Bison Bud

I was reading the release data on Canon's new 90D this morning and was surprised to find that it has a 32.5 Mega-pixel APS-C sensor. Year's ago, when I bought my first DLSR, Canon was taking a lot of flack for moving to their 18 MP sensor and the primary complaint was that the smaller pixels had lower performance in low light conditions. While I realize that more pixels means more resolution and that the technology has advanced since then, isn't 32.5 MP for a crop sensor getting to the point that the low light performance would indeed suffer?

At least to me, low light capability is a primary concern. I generally shoot hand held and even at moderate light levels I try to keep my shutter speeds high on most images and if raising the ISO to get a higher shutter speed brings excessive noise into the capture, then I'm not going to be a happy camper. All current cameras tout their extended range of ISO, but there doesn't seem to be an easy way to compare actual performance at the higher ISO settings. What good is an ISO setting of say 64,000 or higher if the end result is unsuitable?

In any case, I'd be interested in hearing comments on what others think about taking an ASP-C sensor to 32.5 MP or even higher on down the road and how important "Usable ISO" range is to others out there. I will also be watching the 90D reviews very closely as they become available. Frankly, I'd buy a new camera today if I knew that the low light capability was vastly improved over my current DLSR, which isn't noted as being it's strong suit anyway. In any case, I'd appreciate your input on this and good luck and good shooting to all.

CHG_CANON Loc: the Windy City

If you don't preorder your EOS 90D by the end of business today, you'll be a failure as a photographer.
That's the confirmation you're asking for, right?

Fotoartist Loc: Detroit, Michigan

You didn't say what your current camera is and if you were unsatisfied with its noise performance.

Bison Bud

Yes, I am unhappy with the low light performance of my current Pentax K3 and thought that was implied in my last paragraph above. While the K3 meets most all of my needs and also uses the older lenses that I've had for years (so I won't be getting rid of it) it's low light performance is frustrating a best. While I am interested in upgrading, I am trying to do some research as to which camera would best fit my needs and wanted comments about Canon moving to the 32.5 MP sensor and how important "Usable ISO" range is to other photographers out there. I am not in any hurry to spend money on an upgrade without doing adequate research and I was hoping to get some input from this forum while doing so.

TriX Loc: Raleigh, NC

If low light performance is your top priority and you’re considering changing systems anyway, consider moving to full frame. In general, that will give you on average one stop better low light/high ISO performance than an APS-C sensor of the same vintage and resolution. All the current Canon FFs (5D3, 5D4, 6D2, R & RP) are very usable to ISO 12,800.

Btw, If you want to stay with Pentax, the K-1 II is excellent in that respect (more than 2 stops better than the K-3).

CHG_CANON Loc: the Windy City

Ask Chris T, he's the best UHH expert at topics like:

a) cameras he's never used
b) knowing more than the designers at Canon about creating new cameras and sensors

In the meantime, the equally knowledgeable UHH gear-heads will provide similar insights.

Usable ISO is a marketing term. When was the last time you were in an ISO-6400 situation or ISO-12,800 and so forth? Was it caused by the lighting or your choose of a slow lens? If you jump back n forth between brands, you might step back and take a longer look at how you're spending your money relative to your long-term photography goals.

rehess Loc: South Bend, Indiana, USA

The individual cells are about 75% as large as pixels on a 18mp sensor - 86% as large as pixels on a 24mp sensor. I am not an EE, let alone an engineer working for Canon. When Canon announced their 50mp “FF” cameras, I predicted they would be weak at higher ISO ..... they are, but only Canon knows if their sales are meeting goals.

Unless you need a camera right now, see what testers and early adopters report.

lamiaceae Loc: San Luis Obispo County, CA

For some time now the high-end but standard pixel count for APS-C cameras / sensors has been 24MP. I've noticed a few creeping higher to 26MP like a Fujifilm or two. I have a Pentax K-3 with 24MP and it's low light performance is terrible. I much prefer my Pentax K-5 (16MP) for low light and general handling. I guess the "Pixel War" is still on for Canon. It may be interesting to see what the new Fujifilm-Samsung sensor design alliance will yield.

Mac Loc: Pittsburgh, Philadelphia now Hernando Co. Fl.

That is what I thought. Smaller pixels give better resolution while larger pixels give better low light performance and color rendition. Though with the advances in sensor technology that may not be true anymore. At the same time though, both Nikon's and Canon's full frame pro level cameras are 20MP.
FWIW, my main camera is a Nikon Df which is 16MP and has outstanding low light/high ISO performance.

rehess Loc: South Bend, Indiana, USA

Actually high ISO is becoming a thing. Maybe 10% of photos I take with my Pentax KP are at ISO between 6400 and 12800, partly because I photograph by ambient light instead of flash and partly because I choose to put my power into camera body instead of into heavy and expensive lenses. I have learned by looking at the work of professionals that I can show context instead of doing everything ‘isolated’.

https://www.uglyhedgehog.com/t-380030-1.html

FreddB Loc: PA - Delaware County

For years, the focus/hype was on pixel count. Then, the discussion shifted to the quality/size of the individual pixels. Not being an engineer, but having only a modicum of common sense to rely on, it would seem that there is a limit to sensor size (there's only so much you can fit inside the camera), and the number of pixels that will fit on said sensor. So the engineer must choose; more smaller pixels or fewer larger pixels. Which will result in gathering more data, produce higher IQ, better photos? Which matters most, size or quantity? Or is it all hype? Which department has the final say, enginering or marketing? Gentlemen, start your engines! 😈😈😈

Mac Loc: Pittsburgh, Philadelphia now Hernando Co. Fl.

You may be right, maybe it's all hype. The advances may have made the size irrelevant.

Curve_in Loc: Virginia

For me, going to full frame camera with the newest processor I could afford got me a big improvement in low light. I think the higher MP hardly mater, but it does mean my hard drive will fill up faster. I just delete more images in my workflow these days.

BebuLamar

Usable ISO range is very important to me. It's the main advantage of digital vs film for me. However, I believe the 90D would have at least the same usable ISO range as the 80D.

dandi Loc: near Seattle, WA

Low light, high ISO is one of the reasons to move to Full frame camera. You said it is your primary concern, I don't understand why you are even considering crop sensor camera. With FF you will get at least 1 stop of light more than with Crop sensor.