Railfan Technology > Canon EOS 90D, EOS M6 II Are Announced

Canon has announced two new cameras  here:
 



Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 08/28/19 11:30 by norm1153.

I'm a bit tempted by the 90D... will wait for a review from 'DPReview'...

exhaustED Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> I'm a bit tempted by the 90D...

Why?

Canon continues to lag behing the likes of Sony and Nkon with
regards to image quality under dramatic lighting (aka; dusk, dawn,
shadow detail and high contrast situations).  A low end  5 year old
Nkon still offers better image quality than just about anything Canon
has to offer at any price point - unless you only shoot on sunny days
with the Sun (or flash) over your shoulder.

Perhaps your temptation has something to do with the appeal of not
re-investing in all new lenses if you have been using Canon for some
time, as I have?  With mirrorless cameras having their own new mounts,
albeit backwards compatible with an adapter, now might be the time to
abandon Canon. 

I pessimistically await a DPReview with updated dynamic range specs,
specs which have remained poor across the line for nearly a decade.

Interestingly, however, Canon DID just anounce a new $16,000.00
video camera due in December and perhaps for the first time ever, made
it a point to note dynamic range - an impressive 15 plus stops vs high 12's
and Nikon/ Sony's high 14's (14.8).  How long, if ever, will it take for such
capabilities to arrive in an affordable body is a guess I dread to state.

Like, the 90D will be a 20D with not better image quality, but a greater
variety of features and a welcome boost in quality at higher ISO's.

/Mitch

I'm just not the pixel-peeking type... I'm told that my eyesight/visual acuity exceeds the 20/20 level. However, despite the apparent image quality improvements seen with Nikon/Sony sensors, when I look at photographs taken with enthusiast level SLRs from Canon and Nikon (without micro-level analysis), I see no seriously discernible difference in image quality. I'm certainly very happy with the appearance of the images that I capture, and so (apparently) are the magazines that have published my photographs.
Dynamic range is only one consideration, after all.

So while reasons such as 'already having Canon glass' and liking the Canon interface etc. might be considerations, I do not see the 'superior' image quality of the Nikon/Sony sensors as being relevant for my particular purposes. If I genuinely perceived that, I would swap straight away and be happy to do so.

Many other photographers also seem to feel this way, hence Canon continue to have a very healthy market share.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 09/06/19 06:49 by exhaustED.

I have several fine Canon L series lenses on a 60D. However, 99% of my shots are only seen online.  I suspect my Panasonic DMC-ZS100 does just fine.

Bob Wilcox
Charlottesville, VA
My Flickr Shots

bobwilcox Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> I have several fine Canon L series lenses on a
> 60D. However, 99% of my shots are only seen
> online.  I suspect my Panasonic DMC-ZS100 does
> just fine.

I have a 70D and I love its performance levels. My Dad has a Fuji similar to your Panasonic... a lot of the time the images look every bit as good as my DSLR's.

I never cease to be amazed at all the useless online buzz about dynamic range, sharpness, and the like.  Granted, cheap lenses with cheap filters on the front create low image quality.  On the other side of the coin, I've seen 'challenge' results on multiple photography websites that compare cell phone photos to those taken with a high end DSLR.  Bottom line...it the PHOTOGRAPHER, NOT the GEAR that makes the difference!

Obviously, the 'dynamic range' whiners all want to be able to photograph whatever they want under any lighting conditions and still use AUTO.  If that's what they want, use a cell phone!  As long as there's no desire to see the individual pores on a subjects' nose when the image is blown up to poster size, cell phones will work just fine.

And for the record...I'll gladly post a 1-candle-power for a light in a 100% dark room photo of my pastor holding a small candle while using a microphone in the other hand taken by me on my 'ancient' Canon 5D iii at f4 HAND HELD!  As many have said before me for many years....it's the skill of the photographer, NOT the equipment!



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 09/07/19 08:28 by BRAtkinson.

exhaustED Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> ...despite the apparent image quality
> improvements seen with Nikon/Sony sensors, when I
> look at photographs taken with enthusiast level
> SLRs from Canon and Nikon (without micro-level
> analysis), I see no seriously discernible
> difference in image quality.

If you shoot with the Sun over your shoulder, or at night
with a flash, I agree - as stated.  Hope I did not come off
the wrong way, though your reply suggests I did not.  I'm
just a disgruntled Canon user that keeps hoping Canon
will one day SOONER than later offer camera that can
capture with much better results, images of higher contrast
and greater shadow recovery.  Call me a disgruntled Canon
user hoping to avoid switching brands. Sony, and Nikon with
their Sony sensors capture close to 3 additional stops of
dynamic range - it's like a single shot HDR.  I've seen
silhouettes pushed to near daylight looking scenes with little
noise. This comes in handy when shooting dark subjects (or
areas withing a subject) against a bright subject /or sky.


> I'm certainly very
> happy with the appearance of the images that I
> capture, and so (apparently) are the magazines
> that have published my photographs.

Come out with me and capture a train before the
Sun rises or against a setting Sun - or perhaps
a black steam locomotive set against a white sky.
Otherwise, I too am quite happy with my Sunrise
to Sunset and flash photography.  As for magazines,
I would not necessarily call that a standard for
excellence these days. 

> I do not see the 'superior'
> image quality of the Nikon/Sony sensors as being
> relevant for my particular purposes.

PERFECTLY STATED!



BRAtkinson Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> I never cease to be amazed at all the useless
> online buzz about dynamic range, sharpness, and
> the like.  Granted, cheap lenses with cheap
> filters on the front create low image quality. 
> On the other side of the coin, I've seen
> 'challenge' results on multiple photography
> websites that compare cell phone photos to those
> taken with a high end DSLR.  Bottom line...it the
> PHOTOGRAPHER, NOT the GEAR that makes the
> difference!

Ugh - not a fan of that statement.  No offence - just
always thought it was too vague a description.  A
great photographer can take a great photo with a
crappy camera, true.  And a poor photographer can
take nothing but crappy shots with a top of the line
camera.  But... without the right equipment, there
are without a doubt, great photos that CAN NOT be
captured unless you have the right equipment!

> Obviously, the 'dynamic range' whiners all want to
> be able to photograph whatever they want under any
> lighting conditions and still use AUTO. 

Perhaps - but there are some like myself that want to
be able to photograph whatever I want under almost
any lighitng condition in MANUAL as well.

> If that's what they want, use a cell phone!  As long
> as there's no desire to see the individual pores
> on a subjects' nose when the image is blown up to
> poster size, cell phones will work just fine.

But IF they want something larger that 5X7, or a print
vs a post online...

> And for the record...I'll gladly post a
> 1-candle-power for a light in a 100% dark room
> photo of my pastor holding a small candle while
> using a microphone in the other hand taken by me
> on my 'ancient' Canon 5D iii at f4 HAND HELD! 

I have had luck photographing many scenes with
direct light as well.  I'm sure that candle and perhaps
even the pastor's face is lit well enough to yeild a
clean shot.  But what IF... you wanted to present
more than just the pastor and candle in that scene?

As for "ancient" Canon cameras - as I noted earlier,
little has changed with Canon across their entire
line up over the last 10 years in regards to image
quality, with the exception of better high(er) ISO
capabilities but the dynamic range has remained
pretty much at the same level - regardless of age
and even price point.  Same with Nikon - low end
to high end, pretty much consistant with regards
to dynamic range - just 2 to 3 stops higher.

One exception, I'll note - the (and ONLY the) Canon
5D Mark FOUR upped the ante bumping up the
dynamic range from 11.6 or so up to 13.6 (vs even
a beginners Nikon around 14.5 to 14.8).  This modest
improvment is VERY noticable!


> As
> many have said before me for many years....it's
> the skill of the photographer, NOT the equipment!

Yet - and please do not take this with any offence, you
have a 5D Mark III instead of a Rebel, or Elf.  Yet
someone with a low end Nikon could likely with ease
take a shot not possible with the 5D Mark III.  He
can't scroll as easy, or chose as many focus points,
shoot in the rain, or have presentable image at ISO
2000, but image-wise, I'd rather have the D750  at
6 AM in September than your 5D Mark III, or even my
5D Mark IV!

/Mitch

---

Looks like a modest improvement for the 90D - not much (if accurate) a jump in base dynamic
range, but much better images with less noise compared to the 80D as the ISO settings rise.

Edit - not "much" better, lol - but better!

Not bad considering how many more megapixels you are getting - but still not on par with an
old Nikon. 

/Mitch



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 09/08/19 01:25 by Mgoldman.

---

From my perspective, all the hype of dynamic range these days is no different than number of megapixels in days gone by.  Once an acceptable level of either has been achieved, the rest is nothing more than marketing and creating a marketing demand for the latest & greatest. 

I am at a complete loss to understand why everyone thinks they have to have a Ferarri to go back and forth to work or the grocery store or maybe a trip to see Aunt Betty on the other side of town.  The number of times a Ferarri can 'stretch its legs' and be driven safely at 180 mph without getting a ticket is exceedingly few and far between.  The same is true with DR and MPs. 

For starters, look at images taken on film within the past 100 years and presented here.  How many complain about lack of DR or sharpness (low MP and lens combined)?  Countless pictures of trains have been taken on film. Excluding amateur photographer failures such as underexposure or a not perfectly focused slide or using a Kodak Instamatic back then, how many complained of any DR issues with ASA 64 (ISO to the young 'uns)?  "Oh....we can't make out the rivets on the steam engine fully back lit by a sunset" complaints has anyone ever made?  Or how often does one complain they can't make a 10" x 14" print from a instamatic negative or from their cellphone and have it be clear and sharp?  Photographic technology today is 1000 times more capable and easy to use than that of 30 years ago...and even more so back in the days of flash powder and everyone had to 'freeze' for several seconds. 

I think the approximate 'turning point' for image quality from megapixels achieved that of film is probably in the 12-15mp range.  After that, the number of megapixels became marketing strategy for the 1% or less of the masses that knew the difference.  Even cellphone manufacturers are having MP wars these days...with a sensor so tiny it's amazing that any image comes out clear.  For me, my digital camera progression (all Canon) went from a G3 (a giant 4mp!) to a G5 (5mp) to a 30D (8.2mp) to a 60D (18mp) to a 5D3 (22.3mp) over 14-15 years, give or take.  Why did I upgrade?  The bulk of my photography changed from images of trains to images of people at indoor events, preferably without using a flash that would be severely distracting to everyone.  For me, the goal was low light capabilities, at which the 5D3 excelled.  I waited more than 18 months before buying one primarily due to cost and waiting for the bugs to be worked out.  Would I upgrade from a 60D to a 5D3 today?  Absolutely!  Then, as today, it meets all my needs, not the marketing hype of a camera company.  Tell me I need a 50 mp camera or my images will be worthless and not of value to anyone!  What a joke!  But if I was taking pictures to be put on a highway billboard, yes, 50 mp would be just fine.  How many participants on all the RR oriented forums have their pictures on a billboard?

Do I ever give one thought to dynamic range when the camera is to my eye?  Not even once!  Not ever in my life!  And if it weren't for marketing hype and DR 'wars' on multiple RR and photography oriented web sites, I wouldn't even care one iota about DR.  It's like the battle between a cropped sensor and a full frame sensor.  It's useless as, plain and simple, if you like the image in your viewfinder, click the shutter!  Images are not 'automatically' or 'magically' better when taken with a FF camera!  Buying a new camera and lenses simply to get 'full frame' makes no sense, as it all comes down to what is in the viewfinder.  Granted, the ISO capabilities of full frame sensors has always been better than crop sensors, but that gap is closing very fast, as is the number of MPs and dynamic range. 

I'll go one step further...how many of the readers of this forum ponder dynamic range when taking a photograph of a train?  There's a small handful, I'm sure.  And they have in-camera HDR if they want to go to that extreme, even automatic exposure bracketing, too.  How many use it?  Let's take a no-longer hypothetical question:  If you're chasing UP 4014 Big Boy and racing ahead to a spot for a picture but the only position possible in the 30 seconds after you arrive there is on the 'wrong side' forcing you to take a fully back lit photograph with a magnificent sunset behind it, would you decide to NOT take that shot because supposedly limited dynamic range would prevent you from counting the rivets on the dark side facing you?  Would the almost completely black side save the blurred side rods and linkages mean you did not take a FANTASTIC picture?

In short, did the limited dynamic range, mega pixels or even film speed cause O. Winston Link or even Richard Steinhammer to NOT produce exceptionally outstanding images?

BRAtkinson Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> From my perspective, all the hype of dynamic range
> these days is no different than number of
> megapixels in days gone by.  Once an acceptable
> level of either has been achieved, the rest is
> nothing more than marketing and creating a
> marketing demand for the latest & greatest. 

I have a workbench, a handful of power tools and
dozens and dozens of hand tools yet my neighbor
has only two screw drivers, a hammer and a pliers,
something he considers an "acceptable level" of
tools.  And "from his perspective", he has all the
tools he'll ever need.  And, to your point, he's correct.
I, however, did not buy those other tools due to
clever marketing.


> I am at a complete loss to understand why everyone
> thinks they have to have a Ferarri to go back and
> forth to work or the grocery store or maybe a trip
> to see Aunt Betty on the other side of town.  The
> number of times a Ferarri can 'stretch its legs'
> and be driven safely at 180 mph without getting a
> ticket is exceedingly few and far between.  The
> same is true with DR and MPs. 

Correct!  The number of times you have an opportunity
to shoot an amaing sunrise, a train in a blizard, or a
subject under ambient light at night are *often* few and
far between - at least in relation to all other standard
shots possible.  I think you DO understand, afterall!

> For starters, look at images taken on film within
> the past 100 years and presented here.  How many
> complain about lack of DR or sharpness (low MP and
> lens combined)? 

How many ametures were taking the kinds of pictures
that O. Winston Link took?  How many folks today limit
their photography to ISO 400 or 800?  Simply put, there
are people taking photos today that were not possible
in the past, or at least not possible in the past without
a significant investment in flash bulbs and a darkroom.

> Countless pictures of trains
> have been taken on film. Excluding amateur
> photographer failures such as underexposure or a
> not perfectly focused slide or using a Kodak
> Instamatic back then, how many complained of any
> DR issues with ASA 64 (ISO to the young 'uns)? 

Recall why photographers accepted the limitations of
ASA 64 despite the availability of ASA 400 and 800
film!  The lower the ASA, the better the image quality.
Back then, the film WAS the "sensor".

> "Oh....we can't make out the rivets on the steam
> engine fully back lit by a sunset" complaints has
> anyone ever made? 

Most accepted the limitations of the day - limitations
which no longer exist today, provided you have the
right equipment (and in the case of Nikon vs Canon,
this does not mean the newest or most expensive
equipment).  Still, for those who STILL had such
complaints - they went on to use fill flash outdoors
and dodge and burn indoors.

> Or how often does one complain
> they can't make a 10" x 14" print from a
> instamatic negative or from their cellphone and
> have it be clear and sharp? 

I had an image taken along the Northest Corridor
which utilized a 400 mm lens with a 1.4 extender
taken with a Canon 5D Mark III - too get the look
I wanted, I had to crop a good percent of it.  Made
a fantastic presentation on line, and no doubt I
could have made prints up to 8X12 or perhaps
slightly larger - yet, (and perhaps mistakenly),
Jim Wrinn of Trains magazine found it within
the database and said it was a cover shot, if only
I had it in higher resolution.


> I think the approximate 'turning point' for image
> quality from megapixels achieved that of film is
> probably in the 12-15mp range. 

I have friends who never do anything more than
take pictures with their cell phone and never get
prints - tell me why they need more than 3 MP's?

I'll limit my response to the scenarios presented below
by suggesting that everything below is properly identified
with a qualifier - "For me", "the masses", "for most", "for
my photography".  As I suggested originally - you need
the correct tools for the task you hope to accomplish. 
For some of us, those tools - dynamic range for instance,
as well as megapixels are neither a joke nor marketing,
but rather, the tools needed to get a specfic job done!

As to my original suggestion however - if you could buy
a better tool for the same price, or less - why wouldn't you?



> After that, the
> number of megapixels became marketing strategy for
> the 1% or less of the masses that knew the
> difference.  Even cellphone manufacturers are
> having MP wars these days...with a sensor so tiny
> it's amazing that any image comes out clear.  For
> me, my digital camera progression (all Canon) went
> from a G3 (a giant 4mp!) to a G5 (5mp) to a 30D
> (8.2mp) to a 60D (18mp) to a 5D3 (22.3mp) over
> 14-15 years, give or take.  Why did I upgrade? 
> The bulk of my photography changed from images of
> trains to images of people at indoor events,
> preferably without using a flash that would be
> severely distracting to everyone.  For me, the
> goal was low light capabilities, at which the 5D3
> excelled.  I waited more than 18 months before
> buying one primarily due to cost and waiting for
> the bugs to be worked out.  Would I upgrade from
> a 60D to a 5D3 today?  Absolutely!  Then, as
> today, it meets all my needs, not the marketing
> hype of a camera company. 
> Tell me I need a 50 mp
> camera or my images will be worthless and not of
> value to anyone!  What a joke!  But if I was
> taking pictures to be put on a highway billboard,
> yes, 50 mp would be just fine.  How many
> participants on all the RR oriented forums have
> their pictures on a billboard?
>
> Do I ever give one thought to dynamic range when
> the camera is to my eye?  Not even once!  Not
> ever in my life!  And if it weren't for marketing
> hype and DR 'wars' on multiple RR and photography
> oriented web sites, I wouldn't even care one iota
> about DR.  It's like the battle between a cropped
> sensor and a full frame sensor.  It's useless as,
> plain and simple, if you like the image in your
> viewfinder, click the shutter!  Images are not
> 'automatically' or 'magically' better when taken
> with a FF camera!  Buying a new camera and lenses
> simply to get 'full frame' makes no sense, as it
> all comes down to what is in the viewfinder. 
> Granted, the ISO capabilities of full frame
> sensors has always been better than crop sensors,
> but that gap is closing very fast, as is the
> number of MPs and dynamic range. 
>
> I'll go one step further...how many of the readers
> of this forum ponder dynamic range when taking a
> photograph of a train?  There's a small handful,
> I'm sure.  And they have in-camera HDR if they
> want to go to that extreme, even automatic
> exposure bracketing, too.  How many use it? 
> Let's take a no-longer hypothetical question:  If
> you're chasing UP 4014 Big Boy and racing ahead to
> a spot for a picture but the only position
> possible in the 30 seconds after you arrive there
> is on the 'wrong side' forcing you to take a fully
> back lit photograph with a magnificent sunset
> behind it, would you decide to NOT take that shot
> because supposedly limited dynamic range would
> prevent you from counting the rivets on the dark
> side facing you?  Would the almost completely
> black side save the blurred side rods and linkages
> mean you did not take a FANTASTIC picture?


> In short, did the limited dynamic range, mega
> pixels or even film speed cause O. Winston Link or
> even Richard Steinhammer to NOT produce
> exceptionally outstanding images?

O. Winston Link had an extensive and expensive
salvo of flash equipment.  As for Richard Steinhammer,
who knows - wouldn't it be something to peruse through
the shots that he may have attempted without sucess?

My nine year old 60D is going to die eventually, so the 90D interests me. I haven't looked at a side-by-side comparison yet, but why does the 90D put out the same size maximum image as my old and decrepit 60D? I'd expect more than 34X51

BanJoe Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> My nine year old 60D is going to die eventually,
> so the 90D interests me. I haven't looked at a
> side-by-side comparison yet, but why does the 90D
> put out the same size maximum image as my old and
> decrepit 60D? I'd expect more than 34X51

The 90D has nearly twice the megapixel count - why
do you think /where did you note that the resolution
would not considerably increase?

Also - there are many features other than megapixel
count that merit consideration - focus points, higher
ISO levels, better and easier to navigate menues,
GPS, frames per second, and perhaps, just perhaps,
with the 90D, image quality though the jury is still out.

/Mitch

Did Nikon ever fix that small burst count? Kinda nice to have that. And correct, Nikons suck to navigate a lot of functions. My ex wife's D90 did look better out of the box.