Canon EOS 90D Specification List [CR1]

Architect1776

Defining the poetics of space through Architecture
Aug 18, 2017
524
473
118
Williamsport, PA
I agree there's a lack of RF lenses, but it seems Canon is going to resolve this one.

My point the smaller number of EF-M lenses, by itself, does not lead to the conclusion there's a lack of them.
I do not know the whole concept of the M series.
From observation the M series does NOT need a whole slew of lenses.
Yes, a range of zoom lenses from 10mm to 300mm or 350mm.
Example: 10-24mm f3.5, 20-180mm f4.5 and 100-350mm f5.6
Throw a small 100mm f3.5 macro in for fun.
If you want a prime or two then a 28mm f2.0, 40mm f1.4 and a 80mm f1.8 for thos wanting fast primes.
Any other lens desired can be obtained from the EF/EFs stable.
This gives some good, generally small lenses for daylight fun etc.
 

privatebydesign

Would you take advice from a cartoons stuffed toy?
Jan 29, 2011
8,226
1,582
120
Oh please. Let's not start that debate again. There is nothing authoritative about the essay you cite. You and others choose to place greater emphasis on apparent depth of field over exposure equivalence. That's your choice, but it is a choice, nothing more. We've been round and round on this topic way too many times in the past. Let's not revive it.
It’s not a debate, it’s a demonstrable fact.

Photography is a visual medium where these differences, in general and at ‘normal’ reproduction ratios, in depth of field are more apparent than noise. You are very obtusely using the term ‘exposure equivalence’ whilst ignoring the fact that the sensor area exposure equivalence is different if you ignore aperture setting. If a sensor is 2.6 smaller by area then it collects 2.6 times less light during a same exposure, that is not equivalent, it is 2.6 times less!

That you choose to ignore depth of field when you talk about lens equivalence is your choice, for those that don’t fully understand why other peoples 135 format EF500mm f4 images ‘look different’ from their APS-C EF300mm f4 images the article explains why in verifiable detail.
 
Last edited:

Pape

EOS 7D MK II
Dec 31, 2018
508
301
M 100m macro and long teles up from 300mm are big lack on M system.
Yes you can use full frame lenses but M is made own mount cause full frame lenses arent just good on M.
Lenses planned for small picture circle are lot easier to make sharp.
Elements except front lense can be smaller ,cause not so big picture needed make.
Dof is better on crop lenses.
 

slclick

135L
Dec 17, 2013
3,877
1,679
Without experiencing the line or owning many of the EF-M lenses, the comments about the M glass lineup lacking anything except certain fast primes is just folks complaining for the sake of complaining or stoking the anti Canon fire. No company launches an entire full lineup at once, it's always a trickle process. These complaints along with those directed at Canon and the R lineup, seeking Canon to behave like other companies when it has never been their method. Slow and steady with rock solid products, maybe not all flash and the latest but they stand the test of time.

Post internet culture...1. I need immediate satisfaction and 2. I need it to be made exactly the way I want it and if not I will throw a fit. Both, selfish viewpoints.
 
  • Like
Reactions: pj1974 and Del Paso

Eersel

EOS M50
Apr 4, 2016
34
45
It would be pretty intense if this in fact was a mirrorless camera. Committing one whole year to flesh out a line of bodies and RF lenses would be a good move. EF isn't really going anywhere, and I'd imagine if they wanted to update a DSLR body, it would be that much easier to borrow it from mirrorless in some form and transpose it into an existing chassis.

Bold. Very Bold.

The 2020 Lineup could very much look like:

T7i, 77D, 90D (variant), EOS Rp, 6D, EOS R, 5D IV, EOS Rs, EOS Rx, 1DxIII

Italics denote rumored.


That is a very awesome lineup for the consumer to choose from.

The success is very depended on the EOS Rs being better in performance than the 5D IV, as that's where most pro's will want to go. I'd also Imagine that in a half year the 5D IV could get an upgrade with some of the bits from the Rs.
 

Stichus III

EOS M50
Dec 14, 2012
47
19
What EF-M lenses do you feel are lacking? Personally, I think the lineup is effective for my own use cases with the M series.
Neuro: it's a real honor getting a reply by this forum's alpha dog!

I did not want to make this about what I want, but to answer your question: the EF-M 11-22, EF-m 22 f/2 and EF-M 32 f/1.4 are all quite impressive lenses. The 22 f/2 and the 32 f/1.4 are currently 2 of my very favorite lenses.

The EF-M line is in my opinion lacking a good telephoto solution: either (1) a good quality 55-250 that is actually reasonably sharp at the telephoto end and that does not go as slow as 6.3 or (2) some 70-200 equivalent that would work with the smallish Ef-m bodies (maybe that is asking for too much). Both the Ef-m 55-200 and the 18-150 did not impress me and are a tad too slow for my (personal) taste.

Also Canon currently has no fast 35 mm equivalent, no fast 85 mm equivalent nor a fast 135 mm equivalent available for the EF-M mount, all of which are quite standard prime focal lengths.

To me it is clear that there are some holes in Canon's Ef-m lens offerings.

But that was not my main point: my main point was that the idea of a mirrorless EF camera, might not be that crazy, if Canon's research shows that a (perceived) lack of native RF and EF-M lenses, is slowing down mirrorless camera sales. But like I said, at the moment that is pure speculation.
 
Last edited:

neuroanatomist

I post too Much on Here!!
Jul 21, 2010
24,639
2,153
M 100m macro and long teles up from 300mm are big lack on M system.
Yes you can use full frame lenses but M is made own mount cause full frame lenses arent just good on M.
Lenses planned for small picture circle are lot easier to make sharp.
Elements except front lense can be smaller ,cause not so big picture needed make.
Dof is better on crop lenses.
I'm not sure an EF-M 100mm macro would be all that much smaller than the EF version (non-L). I am certain that supertele lenses for the M would not be significantly smaller than EF, unless Canon made them narrower than f/5.6 (which is certainly possible but for marketing reasons I'd bet they would not go narrower than f/6.3).

Bottom line is that the advantages of the small image circle are apply for wide, normal and short tele lenses, not for supertelephoto designs. That's why despite years of APS-C cameras the longest EF-S zoom goes to 250mm.
 
  • Like
Reactions: uri.raz

neuroanatomist

I post too Much on Here!!
Jul 21, 2010
24,639
2,153
Neuro: it's a real honor getting a reply by this forum's alpha dog!

I did not want to make this about what I want, but to answer your question: the EF-M 11-22, EF-m 22 f/2 and EF-M 32 f/1.4 are all quite impressive lenses. The 22 f/2 and the 32 f/1.4 are currently 2 of my very favorite lenses.

The EF-M line is in my opinion lacking a good telephoto solution: either (1) a good quality 55-250 that is actually reasonably sharp at the telephoto end and that does not go as slow as 6.3 or (2) some 70-200 equivalent that would work with the smallish Ef-m bodies (maybe that is asking for too much). Both the Ef-m 55-200 and the 18-150 did not impress me and are a tad too slow for my (personal) taste.

Also Canon currently has no fast 35 mm equivalent, no fast 85 mm equivalent nor a fast 135 mm equivalent available for the EF-M mount, all of which are quite standard prime focal lengths.

To me it is clear that there are some holes in Canon's Ef-m lens offerings.

But that was not my main point: my main point was that the idea of a mirrorless EF camera (90D), might not be that crazy, if Canon's research shows that a (perceived) lack of native RF and EF-M lenses, is slowing down mirrorless camera sales. But like I said, at the moment that is pure speculation.
Makes sense. I have the 55-200mm and it's a good lens and sharp at 200mm. But it is 200mm f/6.3... The EF-M 18-150mm is a very good lens, or perhaps I should say it can be. One thing to know about the EF-M lenses – there seems to be a fair bit of copy variation (more than typical for Canon, IMO). For example, TDP's ISO 12233 shots for the 18-150 looked horrible at the long end initially, not at all in line with my lens. As I was writing the review for that lens for TDP, I shared my images with Bryan and he ordered another copy of the 18-150 and re-shot the test images with much better results.

For my use of the M system, the smaller the better. If the M6 were my only camera, I might feel differently. But a 70-200mm constant aperture will be a big lens even for EF-M, and to me that defeats the purpose of the line, I'd just take the EOS R.
 

Pape

EOS 7D MK II
Dec 31, 2018
508
301
I bet canon been just lazy or busy with projects what sell better. They just been selling 400mm f5,6 lenses for consumer birdlers.
microfourthirds got 100-400mm even not super sharp on 400mm . it Weights only 1kg!!
 
Last edited:

masterpix

EOS 80D
Jun 29, 2016
168
115
Two models (90D and M5 II), same bases, different mount.
The first is a ML in a metal reflex aps-c body for pro users (read 7D III)
The second is M.

I choose the first!
I would like a 7DIII was well, but patience is needed to see what we get in the end of the month.
 
  • Like
Reactions: tron

Eersel

EOS M50
Apr 4, 2016
34
45
I would like a 7DIII was well, but patience is needed to see what we get in the end of the month.
The Nikon D500 sales have really tapered off with FF options becoming more and more inexpensive. Also with TC's getting a lot better, folks don't seek out the Pro-APC's as hard.

If Canon wants to succeed with a 7DIII, it literally would have to be a 1DXIII with an APSC sensor. There can't be any other compromises.

Video would also need to be top end just to keep it in the equation with the likes of the Sony A6500.
 

Dragon

EF 800L
May 29, 2019
161
137
I actually like my M5 with I would be happy with updated sensor to match or exceed the 80d, fast/accurate AF, overall performance to make it "snappy" in all functions, 4k video, better/faster EVF, 10fps w/100 shot buffer. I have heard the M5 sensor is the same as the d80 but the m5 is not as sharp on The Digital Picture charts. I have not had a single problem w/adapted lenses on the m5 and really like the camera overall except for performance in faster shooting situations.
I also like my M5. It works very well with EF lenses with the one exception that handling is not good with big glass. I also have a 70D and it is much nicer to handle with a 70-200 f/2.8 L or a 100-400 L. Funny thing is when you get to a REALLY BIG lens (I have an 800 f/5.6 L) the body size doesn't matter because the lens is on a gimbal anyway so I often use the M5 or SL2 with the 800 because of the higher pixel count and dynamic range vs the 70D when I am looking for maximum reach.

BTW as to The Digital Picture charts, note that Bryan shoots JPEGs (or at least processes raws through DPP for essentially camera equivalent JPEGs) for the charts and different models handle JPEG sharpening differently (often the default sharpening is different). If there is any difference in the sensor between the 80D and the M5, it is likely in the AA filter, but even that is probably not much. Also, different raw converters will produce different results. DXO Photolab typically has the best detail resolution, but occasionally can produce artifacts that you don't see with LR. Meanwhile, LR has been gradually getting better.
 
  • Like
Reactions: pj1974

CanonFanBoy

Really O.K. Boomer
Jan 28, 2015
4,702
2,622
Irving, Texas
Well, I was close. :( I don't think they will call it the 90D though. 7DX with a built in battery grip like the 1D series or the Olympus E-M1X? I don't see what is strange about putting it in an 80D style body. Makes perfect sense to me. I wouldn't want Canon to release something hard on the hands. Imagine all the birders and sports folks, who already have the lenses, not having to buy RF and not using an adapter. Sales monster! Market crusher! This may also be the style of the high end R series (using the larger bodies with RF mount, not EF)... to help with sensor cooling and handling too.
 

Attachments

Last edited:

masterpix

EOS 80D
Jun 29, 2016
168
115
The Nikon D500 sales have really tapered off with FF options becoming more and more inexpensive. Also with TC's getting a lot better, folks don't seek out the Pro-APC's as hard.

If Canon wants to succeed with a 7DIII, it literally would have to be a 1DXIII with an APSC sensor. There can't be any other compromises.

Video would also need to be top end just to keep it in the equation with the likes of the Sony A6500.
As you said, the 7D is actually an APSC 1D in many ways, beside the limitation of the sensor, they were pretty much the same.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Don Haines

illadvisedhammer

buggin out
Aug 19, 2015
23
5
The EF-M line is in my opinion lacking a good telephoto solution: either (1) a good quality 55-250 that is actually reasonably sharp at the telephoto end and that does not go as slow as 6.3 or (2) some 70-200 equivalent that would work with the smallish Ef-m bodies (maybe that is asking for too much). Both the Ef-m 55-200 and the 18-150 did not impress me and are a tad too slow for my (personal) taste.

Also Canon currently has no fast 35 mm equivalent, no fast 85 mm equivalent nor a fast 135 mm equivalent available for the EF-M mount, all of which are quite standard prime focal lengths.
I actually think the EF-S is a good 55-250 that fits by weight and diameter with the EF-M philosophy, and seemed better to me at matched focal lengths than the 55-200 (sold the 55-200 kept the 55-250, and is great for outdoor/good-light sports. I'm not an engineer so I'm only guessing about the needed sacrifices (in f-stop) to make EF-M versions of lenses, but we should probably keep in mind that any EF-M lens has to be compact, so usually slower and not hitting the DOF equivalence, and that's ok. I'd get all of these if they are small and sharp wide open

55 1.4 (like a 90 f2.2) for portraits
135 2.5 (like a 200 f4 for indoor sports but better for lower light) if focus keeps improving.
300 5 or 5.6 for birds if focus keeps improving

All of these can be a little less amazing than the ff versions that I wouldn't likely spend money on, but would add to the M's usefulness. What I really want to buy would be a new macro lens specific to EF-M, so it has to add something new compared to an adapted EF-S 60. I'm thinking a 50, 60, or 80mm f5.6 macro with AF (maybe also IS) that goes to 2:1 magnification. Though I use AF less than ½ the time for single shots, an AF feature that could work with in-camera focus bracketing/stacking features would be new and great. Combined with a new flash that has smaller heads than the MT24/26 and can do 5-10 low power shots in a rapid focus stacking burst would also be new, and really take advantage of the sensor size.
 

koenkooi

EOS 7D MK II
Feb 25, 2015
740
496
M 100m macro and long teles up from 300mm are big lack on M system.
Yes you can use full frame lenses but M is made own mount cause full frame lenses arent just good on M.
Lenses planned for small picture circle are lot easier to make sharp.
Elements except front lense can be smaller ,cause not so big picture needed make.
Dof is better on crop lenses.
The EF-S 60mmf/2.8 macro balances remarkably well on an M camera. If they turn that into an EF-M 60mm f/3.5 IS STM lens I'd be very happy. I like the 60mm range for macro since at 1:1 the working distance is about a handwidth, so I can brace the lens on my thumb and either use my pinky for support on a surface or grab the branch/stem with it.

As Neuro said, a 100mm would be big regardless of sensor size.
 

AlanF

Canon 5DSR II
Aug 16, 2012
6,348
4,465
I actually think the EF-S is a good 55-250 that fits by weight and diameter with the EF-M philosophy, and seemed better to me at matched focal lengths than the 55-200 (sold the 55-200 kept the 55-250, and is great for outdoor/good-light sports. I'm not an engineer so I'm only guessing about the needed sacrifices (in f-stop) to make EF-M versions of lenses, but we should probably keep in mind that any EF-M lens has to be compact, so usually slower and not hitting the DOF equivalence, and that's ok. I'd get all of these if they are small and sharp wide open

55 1.4 (like a 90 f2.2) for portraits
135 2.5 (like a 200 f4 for indoor sports but better for lower light) if focus keeps improving.
300 5 or 5.6 for birds if focus keeps improving

All of these can be a little less amazing than the ff versions that I wouldn't likely spend money on, but would add to the M's usefulness. What I really want to buy would be a new macro lens specific to EF-M, so it has to add something new compared to an adapted EF-S 60. I'm thinking a 50, 60, or 80mm f5.6 macro with AF (maybe also IS) that goes to 2:1 magnification. Though I use AF less than ½ the time for single shots, an AF feature that could work with in-camera focus bracketing/stacking features would be new and great. Combined with a new flash that has smaller heads than the MT24/26 and can do 5-10 low power shots in a rapid focus stacking burst would also be new, and really take advantage of the sensor size.
The EF-S 55-250mm STM is one of Canon's gems. The lens scores well in measurements on various sites. On opticallimits and TDP, the 55-250 at 200mm has about the same IQ in the centre as the 70-200mm L IS. I use it with an adapter on the M5. In fact, my copy was sharper than my 70-200mm L IS, and I sold the L lens.
 

canonical

EOS 80D
Jul 3, 2019
103
86
I actually think the EF-S is a good 55-250 that fits by weight and diameter with the EF-M philosophy, and seemed better to me at matched focal lengths than the 55-200 (sold the 55-200 kept the 55-250,
I did the opposite. Sold my EF-S 55-250, kept the EF-M 55-200 and am very happy with it. Like all other EF-M lenses exceptional bang for the buck. my copy definitely is sharp. Difference between f/5.6 and f/6.3 is totally negligable in real life, both are slow.
 
Last edited:

canonical

EOS 80D
Jul 3, 2019
103
86
Canon currently has 17 EF-S lenses but only 8 EF-M lenses. When we take into account that Canon also has 58 EF lenses that all work natively and without the need for an adapter on the EF-S mount, it becomes hard to argue that there is no lack of EF-M lenses.
there is no lack of EF-M lenses. Pretty much anything meaningful possible with 61mm outer barrel diameter is available. And all of them are good, with exception of 15-45 which only reaches "typical kit lens IQ".
 

neuroanatomist

I post too Much on Here!!
Jul 21, 2010
24,639
2,153
Canon currently has 17 EF-S lenses but only 8 EF-M lenses. When we take into account that Canon also has 58 EF lenses that all work natively and without the need for an adapter on the EF-S mount, it becomes hard to argue that there is no lack of EF-M lenses.
There are 17 EF-S lenses only if you count lenses that are no longer in production but still in stock at Canon USA. If you eliminate the duplicates and triplicates, there are 12.

There are now 7 EF-M lenses, and since the launch of EF-M there have also been seven new EF-S lenses launched, but only three of those were new (there were two successive replacements of the 18-55, and one each for the 18-135 and 55-250). For the pancake and white angle macro lenses, the M came before the corresponding S.

So overall, it seems like Canon is giving more love to the EF-M lineup ( which is quite logical, it’s a newer system…we’re seeing the same thing with RF lenses currently).

To your earlier point about missing lenses, what the -S lens types missing from -M are a fast standard zoom (17-55/2.8), A slow/broad range standard zoom with high IQ (15-85), and a longer macro (60/2.8). The problem is the first two of those must be relatively large lenses, at odds with the apparent philosophy of portability that characterizes EF-M lenses (not to mention the standardized 61 mm diameter, not sure you could even do a 17-55/2.8 with that narrow a barrel). The -M has a fast standard prime (with excellent IQ!) that the -S lacks.

Given the above, I could certainly argue that the EF-M lineup is not lacking, at least as far as lenses appropriate for Canon’s apparent use cases are concerned. Having said that, they appear to have all of the usual bases covered for a consumer system, and I expect they will continue to release EF-M lenses…which suggests that there will be more esoteric and perhaps interesting lenses in the future.
 
  • Like
Reactions: pj1974