Canon EOS 90D Specification List [CR1]

dual digic in an 80D, but not in the 5D4 or EOS R. Only a 7 series has had dual digic outside the 1 series and 5Ds. Those specs seem way too good for an 80D replacement but if it's to repalce7DII as well it's believable. That would be a D7500 killer but I doubt AF will touch the D500.
5DIV has dual digic, the second one is used for metering and tracking ....
 
  • Like
Reactions: CanonFanBoy

tron

EOS 5D SR
Nov 8, 2011
4,086
385
5DIV has dual digic, the second one is used for metering and tracking ....
Do you have any link that explains the use of the second digic of 5DIV as being used for metering and tracking? Because it was mentioned that only the 1 series had a separate digic for that (actually a 3rd one).
 
  • Like
Reactions: Michael Clark

haggie

EOS 80D
May 11, 2016
150
47
Not what the main reviewers say about its performance at 400mm. Lensrentals in their 400mm shootout:
"Commonly called the 80-400 VR II, this lens has been the Nikon 400mm zoom for some time now. It’s, well, it’s better up to about 300mm, but it’s just not that good when you stretch it out to 400mm. Not a great performance for a lens that demands a premium price."
https://www.lensrentals.com/blog/2016/08/the-sort-of-great-400mm-shootout/

And lenstip's measurements show it to be inferior to the 100-400mm II
https://www.lenstip.com/448.4-Lens_review-Nikon_Nikkor_AF-S_80-400_mm_f_4.5-5.6G_ED_VR_Image_resolution.html

And there are various other reviews that don't rate it at 400mm that I have read and can't be bothered to seek out, but here is one I remember by ePhotozine https://www.ephotozine.com/article/nikon-nikkor-80-400mm-f-4-5-5-6g-ed-vr-ii-review-22065
Thanks for your reply, AlanF.
These test results are more or less unanimous, and that really puzzled me. Because this does not correspond with what I have seen over the last 1½ years in results from 3 people having a D500 with the 80-400mm and 4 people with the 7D Mk II (including myself) from my photo club.
So yesterday I have met with two of them and checked what these test results describe. And I think I have found the cause of the difference.

When comparing raw image of the D500 with 80-400mm with raw images from the 7D Mk II with the 100-400 II, the raw images of the 80-400 do indeed become worse more quickly in the range from around 320 mm to 400 mm. At 400 mm the images from the Canon 100-400 II are indeed less ‘fuzzy’ (sharper and/or more detail) than those of the Nikon 80-400mm. I never noticed that, because I never directly compared the raw images of both cameras. That establishes the results of the tests that AlanF referred to and that was a surprise, to be honest.

But I also found that after post-processing, the situation is really different.
The processed images of the D500 with 80-400mm are quite a bit better - but also with limitation as we have seen now. This is true only in a specific zoom range: it turns out that this is (only) applicable between 100 and around 250mm zoom.
The better Dynamic Range of the D500-body probably is important here (although many on this forum keep repeating that the difference in DR is minor or even that DR is hardly important: it is for action photography of air planes in less than ideal lighting). This gives the raw files of the D500 more room for correction in parts of the image with less-than-ideal exposure.
Also the Noise in the processed images from the D500 seems to be (a bit) better than in those from the 7D Mk II – although that can also have a relation with the DR because e.g. shades do not have to be pushed near the sensor’s maximum performance with the D500.

On the other hand: in more ideal lighting situations e.g. where the light comes from the rear of the photographer and without hard shades (e.g. with only light, high clouds) and at 400 mm zoom, the processed images of the D500 with 80-400mm are comparable to those of the 7D Mk II in detail and contrast. So they are not better any more when the light is very good. Because the sensor of the D500 is better than the sensor of the 7D Mk II, this can only mean that the performance of the 80-400mm at 400mm really takes a dive. And that is what the test results from AlanF's reply say.

It turned out that we often compared images that were shot at between 220 and 350mm zoom, and that probably explains why we did not notice that before although it was there all the time. All in all, these results have been a bit of a surprise to me.




Check the specs of those others, blows the D500 away.
Indeed: check the specs.

-Check the number of AF-points: the D500 has 153, the 7D Mk II has 65.

-Check the number of cross-type AF points: the D500 has 99, the 7D Mk II has 65.

-Check the number of f/8 AF-points: the D500 yes, the 7D Mk II no.


Because specs often do not tell the whole story (compare Sony specs to Canon specs and then how some of them actually perform), it is relevant to know how the AF system actually performs.

And then the better specs of the D500 are confirmed to give better AF performace in real life.
The AF system of the D500 is quite generally desctibed to be more advanced, more precise and more customizable than that of the (much older) 7D Mk II.
This is particularly the case for fast moving subjects.
And this is even more the case where the lighting is low or otherwise not ideal and/or where the subject has low contrast.
 

AlanF

Canon 5DSR II
Aug 16, 2012
5,814
3,327
Thanks for your reply, AlanF.
These test results are more or less unanimous, and that really puzzled me. Because this does not correspond with what I have seen over the last 1½ years in results from 3 people having a D500 with the 80-400mm and 4 people with the 7D Mk II (including myself) from my photo club.
So yesterday I have met with two of them and checked what these test results describe. And I think I have found the cause of the difference.

When comparing raw image of the D500 with 80-400mm with raw images from the 7D Mk II with the 100-400 II, the raw images of the 80-400 do indeed become worse more quickly in the range from around 320 mm to 400 mm. At 400 mm the images from the Canon 100-400 II are indeed less ‘fuzzy’ (sharper and/or more detail) than those of the Nikon 80-400mm. I never noticed that, because I never directly compared the raw images of both cameras. That establishes the results of the tests that AlanF referred to and that was a surprise, to be honest.

But I also found that after post-processing, the situation is really different.
The processed images of the D500 with 80-400mm are quite a bit better - but also with limitation as we have seen now. This is true only in a specific zoom range: it turns out that this is (only) applicable between 100 and around 250mm zoom.
The better Dynamic Range of the D500-body probably is important here (although many on this forum keep repeating that the difference in DR is minor or even that DR is hardly important: it is for action photography of air planes in less than ideal lighting). This gives the raw files of the D500 more room for correction in parts of the image with less-than-ideal exposure.
Also the Noise in the processed images from the D500 seems to be (a bit) better than in those from the 7D Mk II – although that can also have a relation with the DR because e.g. shades do not have to be pushed near the sensor’s maximum performance with the D500.

On the other hand: in more ideal lighting situations e.g. where the light comes from the rear of the photographer and without hard shades (e.g. with only light, high clouds) and at 400 mm zoom, the processed images of the D500 with 80-400mm are comparable to those of the 7D Mk II in detail and contrast. So they are not better any more when the light is very good. Because the sensor of the D500 is better than the sensor of the 7D Mk II, this can only mean that the performance of the 80-400mm at 400mm really takes a dive. And that is what the test results from AlanF's reply say.

It turned out that we often compared images that were shot at between 220 and 350mm zoom, and that probably explains why we did not notice that before although it was there all the time. All in all, these results have been a bit of a surprise to me.






Indeed: check the specs.

-Check the number of AF-points: the D500 has 153, the 7D Mk II has 65.

-Check the number of cross-type AF points: the D500 has 99, the 7D Mk II has 65.

-Check the number of f/8 AF-points: the D500 yes, the 7D Mk II no.


Because specs often do not tell the whole story (compare Sony specs to Canon specs and then how some of them actually perform), it is relevant to know how the AF system actually performs.

And then the better specs of the D500 are confirmed to give better AF performace in real life.
The AF system of the D500 is quite generally desctibed to be more advanced, more precise and more customizable than that of the (much older) 7D Mk II.
This is particularly the case for fast moving subjects.
And this is even more the case where the lighting is low or otherwise not ideal and/or where the subject has low contrast.
There had to be a reason why your experience differed and I am pleased you have sorted it out. The D500 is the best APS-C for bird photography. Nikon has two excellent lightweight prime in the 300 and 500mm PF, and I confess to GAS for them. But, the 100-400mm II keeps me with Canon, especially as the 5DSR has really good IQ.
 

koketso

EOS M5 | Sony A7
Jan 26, 2019
9
1
Johannesburg
Those specs look a bit too good to be true. It would be a fairly large step up from the 80D (even if not that interesting an offering for current 7D2 users). The dual card slots and processors I’m especially dubious of, given the price bracket. But I guess even Canon could surprise us every once in a while.

Edit: Missed the 4K@60fps! I believe it when I see it.
Those Dual Digic 8's ae probably enough of an indication that it will do 4K at 60fps... if this spec sheet is correct
 

tron

EOS 5D SR
Nov 8, 2011
4,086
385
I have used just a general Google search. It is e.g. mentioned in the Wikipedia article ...

Canon mentions only DIGIC 6+ for 5DIV. Nothing else. Not that this diminishes the camera. I do have it and I LOVE IT.
 

AlanF

Canon 5DSR II
Aug 16, 2012
5,814
3,327

Canon mentions only DIGIC 6+ for 5DIV. Nothing else. Not that this diminishes the camera. I do have it and I LOVE IT.
There are several reviews as well as wikipedia that state the 5DIV has a DIGIC 6+ and DIGIC 6 image for metering: eg https://www.techradar.com/uk/reviews/canon-eos-5d-mark-iv-review but imaging resources says it has only one processor https://www.imaging-resource.com/PRODS/canon-5d-iv/canon-5d-ivA.HTM
 
  • Like
Reactions: tron

raptor3x

EOS 7D MK II
Jan 26, 2012
557
48
State College, PA
whumber.com

Canon mentions only DIGIC 6+ for 5DIV. Nothing else. Not that this diminishes the camera. I do have it and I LOVE IT.
There's a DIGIC 6+ as well as a DIGIC 6 on the 5DIV.

 
Aug 12, 2016
5
0
Canon's APS-C with the 1.6x crop is only 38% the surface area of a full frame sensor. It's like shooting with an 85.5-megapixel full-frame sensor. I don't think any lens performs well enough to handle that at the moment. I find that even the 80D starts showing noise at ISO 200 when you shoot red objects, properly exposed.
 

degos

EOS RP
Mar 20, 2015
201
123
Canon's APS-C with the 1.6x crop is only 38% the surface area of a full frame sensor. It's like shooting with an 85.5-megapixel full-frame sensor. I don't think any lens performs well enough to handle that at the moment. I find that even the 80D starts showing noise at ISO 200 when you shoot red objects, properly exposed.
I'm not sure what you're trying to say here.

Noise at ISO200 is nothing to do with the lens. All sensors struggle with very strong reds, such as newly-opened poppies.

All Mark II superteles were designed for 100MP+ sensors
 

blaydese

EOS 80D
Jun 28, 2012
199
2
Iwakuni Japan
www.facebook.com
I just picked-up three used EOS bodies of various models. Doing my best to get back into on of my favorite hobbies of all time.

This 90D seems to be one step closer to a tiny bridge between the full frames and CMOS. However, as we all know, Canon just laughs at folks, just as there is in life, rich and poor people, so to there are rich photographers ($13,000.00 lenses) and poor photographers ($55 ebay used lenses).

What matters most, is we take pictures and enjoy our hobby and each other's company and passion for DSLR cameras.

But one thing is true, we all have one thing in common. We hate cell phone cameras and the word "selfies"
184664
. :)

:cool: Peace!
 
  • Like
Reactions: Equinox

AlanF

Canon 5DSR II
Aug 16, 2012
5,814
3,327
I just picked-up three used EOS bodies of various models. Doing my best to get back into on of my favorite hobbies of all time.

This 90D seems to be one step closer to a tiny bridge between the full frames and CMOS. However, as we all know, Canon just laughs at folks, just as there is in life, rich and poor people, so to there are rich photographers ($13,000.00 lenses) and poor photographers ($55 ebay used lenses).

What matters most, is we take pictures and enjoy our hobby and each other's company and passion for DSLR cameras.

But one thing is true, we all have one thing in common. We hate cell phone cameras and the word "selfies" :)

:cool: Peace!
I for one don't hate cell phone cameras or selfies. Far more people have great fun with those than do the minority that use EOS. By the way, CMOS are the most common sensors used all over in photography, from full frames and larger to cell phones, so how is the 90D a bridge between ff and CMOS?
 
  • Like
Reactions: Dantana and scyrene

tron

EOS 5D SR
Nov 8, 2011
4,086
385
Thanks for the info about 5DIV DIGIC processors. Funny that almost all BUT Canon mention it! Nice about the picture of its board.