Canon EOS 90D full specifications

[Sharlin]

Minor concern over Magnesium alloy body (7DmII) v Aluminum alloy (90D) and the extent of the weather sealing on the 90D.

The leaked spec sheet mentions aluminum alloy, but it's not clear whether it refers to the chassis or body. The 80D is polycarbonate shell with aluminum and glass fiber chassis. The 90D may or may not be the same.

I wouldn't worry too much about the weather sealing. Even the 80D has, according to Canon, a level of sealing equivalent to the original 7D. The 90D sealing may well be similar to that of the 7D2.

 

[dtaylor]

1) No IBIS. This is a breakthrough technology whose time has come, and its very unfortunate Canon didn't include it.

Most Canon lenses have OIS, including their amateur zooms. IBIS is not a breakthrough if you have IS lenses. I get that there are some gems which do not have IS (24-70 f/2.8L II; 22mm f/2 EF-M), but at this point you almost have to work to put together an EF lens collection without IS.

IBIS is not a breakthrough in this context. I would like to see Canon introduce it, but it's no reason to wait on one of these two cameras.

2) Face detect and other AI-assisted tracking tech. Canon is well behind on eye/subject tracking, and the company doesn't have a great track record of continuously updating products after they're released. There's a decent chance the baked-in eye tracking in the 90D won't get an update

You don't even know if it needs an update. We know from the new iTR sensor that it's likely improved. Why are you trashing a feature that hasn't been tested yet?

 

[Kit.]

The shutter doesn't rotate. These cameras have an electronic shutter when they shoot video. I know what the terms mean. Kit's attempt to tie them to some distinction between p24 and p30 makes no sense.

It was your attempt. I was talking about a different topic. But if you insist...

The target shutter angle for video is generally 180 degrees.

At which frame rates and for what reason?

It doesn't have to be but it can't be larger than 360 degrees.

Of course it can. You shoot at 360 degrees, then you can make, for example, 720 degrees by sliding average of two consequent frames. Or you shoot 120fps at 360 and average 3 frames from the set of 5, getting 24fps at 216 degrees.

p30 with a larger shutter angle doesn't make it the same as p24 with a ~180 degree shutter.

And shouldn't. p24 is overrated.

Rolling shutter has nothing to do with shutter angle. It's an undesireable artifact due to the lack of a global electronic or mechanical shutter.

Rolling electronic shutter is a way to obtain 360 degrees on a sensor without extra storage to momentarily duplicate the sensor's full content. You read and reset the exposure on pixel by pixel basis, continuing the exposure of the pixels that aren't currently read.

Yes, it may give noticeable artifacts at slow frame rates like p24. Don't use p24 unless you absolutely need it.

 

[AlanF]

hello Alan 2 DxO Prime noise reduction questions if you will:
1. Do you use the noise reduction suggestion setting? (If I recall correctly all the times it makes it go at 30)? I tend to make it a little less than that to not loose detail.
2. Do you try to compansate any loss of detail by using the sharpness section as well or you leave that for a later stage (like Adobe ACR)?

Thanks

PL on my computer automatically sets Luminance to 40 for PRIME. I tend to leave it at that unless I go above iso1600, when I will increase the Luminance setting to 50, 60 or even 70. There seems to be no significant loss of detail. I do use the DxO lens sharpening at the standard settings at 0, 0, 50. But, it can over-sharpen with the 5DSR with the 100-400mm II at 400, and I frequently set the "Global" to -2. With the 1.4xTC on or using the 5DIV, it doesn't oversharpen. I prefer the DxO lens sharpening to using sharpening with PS.

 

[Kharan]

Why can't it be closer to 360º if you have a rolling shutter anyway?

Because it looks very blurry then. I think most of us who like to shoot video have done it at some point when it's too dark. Recording 24p at 1/25 is sometimes the only way, but honestly the footage looks almost comically blurry. It was done in some horror movies to create "ghostlike" footage.

 

[Kit.]

Because it looks very blurry then.

Even at 120p?

 

[Kharan]

Even at 120p?

I've never tried that, to be honest... but I guess it'd be worse in my case, since 120p footage exists only to be slowed down to 24p. Which is what I thought we were talking about. It should be less of a problem at 120p shown at that speed.

 

[Kit.]

I've never tried that, to be honest... but I guess it'd be worse in my case, since 120p footage exists only to be slowed down to 24p. Which is what I thought we were talking about.

We were talking about dropping frames, not shooting slo-mo.

 

[djack41]

I also shoot BIF. The D500 is indeed better at tracking than the Canon. But, the 5DIV, 5DSR etc lock on faster than the D500 (according to those who use both). I use the central 9 points on the 5DSR and 5DIV and pan myself rather than use sensor tracking, and find that they are really good at capturing small fast birds in flight and even dragonflies because they lock on so fast. I would like the AA-filter to be dropped but will have to live with one - it probably loses about 10% on a high density filter, based on my experience comparing the 5DIV with the 5DSR, allowing for the difference in pixel density.

True, Canon's AF is slightly faster in making initial focus. However Canon's AF is nervous and does not hold focus well on fast moving subjects against a complex background. Nikon and Sony do a much better job retaining focus lock. I shoot a 1dx2, a 5DSR and a 7D2. With it's slow FR and small buffer, the 5DSR is a poor choice for BIF. JMHO

 

[djack41]

How is the 80D's AF system compared to the D500? That should be your yardstick, not a vastly different body like a higher tier model, discontinued or not.

Since the 7D2 will not see an upgrade, I hope the 90D will fill the void as a sports and wildlife camera but this will require real upgrade of the 80D to compete with the Nikon D500.

 

[Kharan]

We were talking about dropping frames, not shooting slo-mo.

OK, I didn't catch that. I guess that one could shoot 60 FPS at 1/50, and then drop frames, but I don't think that the results would be pretty or convincing.

It's sooooo much easier to just be able to record 24p on camera in the first place

 

[Dalantech]

Great Shot!

Thanks!

 

[AlanF]

True, Canon's AF is slightly faster in making initial focus. However Canon's AF is nervous and does not hold focus well on fast moving subjects against a complex background. Nikon and Sony do a much better job retaining focus lock. I shoot a 1dx2, a 5DSR and a 7D2. With it's slow FR and small buffer, the 5DSR is a poor choice for BIF. JMHO

Maybe the 5DSR is a poor choice for you. I am in the process of downloading images from a trip to Ecuador and the Galapagos, returning yesterday. Let's start with a Pelican diving to catch fish, which I followed down and got as it was about to hit. Then a blue footed booby in full dive just after sun up at iso 6400, a Galapagos Hawk flying past, a tropical bird belting across the sky, and a Shining Sunbeam, and Storm Petrel flitting erratically over the sea. There are dozens more from the past fortnight but they have yet to be processed. The small buffer doesn't worry me as I don't spray and pray but time my shots.

 

[Michael Clark]

Yeah but if the start colors are way off noise gets multiplied a lot in not-so-nice ways. Ideally we wouldn't have the colourful patches (this again won't probably happen).

Mostly I am still dreaming tho, but who knows?

What are "start colors?"

The thing you see when you open a raw file is not "THE raw file". It is one particular interpretation of the monochromatic brightness values collected by the camera's photosites. That interpretation is one of a countless number that are equally legitimate interpretations of the raw data. That interpretation is based on the default or user selected values used by the processing software, be it the camera's built-in firmware that creates the JPEG preview image or an external raw convertor. Enter different color multiplier values and reprocess the raw data and there is very little, if any, difference in the amount of noise caused by different color balances.

On the other hand, if you're talking about manipulating the colors of a JPEG image, that's an entirely different ball game. When you converted from raw to JPEG you threw away most of the information you need to change the color by any significant amount. But that isn't the camera's/sensor's fault. It collected the data you needed to have almost infinitely adjustable color. You're the one who decided to not use the vast majority of that data.

 

[dtaylor]

Maybe the 5DSR is a poor choice for you. I am in the process of downloading images from a trip to Ecuador and the Galapagos, returning yesterday. Let's start with a Pelican diving to catch fish, which I followed down and got as it was about to hit. Then a blue footed booby in full dive just after sun up at iso 6400, a Galapagos Hawk flying past, a tropical bird belting across the sky, and a Shining Sunbeam. There are dozens more from the past fortnight but they have yet to be processed. The small buffer doesn't worry me as I don't spray and pray but time my shots.

Brilliant shots Alan.

 

[dtaylor]

True, Canon's AF is slightly faster in making initial focus. However Canon's AF is nervous and does not hold focus well on fast moving subjects against a complex background. Nikon and Sony do a much better job retaining focus lock.

This drives me nuts because it's literally a firmware fix. Their iTR metering/tracking sensors have enough pixels to do a better job here. It's like Canon just needs to bump the "stickiness" factor.

 

[Michael Clark]

Makes no sense to me why they're suddenly giving an actual vs effective pixels number. Defitely don't remember seeing that before on Canon stuff, or at least not advertised do blatantly. Do not remember seeing effective vs actual pixels when researching and buying any of my current Canon cameras.

Also why is there such a large difference between effective and actual? You only need a 1 pixel border around the edge to correctly debayer, right? The large difference almost made me think IBIS might be in there or something weird.

Canon has been including both numbers in the official specs for at least 15-20 years.

I'm sure the 24.4 MP "total pixels" number was a typo. It's already been changed in the OP to 34.4 MP.

How many rows one needs around the edges depends on the demosaicing algorithm one is using. Only the most basic and crude algorithms use only one additional row. Most use several with those closest having more weight than those further away. Then there are things such as masked pixels, used to measure the noise floor at a given moment (it varies based on things such as sensor/internal temperature, analog amplification, etc.).

 

[Michael Clark]

Maybe I miss it somewhere. What is the 90D's shutter life?

If the mechanical shutter can deliver 1/16000 second Tv, it's either:

1) A lot more advanced and robust than the current 80D or 7D Mark II shutter in order to approach the same 100,000 rating as the 80D

or

2) It's like a candle made to burn at both ends at the same time...

 

[Michael Clark]

I must say that this looks great. My last DSLR was a 40d which I loved, and I haven't really been keen on another. But this one appeals to me a lot.

Anything currently on the market will be a significant upgrade from the 40D.

 

[preppyak]

If you’re a filmmaker shooting 24p at this end of the budget range you should really go black magic 4K pocket camera for cheaper than the 90D will cost.

Not saying lts not an odd decision on canon’s part but doesn’t effect my life either way. Why does it matter so much to you what camera others buy? Do you personally need 24p and that’s why you’re so angry?

I travel for work, meaning I dont have the luxury of having a camera for every need with me. BM would be great if the battery life wasnt comically bad and if it had useable AF. Likewise, I dont want to carry large hard drives the world over to capture ProRes if I dont need it.

I prefer cameras that are swiss army knives, and by and large, the XXD model has been that. Great for photography except in the lowest light conditions at a budget point that makes a lot of sense. Solid enough on video to work as a B-cam as well to whatever my primary video camera is (currently GH5, but has been a variety of more video focused options). Sturdy and well built despite not being xD level sealed. Doubly impressive since a lot of people were pissed when the 60D lost the build of the 50D, and yet it became their best-seller.

I understand Canon using old sensors on their R and RP cameras. I understand them recycling older focus systems onto the XXD cameras. I understand them not putting top end features (IBIS, 4:2:2, etc) into them. That's all in service of keeping the price down and keeping their higher end models selling. Removing a baseline video feature like 24p....cant explain it with any reasoning. It'd be like removing the Large Jpeg mode and only leaving Small.

Im not really angry though; sadly I've grown used to these dumb Canon decisions. Not adding 4k to the 6dII. Dropping battery size on the RP and excluding 1080/24. Ive mostly been waiting for the next upgrade to the a6500 to just completely move off Canon. A solid 90D, especially when it comes down in price in holiday sales, might have tempted me to stay a little longer, since I've owned the 50D, 60D, and now 80D and have found them all very reliable. But if they are dumping baseline features for fun...no reason to stay.