-
Welcome to the new forums! Please read this first. For known issues we are working to resolve, click here.
Dpreview 90D full review
- Thread starter v30
- Start date
Deruch0331
Well-known member
- Messages
- 111
- Solutions
- 1
- Reaction score
- 53
I was going to say something about the review, but DPR seems to hate anything Canon and especially anything DLSR but what's the use!
cdmazoff
Senior Member
I hear you!!
thamer08
Forum Enthusiast
- Messages
- 402
- Reaction score
- 68
In Conclusion they said :
Good for
Those looking to document friends and family. Anyone seeking an easy-to-use DSLR than can seamlessly handle stills and video capture. Those planning to mostly shoot in live view.
if that the main purpose for this camera why wasting the money and carry heavy camera when there are much cheaper and lighter options like the canon m50 or SL2/200D
Good for
Those looking to document friends and family. Anyone seeking an easy-to-use DSLR than can seamlessly handle stills and video capture. Those planning to mostly shoot in live view.
if that the main purpose for this camera why wasting the money and carry heavy camera when there are much cheaper and lighter options like the canon m50 or SL2/200D
Last edited:
In Conclusion they said :
Good for
Those looking to document friends and family. Anyone seeking an easy-to-use DSLR than can seamlessly handle stills and video capture. Those planning to mostly shoot in live view.
if that the main purpose for this camera why wasting the money and carry heavy camera when there are much cheaper and lighter options like the canon m50 or SL2/200D
Vivid1
Forum Enthusiast
If this was boxing and Canon knocks out the opponent the dpreview judges will grudgingly call it a draw...
carla_francisco
Leading Member
That's exactly what I thought when I read it.
carla_francisco
Leading Member
Yes, that part of the review was especially infuriating and ridiculous.In Conclusion they said :
Good for
Those looking to document friends and family. Anyone seeking an easy-to-use DSLR than can seamlessly handle stills and video capture. Those planning to mostly shoot in live view.
if that the main purpose for this camera why wasting the money and carry heavy camera when there are much cheaper and lighter options like the canon m50 or SL2/200D
tigertails99
Leading Member
To me their obvious pro Sony and anti Canon bias renders their reviews worthless.
Ray UK
Leading Member
It seemed like quite a fair assessment to me but I don't have a 90D that I feel the need to defend. All of these reviews are subjective so if you have a 90D and are happy with it then it is probably best not to read the reviews.
For that matter if thats all you are going to do with it a smartphone can easily do this ;-) . And its even smaller.In Conclusion they said :
Good for
Those looking to document friends and family. Anyone seeking an easy-to-use DSLR than can seamlessly handle stills and video capture. Those planning to mostly shoot in live view.
if that the main purpose for this camera why wasting the money and carry heavy camera when there are much cheaper and lighter options like the canon m50 or SL2/200D
Lena36
Well-known member
- Messages
- 126
- Reaction score
- 103
What a silly review. I doubt these guys are birders, somehow.
I've had the camera two weeks now and have gotten pretty well-acquainted. It does take nice pics of family.
It also can A/F on a tiny bird in dense shrubbery and hold the focus as the bird moves about (using the wonderful spot focus option).
Try that with your 80D.
I've had the camera two weeks now and have gotten pretty well-acquainted. It does take nice pics of family.
It also can A/F on a tiny bird in dense shrubbery and hold the focus as the bird moves about (using the wonderful spot focus option).
Try that with your 80D.
In general it seems to me that the review was lukewarm when compared with my very positive experience with this camera.
I don't shoot sports or birds in flight so perhaps I am not the right person to comment on the full AF capabilities. Even so some of the criticism in the review seemed silly. There are lots of settings to fine tune the AF performance for specific applications. It appears that the reviewers did not try or comment on this and instead they complained that the settings were hard to access. It is easy to set up one of the two custom screens to include these settings.
The reviewers seemed to downplay the 32.5 mp jump and the overall image quality. Instead I have seen a very noticeable improvement. On top of that the reviewers want to open the raw images with Adobe software which currently seems to do a poor job on these files. Using Canon DPP software, I see another jump. On top of that DPP allows use of diffraction correction software which adds even more to the resolution and image quality. It does not seem fair to blame the camera for the poor performance of 3rd party software.
The reviewers complained that they did not like some aspects of the out of camera jpegs. They wanted more sharpness and less noise reduction. That and a host of other characteristics can be customized with the choice of picture styles or individual customized settings.
Overall it seemed the reviewers complained about minor issues and downplayed the major performance improvements which include class leading image quality with high ISO noise and dynamic range that are comparable to the best of the lower megapixel cameras.
I don't shoot sports or birds in flight so perhaps I am not the right person to comment on the full AF capabilities. Even so some of the criticism in the review seemed silly. There are lots of settings to fine tune the AF performance for specific applications. It appears that the reviewers did not try or comment on this and instead they complained that the settings were hard to access. It is easy to set up one of the two custom screens to include these settings.
The reviewers seemed to downplay the 32.5 mp jump and the overall image quality. Instead I have seen a very noticeable improvement. On top of that the reviewers want to open the raw images with Adobe software which currently seems to do a poor job on these files. Using Canon DPP software, I see another jump. On top of that DPP allows use of diffraction correction software which adds even more to the resolution and image quality. It does not seem fair to blame the camera for the poor performance of 3rd party software.
The reviewers complained that they did not like some aspects of the out of camera jpegs. They wanted more sharpness and less noise reduction. That and a host of other characteristics can be customized with the choice of picture styles or individual customized settings.
Overall it seemed the reviewers complained about minor issues and downplayed the major performance improvements which include class leading image quality with high ISO noise and dynamic range that are comparable to the best of the lower megapixel cameras.
Hoxton Bridge
Senior Member
I'm not sure I agree with that. When Canon brings out top drawer equipment it gets the appropriate praise (e.g. 5DMk 3 and 4, 1Dx Mk2, almost every L lens), but when they bring out mediocre or uncompetitive devices, they get appropriately lacklustre reviews. Aside from those mentioned, what camera has Canon delivered in the last 3-5 years that has stood out as market leading or innovative?
Sony troll alert!
Hoxton Bridge
Senior Member
Don't be ridiculous. I have owned two excellent Canon DSLRs and have no problem buying another - if and when they release one. i do not own, nor intend to purchase a Sony Camera. Perhaps you could refute what I say instead of making juvenile accusations.
nothing personal, but that is typical Sony guys' comments every time canon comes out with a new camera, in my experience....never fails!
It seems to me a modestly priced APS-C camera with 32.5 mp and competitive high ISO noise and DR would qualify.
Keyboard shortcuts
- f
- Forum