[Arthur Macmillan]

To make it clearer,  if you are using a standard 85f1.8 not even f1.4, at 1.5 meters depth of field is 2cm before or after subject, focus differs whether camera focuses on eyes or nose...
So if you have mirrorless without eye autofocus or an SLR without AFMA done perfectly well and autofocus point perfectly chosen you have very high chances of having out of focus portraits.

I should have addressed that quote too.  I've said it before, and I'll say it again:  All modern interchangeable cameras are modern miracles to me.  I've been using my low budget Olympus E-M10 III a lot lately, just for fun.  In most ways the 90D works better, but the little camera is fun!  And plus I can mount any lens I have on it.  Nah, I just am trying to understand the strengths of the systems.  Even my EOS Rebel XT can take very good pictures.  But life is much easier with the 90D.  I always try to move up in cameras.  Since the 90D is my top camera, and I shoot nature, the next camera will have to outperform it in my eyes.  That is the only time I get critical.  When I am trying to find something better than what I had - usually I replace my top camera, not supplement it.  None of my extra cameras were selected and bought by me.  They are mostly castoffs.  The Olympus was a gift, that was given right back!  Oh, well! 

-Mac

Hi Mac ... 
                Yeah, the 90D takes a lot of beating for birding and wildlife with it's high resolution 32 Mps APSc sensor ...... I wish Nikon would produce/had produced a D500 II with the same resolution ....... maybe in ML form one day ??
  .....   a 45 Mps FF sensor cropped to APSc is about 19 Mps ......... the 90D gives you about 60% more resolution, which means more pixels on your bird which is where you want them ...... not mention the advantage of the 1.6 crop over Nikon's 1.5 crop ..... for even more reach .....

 ...... however, that  very clear  high pixel density advantage  didn't seem to resonate here !!

Go well !!

===================================================================
Says Dave:
Hi Mac ... 
                Yeah, the 90D takes a lot of beating for birding and wildlife with it's high resolution 32 Mps APSc sensor ...... I wish Nikon would produce/had produced a D500 II with the same resolution ....... maybe in ML form one day ??
  .....   a 45 Mps FF sensor cropped to APSc is about 19 Mps ......... the 90D gives you about 60% more resolution, which means more pixels on your bird which is where you want them ...... not mention the advantage of the 1.6 crop over Nikon's 1.5 crop ..... for even more reach .....

 ...... however, that very clear high pixel density advantage didn't seem to resonate here !!

Go well !!

Mac Replies:
(somehow I can't remember how to qoute posts,  and reply to that without simply copy and paste, sorry)

Dave, I love this forum because there is a lot of knowledge here.  But certain things are simply ignored.  The simple truth is higher pixel density can resolve the most detail.  And in many situations you simply can't get close enough to fill the frame.  When something in the screen is small in scale, you simply cannot view the small something unless that relatively small area has enough pixels!

The 90D is the best camera I have used by far.  I know quite well that some of the mirroless cameras have features that would extend my capabilities.  But they don't make one with the sensor and form factor I want, so it doesn't really matter to me what else they have.  I've got the money.  Nobody makes the camera...yet. 

Great to hear from you Dave.  I have to love a man who loves numbers!

-Mac