will47 Loc: Indianapolis, IN

I was at the camera store today and looked at the 90D. I have a perfectly good 7D Mark ll. I shoot birds, animals, landscapes etc. That's what I prefer. The 90D's biggest asset seems to be in the megapixels in the sensor. I would be going from about 22 to 32. Speed is about the same but that is not the biggest priority for me. He told me that Canon would not be coming out with a 7D Mark lll. This is of course just an opinion question, but would this switch be advisable? I have no complaints with the 7D to this point and it does not have a large shutter count

Kmgw9v Loc: Miami, Florida

If the new camera would make you happy, and your financial obligations are fully met; it is a no brainer.
Go for it—-life is short, and one can always use more megapixels.

TriX Loc: Raleigh, NC

Personally, I would stay with the 7D2, but YOU may have different priorities. Here’s a question: what features/performance of the 90D (other than the resolution) do you feel obviates some of the advantages of the 7D2, such as the rugged build, AF system and dual card slots?

amfoto1 Loc: San Jose, Calif. USA

Generally speaking, yes... for you it probably makes sense to go with the 90D.

The higher pixel count (32.5MP.... versus 20MP in 7DII) would be great for landscape photography and the camera should also be fine for birds and other critters.

I don't know what "etc." photography is, so can't advise you about that

The 90D has an excellent 45-point AF system (inherited from 80D, with an added feature or two), large 100% viewfinder, frame rate that matches the 7DII's and more. It's probably the 90D is able to do these things thanks to the Digic 8 processor it uses. The 7D Mark II needs dual Digic 6 processors AND a separate chip running the AF system alone, to have the same level of performance. In a sense, we're benefiting from the quest for 4K video, which appears to have required that big increase in processor power.

A possible downside to the 90D is that it will shoot CR3 RAWs, which older software can't handle. More than 50% increase in resolution will also make for much bigger image files, which in turn will demand bigger memory cards (only single SD slot in 90D.... versus dual slots in 7DII: one CF, one SD). The 90D will also want a more powerful post-processing computer and will fill up hard drives a lot faster.

If you use a tripod for landscape photography, you would probably like the 90D's articulated LCD screen. That would be good for low angle macro work, too. Lots to like about the 90D!

I shoot a lot of sports with my two 7DIIs and won't be "updating" to 90D. For sports, in particular, the older camera still has a better 65-point AF system with some useful features the 90D appears to lack (it doesn't have the two Expansion Points patterns the 7DII has, for example). The 7DII's viewfinder is also slightly larger (100%, 1.0X magnification... versus 100%, 0.95% mag in the 90D). The 7DII is also able to buffer more images, though that may be because of it's smaller image file size, more than the size of the buffer itself.

Plus, the 7DII is mostly clad in magnesium (instead of plastic), appears to be better sealed for weather resistance, and has a higher durability rated shutter (200,000 clicks... versus either 100K or 150K, depending upon what you read about the 90D). The battery grip for the 7DII, which I use as well, also have a more complete set of secondary controls than the grip for 90D. The BG-E16 for the 7DII has a second joystick and AF pattern toggle switch. The BG-E14 the 90D uses (same as 80D and 70D) doesn't have those. Anyone using the vertical battery grip a lot for portrait orientation shooting will need a long thumb with the 90D!

I'm not dissing the 90D. It looks to be a great camera! A 32.5MP APS-C sensor is a real game changer. (It also suggest we'll see an 83MP full frame camera, since that's what this pixel density scales up to in full frame.)

Imagine doing some multi-shot panoramas with the 90D.... compositing three or four 32.5MP shots into a single image! Or, how about focus stacking with it? Should make for some pretty impressive stuff!

I can't help but wonder if Canon really won't be coming out with a 7D Mark III. It's been a pretty darned successful model line, to just walk away from it. The 90D is good... but not really a replacement. Rumor has it that Nikon is considering discontinuing the D500, while might give Canon a real edge with a 7DIII, if they chose to do it.

imagemeister Loc: mid east Florida

If you are serious about your work .....the 90D will have a much better sensor all the way around - enough said ?
.

jeep_daddy Loc: Prescott AZ

I would buy one and hold onto your 7D II. I have a 7D II and really don't see a need for the 90D because I have a 5D IV. So I have more megapixels with the ff body, but when I need more reach and I know that the lighting conditions will be toward the good side, I'll use the 7D.

TriX Loc: Raleigh, NC

[quote=imagemeister]If you are serious about your work .....the 90D will have a much better sensor all the way around - enough said ?
.[/quote

The resolution is clearly higher and the DR is about a stop better, but only below ISO 400 (after which they are identical) and the low light high ISO performance is almost identical.

will47 Loc: Indianapolis, IN

I also have a 6D Mark ll. So holding on to the 7D is not a bad idea?

will47 Loc: Indianapolis, IN

I also have a 6D Mark ll

imagemeister Loc: mid east Florida

[quote=TriX][quote=imagemeister]If you are serious about your work .....the 90D will have a much better sensor all the way around - enough said ?
.[/quote

The resolution is clearly higher and the DR is about a stop better, but only below ISO 400 (after which they are identical) and the low light high ISO performance is almost identical.[/quote]

That is better enough for me ! .......assuming you BELIEVE the methodology of the graph and the authors.

TriX Loc: Raleigh, NC

I’ve read their testing methodology, and although the absolute DR values vary from tester to tester, their comparative values seem to jibe with my experience (and the source of their data is solid), but if you know a better source, I’m always interested.

Cheers

Ched49 Loc: Pittsburgh, Pa.

The 90D has 33 mp, 7D has 20 mp. 5 years separate these two cameras. 6D mkII has 24mp. Yes, take the 90D

imagemeister Loc: mid east Florida

I am skeptical of anything and everything on the internet.....but it is still quite early for a consensus on the exact 90D's performance - but I am reasonably confident it will overshadow the 7DII - if Canon has learned anything in the last 5 years ! ?
.

TriX Loc: Raleigh, NC

Personally, I would prefer a rugged, pro grade crop body with the 90D improvements in sensor technology (7D3), but Canon’s marketing group doesn’t consult me (I can’t understand why not) 🤯

will47 Loc: Indianapolis, IN

What could I expect, in regards to IQ, if I do get the 90D.