Canon EOS 90D Review

@Richard go to the ISO invariance tool and select Nikon D7500. The scene is lighted from the left, unlike (almost all?) other cameras. Makes comparisons difficult except right at the centerline.

It didn't even rate.

/s

I am not sure about many things. The fact that I do care about camera body toughness is not one of them.

@Adrian: People that want/need a 7DIII don't care about lens size, they're going to put the biggest lenses on the body they can find anyways, i.e. the long tele lenses (EF100-400, EF500, etc).

"The 90D is in many ways the Canon equivalent of the Sony a99ii - it exists primarily to appease DSLR diehards, and it won't be further developed."

I think you're jumping the gun here. Canon still sell a lot more DSLRs than mirrorless as far as I can tell, including APS-C, so they would be stupid to stop developing them at the moment. As far as lenses are concerned, they have an enormous base of DSLR users out there who will still want to buy lenses for some time to come. EF-S lenses have been drip-fed for ages, but that comes more down to driving people towards FF. I think we will see more lenses yet.

jonby - Personally I think there will be a couple more DSLRs from Canon, i.e. the 1DXiii which we all know is coming for the Olympics, and probably also another cheap Rebel for beginners.

There is no logical reason for Canon to launch a 7DMkiii this late in the day. Mirrorless cameras have far more potential for sports/wildlife shooters, primarily because they have the ability to achieve much faster burst speeds and much more accurate and consistent AF.

DSLR diehards? Why should ppl go for ultra expensive RF glass when there is plenty of ef and ef-s stuff, not mentioning the second hand market? I agree with your arguments in favor of mirrorless in general but the Rs in particular are too premature and the glass is priced beyond reason.

With years to create and improve on the old Sony sensors, Canon have shown their new sensor is disappointing. It should have been class leading, but isn't.

And of course canon's best sellers are all cheap sub 500 cameras.

Guess you can't read.
The 90D is selling better than any Sony on Amazon US. It sells for a lot more than $500.
But Sony's best sellers are a cheap sub $999 FF and a sub $500 APSC camera.

Nice try though, LOL!

Of course it's selling better, it just came out. The EOS R was up there when it first came out too, where is that pos at now?

Also yes the cheapest Sony camera cost more than the most expensive Canon outside the new one. Other than that Sony holds 8/10 top mirrorless cameras including the Rviii, 7iii

"Of course it's selling better, it just came out."
As did the A6400, A6100, A6600 and A7R4. But the best selling Sony is the A7ii for under $1000. and it is in #27 place under "Digital Cameras".

Off course they will find it confusing; they are SONY users...

Are you new to this website or something ;-)

I believe the reviewers are referring to the fact that the live view menu has more options than the regular one, and to see those options, you need to go into live view. It’s like Canon designed the camera for two different users. Those who will only shoot through the ovf and those who will only shoot using the screen.

Historically the Canon menu system has been pretty good but, just like the Sony menus (which we regularly criticise for the same reason), its layout is becoming overwhelmed by the number of options included in it.

The right-to-left arrangement of tabs means having to make more clicks than a vertical arrangement (that every brand except Sony and Canon use), and the number of pages now mean the simple Camera/Playback/WiFi... system isn't fine-grained enough to let you know where in the 7 or so pages of the 'Camera' tab you'll find things.

Isn't all this the reason that Canon supplies the 'My Menu' option.

With 5 minutes time photographers can easily organize fast access to their most frequently used menu items. I don't know how many other camera manufacturers have been this courteous. A large menu either vertical or horizontal cannot be a review negative with this option available.

I agree. I shoot a lot of hummingbirds and the OVF is still the best way to catch something that moves that quickly (and BTW, the OVF PDAF array in the 90D is doing a remarkably good job of finding hummingbird eyes). OTOH, there are times when the low light focusing and other features of live view are essential and having an EVF would be very cool.

@MGradyC false equivalence.

Exposure is a spectrum open to interpretation but nobody wants to deliberately mis their focus on a moving subject.

@kreislauf
I said that Canon is on the same old game they ever have done. Nothing new. More MP, more mirror... Same old game.
And this game works because a lot of people didn't see beyond that.

@kreislauf Yip, good pick up there, there seems to be a lot of self reassuring happening here

tony2: so your business decision would have been to just abandon X million EF users with existing lenses and accessories and force them to use adaptors with mirrorless cameras. Yeah, that's sounds very clever to me.
And i don't see IQ to be below Sony AXXX series overall.

No, adapter is not the way to support EF mount. Many DSLR users want an OVF and EF mount, simple as that. And there are millions. Go and talk to DSLR users, many not ready yet to switch to mirrorless.
So Canon is wise supporting them and the EF lens for many years.

Betting for the R system, but yet they keep bringing out DSLRs, weird. . . .

Calling everyone clueless who is not like you is arrogance.

Keep your self-centered opinion to yourself.
A lot of people I know still prefer a dslr, me myself included.
Film cameras are still in use today, what makes you think DSLRs will die off so easily.

As long global shutter isn't available in mirrorless cameras yet, it's not an option to me. That retarded banding in artificial light at high shutter speeds you see in an EVF (and live view) is an eyesore. EVF is still hot garbage to me untuk they can get that problem solved.

You're way smarter than people with mirrors....if anybody doesn't believe it, you'll tell them.

@toni2 why do we need to "see beyond that"? old game?

or said differently: why do we need to buy the newest sh!t all the time???

With canon superior ergonomics, lovely Canon colours, great live view/touch screen I'd prefer the "wagon wheel' Canon over the "Penny Farthing" Sony any day

Canon bodies are tested on the worst Canon lens in terms of sharpness, 50mm f/1.4. You have to keep that in mind, but to summarize.. differences are so minor and Canon is on par with IQ, in some aspects better in some not. Regarding EVF it is personal preference, there is M6II for EVF lovers. OVF still today has some benefits especially in this price range.

My approach is to test a camera at default settings and then make my tweak. After, I tweak settings to best match Case 1 or Case 3 on 1dx II, tweaking settings like AF switching, etc based on the situation. I always set 1st/2nd priority to ‘focused”. I did try -1/+1 on several settings to improve AF. Bear in mind, I was in YNP/GTNP trying to capture wildlife and stopped changing settings at a point. The camera did not have any issue locking focus and dealing with normal movement. The challenge occurred when action was more chaotic as burst rate increase. I switched back to 1dx II for reliability and to keep shot count below 1k in case I decide to return. I really like the IQ, ergo, noise control but the viewfinder AF & effect on burst rate are a problem for me. I agree with the DPR comment on high ISO JPG.I think this camera is a good solution for a broad range of photography.

@Steve: Exactly! And no fiddling with custom settings required to get these superior results either.

And yet it does much better in live view mode without diving into the custom AF settings.

I still dont understand how needing to tweak half a dozen settings to try and get the camera to work in different situations is meant to lend it credibility. Especially when the same camera can get the same or better results with no tweaks in liveview mode.

I agree that's what they might have done, but the so-called 4K output is crap, soft as mush and no way could it be 3.6K just upscaled 10% to account for the huge difference in quality to competitors, even the 1" sensors are doing vastly better. If it is 3.6K upscaled they have done some weird processing crap, looks like Gaussian blur.

Nowhere has Canon officially said this is the replacement for the 7Dii, so not really fair to compare it to that

It seems Sony has become complacent then. Perhaps there will be a A7000 APS-C model with the 26MP sensor, however I am not sure there is much of a price gap left for them to fit it into the market. I don't think customers are willing to pay for much more than about $1500 for an APS-C model camera - the a6600 is already $1400

Sony sensor is still superior in few aspects; such as cleaner base ISO and sharper, more details up to iso 6400 compares to 90d. In short, better DR. The 3-years old sensor also allows 6k to 4k full sensor readout video that results in very sharp 4k.

sony aps-c sensor loses in resolution and rolling shutter compares to Canon.

I think Sony has produced better aps-c sensor right now but being held back by their higher ups that want to give more spotlights in the flagship a9ii and the mythical a7s iii

DOF between your lens and the tested lens are different.
But I do also think they are reducing tracking quality for market segmentation reasons.

DPR guys have no experience in tuning the AF. In FB & Fredmiranda group, even in DPR forum itself, those who know how to use DSLRs (fine tuning the AF cases/tracking/settings ) reports excellent results.

"those who know how to use DSLRs (fine tuning the AF cases/tracking/settings ) reports excellent results."

How come it isn't necessary to do any of this to obtain better results in live view?

Jack Jian - We have regularly tested multiple AF settings to find the most effective ones. However, it's got to the point where most cameras can handle the (relatively simple) challenge of our bike test without you needing to customize anything. There are no distractions and nothing passing between the camera and the subject (which is the main thing you would expect to have to tell a camera, since it can't know what the 'correct' response is).

If you have to fine-tune the AF system for even simple subjects, then the AF system is significantly less good at tracking than most of its peers.

Just to clarify Richard, you guys don't do any AF micro adjust to the DSLR before shooting? What do you mean by "fine tune" ? I don't care as much what the other guys mean by fine tuning but what DPR means by it is important since you are doing the tests.

Getting to the point, does DPR calibrate (which the 90D can do) the lens/body when testing DSLRs before this AF test?

@Max Iso You have asked a very important question!

When there is such a large difference between live view and viewfinder AF, then an evaluation of the need to do AFMA is required.

Interested in a response from Richard Butler on this.

I'll have to ask Dan, when he's next in the office. I was the test target in this instance, so don't know the fine detail of the setup.

"If you have to fine-tune the AF system for even simple subjects, then the AF system is significantly less good at tracking than most of its peers."

Exactly. All this means is that the camera is offloading work onto the user. Work that distracts. Work that may result in lost shots.

And the fact that the very same camera can achieve better results with the same sensor and lens and without tweaking in liveview is very telling.

Ok thank you Richard, i really hope the answer is yes, for the sake of peace on this forum. I can only image the backlash should we hear DSLRs are not calibrated when testing AF, and to a degree, that backlash would be justified.

I have had DSRLs that were, uncalibrated, back focusing by a good 6", which means a subject moving towards me would return very few keepers but that is not an accurate assessment of the DSLR.

On the other hand if they weren't calibrated it would likely excuse Canon's newest offerings' results.

DPR 2 things, after this I wont bother you any more.

AF.. If you have to ask or look it up or take it up with... dont bother. I dont care what you come up with. AFmicro or finetuning AF settings are 2 completely different things.
Menu's.. Serious? This canon system menu lacking?! This is the first time I read this in over 20 years about the canon menu. If you like the Fuji better, well, get a Fuji and good luck.

Btw am using most brands for over 2 decades myself. Intensely! Wont go into IQ but on ergonomics and AF you need to read up. Really.

The entire Custom Function II is dedicated to AF tuning, which in practice is operated with suitable AF "zone" modes, for which a joystick is there.

Now, look what DPR put up there:

"...Unfortunately the 90D's AF adjustments, located within the camera's confusing and unorganized Custom Function menu, are not scenario-specific and worse, they are far from straightforward..."

Which I would call out as a big BS. How do others understood it and get good results?

Also here is the following sentence:
" ...For testing, we left most options at their defaults, but with some trial and error you may find adjusting them improves your hit rate..."

So, without any knowledge about it, they tested with out of the box defaults and then blame the camera, like seriously?

For those coming from basic DSLR to mirrorless, you folks may not understand how OVF AF works exactly in real life and will always related to how LV/Sensor based AF works in ML, but sorry, PD AF simply doesn't work that way.

Interesting Jack, it would explain why even the 80D was reported worse than i found my 70D to perform. I remember thinking the "superior" 45pt system cant be worse, what the hell?

Makes me wonder if other DSLR "tests" were victim to random lens calibration inadequacies. I mean damn, im just some guy but the first thing i do is calibrate lenses when i buy them, or after temps change a lot.

I haven't had a chance to discuss this with Dan, but I have finally had time to look closely at the results:

For a start, it's important to distinguish between calibration (AF micro-adjust for the inherent imprecision of secondary sensor PDAF) and AF configuration (telling the camera about the kind of movement it should expect, and how it should respond to it).

Looking at the straight-on OVF results, it's clear that the camera is not measuring and anticipating the distance and speed of the subject, so it's not an AF micro-adjust issue (which would give a consistently slightly back- or front-focused result).

The camera could, perhaps, get better results if the configuration was changed (as the text states). However, I think Dan was right to criticise the performance, even at the default settings, for the following reasons:

This test, particularly the straight line test, should be easy for a modern camera. The subject approaches at a consistent, predictable rate, and the camera isn't being asked to choose AF points (two of the three parameters that Canon lets you adjust. The third: how to respond to subjects passing in front of the subject isn't relevant).

It performs pretty poorly, despite being set to 'all-round' settings that should be able to cope fine with such a predictable subject.

That's before we get to the weave test, where it's more reasonable to expect to need to adjust configuration.

Canon has not included the much more accessible presets interface from its higher end cameras (it's easier to reconfigure a 1D X II than the 90D, perversely).

The 90D can do both the straight and the more complex 'weave' test without the need to reconfigure, in live view mode.

I think we could have better explained the reason for thinking this isn't good enough. But I agree with Dan that it isn't.

There's inevitably going to be something in focus *somewhere* in the frame.

@Richard Butler Here is a link to my evaluation of the full-size photos and DPP screens showing AF points. https://www.dpreview.com/forums/post/63172387

The viewfinder test AF point was placed on the darkest lowest contrast portion of the subject (face and neck) throughout the 16 frame series. By comparison, the LV test AF point covered the face and vest and arms. I believe that the 90D viewfinder AF tests were faulty in technique and therefore the conclusion was not accurate.

In the Canon 5D Mark IV review is an excellent example of proper placement of the AF point when in viewfinder Servo single point mode. They got very good results in the test sequence. Sure the 5D Mark IV has a more powerful viewfinder AF system, but I would love to see the 90D test done with a high contrast area under the AF point.

Photo of bike rider and AF point in this post https://www.dpreview.com/forums/post/63176774

In the case of the Sony A7RIII AF test, the focus point was placed on the bright and high contrast vest versus the dark and low contrast face in the Canon 90D review. Not surprising that a performance difference is created. I don't have software that will display the actual AF point in this Sony test photo.
https://www.dpreview.com/forums/post/63178699

Well that doesn't seen all that fair, although i doubt we will ever see retests.

We're well into the realms of speculation at this point. What you describe contradicts the things I've been told by Canon (including in-depth AF setup briefings by CPS product experts, when reviewing their pro sports cameras), so we're going to have to accept that we have different understandings of the behavior in single point mode. I'll certainly check again next time Canon briefs us on a DSLR, though.

It's impossible to test AF in a manner that's 100% identical but, having shot this test a lot (and occasionally having had to re-shoot it), we've found it to be pretty consistent in its results.

Ultimately, even if the 90D did perform slightly better with a higher contrast target, the thing we're asking it to do is not especially challenging and it's something that a user might reasonably expect their camera to do, out-of-the-box. The majority of cameras do better than this and the 90D itself does it much better in live view mode.

There are some drawbacks when turning BSI. This is why Canon stays front illuminated. The color response suffers a bit and this can be noticed, even if hardly, in a comparison between Nikon D810 and D850, or, Sony A7R and A7R II/III/IV. The neutral tones are not so neutral with BSI.

Why does BSI cause that? It doesn’t make any sense from a technology perspective.

Maybe one should anyway not get too hung up on awards or percentage scores.
The content of the review gives ample information to rate the camera according to ones own tastes.

Richard,
"It didn't get an award because you don't get all those good things at the same time"
Sony cameras haven't given all the good things at once as well but somehow DPReview have been quite generous to give gold and silver to almost all Sony cameras. Take A6300. It had great AF, good sensor and good 4K video (in terms of details) but things like bad battery life, bad EVF and LCD, no touch screen, significant rolling shutter, no IBIS, dropping RAW to 12bit in many shooting modes, cluttered menus, overheating problems, lack of headphone socket did not stop you giving it Gold Award at 85 points. Similar approach for A6500 (though it got Silver with 85 points).
These drawbacks are trivial if it is Sony?

On dpreview anything with a Sony badge is gold. Just look at the consistent Sony advertising at the top and you will understand...

@Richard: By that reasoning, no DSLR can now get the gold award. According to what you've written, offering an OVF would be their downfall. Kinda like saying you'd fail a car for having four doors rather than two, 'cause you don't like that you can't get in the front through the rear doors.

It is obvious that DPReview reviewers have been fascinated by Sony technologies - who haven’t? The industry-leading technologies are great individually, but they can easily distract one from evaluating the total experience of capturing images. The scores give a sense of rationality and the awards a sense of drama - they mean little. One should look for purchase guidance by carefully extracting value from the contents. If you are lazy and jump straight to the last section (and complain about the score and/or the award), it’s your problem.

"If you are lazy and jump straight to the last section (and complain about the score and/or the award), it’s your problem."
No, that isn't a personal issue. Most people (not me) look at the final score and award, so those must be evaluated veeeeeery carefully, without being fascinated by one spec of the camera, ignoring drawbacks. DPReview is the biggest camera related site so their responsibility is huge (if they care). It is just unfair for other brands if one brand gets shiny scores just because it can do 1-2 things better (and sucks in other areas where other brands may excel).

Ben, big bravo, this is the COMMENT OF THE YEAR (in the good sense), by far, in my opinion! 👍🏻

P. S.: and - 1. Ben is not alone and 2. Sanity will prevail - this was once THE BEST photo gear reviewing site. And no, this is not about Canon, or Nikon, or whatever - this is about something else.

ozturert - All your criticisms of the a6300 are true, and most of them were covered in the review. However, for all its flaws, the a6300 had the best video in its class, and some of the best autofocus, which made it very capable as a camera overall. Yes, there were annoying aspects dotted around (as with all cameras) but it was more advanced than most of its contemporaries. It wouldn't now earn a Gold award (this problem of awards becoming outdated is something I'm currently pushing to address).

We try not to be dazzled by technology, but some of the things Sony has introduced in the past few years have been really photographically beneficial (its Eye-AF system, for instance). We have continued to highlight the shortcomings in the UI and menus, much to the annoyance of some Sony users.

It's not just one brand that gets shiny scores. Canon, Panasonic and Olympus have all earned Silver awards recently, Fujifilm might have more Gold-winning cameras in its current line-up than Sony.

@ozturert: I should have been better at my wording. I did not mean “your problem” in the sense of blaming certain readers for their habits. I meant to say the score and award at the end of a review are constructed with certain biases — don’t believe them, or be frustrated by them. (Even researchers at universities have their own agendas.)

AshleyMC - I'm not going to say we don't have biases: we're human, so it's inevitable that we do. However, there are a group of us with different shooting styles, backgrounds and expectations, which helps to balance-out any unconscious preferences.

What we absolutely don't have is 'an agenda.' We do not have a specific aim we're trying to achieve, beyond trying to present a balanced assessment of each camera to help people reach an informed conclusion (even if that conclusion disagrees with ours).

Richard Butler - I wrote earlier: “ The scores give a sense of rationality and the awards a sense of drama - they mean little. One should look for purchase guidance by carefully extracting value from the contents.“

I maintain that position - i.e., I consider your observations as written in the main sections, but I, like certain readers, doubt that your score/award scheme in the final section has any meaningful merits.

The A6300 came out three and a half years ago and it was way ahead of it's time with some very impressive features, that's why it got a gold rating. 90D is a brand new camera with features four years behind, why should that reward it a gold rating? If canon releases a VHS player in 2019 should we all be "wow, amazing!" ?

"Even researchers at universities have their own agendas."

This should NEVER be accepted as a "just the way the world works" kinda "truth". Biases in academia are an extremely serious issue, and one that our survival may depend on eradicating. I say this with zero sense of humour - it IS an extremely serious issue.

Phantasmagorical,
"The A6300 came out three and a half years ago and it was way ahead of it's time with some very impressive features"
Like what? Only improved AF and 4K video. That was it. How about locking due to heat? How about crawling AF in barely low light? How about no touch screen when even some entry level cameras have it? How about industry leading (!) rolling shutter in 4K video? How about lossy compressed RAWs? How about live view issues during high fps shooting (compared to "competing" DSLRs in 2016)? How about complicated menus? How about sluggish operation in menus (settings do not change instantly like you'll see in all other rivals)?
"Way ahead of its time"... Yeah :)
At this web site, none of these matter when there are some goodies with AF and 4K video in a Sony... You automatically get Gold Award.

90D
Landscape - H MP->Good, DR ->OK
Action - Servo AF (FD) Single pt with assist ->OK, 3D tracking ->NG, no IBIS -> No problem
Wild life - H MP -> Good
Live View AF -> Good
Out of camera Jpeg -> Good
Bloger -> Good
Most of my fast lens f/2.8 and bigger without IS, no problem for me.
This is how I will grade this camera. Know the + & - points. Use on the suitable type of photography.

@Ben. Totally on the mark Ben! Entirely my experience too! On DPR nowadays if it has no EVF and shoots perfect 4K it is useless to expect a medal and usefull rating at all. No agenda? That is the definition of NOT WITH INTENT. Personal preference is another matter.

@Leandros - Calm down and get down from your stiff high horse. I was noting “having an agenda” as an aspect of the status quo. (The foundation of the Internet itself, initially university research projects funded by the US Department of Defense, was not created with “peace and joy among loving brothers” as its noble goal.) At the same time, unconscious biases and preferences influence many actions in daily life, including “having an agenda” behind a certain action. It would be naïve to assume DPReview is a journalistic outlet that is plain, balanced, objective, scientific, impersonal, not caring about popularity and hit-counts.

@Ashley: Nearly all the things you claim it isn't I'm pretty sure were Phil's goals when he started the site. You may not be aware of the history of the site, but Ben knows it first hand, so I think we should take his opinion over yours.

Do whatever you like. I don’t know Ben. I don’t know you (and don’t care about you). It is ridiculous that you bring Ben into your confused reply above. I’m not adding my view here in order to be “better” than anyone.

Has no one ever noticed that it was about the same time amazon bought DPR when all of the "Sony great -Nikon good - Canon bad" theme started?

Does anyone know how much markup amazon makes, respectively, off the products of each of those three camera makers? I'm going to be so bold as to guess that as a percentage of the total sale price, amazon gets a bigger cut from Sony than from Nikon and even less from Canon.

You can be as bold as you like, but your speculation is baseless.

DPReview is run as a separate, autonomous business. DPReview writers (the only people who have any say in what's written or published) do not know Amazon's margins, nor have we ever been given any direction by Amazon.

A lot of Sony products got middling reviews for a number of years after the Amazon buyout because many of their cameras were pretty middling at the time. I personally got abuse for my criticisms of the not-very-likeable a350. We were also criticised when we didn't give the RX100 and original a7 cameras Gold awards (because, although both were recognizable breakthroughs, they were both rough-enough around the edges that we didn't feel they deserved it).

At the time of the Amazon buyout, Canon made the best DSLRs and we were accused of being 'pro-Canon,' then, shortly afterwards, Nikon brought out the D3 and D300, which were excellent cameras, and so they got good reviews.

In the same manner, Sony started getting more good reviews when its products started getting better.

To this day, Canon still mostly makes very good cameras and they tend to get pretty good reviews. But it's not like pre 2008, where most of their products stood out against the competition.

I don't know any more than you about Amazon's margins on products, but if you go back and read the reviews, the relationship between review outcomes is explained much more easily by which cameras were good than any conspiracy theory.

@MGradyC: not sure you’re right here. We can talk a lot about how to influence a market, from theory to practice, but I believe Amazon only has a limited / moderate impact here. The entire Sony “madness”, however, if you do some root cause analysis, started with someone from the DPR team (no, it’s not Richard) who developed, in my opinion, an extreme bias towards Sony (and other brands, started to “suffer”). And I developed a bias afterwards towards all DPR Sony reviews because I know that, in practice, cameras from top innovative brands produce roughly the same results, and all have both strengths and weaknesses. Sony IS (without any doubt) an innovative camera brand, and they have certainly modified the MILC footprint (in a good way), but, again, some others are no slouch, and some are even better, at least from the usability perspective. I own / owned multiple camera systems - if you cannot do a job with either C or N, you will probably not be able with a Sony, either.

Sony is obviously driving more sales since the Sony buyers are system jumpers. They need to re-buy their whole gear from scratch, and because the system is relatively new, there isn't as much of a used market for it. So whatever may be the case in terms of endorsements, I would agree that being owned by Amazon is unfortunate while showing favour towards Sony products.

Mike, you're becoming a troll, I'm afraid. Try to maintain a position of neutral logic, and you'll get a lot more respect.

There are plenty of camera options that do everything well enough.
Seriously. It’s true.

It’s amazing the conspiracy theorists here that think only Sonys get the gold awards and Canon Is ineligible because of some grudge.

I applaud Canon for seemingly making big improvements in the sensor technology. It’s the first time in a few years anyone really could say that.

But they completely botched the AF now?

Come on.

Oh. I shoot Sony. So by default I always get no respect here.

I shoot Sony as well and I couldn't agree more with davids8560 statement. The a7riii is great in many situations, but in low light and other situations I reach for the a7iii

It’s easy to miss the fact that not every one is as convinced by Sony as you.

ok, but less resolution, softer IQ, worse IQ, fake 4K video, 120fps, in 1080p, with no sound, nor AF, worse form factor, heavier... When everyone has a 4K monitor/TV, people will notice, how soft canon image looks like... But I'm also talking about its Dpreview score... It doesn't make any sense... Yes!!! I have a great ergonomic camera however it only shoots VGA video, but who cares?!?! Right?!?! How can a camera that produces worse footage in terms of IQ/Low light has the same score!??!?! This makes me laugh... And by the way, Canon Colors are a myth. I prefer Sony Colors anytime... Lenses aren't better, they are cheaper... ok, you can still say that cheaper is better ;)

It’s fine to continue labouring under your own misapprehensions , most are satisfied with what canon produces and don’t care about spec sheet comparisons. Real world use demonstrates you can succeed with most gear, nirvana is just a mirage.

FOR EVERYONE IN THIS FORUM...Don't take "flip 21" seriously. S/he is a troll, probably a paid one or a very unhappy person. He does the same in other forums.

Dude can you read? LOL he's talking about "raw image quality," not AF hahaha Besides Sony will never reach Dual Pixel AF, so you're still wrong hahah bye bye

MikeRan: "No they aren’t. Did you read about the AF performance"

Because they tested with a lens that is know for being slow at tracking.

"Sony will never reach Dual Pixel AF"

What makes you think it is or ever has been superior?

"Because they tested with a lens that is know for being slow at tracking."

A lens which worked much better in live view mode and so obviously wasnt the cause for the poor OVF performance.

1) Y1 applies a lot of sharpening in default picture style for videos.
2) I never stop the video and zoom 100% to check sharpness. When things are moving, it is things like motion handling/colour/contrast are more important.

moimoi, NEVER !
Welcome to 2019. there are cameras and phones that can take both Video and Still with great quality.
I just need to switch to another brand.