Canon EOS 90D full specifications

[Joules]

How do you calculate it?

1DX II: 16 F/s * 20.2 MP/F = 323 MP/s
M6 II: 14 F/s * 32.5 MP/F = 455 MP/s

455 / 323 = 1.41 ~ 141% Throughput. Even if they achieved that by lowering the bits per pixel, they surely didn't do it in the 90D which does 11 FPS in Live View.

There are no numbers available for the crop mode. If it is only a fraction of the resolution, it might have the same total throughput.

 

[Stig Nygaard]

Wow... There are people who actually believe the 90D should have provided an upgrade path from the 7Dmk2? Really?

There has been rumours that Canon would merge the xxD and 7Dx camera lines into a single camera line. I think that is what people are reacting on (At least that is the reason I have commented on it).

 

[Dalantech]

So now that is out of the way, can you see any reason why 32mp sensor would give worse results than a 24mp sensor?

Potentially, yes. Smaller pixels = more diffraction limited (diffraction softening appering at lower Fstops). More pixels also = more resolution, and it's possible that the later could out way the former provided the glass can out resolve the sensor. That was pretty much my question. Kinda important for me cause I don't focus stack and shoot at F11 all the way to 5x -like this...

Snoozing European Wool Carder Bee VI by John Kimbler, on Flickr

Was reading in this same thread how more pixels = less detail loss when removing image noise, so that could also be a plus.

 

[koenkooi]

Potentially, yes. Smaller pixels = more diffraction limited (diffraction softening appering at lower Fstops). More pixels also = more resolution, and it's possible that the later could out way the former provided the glass can out resolve the sensor. That was pretty much my question. Kinda important for me cause I don't focus stack and shoot at F11 all the way to 5x -like this...

Snoozing European Wool Carder Bee VI by John Kimbler, on Flickr

Was reading in this same thread how more pixels = less detail loss when removing image noise, so that could also be a plus.

How do you process your images? Using DLO in DPP4 does wonders for crappy lenses, but also gives me a sightly better result than LR when using F/13 with the MP-E on my RP.
In LR the new 'texture' tool improves things a lot when going over F/13. I haven't worked out which (un)sharpening I prefer, the DPP or LR one.

 

[Proscribo]

More pixels also = more resolution, and it's possible that the later could out way the former provided the glass can out resolve the sensor.

But how would that happen, the diffraction is anyway the same with both so it cannot have less detail. Worst case scenario is that you don't gain any detail, but at that point you should be so deep into diffraction limited region that you would very, very clearly see it (airy disk diameter over two times the diagonal of a pixel).

 

[Dalantech]

How do you process your images? Using DLO in DPP4 does wonders for crappy lenses, but also gives me a sightly better result than LR when using F/13 with the MP-E on my RP.
In LR the new 'texture' tool improves things a lot when going over F/13. I haven't worked out which (un)sharpening I prefer, the DPP or LR one.

My main editor is Photoshop Elements 17. I'm using Topaz Denoise AI to remove image noise, Topaz Sharpen AI (sharpening), and Topaz Clarity for contrast and saturation adjustments (minor change, but makes my photos "pop").

 

[Dalantech]

But how would that happen, the diffraction is anyway the same with both so it cannot have less detail. Worst case scenario is that you don't gain any detail, but at that point you should be so deep into diffraction limited region that you would very, very clearly see it (airy disk diameter over two times the diagonal of a pixel).

Well that's what I don't know; the diffraction limit of the 90D. It could quite possibly be so close the the diffraction limit of the 80D that it's a mute point.

 

[Stereodude]

I’m sure you’re right. If only Canon had kept p24 in consumer ILCs, smartphones would all disappear in a puff of smoke.

Because somehow removing p24 (which costs them nothing to add) is going to cause smartphones to all disappear in a puff of smoke instead. They sure know what they're doing!!!

 

[Stereodude]

Canon has lagged with 4k and high frame rate recording on ILC hybrid cameras because they've struggled to deal with heat issues in compact fanless bodies.

Those cinema cameras you know nothing about - they're (comparatively) big, have fans to vent heat and aren't weather sealed because they have vents. They also have different processors (Digic DV vs Digic). This means they can deal with heat far more effectively.

In fairness Sony struggled with heat on FFILCs too for quite a while, but were apparently happy to have cameras that sometimes stopped working.

Could the heat issue be solved with a bottomless pit of R&D cash - Yes. Did Canon decide that the amount of R&D necessary would cost more than the number of cameras they wouldn't sell because of those decisions? Probably. Has it led to Canon losing market share? No. Does that have anything to do with protecting cinema camera sales? No.

Yes, it's so bottomless and hard to solve that only phone manufacturers and action cam makers have figured it out along with Sony, Panasonic, and the rest of the ILC makers. It's beyond the grasp of the god company, our holy, gracious, and most beloved Canon, bless her name.

The only utterly delusional one here still seems to be you

Projection is real folks.

 

[neuroanatomist]

They sure know what they're doing!!!

Like a broken analog clock that shows the right time twice a day, you have finally managed to make a statement that is supported by the available evidence. I’d say ‘well done’, but we both know you didn’t mean to be correct, it was just an accident.

 

[Stereodude]

I have an 80D. Also a had a 70D. I’ve never even looked for the 24p option so didn’t even know it was there. I guess Canon feels if you want to shoot 24 then buy something more expensive that does?

So you admit the cripple hammer is real and Canon did it to make more money. We're making progress here folks!

I think that the explanation that Canon just doesn't want to support an obsolete format unless necessary is more reasonable than an explanation that Canon is afraid that its Powershots would compete with its cinema line.

For as much as people claimed my explanation mocking Canon was far fetched you managed to come up with one that's way further out there. Congrats!!!

The dominant frame rate used in non-live video production is obsolete.

Tell us another fairy tale Kit!!!

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

Do you even understand what rolling shutter is? Seems like no, and what does changing the shutter angle have to do with p24 vs. p30?

 

[syder]

Yes, it's so bottomless and hard to solve that only phone manufacturers and action cam makers have figured it out along with Sony, Panasonic, and the rest of the ILC makers. It's beyond the grasp of the god company, our holy, gracious, and most beloved Canon, bless her name.

Phones? What phone has an APS-C or FF35mm sensor? Or do you not understand that heat issues relate to sensor size? It was the A7RII and A7SII that had overheating issues with 4K, not sony sensors in phones.

So you genuinely think its not just DSLRs/MILCs that compete with cine cameras, but phones too... Wow. Good job.

 

[privatebydesign]

On the other hand, it's often easier to find 20 buyers willing to pay $20 for something *almost* as good as something that costs $100 than it is to find 10 buyers willing to pay $100.

True, but in this contracting camera market all of the camera companies have projected the later, fewer numbers of sales but higher earning higher end models are where they have all stated the market is going and how they are going to achieve projected income levels in that smaller market.

 

[neuroanatomist]

So you admit the cripple hammer is real and Canon did it to make more money. We're making progress here folks!

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.

I guess it just might be possible they excluded it because they knew the target market didn’t want it, and as-close-to-free-as-possible still isn’t free (an example is orientation linked AF point and AFMA, both of which were available on prior cameras, but on the 1D X the former ‘broke’ the latter requiring a firmware update to fix).

You’re right that it’s about increasing profit. Since you seem able to understand that corporations like profit, can you also grasp that Canon almost certainly has data and/or modeling to support increased profit based on inclusion or exclusion of select features in certain models? Further, are you able to comprehend that Canon has been making these sorts of decisions for years, and the outcome in aggregate is continued domination of the ILC market? If so, then we actually are making progress, because that brings us to the conclusion that Canon is excluding p24 from current models for a logical, valid reason.

Somehow, I think that train of logical thought will derail itself in your head, because the next stop on those tracks is the realization that your incessant complaining about the omission of p24 amounts merely to the whining of a petulant child.

 

[Kit.]

1DX II: 16 F/s * 20.2 MP/F = 323 MP/s

Why not 60 * 8MP?

 

[3kramd5]

I'll wait for a sensor that requires as little white balancing and color correction as possible.

I could see how maybe choosing the filter values could align the sensor maybe to a given band of light, but in general color balancing and correction is a software function, no?

 

[Canon1966]

The Canon 90D does have it's improvements over the 80D, but not over it's competitors'. I was hoping for dual card slot and IBIS; which is becoming the norm in this day and age. All this makes me think of buying a new car without air conditioning or some standard feature. Don't get me wrong I love Canon; they make workhorses and in my opinion they have the best ergonomics and articulating screens, but they have been lagging behind Sony and even Nikon. I think for many of us we have "Brand Loyalty" and would like to be proud of the company that has given us amazing products in the past by meeting or exceeding the rest in innovation. All this being said I know a good photographer doesn't need most of those features if he knows what he is doing. I'm no tech person, but as of right now Sony is leading the way with Nikon, then Canon following. Just my thoughts. I'm just venting.

 

[Kit.]

The dominant frame rate used in non-live video production is obsolete.

Are you in the delusion that you are not yet living in the smartphone era?

Do you even understand what rolling shutter is? Seems like no,

Do you? Obviously no.

and what does changing the shutter angle have to do with p24 vs. p30?

Can you calculate by yourself to which shutter angle at p30 corresponds the shutter speed of 1/48 seconds, or do you need help?

 

[PureClassA]

You aren't paying attention. I'll give you a list.

• Direct wireless neural interface.
• Molecule tracking based on DNA detection.
• 8k/1000p.
• Radioisotope thermoelectric generator instead of lithium rechargeable batteries.
• Warp field generator to eliminate weight and inertia.
• Thin film fluidic lens covering all focal lengths seamlessly.
• Option to buy two and use them as a long-baseline optical interferometer or a 3D setup.
• Built-in spectrophotometer for white balance.
• Built in stabilization not only in our 6 axes, but those of several other universes as well.

Do try to pay attention to the market next time.

You forgot about paranormal mode setting that will AF in -10EV onto any ectoplasm or full floating vapor apparition haunting your basement at night

 

[3kramd5]

Do you even understand what rolling shutter is? Seems like no, and what does changing the shutter angle have to do with p24 vs. p30?

As the shutter rotates at a given rate (p30, p24, etc.), its angle dictates how long the exposure is per rotation.

They are both independent variables, but they significantly affect the look of what is recorded.