06-07-2021, 01:02 AM
Dave Manze,
I just wrote a reply to Klaus and did the same thing. What I prefer to do is to write a response with my word processor, and then past it into reply. OK, you said:
Hi Mac ....
(I just wrote long thread and accidentally clicked on a button and lost it all .... )
So I'll ask simply what is the problem using the 90D ??
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
I like the 90D! But really with the 100-400mm Mk.II. I realize the Mk I version is a great lens in it own right, but with a long lens you want the better IS. My concern with Cindy is that she generally has gotten used to shooting at higher shutter speeds with higher ISO's than I think is possible with a 90D. It's sort of funny because all nature shooters develop their own styles. I usually shoot at an ISO speed that is a bit low, and take my chance with a longer shutter speed. I will post that Owl picture later when I read how. But that was extreme even for me. Shooting an Owl at 1/40sec and ISO 1250. The result was good enough though. The focal length was only 300mm.
But you question why not 90D has two answers. I'm not I consider the 70D and 90D adequately water resistant. I haven't had a camera broken from very light rain, but have had them stop temporarily. That does not give me confidence to recommend them. I normally stay indoors when it is wet out, but in Costa Rica you have to take what you get. I would still purchase the 90D over the 7D Mark II, but honestly, I would like to own one. I have really only owned one professional level camera and it is a confidence builder!
Keep in touch, brother!
-Mac
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Sorry I lost my reply to you Klaus: Good suggestions all, in short!
-Mac
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Rover, you said:
FWIW I feel the input conditions are a bit contradictory: compact but with both long reach AND the good lowlight capability/quality. Correct me if I am mistaken tho.
No, you are not mistaken. I think we can all agree photography is a game of compromises. We start by wanting everything, and we end with what we can live with!
Cindy and I were just discussing what would be our next cameras. She had believed that mirrorless would be lighter...Hah!
She was looking at Sony. I was thinking maybe R6/R5. In both cases they sort of fail.
Weight/Expense/IQ/Reach/ISO noise/Ergonomics/Battery life/Viewfinder/Ease of use/Build Qaulity
If you want them all it is two expensive. Rover, your and your wifes cameras are light with pretty good IQ. The 80D is one I think is a sleeper in the Canon line-up. For me, that would be capable enough I think. I skipped it going 70D to 90D, but I have read it is a great camera! It is 6:00pm here, I am forced to go looking for birds.
-Thanks for the input!
-Mac
P.S. - Wim, I will read your post when I get back!
I just wrote a reply to Klaus and did the same thing. What I prefer to do is to write a response with my word processor, and then past it into reply. OK, you said:
Hi Mac ....
(I just wrote long thread and accidentally clicked on a button and lost it all .... )
So I'll ask simply what is the problem using the 90D ??
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
I like the 90D! But really with the 100-400mm Mk.II. I realize the Mk I version is a great lens in it own right, but with a long lens you want the better IS. My concern with Cindy is that she generally has gotten used to shooting at higher shutter speeds with higher ISO's than I think is possible with a 90D. It's sort of funny because all nature shooters develop their own styles. I usually shoot at an ISO speed that is a bit low, and take my chance with a longer shutter speed. I will post that Owl picture later when I read how. But that was extreme even for me. Shooting an Owl at 1/40sec and ISO 1250. The result was good enough though. The focal length was only 300mm.
But you question why not 90D has two answers. I'm not I consider the 70D and 90D adequately water resistant. I haven't had a camera broken from very light rain, but have had them stop temporarily. That does not give me confidence to recommend them. I normally stay indoors when it is wet out, but in Costa Rica you have to take what you get. I would still purchase the 90D over the 7D Mark II, but honestly, I would like to own one. I have really only owned one professional level camera and it is a confidence builder!
Keep in touch, brother!
-Mac
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Sorry I lost my reply to you Klaus: Good suggestions all, in short!
-Mac
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Rover, you said:
FWIW I feel the input conditions are a bit contradictory: compact but with both long reach AND the good lowlight capability/quality. Correct me if I am mistaken tho.
No, you are not mistaken. I think we can all agree photography is a game of compromises. We start by wanting everything, and we end with what we can live with!
Cindy and I were just discussing what would be our next cameras. She had believed that mirrorless would be lighter...Hah!
She was looking at Sony. I was thinking maybe R6/R5. In both cases they sort of fail.
Weight/Expense/IQ/Reach/ISO noise/Ergonomics/Battery life/Viewfinder/Ease of use/Build Qaulity
If you want them all it is two expensive. Rover, your and your wifes cameras are light with pretty good IQ. The 80D is one I think is a sleeper in the Canon line-up. For me, that would be capable enough I think. I skipped it going 70D to 90D, but I have read it is a great camera! It is 6:00pm here, I am forced to go looking for birds.
-Thanks for the input!
-Mac
P.S. - Wim, I will read your post when I get back!