Upgrading from Canon 400D to either Canon EOS 90D or EOS R

Hi All,

I've had the Canon 400D since approx 2007. I am now getting into Landscape photography and wishing to upgrade.

I am restricted by the amount of dollars I can spend, but might be able to extend to the cost of an EOS R.

However, whilst I like the R, I also like the 90D.

Your thoughts?

Either of them is a huge upgrade from a 400D.

What do you have in the way of lenses? Any EF-S ones will only work in crop mode on the EOS R, which means you won't get much of an IQ boost with them on that model, whereas you'll get the full 30MP on the 90D.

Have you considered the RP? I wanted the R, but after renting the RP for a week I decided it was good enough for my usage.

Rock and Rollei said:

Either of them is a huge upgrade from a 400D.
What do you have in the way of lenses? Any EF-S ones will only work in crop mode on the EOS R, which means you won't get much of an IQ boost with them on that model, whereas you'll get the full 30MP on the 90D.

Click to expand...

A quick look and I found the R body only plus the EF to RF Adapter is $2696 AU. The 90D body only no adapter required is $1588. That's a hefty difference of $1108 AU.

For the most part if your getting into landscape your not looking for low light, low noise capabilities.

Both cameras have relatively equal megapixels. The R 30 megapixel, the 90D 32 megapixel

All of your current EF and EF-S lenses will work with the90D no adapter needed.

You can use your EF-S lenses on the R but the lens is used in crop mode automatically and you can't change that. And the resulting images are only 11.6 megapixel.

I'm sure there are other differences other might point out, they're I can come up with at the moment.

You need to ask yourself do you really need to go full frame. Is it really necessary to get that high ISO/low noise output and the extra wide angle you would gain by going full frame.

My recommendation would be to look very closely at both but personally I would be definitely leaning toward the 90D.

Steve

--
"A camera is a tool for learning to see without a camera."
(Dorothea Lange)
http://www.pbase.com/steve_p/galleries

Barchy said:

Hi All,

I've had the Canon 400D since approx 2007. I am now getting into Landscape photography and wishing to upgrade.

I am restricted by the amount of dollars I can spend, but might be able to extend to the cost of an EOS R.

However, whilst I like the R, I also like the 90D.

Your thoughts?

Click to expand...

I upgrades from a Rebel T1i to a 70D to the EOS R and I'm glad I did it that way. I believe you should go to the 90D because you'll have all kinds of dedicated buttons that will allow you to try all kinds of different settings and get to know all a DSLR can do, and believe me that will be a lot more than your current camera can do. Also, all of your existing lenses will work to their full potential. I did a bunch of pro work with my 70D and that family of cameras can be very effective for all different types of photography.

Another reason I would go with the 90D first is because the EOS R does not have the same amount of physical controls available. You really need to tailor it more for your style of shooting, but you should really explore what your style of shooting is first. Then when you upgrade down the road to an R family camera, you will be better able to take advantage of the additional skills you learned with the more advanced camera.

The 90D is a great camera and IMO the better way to go. That being said, I really love my R and wouldn't want anything else. But I am only comfortable on the R and able to figure out how to use it best because the ease of use on the 70D made it easier for me to just worry about technique versus the distraction of learning how to set up a camera to work to my advantage at the same time. Besides my 70D is an excellent back-up to my EOS R and I do need to have a high quality backup.

I always recommend that people buy the best they can afford, but best is different for different people, and what you can afford needs to include lens prices.

I got into FF in 2017, because I had a really good year. I would not have stretched financially to do it. I wouldn't have done it the year before or this year. And I wouldn't have done it if I couldn't have afforded a full set of FF glass to go with the camera.

My additional justification was the superior ultra wide lenses which you can only use on a FF camera at their intended angle of view. Some people, like me, consider that important for landscapes. Most people use longer lenses for landscapes from 24 mm up, which kills that particular advantage of FF.

Secondarily, I like the low light capability a lot. That only matters for pictures of moving subjects or hand held pictures. You can shoot landscapes hand held, but I recommend using a tripod, so no advantage there, if you use a tripod. I'm a real estate broker and part time real estate photographer, so I shoot promotional and artistic landscapes on a tripod and some hand held when out looking at property. It's great for property tours and party pics.

I am not that big on the shallow DOF, but I have had a very few occasions where it was an advantage. Shallow DOF is not good for landscapes. I shoot mine at F11 on FF or F8 on a crop sensor, so there is no advantage to FF there. It really is nice for some portraits and some shots of discrete inanimate objects.

Don't go full frame if you can't afford the glass that you want. I would much rather have a crop system with everything I want than a FF system that limits my photography. (Many people would disagree.)

Whatever you decide, get a heavy tripod. Nothing, and I mean nothing, no camera, no lens, and no software will improve your landscape photography as much as a heavy tripod. Remember it's all about the light, and the magic happens at dawn and dusk. On a heavy tripod, you're still taking those great shots at base ISO for better IQ than a better camera at high ISO.

On my computer I have an album of my all time favorite shots, and many of them were taken with my old 60D and the excellent EF-S 10-22. I have large prints on my wall from that setup, and wall prints from that setup hang on the walls of clients and friends to this day.

Ed Rizk said:

I always recommend that people buy the best they can afford, but best is different for different people, and what you can afford needs to include lens prices.

I got into FF in 2017, because I had a really good year. I would not have stretched financially to do it. I wouldn't have done it the year before or this year. And I wouldn't have done it if I couldn't have afforded a full set of FF glass to go with the camera.

My additional justification was the superior ultra wide lenses which you can only use on a FF camera at their intended angle of view. Some people, like me, consider that important for landscapes. Most people use longer lenses for landscapes from 24 mm up, which kills that particular advantage of FF.

Secondarily, I like the low light capability a lot. That only matters for pictures of moving subjects or hand held pictures. You can shoot landscapes hand held, but I recommend using a tripod, so no advantage there, if you use a tripod. I'm a real estate broker and part time real estate photographer, so I shoot promotional and artistic landscapes on a tripod and some hand held when out looking at property. It's great for property tours and party pics.

I am not that big on the shallow DOF, but I have had a very few occasions where it was an advantage. Shallow DOF is not good for landscapes. I shoot mine at F11 on FF or F8 on a crop sensor, so there is no advantage to FF there. It really is nice for some portraits and some shots of discrete inanimate objects.

Don't go full frame if you can't afford the glass that you want. I would much rather have a crop system with everything I want than a FF system that limits my photography. (Many people would disagree.)

Whatever you decide, get a heavy tripod. Nothing, and I mean nothing, no camera, no lens, and no software will improve your landscape photography as much as a heavy tripod. Remember it's all about the light, and the magic happens at dawn and dusk. On a heavy tripod, you're still taking those great shots at base ISO for better IQ than a better camera at high ISO.

On my computer I have an album of my all time favorite shots, and many of them were taken with my old 60D and the excellent EF-S 10-22. I have large prints on my wall from that setup, and wall prints from that setup hang on the walls of clients and friends to this day.

Click to expand...

Hi Ed,

Thank you for your response. Very wise words indeed. I love my landscape/seascape photography and I'm not interested in anything else. You struck the nail on the head when you stated 'Don't go full-frame if you can't afford the glass', and I think that will be my case. So, I think seeing I already have a few EF-S lenses I will look towards the Canon 90D.

Once again thank you for replying to my thread.

Hi Steve,

Thanks for your reply. After reading yours and other posts I think the smart thing for me to do will be to look at the Canon 90D.

Once again I appreciate your advice.s

koenkooi said:

Have you considered the RP? I wanted the R, but after renting the RP for a week I decided it was good enough for my usage.

Click to expand...

Hi Koenkooi

Thanks for your reply. I've looked at both and decided the R was probably a better camera due to the pixels/resolution.

However, after reading a few responses I think my best bet is to go for the Canon 90d.

Once again thank you for responding to my thread.

johncal said:

Barchy said:

Hi All,

I've had the Canon 400D since approx 2007. I am now getting into Landscape photography and wishing to upgrade.

I am restricted by the amount of dollars I can spend, but might be able to extend to the cost of an EOS R.

However, whilst I like the R, I also like the 90D.

Your thoughts?

Click to expand...

I upgrades from a Rebel T1i to a 70D to the EOS R and I'm glad I did it that way. I believe you should go to the 90D because you'll have all kinds of dedicated buttons that will allow you to try all kinds of different settings and get to know all a DSLR can do, and believe me that will be a lot more than your current camera can do. Also, all of your existing lenses will work to their full potential. I did a bunch of pro work with my 70D and that family of cameras can be very effective for all different types of photography.

Another reason I would go with the 90D first is because the EOS R does not have the same amount of physical controls available. You really need to tailor it more for your style of shooting, but you should really explore what your style of shooting is first. Then when you upgrade down the road to an R family camera, you will be better able to take advantage of the additional skills you learned with the more advanced camera.

The 90D is a great camera and IMO the better way to go. That being said, I really love my R and wouldn't want anything else. But I am only comfortable on the R and able to figure out how to use it best because the ease of use on the 70D made it easier for me to just worry about technique versus the distraction of learning how to set up a camera to work to my advantage at the same time. Besides my 70D is an excellent back-up to my EOS R and I do need to have a high quality backup.

Click to expand...

Hi Johncal,

Thanks for your reply. Yes, I agree with you especially after reading all the responses I've received. The 90D it is.

Once again, thanks for your detailed reply, it made it easier for me to make a decision.

Rock and Rollei said:

Either of them is a huge upgrade from a 400D.
What do you have in the way of lenses? Any EF-S ones will only work in crop mode on the EOS R, which means you won't get much of an IQ boost with them on that model, whereas you'll get the full 30MP on the 90D.

Click to expand...

Hi Rock and Rollei,

Thanks for your reply. After reading your and other's posts I've decided the 90D is the way to go for me.

Once again thanks for your reply.

If the budget is tight it might be worth considering the EOS RP.

I just upgraded from a 7d to the eos rp and I'm thrilled. But like others have said, it's up to the individual photographer to know what equipment they need. I was looking at the 90d as well but I shoot a lot of portraits so going full frame made sense to me. Good luck with your camera purchase!

If your primary purpose is Landscape, consider the RP. I just got one with the 24-240mm. Love this cam and lens.

Thanks for your reply

MannyV said:

If your primary purpose is Landscape, consider the RP. I just got one with the 24-240mm. Love this cam and lens.

Click to expand...

Thanks Manny

Go for EOS R body only if you can stretch your budget. And then get the cheapest R lenses that is available. You will never know what your missing for a Full Frame Sensor. Not to mentioned all the awesome glass which gathered all positive reviews. Good luck..

Barchy said:

Hi All,

I've had the Canon 400D since approx 2007. I am now getting into Landscape photography and wishing to upgrade.

I am restricted by the amount of dollars I can spend, but might be able to extend to the cost of an EOS R.

However, whilst I like the R, I also like the 90D.

Your thoughts?

Click to expand...

have you considered the M6 mkii ? it has the same sensor as the 90D ..i believe its cheaper by about the price of the 11-22mm

and also the 11-22 is the sharpest ultra wide angle APS-c canon make or anyone else for that matter. its evan as sharp or sharper than the £2500GBP 11-24F4L when both are on APS-c believe it or not

.for landscape i see no advantage with the 90D.. your existing lenses will work with the adaptor natavly

admittedly i would prefer a M5mkii with built in EVF rather than a detachable EVF (some like it better) and more external controls but we are not going to get one

.

.

--
Attention Dislexsic i mean dyslexic person... This post will have many although spell checked, spelling and grammatical errs ..its The best its going get so no need to tell me its bad i know it is .....................................................................................................
My 5D IS a MK1 classic
..........................................................................................................
There is no argument for FF vs APS-c (or m43) with shallow DOF..as it's a law of physics and a very subjective personal thing if you want to make use of the shallow DOF only FF can offer
...........................................................................................................
Political correctness....somebody being offended on someone else's behalf....who that someone doesn't give a damn in the first place ....David Appleton.
.....................................................................................................
If you wait for a camera that will tick all your boxes ....by then you will have more boxes to tick..... so the wait continues .....David Appleton
..................................................................................................
quoting irrefutable facts may get you branded a racist ..even if no race is involved .......David Appleton
.....................................................................................................

I would go for the EOS R. The 90D is a great camera but it still falls into the enthusiast-advanced level whereas the EOS R is a full-frame professional mirrorless camera.

Ed Rizk said:

I always recommend that people buy the best they can afford, but best is different for different people, and what you can afford needs to include lens prices.

I got into FF in 2017, because I had a really good year. I would not have stretched financially to do it. I wouldn't have done it the year before or this year. And I wouldn't have done it if I couldn't have afforded a full set of FF glass to go with the camera.

My additional justification was the superior ultra wide lenses which you can only use on a FF camera at their intended angle of view. Some people, like me, consider that important for landscapes. Most people use longer lenses for landscapes from 24 mm up, which kills that particular advantage of FF.

Secondarily, I like the low light capability a lot. That only matters for pictures of moving subjects or hand held pictures. You can shoot landscapes hand held, but I recommend using a tripod, so no advantage there, if you use a tripod. I'm a real estate broker and part time real estate photographer, so I shoot promotional and artistic landscapes on a tripod and some hand held when out looking at property. It's great for property tours and party pics.

I am not that big on the shallow DOF, but I have had a very few occasions where it was an advantage. Shallow DOF is not good for landscapes. I shoot mine at F11 on FF or F8 on a crop sensor, so there is no advantage to FF there. It really is nice for some portraits and some shots of discrete inanimate objects.

Don't go full frame if you can't afford the glass that you want. I would much rather have a crop system with everything I want than a FF system that limits my photography. (Many people would disagree.)

Whatever you decide, get a heavy tripod. Nothing, and I mean nothing, no camera, no lens, and no software will improve your landscape photography as much as a heavy tripod. Remember it's all about the light, and the magic happens at dawn and dusk. On a heavy tripod, you're still taking those great shots at base ISO for better IQ than a better camera at high ISO.

On my computer I have an album of my all time favorite shots, and many of them were taken with my old 60D and the excellent EF-S 10-22. I have large prints on my wall from that setup, and wall prints from that setup hang on the walls of clients and friends to this day.

Click to expand...

Glad I found this, I to am considering new camera, I currently use an 80D thats getting very high on shutter count. I was considering 90D but then Canon slashed the price on the RP to pretty much the same as 90D . Ok I better check that out after all its full frame. Well now learning for the results I really want I would actually need new glass as well sways me back to the 90D . I shoot mainly wildlife some family portraits. I of course will be keeping the 80d but it will be moved to backup .