said above, if the AF definetely turns out to be even inferior to the 7d2, I will pass the 90D.

Wolfgang
http://www.wjaekel-foto.de
 

by E.J. Peiker on Wed Oct 02, 2019 7:21 pm
User avatar
E.J. Peiker
Senior Technical Editor
Posts: 84270
Joined: 16 Aug 2003
Location: Arizona
Member #:00002
Well if the IQ isn't pro then the 50mp full frame 5Ds is not either - its exactly the same sensor but cropped ;)

I would expect the 7D2 AF to be far superior to the D90 in normal through the viewfinder shooting but much much worse in live view and video.
 

by WJaekel on Wed Oct 02, 2019 11:34 pm
User avatar
WJaekel
Forum Contributor
Posts: 584
Joined: 30 Jun 2007
Location: Germany
E.J. Peiker wrote:
I would expect the 7D2 AF to be far superior to the D90 in normal through the viewfinder shooting but much much worse in live view and video.


That's my guess, too, and I doubt that the 90D is a solid upgrade from the 7d2 for BIF or shooting fast moving wildlife. That's a pity given the proclaimed improvements of the sensor and compelling bump in resolution. Nevertheless, the negative conclusions of the reviewer at DPreview with regard to the tracking AF through the viewfinder may be caused by the fact that they evidentally just compared the face tracking via the viewfinder in their bike test vs the accuracy in live view. Given just 45 focus points on the viewfinder unit vs 5481 in live view (and the lower frame rate) the difference isn't too surprising, I think, and the color sensors obviously don't help much either in that kind of face tracking. In contrary to that, the positive results shown by a good number of sports and nature photogs seem to prove that if you turn off face tracking and use the viewfinder AF the way a wildlife shooter usually does, the AF appears to be much better. This would explain the confusion and conflicts with regard to the statements of the reviewer at Dpreview. But as said, I agree that the 7d2 probably still is better and faster for normal through the viewfinder shooting. Hopefully we will see some valid tests and comparisons in the near future.

Wolfgang
http://www.wjaekel-foto.de
 

by Neilyb on Thu Oct 03, 2019 2:28 pm
User avatar
Neilyb
Forum Contributor
Posts: 2733
Joined: 07 Feb 2008
Location: Munich
E.J. Peiker wrote:
Well if the IQ isn't pro then the 50mp full frame 5Ds is not either - its exactly the same sensor but cropped ;)

I would expect the 7D2 AF to be far superior to the D90 in normal through the viewfinder shooting but much much worse in live view and video.


Which is why I never bought either of the 5Ds camera bodies :)
 

by OntPhoto on Tue Nov 12, 2019 2:01 am
User avatar
OntPhoto
Forum Contributor
Posts: 6698
Joined: 09 Dec 2006
Location: Ottawa, Ontario. Canada.
I just read the Bartley review and see issues with noise above 800.  That's a no go for me on top of the AF.  The 7D MK2 is very good at ISO 1,000. I often shoot in wooded areas with good canopy and have pushed the ISO to 10,000 and higher (I mean, if you HAVE to get the shot and without flash).  For sure ISO 10,000 images with the 7D MK2 are noisy at 100% pixel but the image can look good when down-sized.  

If my 7D MK2 breaks I'll either get it repaired or get another one.  After 4 years of use, it's still going strong.
 

by WJaekel on Wed Nov 13, 2019 4:03 pm
User avatar
WJaekel
Forum Contributor
Posts: 584
Joined: 30 Jun 2007
Location: Germany
OntPhoto wrote:
I just read the Bartley review and see issues with noise above 800.  That's a no go for me on top of the AF.  The 7D MK2 is very good at ISO 1,000. I often shoot in wooded areas with good canopy and have pushed the ISO to 10,000 and higher (I mean, if you HAVE to get the shot and without flash).  For sure ISO 10,000 images with the 7D MK2 are noisy at 100% pixel but the image can look good when down-sized.  

If my 7D MK2 breaks I'll either get it repaired or get another one.  After 4 years of use, it's still going strong.

I’ve seen that review some time ago and value Glenn’s expertise as a bird photographer and his impressive images. Nevertheless, I had the chance to test the 90D vs my trusty 7d2, too  and cannot confirm the noise issues Bartley pointed out. That said, I rarely use my 7d2 with ISOs above 1600 and therefore didn't set the 90D to higher ISOs either for  the comparison of both cameras. So I cannot make a valid statement  how they compare at very high ISOs. But at least up to ISO 1600, the noise of the 90D is about the same or even slightly better compared to the 7d2 if you view them at native (!) sizes and 100% . By no means I see it 1 to 1 1/3 stops worse as Bartley states in his video - not to mention if you downsize the files of the 90D to the dimensions of the 7d2. I  just  carefully double- checked my raw-files of the identical motifs again to be sure. So I don’t know if Glenn’s results are caused by an issue in his raw proessing engine (Beta profile in LR ?) or settings. Anyway, for the range mentioned above, at least, my files definetly don’t mirror his results at all . See also the studio scenes and conclusions at Dpreview and Bill Claffs charts.

However, I decided to keep my 7d2 and don’t buy the 90D for now, primarily because the tracking Servo AF cannot quite keep up with the 7d2 in more complex shooting scenarios, i.e. for small birds in quick flight, especially against a busy background. It’s a pity that Glenn didn’t test this in his “birdphotographer’s perspective”. Moreover, the AF settings of the 90D are more limited (i.e. no option for 4 assist points around the central field and just automatic selection of the AF point by the 9 group setting ,- though you can shift the array, of course. For stationary or slower moving/larger subjects the AF of the 90D does the job. But in many aspects and features except tracking AF through the VF, for example DR including much more room for opening the shadows, RAW ISO invariance, live view AF, video - and cropping capabilities, of course, etc. the 90D is compelling and superior to the 7d2 which made it a tough choice for me: I don’t know yet if I rethink my decision any time in the future. But it makes no sense for me to have both the 7d2 and 90D given my other bodies. I agree with Glenn that the 7d2 still has some advances regarding the body design and build quality, though.

Wolfgang
 

by john on Mon Nov 25, 2019 1:21 am
john
Lifetime Member
Posts: 12028
Joined: 01 Nov 2003
Member #:00404
After waiting for years for a decent upgrade for the 7D and finally coming to the conclusion that it will probably never happen I took the plunge and decided to give the 90D a try. These are my 2 cents worth after shooting it for a month or so on bears, sheep and Eagles in reasonably difficult light (Haines if you've been there you know what I mean)

I found the af works pretty well with the 100-400 and snaps into focus quickly and seems to work fairly well in Al Servo. The spacing of multiple af points is a problem if the subject is small in the frame and often will grab behind or in front and render oof images. (I'm not good enough to keep a single focus point of a erratically flying bird) Trying to drive a 600mm lens with it is another story altogether. I think the lower voltage batteries are just not up to the task of driving the af system like a 1DX. Shooting a burst I'm lucky to get 3 or 4 pictures that are actually in sharp focus on Birds in flight. The buffer also fills up very quickly in raw so you need a really fast card. That is a real disappointment as It would be really nice to get away from having to put on a 1.4 on a full frame to get the reach.

The megapixel count is nice and gives incredible detail, but noise starts very early on this camera. You can start seeing noise even at 400 iso. The good news is that its not that horrible blotchy magenta/green stuff you see in dark shadows on the 7D. There is not near as much color noise and more contrast noise. So far I've found it pretty easy to deal with up to 3200 iso. After that I go with its too dark to shoot anyway.

I don't do video so that part of the camera is foreign and useless to me.

So as far as another fair weather low action camera I think it does a pretty good job, but as I was looking for something to attach to my 600 it has turned into a bit of a disappointment for me anyway. I've tried every AF setting combination I could think of without success so I assume its just the battery voltage and spread out af points. Not sure I would have bought it had I known that was going to be such a letdown.
 

by WJaekel on Mon Nov 25, 2019 10:09 am
User avatar
WJaekel
Forum Contributor
Posts: 584
Joined: 30 Jun 2007
Location: Germany
john wrote:
After waiting for years for a decent upgrade for the 7D and finally coming to the conclusion that it will probably never happen I took the plunge and decided to give the 90D a try.  These are my 2 cents worth after shooting it for a month or so on bears, sheep and Eagles in reasonably difficult light (Haines if you've been there you know what I mean)

I found the af works pretty well with the 100-400 and snaps into focus quickly and seems to work fairly well in Al Servo.  The spacing of  multiple af points is a problem if the subject is small in the frame and often will grab behind or in front  and render oof images.  (I'm not good enough to keep a single focus point of a erratically flying bird)   Trying to drive a 600mm lens with it is another story altogether.  I think the lower voltage batteries are just not up to the task of driving the af system like a 1DX. Shooting a burst  I'm lucky to get 3 or 4 pictures that are actually in sharp focus on Birds in flight. The buffer also fills up very quickly in raw so you need a really fast card. That is a real disappointment as It would be really nice to get away from having to put on a 1.4 on a full frame to get the reach.

The megapixel count is nice and gives incredible detail, but noise starts very early on this camera.  You can start seeing noise even at 400 iso.  The good news is that its not that horrible blotchy magenta/green stuff you see in dark shadows on the 7D.  There is not near as much color noise and more contrast noise. So far I've found it pretty easy to deal with up to 3200 iso.  After that I go with its too dark to shoot anyway.

I don't do video so that part of the camera is foreign and useless to me.

So as far as another fair weather low action camera I think it does a pretty good job, but as I was looking for something to attach to my 600 it has turned into a bit of a disappointment for me anyway.  I've tried every AF setting combination I could think of without success so I assume its just the battery voltage and spread out af points.   Not sure I would have bought it had I known that was going to be such a letdown.

Interesting, thank you for reporting your findings. I also had tested the 90d with the 100-400 II and found the AF to be quick and snappy with not much differences to my 7d2 here - as long as you shoot stationary or slow moving, larger and contrasty subjects (i.e. cars) against a simple background. There was no chance to test the 90D for tracking birds with the big guns when I could try the camera during a meeting of nature photographers.
There's an interesting thread started by Roger Clark over at dpreview who also was shooting eagles and seabirds in flight at Haines with the 90D plus 300mm +1,4 and he was VERY happy with the 90D, see https://www.dpreview.com/forums/post/63325007. Roger even rated the 90D a bit superior to the 7d2 here which has been controversial in the discussion after that and doesn't mirror my findings either. Browsing all the comments at POTN, dpeview etc, the experiences still are pretty different as for the tracking capabilities of the 90D. But the majority- me included- still concludes that the 90D is not quite on the same level compared to the 7d2. That said, Roger evidentally just had set the camera with one point AF for tracking. I don't know if this can explain the differences to others. Roger confirmed the buffer issue with the 90D, though.

I'm not sure if the battery voltage is the reason for the problems of the 90D/600mm combo you mention since the 7d(2) uses the same. I have no problems with my 7d2 attached to my 600mm, though. Maybe it's an internal difference in using the voltage for the AF, though, but as far as I know the 7d2 uses a dual digit processor which could make up for the better performance.
BTW, I'm not sure if you're referring to the 7d2 or orginal 7d in your comments. I had the original 7d some years ago but the 7d2 is miles ahead though inconsistency of the AF still can be an issue in bursts. Anyway, the 1Dx-series is no comparison to the 90D or 7d1, of course. But I also think that the AF system and array of the 90D  (i.e. lacking the 4+1 option) is more limited compared to the 7d2 and evidentally not much different from the 80D (which I don't have).

As for noise of the 90D, I agree that it's visible even at ISO 400 but not more prominent as on the 7d2 and maybe even a bit less with the files of the 90D downsized to the dimensions of the 7d2. Anyway, as written in my last comment above and based of my direct comparisons,  I could not confirm it to be 1 to 1.3 stops worse for the 90D - in contrary to Bartley's statement in his video. And as you say, it's less blotchy and easier to deal with compared to the 7d series. DR of the 90D is better, too.

In the end I still stand at my decision to stay with my 7d2 for now though the mega pixel count and other advances of the 90D are compelling.

Wolfgang
http://www.wjaekel-foto.de
 

by john on Mon Nov 25, 2019 9:04 pm
john
Lifetime Member
Posts: 12028
Joined: 01 Nov 2003
Member #:00404
WJaekel wrote:
Interesting, thank you for reporting your findings. I also had tested the 90d with the 100-400 II and found the AF to be quick and snappy with not much differences to my 7d2 here - as long as you shoot stationary or slow moving, larger and contrasty subjects (i.e. cars) against a simple background. There was no chance to test the 90D for tracking birds with the big guns when I could try the camera during a meeting of nature photographers.
There's an interesting thread started by Roger Clark over at dpreview who also was shooting eagles and seabirds in flight at Haines with the 90D plus 300mm +1,4 and he was VERY happy with the 90D, see https://www.dpreview.com/forums/post/63325007. Roger even rated the 90D a bit superior to the 7d2 here which has been controversial in the discussion after that and doesn't mirror my findings either. Browsing all the comments at POTN, dpeview etc, the experiences still are pretty different as for the tracking capabilities of the 90D. But the majority- me included- still concludes that the 90D is not quite on the same level compared to the 7d2. That said, Roger evidentally just had set the camera with one point AF for tracking. I don't know if this can explain the differences to others. Roger confirmed the buffer issue with the 90D, though.

I'm not sure if the battery voltage is the reason for the problems of the 90D/600mm combo you mention since the 7d(2) uses the same. I have no problems with my 7d2 attached to my 600mm, though. Maybe it's an internal difference in using the voltage for the AF, though, but as far as I know the 7d2 uses a dual digit processor which could make up for the better performance.
BTW, I'm not sure if you're referring to the 7d2 or orginal 7d in your comments. I had the original 7d some years ago but the 7d2 is miles ahead though inconsistency of the AF still can be an issue in bursts. Anyway, the 1Dx-series is no comparison to the 90D or 7d1, of course. But I also think that the AF system and array of the 90D  (i.e. lacking the 4+1 option) is more limited compared to the 7d2 and evidentally not much different from the 80D (which I don't have).

As for noise of the 90D, I agree that it's visible even at ISO 400 but not more prominent as on the 7d2 and maybe even a bit less with the files of the 90D downsized to the dimensions of the 7d2. Anyway, as written in my last comment above and based of my direct comparisons,  I could not confirm it to be 1 to 1.3 stops worse for the 90D - in contrary to Bartley's statement in his video. And as you say, it's less blotchy and easier to deal with compared to the 7d series. DR of the 90D is better, too.

In the end I still stand at my decision to stay with my 7d2 for now though the mega pixel count and other advances of the 90D are compelling.

Wolfgang
http://www.wjaekel-foto.de

Thanks for your response Wolfgang,

You are correct....I am coming from the original 7D.  I did not upgrade to the 7d2 because I didn't feel it was a major improvement as far as noise goes and wasn't going to pay another $1500 to gain 3/4 to 1 stop of Iso performance.  I'm sure the frame rate and af is a nice improvement though.  I tried one more time to fall in love with the 90 D this morning on eagles and after several bursts of banking shots came back slight oof, I put it away and pulled out the 1DX.....what an improvement :)   Its too bad Canon didn't continues on with the 7D as from all the reading I've done there certainly was a lot of demand for it.  If they had even just married this new sensor with the 7D2 af and frame rate I personally would have been more than happy and that doesn't seem like such a difficult thing to do. 

I just went over to DP review to view the image of the eagle and to be honest....that  does not look sharp to me but rather like a lot of high pass sharpening was done to it by the lack of detail in the head feathers.
 

Display posts from previous:  Sort by:  
29 posts | 
  

Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Group