Canon EOS 90D full specifications

koenkooi

EOS R
CR Pro
Feb 25, 2015
1,309
1,089
Yes I agree...I'm not seeing anything remotely 7DIII-ish about this camera. It's obviously an upgrade to the 80D. It's also pretty obvious that the new EOS M6 and the Eos 90D were co-developed...the same sensor and all. It seems bizarre about all the talk of a 1.6x Eos Rf camera...and yet the M series already fulfills that role. It takes EF lenses via an adapter...so I assume that includes ef-s too?
Yes, EF-S works great on the Ms. The EF-S 60mm macro balances quite well compared to the 100mm non-L macro.
 

gambo1953

7D mark II; Sigma 60-600mm for Kayak-based use
The leaked spec sheet mentions aluminum alloy, but it's not clear whether it refers to the chassis or body. The 80D is polycarbonate shell with aluminum and glass fiber chassis. The 90D may or may not be the same.

I wouldn't worry too much about the weather sealing. Even the 80D has, according to Canon, a level of sealing equivalent to the original 7D. The 90D sealing may well be similar to that of the 7D2.
I would be satisfied by weather-sealing as good as the 7D2. Been using mine since it came out and I shoot mainly from a kayak. BIF and other nature and the sealing has worked well. My concern over magnesium v aluminum is a confidence issue since I have never experienced and problems related to body fabrication. Now, if the other specs pan out (improved dynamic range, better ISO sensitivities) and the lack of dual Digic processors is not inhibiting, we could have a winner for me.
 

Keith_Reeder

I really don't mind offending trolls.
Feb 8, 2014
957
469
60
Blyth, NE England
Keith Reeder swears by Noise Ninja for his 7DII
Photo Ninja, Alan - and I swear by if for everything, including my 1Dx

And I do so as a one-time official beta-tester for DxO Optics Pro/PhotoLab (with particular interest in NR and highlight recovery testing) - which I gave up on precisely because it couldn't live with Photo Ninja in either space, and the software engineers I was working with continued to excuse DxO's disappointing performance.
 

tron

EOS R5
CR Pro
Nov 8, 2011
4,641
860
Photo Ninja, Alan - and I swear by if for everything, including my 1Dx

And I do so as a one-time official beta-tester for DxO Optics Pro/PhotoLab (with particular interest in NR and highlight recovery testing) - which I gave up on precisely because it couldn't live with Photo Ninja in either space, and the software engineers I was working with continued to excuse DxO's disappointing performance.
Keith a question: Does Photo Ninja work on RAW files and does it produce a DNG as output just like DXO Prime?
 

AlanF

Stay alert, control the camera, save photos
CR Pro
Aug 16, 2012
7,062
6,415
Photo Ninja, Alan - and I swear by if for everything, including my 1Dx

And I do so as a one-time official beta-tester for DxO Optics Pro/PhotoLab (with particular interest in NR and highlight recovery testing) - which I gave up on precisely because it couldn't live with Photo Ninja in either space, and the software engineers I was working with continued to excuse DxO's disappointing performance.
Keith
Here is an interesting link comparing Noise Ninja with PL2, and some pertinent comments below the blog https://www.andybellphotography.com/blog/2018/10/26/dxo-photolab-2-vs-photo-ninja/ He finds that PL2 is a distinct improvement over the previous, although he prefers Noise Ninja as well, with pros and cons.
The key point is that a good noise reduction package works wonders with high density sensors and allows us to use them up to high iso levels, and Ninja and PRIME are head and shoulders above the others.
Alan
 

much

I'm New Here
Sep 30, 2016
11
1
I guess they need to be bankrupt to understand that we need good specs to buy canon :) (Still on Panasonic GH5 with lightyears ahead )
 

Jasonmc89

EOS 80D
Feb 7, 2019
242
226
UK
Maybe the 5DSR is a poor choice for you. I am in the process of downloading images from a trip to Ecuador and the Galapagos, returning yesterday. Let's start with a Pelican diving to catch fish, which I followed down and got as it was about to hit. Then a blue footed booby in full dive just after sun up at iso 6400, a Galapagos Hawk flying past, a tropical bird belting across the sky, and a Shining Sunbeam, and Storm Petrel flitting erratically over the sea. There are dozens more from the past fortnight but they have yet to be processed. The small buffer doesn't worry me as I don't spray and pray but time my shots.

View attachment 186119View attachment 186120View attachment 186122View attachment 186123View attachment 186124
View attachment 186126
Galapagos hawk!! Very jealous!

Amazing shots!
 
  • Like
Reactions: AlanF

djack41

EOS RP
Jul 12, 2014
215
155
To have the reach of 5DsR (due to its pixel density) you need to put a 1.4XIII teleconverter to the above cameras (except the D850 which has already that pixel density) so for the same speed and aperture you shoot with ISO one stop higher. I never mentioned sports also. That specific discussion was about birds where we are almost always Focal length limited.

But I agree about 5DsR not being ideal at high ISOs but up to 1600 (or even better 1000) it is excellent. For night shots (irrespective of ISO) and for high ISO in general I use my 5DIV which is indeed better.
Cropping does little good if focus is not tack sharp. For BIF, the AF of the 5DSR is not nearly the equal of other camera options. The slow frame rate and anemic buffer means the opportunity to capture the peak-of-action frame may be lost. The AF on the 5DSR uses older 2nd gen AI-servo algorithms. The slow frame rate produces is considerable shutter lag. The battery of the 5DSR does not produce optimal voltage to drive AF servos in the large lenses. Bottom line, 5DSR is a good camera but certainly not the best choice for BIF.
Screen Shot 2019-08-22 at 9.54.45 AM.png
 

AlanF

Stay alert, control the camera, save photos
CR Pro
Aug 16, 2012
7,062
6,415
Cropping does little good if focus is not tack sharp. For BIF, the AF of the 5DSR is not nearly the equal of other camera options. The slow frame rate and anemic buffer means the opportunity to capture the peak-of-action frame may be lost. The AF on the 5DSR uses older 2nd gen AI-servo algorithms. The slow frame rate produces is considerable shutter lag. The battery of the 5DSR does not produce optimal voltage to drive AF servos in the large lenses. Bottom line, 5DSR is a good camera but certainly not the best choice for BIF.
View attachment 186130
Where did the data in that Table come from? And have you interpreted the data correctly?
1. The 5DSR has the same battery as the 7DII and 5DIV, so they also have the same voltage limitations as the 5DSR for driving AF servos.
2. The table has the AF accuracy of the 5DSR better than that of the 7DII in all cases, contradicting your statement that the AF of the 5DSR is not the equal of the others.
3. Slow frame rate certainly does not imply considerable shutter lag - the slow frame rate for the 5DSR results from slow data transfer after image capture, not lag before capture. Imaging resources has measured the shutter lags of the of those cameras, and those of the 5DSR are very close to those for the 7DII: full AF wide/mid is 0.25s for the 7DII and 0.27s for the 5DSR, and for prefocussed (the usual case for BIF), 0.052 and 0.057s respectively.
So, the numbers you have presented don't support your arguments and according to your logic show that the 5DSR is better for BIF than the 7DII.
 
Last edited:

gsealy

EOS RP
Jan 3, 2014
345
14
Poor Canon. Can they ever break ahead from the competitors? Yes, I know that this is not a xD series camera, but since there will be no 7D Mark III, presented here is a 2019 camera with 2008 specs concerning the viewfinder's auto-focus points and the good ol' 4:2:0 color space @ 8bit. Still behind Nikon's D500 in terms of ISO, auto-focus points (45 vs 153), and the lack of an anti-aliasing filter. I own a lot of Canon equipment for videography and photography, but I rely on my Nikon system for the features that Canon lacks; making the difference in moments of necessity.
For video, it pales in comparison to the Fuji X-T3.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Kharan

dtaylor

Canon 5Ds
Jul 26, 2011
1,623
1,166
The 5DS models do not produce excessive noise at higher iso! As Michael Clark pointed out in this thread, modern FF sensors are all similar in noise at higher isos - because they are all of similar efficiency and noise is caused at high isos by photon statistics. If you print at the same size or resize to the same resolution, all the models will give the same noise. As Keith Reeder pointed out here, "more pixels mean more noise is a myth" and, further, with modern noise reduction software, the noise can be efficiently eliminated.
No mention of me? I practically live to come to these forums and point out that more pixels = more noise is a myth. :LOL:

Regarding this topic:

* If you pixel peep high MP vs low MP at high ISO, the noise is worse because you are magnifying the high MP image more. If you survey the 5Ds/sr reviews from 2015 it's surprising how many reviewers didn't seem to understand this. The ones who did and judged at the same view size (i.e. Tony Northrup; Imaging Resource) did not say the 5Ds/sr were worse. They were, in fact, quite pleased with the high ISO performance.

* If you view at the same size the noise level is roughly the same, as it should be because it's dominated by photon statistics (as Michael and Alan have pointed out). But the characteristic of the noise is admittedly different. 5Ds/sr high ISO files are sharper and more detailed, but the noise itself is "sharper" if you will because the interaction is occurring over smaller pixels. This can stand out in areas of solid color (i.e. blue sky). The noise feels more obtrusive even if you can perform a lab test and prove it's comparable when measured.

I basically use ACR and PS and haven't investigated DxO or recent versions of Noise Ninja. They may indeed be better at high ISO. Having said that...

* Color noise cleans up nicely if you bump the color NR slider in ACR at high ISOs. You don't lose detail by bumping the CNR slider. If pushed too hard you lose color fidelity, but that occurs near maximum CNR. Adjust that for the ISO you're shooting at and most of the obtrusive noise in areas of solid color should be gone.

* Luminance NR does cost detail, but you have more detail to begin with with these cameras. I would much rather be in that position. I can choose the balance between noise, sharpness, and fine detail as I move the sliders in ACR. There's nothing you can do to get the detail in a lower MP camera, and if you try to match the sharpness the luminance noise will explode. Conversely, you can push LNR fairly hard with a 5Ds/sr file and still have a sharp, detailed file.

* If you're shooting RAW and playing with your NR sliders you should not end up with a worse print at high ISO from a high MP camera. Your print should be just as clean or even cleaner, yet sharper with more detail as well. If you're going straight to print with no processing you might prefer a lower MP camera because the noise is 'softer' in large areas of color like blue sky.

Having shot a 5Ds for a year I trust it at all ISO settings. Naturally I cannot print as large from 12,800 as I can from 100. And I will use the lowest ISO I can to maximize IQ. But I do not hesitate to use the highest ISOs if I need to. I'm particularly shocked when I hear someone say they don't like it at 1600 or higher because I would not hesitate to make 36" prints from ISO 3200. And I've got a heavily cropped ISO 1600 wedding photo I'm rather proud of which shows zero noise and astonishing fine detail at 17x22.
 
  • Like
Reactions: AlanF

dtaylor

Canon 5Ds
Jul 26, 2011
1,623
1,166
Cropping does little good if focus is not tack sharp. For BIF, the AF of the 5DSR is not nearly the equal of other camera options. The slow frame rate and anemic buffer means the opportunity to capture the peak-of-action frame may be lost.
It astonishes me when people push a narrative which contradicts direct, observable evidence. I don't shoot BiF very often. But Alan apparently does, and he has posted numerous sharp, in focus, peak-of-action images from his 5DsR. Whatever difference that table is measuring (you don't cite a source) it doesn't seem to get in his way.

I'm not going to try and claim that the 5Ds/sr is the best possible BiF body. I can absolutely understand why someone would want the faster frame rates of, say, a 1DX II. But it's silly to try and paint the 5Ds/sr as 'not up to the task.'

I do shoot sports and airshows, and I've been quite happy with the AF on my 5Ds. If I had one complaint it's that I wish I could dial up the 'stickiness' even further when using all point iTR tracking, but I don't think that varies across the Canon bodies available right now. I generally use single point + assist points any way and acquisition time, tracking, and accuracy are excellent. Shutter lag is excellent, frame rate is serviceable for action (IMHO). You do have to be aware of the buffer when shooting RAW and if I could I would double its size.

Shot this at the 2018 Huntington Beach Airshow. If you're familiar with the Thunderbirds you know that one plane likes to buzz the crowd on afterburner while the crowd is distracted by the main four performing a loop or other maneuver. I happened to turn around, notice his approach, and get the camera to my eye just before he passed overhead. AF acquisition was virtually instantaneous, otherwise this shot would not exist.

273A2115 2k.jpg
 

AlanF

Stay alert, control the camera, save photos
CR Pro
Aug 16, 2012
7,062
6,415
No mention of me? I practically live to come to these forums and point out that more pixels = more noise is a myth. :LOL:

Regarding this topic:

* If you pixel peep high MP vs low MP at high ISO, the noise is worse because you are magnifying the high MP image more. If you survey the 5Ds/sr reviews from 2015 it's surprising how many reviewers didn't seem to understand this. The ones who did and judged at the same view size (i.e. Tony Northrup; Imaging Resource) did not say the 5Ds/sr were worse. They were, in fact, quite pleased with the high ISO performance.

* If you view at the same size the noise level is roughly the same, as it should be because it's dominated by photon statistics (as Michael and Alan have pointed out). But the characteristic of the noise is admittedly different. 5Ds/sr high ISO files are sharper and more detailed, but the noise itself is "sharper" if you will because the interaction is occurring over smaller pixels. This can stand out in areas of solid color (i.e. blue sky). The noise feels more obtrusive even if you can perform a lab test and prove it's comparable when measured.

I basically use ACR and PS and haven't investigated DxO or recent versions of Noise Ninja. They may indeed be better at high ISO. Having said that...

* Color noise cleans up nicely if you bump the color NR slider in ACR at high ISOs. You don't lose detail by bumping the CNR slider. If pushed too hard you lose color fidelity, but that occurs near maximum CNR. Adjust that for the ISO you're shooting at and most of the obtrusive noise in areas of solid color should be gone.

* Luminance NR does cost detail, but you have more detail to begin with with these cameras. I would much rather be in that position. I can choose the balance between noise, sharpness, and fine detail as I move the sliders in ACR. There's nothing you can do to get the detail in a lower MP camera, and if you try to match the sharpness the luminance noise will explode. Conversely, you can push LNR fairly hard with a 5Ds/sr file and still have a sharp, detailed file.

* If you're shooting RAW and playing with your NR sliders you should not end up with a worse print at high ISO from a high MP camera. Your print should be just as clean or even cleaner, yet sharper with more detail as well. If you're going straight to print with no processing you might prefer a lower MP camera because the noise is 'softer' in large areas of color like blue sky.

Having shot a 5Ds for a year I trust it at all ISO settings. Naturally I cannot print as large from 12,800 as I can from 100. And I will use the lowest ISO I can to maximize IQ. But I do not hesitate to use the highest ISOs if I need to. I'm particularly shocked when I hear someone say they don't like it at 1600 or higher because I would not hesitate to make 36" prints from ISO 3200. And I've got a heavily cropped ISO 1600 wedding photo I'm rather proud of which shows zero noise and astonishing fine detail at 17x22.
Absolutely correct, dtaylor, you certainly are one of the exploders of the more pixels more noise myth, and more power to your elbow!
 
  • Like
Reactions: prodorshak

neuroanatomist

I post too Much on Here!!
CR Pro
Jul 21, 2010
24,645
2,159
Where did the data in that Table come from? And have you interpreted the data correctly?
Would you actually call those 'data'? Beyond the most basic 'no units, no answer' they look like nothing more than someone's subjective evaluations on a 'rate from 1 to 10 with 10 being best' scale.

Clearly, based on the 'data' below, cucumber slices represent the optimal afternoon snack. :p

Afternoon Snack.png
 

djack41

EOS RP
Jul 12, 2014
215
155
Where did the data in that Table come from? And have you interpreted the data correctly?
1. The 5DSR has the same battery as the 7DII and 5DIV, so they also have the same voltage limitations as the 5DSR for driving AF servos.
2. The table has the AF accuracy of the 5DSR better than that of the 7DII in all cases, contradicting your statement that the AF of the 5DSR is not the equal of the others.
3. Slow frame rate certainly does not imply considerable shutter lag - the slow frame rate for the 5DSR results from slow data transfer after image capture, not lag before capture. Imaging resources has measured the shutter lags of the of those cameras, and those of the 5DSR are very close to those for the 7DII: full AF wide/mid is 0.25s for the 7DII and 0.27s for the 5DSR, and for prefocussed (the usual case for BIF), 0.052 and 0.057s respectively.
So, the numbers you have presented don't support your arguments and according to your logic show that the 5DSR is better for BIF than the 7DII.
I believe I said the 5DSR is not the equal of other options. Did I say "all others"? Correct me if I am wrong.

As to voltage, the 7D2 and 5D4 can boost the voltage internally which allows them to drive the ultra-sonic servo motor of the lens a bit faster. The 5d3 and 5DSR do not have this capability. The 1DX2 uses a larger capacity Li-ion pack to drive the len's servo quicker than other Canon bodies.

I own a 7D2 but rarely use it for BIF as it has a dated AF and poor ISO performance. But I would choose the 7d2 over my 5DSR for BIF in some circumstances because it has advantages such as superior FR and buffer.

The 5D4 and 1DX2 are much better choices than the 5DSR or the 7D2 for BIF. Shutter lag exists with all cameras but is an important consideration when shooting in AI-servo. Cameras with more shutter lag make it more difficult for the camera to accurately predict focus when shooting fast moving subjects. The Gen3 AF module and software found in the 5D4 and 1DX2 do a much better job of predictive focusing in AI-servo....aided by less shutter lag.

Comparisons between the dated 7D2 and the 5DSR is a little fruitless. Better camera options than the 5DSR are provided by Canon.

The 5DSR has a older generation AF, very slow FR and a small buffer. It does not drive the AF servos of super tele lenses as quickly as the 5D4 or 1DX2. It does not handle tele-converters well and lacks the cross type AF points of the 5D4 or 1DX2.

To each his own but I do not want to miss capturing the critical, split second pose of a BIF because of a slow FR, small buffer or dated AF.