Canon EOS 90D Specification List [CR1]

canonical

EOS 80D
Jul 3, 2019
103
82
Value for money. Pretty good recipe
Quite bizarre how some people grossly underestimate EOS M/EF-M capabilities, rather than praising Canon for giving us the option of a very portable, very good IQ and very affordable APS-C system. Half-frame at less than half price.

Meanwhile Fuji charges 80% of FF prices for their crop gear, Sony APS-C cameras and Zeiss-branded E-lenses way more expensive but hardly any better. And Nikon no entry at all. FF Z system as only option leaves smaller budgets in the dust. Don't see any whimpering for "a DX to Z upgrade path" in Nikon land. :p
 

canonical

EOS 80D
Jul 3, 2019
103
82
1) Ergonomically wise those bodies are quite different in size and handling 2) It is you who claims M series line is fine with the 200mm max limit. Now go and tell that to the 7Dx owners :)
1. As stated, if EOS M5 II comes with slightly beefier grip and LPE6N inside, its ergo and functionality could and hopefully will well exceed not only 7D II but even those of a theoretical 7D III. Just think of 20+ fps for example.

2. *Native* EF-M lenses are fine with a max. FL of 200mm. Anything beyond 200/6.3 would not be smaller or less expensive than any EF supertele, all of which exist and are fully usable on any EOS M body. Why should Canon make native EF-M niche lenses when there is no gain possible due to laws of optics?
 

AlanF

Everyone sits in the prison of his own ideas. A E
Aug 16, 2012
5,250
2,275
1. As stated, if EOS M5 II comes with slightly beefier grip and LPE6N inside, its ergo and functionality could and hopefully will well exceed not only 7D II but even those of a theoretical 7D III. Just think of 20+ fps for example.

2. *Native* EF-M lenses are fine with a max. FL of 200mm. Anything beyond 200/6.3 would not be smaller or less expensive than any EF supertele, all of which exist and are fully usable on any EOS M body. Why should Canon make native EF-M niche lenses when there is no gain possible due to laws of optics?
The present M5 has good fps, and 20+ fps are wasted on me and my birding friends if we can't track a bird in flight. Neuro can't with the R. But, we can with a DSLR.
 
  • Like
Reactions: pj1974

Michael Clark

Now we see through a glass, darkly...
Apr 5, 2016
677
298
I did not say anything about an exact optical formula. I should point out that the EF-S 11-22 is a fraction of the size and weight of the EF 16-35 f/4 (I own both).

If you truly believe that using an adapter is better than not having to use one, you should just say so.
The EF-S 11-22mm only has to throw an image circle 40% the size of the image circle required by the EF 16-35mm f/4. That might have *something* to do with the difference in size and weight of those two lenses.
 

neuroanatomist

I post too Much on Here!!
Jul 21, 2010
24,376
1,723
While it all sounds logical, I somehow can't forgive Canon an EF-M vs RF lens incompatibility. We've used EF 70-200 on our APS-C for ages. They could not foresight those stupid 2mm, when creating M? Of course, if technically, shifting the lens by 2mm would do the trick. Being a Canon, I would scrap or recreate M line to create a compatibility to RF lens. This is a HUGE disadvantage of the M, which stays pretty much isolated in that regards. And no, EF lens are not answer, those are a dead end since the introduction of the RF mount.
It’s about more than the 2mm flange distance. I just held my EOS M up to the front of my EOS R, and the entire M body is about the height of the RF mount diameter. So to share a mount like EF/EF-S, either the M cameras would all have needed to be significantly bigger, or they’d have needed to make the RF mount smaller.

Evidently Canon doesn’t think it’s a disadvantage. I was surprised when they ‘broke’ the direct APS-C/FF compatibility for mirrorless. But realize that Canon has the data to know how many APS-C DLSR body owners use EF lenses, how many of those ‘step up’ to FF, etc. At the most basic level, looking at the number of ILCs sold and EF lenses sold (Canon tosses out a press release every 10-20 million), it’s clear that the majority of users buy a body with a kit lens and that’s all. In that light, an ‘isolated’ EOS M system makes sense.

To your last point, EF lenses are the answer. There are dozens of them covering pretty much any use case. Canon will never recapitulate the breadth of the EF lineup for EF-M, and with DSLRs comprising the majority of the ILC market, EF isn’t going anywhere.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Pape

BillB

EOS 6D MK II
May 11, 2017
1,055
290
But sounds like they making more sport able camera from 5mii or at least rumours say so. Or its just mixed to 90d rumours
When they drop 7d serie they need make room for hobby birdlers somehwere.
If they want to produce a fullframe RF camera that has an AF system that is up to sports and wildlife, they are going to have to start somewhere.
 
It’s about more than the 2mm flange distance. I just held my EOS M up to the front of my EOS R, and the entire M body is about the height of the RF mount diameter. So to share a mount like EF/EF-S, either the M cameras would all have needed to be significantly bigger, or they’d have needed to make the RF mount smaller.

Evidently Canon doesn’t think it’s a disadvantage. I was surprised when they ‘broke’ the direct APS-C/FF compatibility for mirrorless. But realize that Canon has the data to know how many APS-C DLSR body owners use EF lenses, how many of those ‘step up’ to FF, etc. At the most basic level, looking at the number of ILCs sold and EF lenses sold (Canon tosses out a press release every 10-20 million), it’s clear that the majority of users buy a body with a kit lens and that’s all. In that light, an ‘isolated’ EOS M system makes sense.

To your last point, EF lenses are the answer. There are dozens of them covering pretty much any use case. Canon will never recapitulate the breadth of the EF lineup for EF-M, and with DSLRs comprising the majority of the ILC market, EF isn’t going anywhere.
Might be surprising to admin, but you actually might be right :) Thanks for the perspective on the EF lens, I thought Canon is going to tone down their development in favor of the RF ones. So as RF and EF have identical diameter, then it's about the distance to sensor, right? If Canon would make RF an 18mm distance, they would have to create larger diameter, right?

Maybe it is just a spychological perspective to simply admit, that you have to buy M lens for M mount, which are not L-level expensive anyway, and that's just it - fit for the purpose .....
 
  • Like
Reactions: Pape

Pape

EOS RP
Dec 31, 2018
350
198
Now to be bird shooter with RF mount . you need RX for fast action Rs for extra reach and as spare camera =10k e
RF 100-400mm 3k e .
If you on top 5% riches people class on world 15K on hobby equipment isnt problem.
But how about around 50% of world peoples who can afford maybe M serie camera 500e .
wouldnt it be nice there is like 300e bird pipe like EF-M 300 5,6. And maybe cheap M tele converter too
It may not be line with spirit of M serie but is it something away for someone?
 
Last edited:

slclick

EOS 3
Dec 17, 2013
2,974
453
You can't fly to the moon on an Estes.


Some things take more money and for that matter, acceptance. I'd never in my wildest dreams expect and think Canon should make a BIF capable setup for a T7i price.
 

FramerMCB

Canon 40D & 7D
Sep 9, 2014
376
75
52
Canon uses a 1:1 pixel readout for 4k. They are somehow unable to sample a 4k image out of the full sensor area. maybe a heat or processor or sensor redout speed related problem. So they "fix" this by just taking the middle area for 4k with 3840x2160 pixels. this results in an insane crop mode on higher resolution bodies.

In the industry, nobody wants this, its just bullshit. Super 35 (about 1,5, so about the same as canon APS-C) is a nice format for filmmakers (you can shoot wide open with it with super fast primes, without a toooo shallow depth of field. But 1,9 crop like on the 5d iv is just completely unusable (paired with the completely insane rolling shutter, it rendered the 5d iv VERY unpopular amonst filmmakers)
Ah... THANK YOU! I appreciate the educating me.
 

BillB

EOS 6D MK II
May 11, 2017
1,055
290
I'd be happy with a native EF-M version of the humble EF 50/1.8 STM - at a similar price point. :)
You will likely be able to shoot with an M mount 56mm f1.4 Sigma quite a while before you see an EF-M 50mm f1.8 STM ;)
 

slclick

EOS 3
Dec 17, 2013
2,974
453
I'm not sure we'll any specialized lenses for the M system. I sure wouldn't expect anything really long or really fast. It's a good general photography system but hoping for it to accomplish BIF or Macro or super wide aperture portraiture is a stretch, there are other options from Canon.
 
  • Like
Reactions: CanonFanBoy

canonical

EOS 80D
Jul 3, 2019
103
82
You will likely be able to shoot with an M mount 56mm f1.4 Sigma quite a while before you see an EF-M 50mm f1.8 STM ;)
actually i'd like it to be an EF-M 50/1.8 STM *IS* :)

sigma's entries will definitely make Canon think about some more EF-M glass. they don't like 3rd party providers eating their lunch.
 
  • Like
Reactions: pj1974

Pape

EOS RP
Dec 31, 2018
350
198
and EF 70-300 nano usm is one of best bif lenses too ,many people prefer 300mm on bifs and price just like around 400$