Canon EOS 90D full specifications

[Don Haines]

I’m still surprised at that 1/16000 shutter speed!

Wonder what I could use that for?

That is almost fast enough to catch the dog eating a treat!

 

[Under the Bridge]

2 Cents- after many years of being away from shooting Canon on film I jumped back in, cautiously bought an SL2 when they first
came out- invested in glass and have thus found the joy I once had in taking pictures. Once I reached the perceived limits of my SL2 I started looking for the logical upgrade apsc camera. The 80D did not provide enough increase in performance to justify the cost for me. The 7D II was old enough I assumed the mark III would be my best option for youth sports and travel. Keep in mind, for what I do the 90D seems like a great fit. Not everyone shoots for Nat Geo. Or works for Tri-Star films.

 

[preppyak]

It’s really not an issue. If you want a camera that shoots 24p. Don’t buy a 90D. It’s really as simple as that. There are any number of cameras from other manufacturers that do. I doubt canon will care you buy either way. Yes 24p is dominant in movies but it’s not like Avengers was shot on 80D’s now is it?

Also as I understand it, the 90D being released doesn’t automatically brick all 70D/ 80D cameras out there. If you’re shooting 24p on either of them right now that’s awesome. Don’t buy this. Keep what you have and keep on trucking.

This is a really, really dumb argument. The 80D shot 24p. The 70D shot 24p. The 60D shot 24p. To not include it is beyond insanity with no justification, because there is no end user who needs 24p and is going to go with a Cine line camera (all at $2k+ and most at $5k+) over a 90D just to get it. They are going to go Sony, Panasonic, Nikon, etc. Its not 10-bit 4:2:2 or 4k60 or C-log or some feature that is truly a cine feature that differentiates...its like not including RAW in a stills camera.

That said, the spec list is almost certainly incomplete. The M6 Mark II shows it having 1080/120 in the 2nd page of the brochure, but that mode is not listed in the spec list (instead just showing 1080/30). Even by Canon standards, leaving off 4k/24 and 1080/24 for the top end APS-C camera would be a crazy differentiation with no justification. At least with the RP it was their lowest model and it had 4k/24.

 

[NeverPlayMonopoly]

I'd buy this for...

....$1,199?

Is that it? Did I win? I want a chance to spin the wheel.

 

[Stereodude]

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.

Do you understand that the sensor heat isn't the primary problem? So they can do full sensor readout to make 1080p no problem, but doing full sensor readout to make 2160p is a problem? It's the same exactly data from the sensor in both cases yet it's different. The sensor just makes extra heat when it knows the user wants 4k from the data. Got it!

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

I didn't say that. If you understood where the heat actually comes from you'd understand the comment.

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.

Please tell us more lies. Youve got a knack for it. Which Canon cameras have HDR video?

 

[Scenes]

there is no end user who needs 24p and is going to go with a Cine line camera (all at $2k+ and most at $5k+) over a 90D just to get it. They are going to go Sony, Panasonic, Nikon, etc.

If you’re a filmmaker shooting 24p at this end of the budget range you should really go black magic 4K pocket camera for cheaper than the 90D will cost.

Not saying lts not an odd decision on canon’s part but doesn’t effect my life either way. Why does it matter so much to you what camera others buy? Do you personally need 24p and that’s why you’re so angry?

 

[Stereodude]

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.

The shutter doesn't rotate. These cameras have an electronic shutter when they shoot video. I know what the terms mean. Kit's attempt to tie them to some distinction between p24 and p30 makes no sense. The target shutter angle for video is generally 180 degrees. It doesn't have to be but it can't be larger than 360 degrees. p30 with a larger shutter angle doesn't make it the same as p24 with a ~180 degree shutter.

Rolling shutter has nothing to do with shutter angle. It's an undesireable artifact due to the lack of a global electronic or mechanical shutter.

 

[Dantana]

But p120 to p24 isn't a conversion. It is just picking every 5th frame in the sequence. should be no jitter for instance

The image would have a completely different shutter speed and motion blur.It would look very strange and nothing like 24p.

Personally, I think waiting for the real announcement would be the right call on this. A leaked spec sheet from Australia where TV is broadcast at 50Hz and 25p would be the most "cinematic" format doesn't seem like the best source of info to lose one's mind over. Just my opinion.

 

[victorshikhman]

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.

 

[Canon1966]

As a macro shooter that only thing that I gain from upgrading my APS-C camera (currently using the 80D) is dynamic range. But I'm also wondering what the trade off is going to be between more pixels and potentially more diffraction (since the pixels are smaller). Can an increase in resolution be more beneficial that an increase in diffraction, provided my MP-E 65mm can out resolve the sensor? Getting this kind of image quality now with my single frame, uncropped, shot at F11 macro:

Leaf Cutter VII by John Kimbler, on Flickr

Great Shot!

 

[privatebydesign]

The image would have a completely different shutter speed and motion blur.It would look very strange and nothing like 24p.

Personally, I think waiting for the real announcement would be the right call on this. A leaked spec sheet from Australia where TV is broadcast at 50Hz and 25p would be the most "cinematic" format doesn't seem like the best source of info to lose one's mind over. Just my opinion.

Well I'm not sure about nothing like but it would look different. Don't forget 24p played on 60Hz is cadenced at 3:2, so one frame is shown three times and the next shown twice. The 'cinematic look' is vastly overstated especially when forced into a sampling rate very different from 24 individual actual frames shown once each second.

 

[Stereodude]

Not saying lts not an odd decision on canon’s part but doesn’t effect my life either way. Why does it matter so much to you what camera others buy? Do you personally need 24p and that’s why you’re so angry?

I couldn't care less if the 90D and M6 II sells fantastic or terribly. However, it's just another canary in the coal mine that shows Canon still isn't adapting to the new market it and all the other camera makers find themselves in.

The idea that Canon is automatically going to be just fine employing the same tactics they did for years (in a growing market) while the market is now in a death spiral doesn't compute to me. A different situation very likely requires different measures. Companies adapt or die when they find themselves in tough times. Maintaining the status quo rarely works.

 

[Dantana]

Well I'm not sure about nothing like but it would look different. Don't forget 24p played on 60Hz is cadenced at 3:2, so one frame is shown three times and the next shown twice. The 'cinematic look' is vastly overstated especially when forced into a sampling rate very different from 24 individual actual frames shown once each second.

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.

 

[AlanF]

I'd love to know what converter people who ask this question are using...



(And if it's about the old and utterly discredited meme that more pixels = more noise, just no...)

This is 10,000 ISO from my 7D Mk II (1000mm handheld, too), converted in Photo Ninja (way better than DxO Photolab - and a damn' sight faster), with no additional NR in PP (click on it for bigger):

I'm rarely below 1600 ISO, and with Photo Ninja I consider 400 ISO and 4000 ISO to be same thing in terms of how the end result will look...

I trialled Noise Ninja at your suggestion and it is very good and a damn sight faster than DxO Prime. But, I was able to get PL 2 to be just as good, and with an 8 core hyperthreaded new MacBook Pro on order I'll stick with DxO and also use isos at your levels.

 

[gambo1953]

Minor concern over Magnesium alloy body (7DmII) v Aluminum alloy (90D) and the extent of the weather sealing on the 90D. I don't shoot much video and the additional pixel real estate is attractive if light sensitivity doesn't suffer...would hope for greater dynamic range but some performance issues will have to be thoroughly tested before I commit. While not opposed to mirror-less many elements would have to be proven to be significantly better before I would consider going the adapter route...I like the heft and feel of the DSLRs as well...particularly when parred with bazooka sized lenses.

 

[3kramd5]

The shutter doesn't rotate. These cameras have an electronic shutter when they shoot video. I know what the terms mean. Kit's attempt to tie them to some distinction between p24 and p30 makes no sense. The target shutter angle for video is generally 180 degrees. It doesn't have to be but it can't be larger than 360 degrees. p30 with a larger shutter angle doesn't make it the same as p24 with a ~180 degree shutter.

Rolling shutter has nothing to do with shutter angle. It's an undesireable artifact due to the lack of a global electronic or mechanical shutter.

Agreed: what people typically talk about these days when discussing “rolling shutter” centers on smearing caused by a line by line read or the passage of a shutter plane shutter when the subject moves relative to the sensor/film.

But when discussing shutter angle, doesn’t that scope it to rotating discs? Obviously these don’t rotate, but isn’t the codec attempting to replicate the cadence of a mechanical one which does?

Maybe not?

 

[Sharlin]

Makes no sense to me why they're suddenly giving an actual vs effective pixels number. Defitely don't remember seeing that before on Canon stuff, or at least not advertised do blatantly. Do not remember seeing effective vs actual pixels when researching and buying any of my current Canon cameras.

Also why is there such a large difference between effective and actual? You only need a 1 pixel border around the edge to correctly debayer, right? The large difference almost made me think IBIS might be in there or something weird.

There's typically a masked part used for noise calibration. For example, the 80D has 24.2 effective megapixels, 25.8 total. However, it is interesting they're mentioning the total MP in promo materials like this. One possibility that comes to mind is using the extra pixels for the digital video stabilization so there's less need to crop.

 

[navastronia]

This is a really, really dumb argument. The 80D shot 24p. The 70D shot 24p. The 60D shot 24p. To not include it is beyond insanity with no justification, because there is no end user who needs 24p and is going to go with a Cine line camera (all at $2k+ and most at $5k+) over a 90D just to get it. They are going to go Sony, Panasonic, Nikon, etc. Its not 10-bit 4:2:2 or 4k60 or C-log or some feature that is truly a cine feature that differentiates...its like not including RAW in a stills camera.

That said, the spec list is almost certainly incomplete. The M6 Mark II shows it having 1080/120 in the 2nd page of the brochure, but that mode is not listed in the spec list (instead just showing 1080/30). Even by Canon standards, leaving off 4k/24 and 1080/24 for the top end APS-C camera would be a crazy differentiation with no justification. At least with the RP it was their lowest model and it had 4k/24.

I feel similarly about this. Below the 60D, even the T3i/600d had 24p back in 2011. To exclude the feature now is preposterous, bordering on nefarious. That said, I'll believe it when I see it.

 

[tron]

I trialled Noise Ninja at your suggestion and it is very good and a damn sight faster than DxO Prime. But, I was able to get PL 2 to be just as good, and with an 8 core hyperthreaded new MacBook Pro on order I'll stick with DxO and also use isos at your levels.

hello Alan 2 DxO Prime noise reduction questions if you will:
1. Do you use the noise reduction suggestion setting? (If I recall correctly all the times it makes it go at 30)? I tend to make it a little less than that to not loose detail.
2. Do you try to compensate any loss of detail by using the sharpness section as well or you leave that for a later stage (like Adobe ACR)?

Thanks

 

[dtaylor]

Three quick thoughts without replying to specific messages...

* The spec sheets contain numerous typos and are clearly incomplete. Are they both even real? Or are they fakes based on the videos? If they are real...rough drafts perhaps...they're missing the advertised 1080p120 along with 24p. Maybe we should wait and see if these cameras actually have 24p before declaring that Canon is doomed?

* "Diffraction limited" - get the word "limited" out of your head. When people compute the DLA they are computing the point at which diffraction starts to become visible versus a shot at a wider aperture. NOT the point where diffraction is dominate and prevents any further resolution gains. A 90D is going to resolve more than an 80D at f/8 and f/11, but not at f/22 or f/32. I hate the term "diffraction limited aperture" for this very reason. Everyone reads it and thinks hard limit.

* I do wish Canon would use weaker AA filters in their line, but not get rid of them completely. My preference is Weak AA > No AA > Strong AA. The 5Ds has a weak AA filter, probably as a consequence of having to be able to cancel it in the 5DsR sensor stack. But while I was looking at 80D vs D500 comparisons (for one of my earlier replies) I was reminded of just how strong Canon's crop sensor AA filters can be. At low ISO you can increase sharpening, but this is harmful at high ISO. I expect this new 32mp sensor will have a typically strong AA filter and that this will harm performance vs. a theoretical no AA filter version. But, at 32mp I expect it's still going to be as sharp or sharper then 20-24mp competitors. Just not as sharp as it could be.