Canon EOS 90D full specifications

privatebydesign

Would you take advice from a cartoons stuffed toy?
Jan 29, 2011
8,383
1,808
120
I'm not going to debate the difference between 24, 25, 30 fps. But 120 fps is a 5 times faster shutter speed. The blur of moving objects is very different. This isn't a theoretical thing. It looks different. Never mind that fact that you have to pump a ton more light on a scene to get the same exposure.

EDIT: Oh, and no offense intended, Private. I appreciate your contributions to this place, even if it is a bit of a crazy place sometimes.
I agree, it was just a question of scale of the difference, I did say "but it would look different". (y)
 
  • Like
Reactions: Dantana

tron

EOS 5D SR
Nov 8, 2011
4,456
717
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.
...
Alan these are fantastic shots.
 
  • Like
Reactions: AlanF

tron

EOS 5D SR
Nov 8, 2011
4,456
717
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.
Many thanks Alan.
 

Michael Clark

Now we see through a glass, darkly...
Apr 5, 2016
2,154
1,210
This is a great camera which gives the 80D a nice iterative update. Plenty of people will get excellent results with it.
It's going to be a solid seller with youtubers and creatives, and will handle some of the price-conscious wildlife market.

Main Pros:
1) 10 FPS
2) 32 Mpx
3) 120fps in 1080p
4) 4K
5) Joystick!

However... if you can wait, you probably should. Here's why:

1) No IBIS. This is a breakthrough technology whose time has come, and its very unfortunate Canon didn't include it. IBIS is NOT a pro feature! Pros mostly don't care. IBIS helps amateurs/enthusiasts, who are less likely to have full mastery of the camera dynamics, and are more likely to get blurrier photos, get frustrated, stop buying lenses and go back to their digitally stabilized cell phones. Yes, IBIS helps everyone, but the ones who benefit most are amateurs, a market Canon needs. This was a lost opportunity.

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 (but maybe it will - we just don't know with Canon). If you can wait a couple of years for Canon to catch up in this area, you should wait.

3) *Gulp... the R is already getting some pretty serious discounts, putting it within around $300 of the 90D's likely price range, and refurb units might be less. Especially with the holiday season coming, it may be worthwhile to wait and see if you can pick up the R with an adapter.
Re: Reasons to wait.

1) I basically agree with this.

2) Canon has had face detect in LV on many camera models for quite a while. With the 90D they are adding Eye AF. One should probably wait until we've actually seen how well it works in the 90D before trashing it as hopelessly behind.

3) Not everyone buys a DLSR only because it is cheaper than a MILC. Some folks actually choose a DSLR on the basis of what DSLRs still do better than MILCs. The difference between OVFs and EVFs is the most fundamental one. Both have advantages and disadvantages over the other. Those differences will remain unless and until an EVF is indistinguishable from an OVF to the user.

3a) Beyond that, though, the 90D will also be discounted from it's introductory price by the time it has been out as long as the R has already been out. This will be the case particularly when one is looking at gray market bodies from non-Canon Authorized sellers, which is where the price of the R is remotely approaching the expected introductory price of the 90D. Heck, in the U.S. right now you can get a 5Ds from a fly-by-night gray market importer with no Canon warranty for $1,600. But you can't get one with a U.S. warranty from an authorized Canon USA dealer for less than about $3.5K
 
  • Like
Reactions: victorshikhman

Canon1966

EOS T7i
Apr 17, 2019
77
70
Linden, NJ
www.negrinphoto.com
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.

View attachment 186119View attachment 186120View attachment 186122View attachment 186123View attachment 186124
View attachment 186126
Great Shots!
 

Michael Clark

Now we see through a glass, darkly...
Apr 5, 2016
2,154
1,210
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.
Nikon has officially announced they will not be updating the D500. Ever.

Both the 7D Mark II and the D500 are lame ducks at this point.
 

Michael Clark

Now we see through a glass, darkly...
Apr 5, 2016
2,154
1,210
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
Those three Canon models have user selectable settings for tracking sensitivity, accel/decel sensitivity, and AF pt auto switching. Have you tried changing tracking sensitivity to a lower setting if you feel the camera switches targets too fast?
 
  • Like
Reactions: Mark D5 TEAM II

neuroanatomist

I post too Much on Here!!
Jul 21, 2010
24,642
2,159
Canon crippled my 1D X by not including in-camera HDR even though the all their other ILCs and even several PowerShots offered that
Please tell us more lies. Youve got a knack for it. Which Canon cameras have HDR video?
Where did I state in-camera HDR video? Are you so video-centric that nothing else exists in your mind? Did you forget that these cameras also shoot still images? Or can you simply not read?
 

privatebydesign

Would you take advice from a cartoons stuffed toy?
Jan 29, 2011
8,383
1,808
120
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
Specifically what AF settings are you using on the 1DX MkII?

Since ignoring Case modes and fine tuning the three AF variables individually I have found the AF to be incredibly responsive and programmable, to the extent that I can shoot the same subject on different days with different setting depending on how alert or tired I am.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Michael Clark

Michael Clark

Now we see through a glass, darkly...
Apr 5, 2016
2,154
1,210
Specifically what AF settings are you using on the 1DX MkII?

Since ignoring Case modes and fine tuning the three AF variables individually I have found the AF to be incredibly responsive and programmable, to the extent that I can shoot the same subject on different days with different setting depending on how alert or tired I am.
Probably not Case 2 or Case 6 with tracking sensitivity turned all of the way down.

The Case modes are just starting points for the three variables. You can change and save the three settings for each of the Case modes. You can then switch from one of your own customized setups to another on the fly more easily. Each Case mode can become, in effect, a "C1", "C2", "C3", etc. for the three AF variables.
 

Michael Clark

Now we see through a glass, darkly...
Apr 5, 2016
2,154
1,210
Of course. Canon crippled my 1D X by not including in-camera HDR even though the all their other ILCs and even several PowerShots offered that as-close-to-free-as-possible feature. I guess they excluded it to force me to buy the more expensive...oh, wait.
Don't forget, they also deprived you of all of those Scene Modes, too!
 
  • Like
Reactions: NetMage

privatebydesign

Would you take advice from a cartoons stuffed toy?
Jan 29, 2011
8,383
1,808
120
Probably not Case 2 or Case 6 with tracking sensitivity turned all of the way down.

The Case modes are just starting points for the three variables. You can change and save the three settings for each of the Case modes. You can then switch from one of your own customized setups to another on the fly more easily. Each Case mode can become, in effect, a "C1", "C2", "C3", etc. for the three AF variables.
Indeed, I just find it easier to ignore Cases completely and I have a MyMenu tab set up with the three adjustable and change them as I feel the need from there.

I found I was the biggest inconsistency in the AF and was getting annoyed that sometimes I'd have a great hit rate and other times with the same settings and subjects have very low hit rates, turned out the AF was thrown out by my variable performance, sometimes I could keep things within an AF point, other times I'd need to adjust the switching to adjust for my varying abilities.

Got the idea from a Grant Atkinson video, he used to post here and had a lot of good info.

 
  • Like
Reactions: Dantana

SecureGSM

2 x 5D IV
Feb 26, 2017
1,906
838
In the very link you posted it even explicitly says "Diffraction thus sets a fundamental resolution limit that is independent of the number of megapixels, or the size of the film format. It depends only on the f-number of your lens, and on the wavelength of light being imaged. One can think of it as the smallest theoretical "pixel" of detail in photography."
which supports the claim that diffraction has nothing to do with the sensor or its pixel size.

The diffraction limit of a sensor is merely the f-number above which it is not possible to take full advantage of its high pixel density, but this doesn't imply that the result is any worse than from a sensor with a lower pixel density. Given a particular f-stop there is a particular smallest pixel size whose further decrease will not give you more resolution due to the diffraction limit. But this doesn't mean it will give you *less* resolution. It will simply not increase any further. A sensor with higher pixel density always provides at least as much resolution as a lower pixel density sensor. But, after the diffraction limit has passed, not necessarily any more. And you can always downscale the image to get the (almost) exact same result.
Well, you asked for it right :)

Please note:

When the diameter of the airy disk's central peak becomes large relative to the pixel size in the camera (or maximum tolerable circle of confusion), it begins to have a visual impact on the image. Once two airy disks become any closer than half their width, they are also no longer resolvable (Rayleigh criterion).

Do you read “relative to the pixel size”?
 
  • Like
Reactions: Kharan

AlanF

Stay alert, control the camera, save photos
Aug 16, 2012
6,477
5,063
Well, you asked for it right :)

Please note:

When the diameter of the airy disk's central peak becomes large relative to the pixel size in the camera (or maximum tolerable circle of confusion), it begins to have a visual impact on the image. Once two airy disks become any closer than half their width, they are also no longer resolvable (Rayleigh criterion).

Do you read “relative to the pixel size”?
To be precise, it’s when the centres of the Airy discs become closer than the radius of a disc they are no longer resolvable.
 
  • Like
Reactions: NetMage

yeahright

EOS T7i
Aug 28, 2014
68
41
Well, you asked for it right :)

Please note:

When the diameter of the airy disk's central peak becomes large relative to the pixel size in the camera (or maximum tolerable circle of confusion), it begins to have a visual impact on the image. Once two airy disks become any closer than half their width, they are also no longer resolvable (Rayleigh criterion).

Do you read “relative to the pixel size”?
There is no contradiction between your last statement and mine. So of course (everything else unchanged) the airy disk becomes visible at the pixel level as the pixels get smaller. But that doesn't make the higher resolution image any worse than the lower resolution image or higher resolution cameras less usable at higher f-stops than lower resolution cameras as some posts (not yours) were suggesting. Because if the airy disk is exactly 1 pixel in size in sensor A and therefore not visible, if we double the resolution in height and width in sensor B it will occupy 4 pixels and will therefore be visible. If we downsample image from B to the size of sensor A we end up with exactly the same image. In this case: nothing gained by doubling the resolution, but nothing lost either.

And I was merely commenting on your post #214
SecureGSM said:
Proscribo said:
That is the property of the lens (aperture) and is the same no matter the sensor or if there is a sensor at all.
Not quite correct.
which is wrong, as is also stated in the link you posted. Because it is simply correct that the effect of diffraction and the size of the airy disk is independent of the sensor, which was what Proscribo was talking about. Only whether we can see it or not in an image recorded by a sensor is of course dependant on its resolution.
 
  • Like
Reactions: NetMage