Canon EOS 90D full specifications

[neuroanatomist]

And yet neither you or anyone else has presented a more feasible alternative theory. In fact, no one has presented any alternative theory. But keep insisting that the obvious conclusion is wrong.

So in your mind, ‘they removed p24 from the PowerShot G series to protect sales of the EOS Cinema line’ is the obvious conclusion?

Your mind is one seriously psychedelic place, way groovy man!

 

[3kramd5]

So in your mind, ‘they removed p24 from the PowerShot G series to protect sales of the EOS Cinema line’ is the obvious conclusion?

Your mind is one seriously psychedelic place, way groovy man!

It wouldn’t do to have the next Cannes Palme d’or winner using a point and shoot, now would it?

 

[Aussie shooter]

Sure, it’s possible to convert frame rates. But for some, it’s not an option from a philosophical standpoint. p24 is the Cinematic frame rate, capital ‘C’. Anything else isn’t pure.

Maybe Nikon will release the Nikon Vf, a DSLR that doesn’t capture still images, only p24 video. For Pure Videography.

Can someone explain to me what the 'cinematic' look is? And why it is better than 30fps? Surely that is like saying printing a massive print is better with 12mp than it is with 60 because that is how it was 'traditionally'.

 

[flip314]

Am I right in thinking the 80D didn’t have 24fps ? In which the market for this camera isn’t going to miss what they never had.

You don't understand, 24p has become essential since the 80D was released. /s

 

[3kramd5]

Can someone explain to me what the 'cinematic' look is? And why it is better than 30fps? Surely that is like saying printing a massive print is better with 12mp than it is with 60 because that is how it was 'traditionally'.

I read this explanation.

24FPS vs 60FPS - Videomaker

Videomaker – Learn video production and editing, camera reviews › Forums › General › Video and Film Discussion › 24FPS vs 60FPS This topic contains 40 replies, has 18 voices, and was last updated by Jaimie 1 year, 10 months ago. Author Posts November 8, 2010 at 5:09 PM #44362...

www.videomaker.com

I don’t disregard that it has a different look due to the cadence, not that I can pick it out myself.

 

[neuroanatomist]

Can someone explain to me what the 'cinematic' look is? And why it is better than 30fps? Surely that is like saying printing a massive print is better with 12mp than it is with 60 because that is how it was 'traditionally'.

I think a former US Supreme Court justice explained it well...

 

[Kharan]

Sorry, my mistake.

I guess you’re screwed, p24 is dead.

Evidently, Canon doesn’t think it matters for those models. Evidently, you do. Who do you think knows more about making and selling cameras? Yeah, I thought so.

Aww, neuroanatomist has resorted to an argument from authority fallacy for the umpteenth time.
You think that Canon know what they’re doing, but the camera market is sinking and they’re the captains of the ship. If they really knew what they were doing, they’d own 70% of the market and they’d have managed to stabilize sales, at least. But they’re in a panic, just like everyone else, and grasping at straws.

Panicked people often do not make rational decisions.

 

[navastronia]

This is going to be the trolliest thing I’ve ever posted here, but I’m genuinely baffled by people who a) can’t tell the difference between 30p and 24p framerates and b) (much worse) people who prefer high frame rate video (60p) to 24p

 

[unfocused]

Can someone explain to me what the 'cinematic' look is? And why it is better than 30fps? Surely that is like saying printing a massive print is better with 12mp than it is with 60 because that is how it was 'traditionally'.

My understanding is that 24 fps more closely replicates traditional film, while 30 fps replicates traditional television videotape. The difference is subtle, but if your are old enough to remember when television shows started to be shot on tape, rather than film you may remember that the taped shows had a look that I might describe as "too ordinary." Today, with virtually everything on television shot on tape, you may not notice it. But, it's a little like watching someone play act in your living room, vs. watching a film in a theater. Many feel that the "cinematic look" of 24 fps creates a better "fourth wall" between the viewer and the film.

To me, this is a bit ironic because 4K is so hyper-realistic that it virtually erases that fourth wall visually. People demand that digtial cameras record in 4K and then complain about the lack of 24 fps, but honestly, once you cross that 4K bridge I don't see any way to retain anything remotely resembling a cinematic look no matter what frame rate you shoot.

 

[navastronia]

Can someone explain to me what the 'cinematic' look is? And why it is better than 30fps? Surely that is like saying printing a massive print is better with 12mp than it is with 60 because that is how it was 'traditionally'.

I can’t fault you if you can’t tell the difference between 24p and 30p (or other frame rates) but I can say that for many of us, especially cinefiles and those who have worked in film, they’re about as interchangeable as salt and sugar.

 

[Kharan]

Can someone explain to me what the 'cinematic' look is? And why it is better than 30fps? Surely that is like saying printing a massive print is better with 12mp than it is with 60 because that is how it was 'traditionally'.

It goes like this: a video clip is a sequence of still shots, a lot like shooting a burst of photographs. If you’re doing things right, the amount of frames per second at which you record will determine your shutter angle (I.e. shutter speed), which should be 180º for most things (I.e. twice the number of FPS: 1/48 for 24, 1/60 for 30, 1/240 for 120, and so on).
I’m sure that, as a photographer, you realize that your shutter speed is critical to convey motion: you shoot faster to freeze motion, and slower to emphasize it at the cost of sharpness. Exactly the same applies to video - recording at 24p leads to blurry motion, which is often regarded as organic or smooth, whereas high frame rates like 120p lead to realistic motion... but it often looks choppy, too.

It’s basically a matter of personal preference. In this case, Canon are being stupid by removing the option to record 24p. It’d be as if they decided that their consumer cameras would only bracket 7 shots. Not 5, not 3, only 7, despite the hardware being there to do it. “That’s the way pros do it, it’s better!” they might say, but I think you’d agree that it’d be aggravating for lots of users, not to mention patronizing. Just give people the choice, damnit!

 

[navastronia]

My understanding is that 24 fps more closely replicates traditional film, while 30 fps replicates traditional television videotape. The difference is subtle, but if your are old enough to remember when television shows started to be shot on tape, rather than film you may remember that the taped shows had a look that I might describe as "too ordinary." Today, with virtually everything on television shot on tape, you may not notice it. But, it's a little like watching someone play act in your living room, vs. watching a film in a theater. Many feel that the "cinematic look" of 24 fps creates a better "fourth wall" between the viewer and the film.

To me, this is a bit ironic because 4K is so hyper-realistic that it virtually erases that fourth wall visually. People demand that digtial cameras record in 4K and then complain about the lack of 24 fps, but honestly, once you cross that 4K bridge I don't see any way to retain anything remotely resembling a cinematic look no matter what frame rate you shoot.

“Film people” (like, printed film) are going to hate me saying this, but 4K/24p doesn’t break the 4th wall any more than a great 35mm print does. The frame rate is the most important thing - resolution, color, format, everything else is secondary.

EDIT: 24p is film. That’s not hyperbole, it’s just the essential thing that defines the medium (aside from having visual frames play in sequence, I suppose).

 

[Mt Spokane Photography]

With DxO PL PRIME noise reduction it will be good enough for significant cropping at iso1600.
With those specs and spot AF to boot, it's on my purchase list, hopefully for my next trip in November. Paired with the 100-400mm II it should be pretty awesome for bird photography.

Unless it has some sort of new tech, its going to be a incremental increase over the previous 24 mp sensor. I did not see anything hinting at new technology, but I suspect it will be good at ISO's up to 6400 with no big issues.

We'll have to wait for your review.

This new sensor is going to appear in a lot of APS-C models, I expect its had a lot of testing.

 

[davidhfe]

To me, this is a bit ironic because 4K is so hyper-realistic that it virtually erases that fourth wall visually. People demand that digtial cameras record in 4K and then complain about the lack of 24 fps, but honestly, once you cross that 4K bridge I don't see any way to retain anything remotely resembling a cinematic look no matter what frame rate you shoot.

Isn't that a like saying super 8 is more cinematic than super 35? How many major films have ever been natively captured at 2k 24p? Why aren't studios yelling at ARRI for making an Alexa that doesn't look 'remotely cinematic?'

Anyways, unlike 30p conversion to 24p (which does have actual technical challenges) downsampling 4k to 2k seems pretty trivial, and ends up making the end product look better in many cases than natively captured 2k. The issue around 30p is that it's actually not trivial to spatially interpolate down to 24p if that's the look you're after

 

[3kramd5]

This is going to be the trolliest thing I’ve ever posted here, but I’m genuinely baffled by people who a) can’t tell the difference between 30p and 24p framerates and b) (much worse) people who prefer high frame rate video (60p) to 24p

Maybe viewing them side by side I could, but I’ve a) never done that and b) never done that.

When above I said I can’t pick it out, I mean I don’t recognize frame-rate when viewing video.

I wonder though how much of personal preference is familiarity. I listen to a lot of music in odd meter, and often people who are accustomed to common time (4/4) find it off-putting.

 

[jayphotoworks]

While this is not directly relevant to why 24p isn't on this camera (or others), Canon doesn't exactly have a good grasp of the enthusiast/pro video market either. This is probably one of the reasons why their cinema line has done so poorly. Canon lost 60% of its cinema line sales in 1Q 2019 leading to it actually reclassifying that entire segment into Industry which BTW has continued to do poorly in 2Q 2019. Canon probably thought differentiating a.k.a "crippling" their hybrid 5D systems would move people into their cinema EOS line, but was probably shocked that equally high priced and underspecced cinema cameras won't sell either. The C100 couldn't do 4K and the C200 that can doesn't have a mid-level 4:2:2 codec. By the time you got into a C300, there were plenty of other options on the market better specced and priced. I think Canon is great for stills, but if you are working a lot with video, there are a ton of better options out there both in the MILC and Cinema space..

 

[dslrdummy]

With DxO PL PRIME noise reduction it will be good enough for significant cropping at iso1600.
With those specs and spot AF to boot, it's on my purchase list, hopefully for my next trip in November. Paired with the 100-400mm II it should be pretty awesome for bird photography.

Likewise, I have a trip to India next year and will need a new body, hopefully to snap some tigers. Look forward to hearing how you find it. I might hold off to see if this high res EOS R arrives.

 

[neuroanatomist]

Aww, neuroanatomist has resorted to an argument from authority fallacy for the umpteenth time.
You think that Canon know what they’re doing, but the camera market is sinking and they’re the captains of the ship. If they really knew what they were doing, they’d own 70% of the market and they’d have managed to stabilize sales, at least. But they’re in a panic, just like everyone else, and grasping at straws.

Panicked people often do not make rational decisions.

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

 

[syder]

That's a pretty damning argument you've put together. However, you're mistaken. It's against Canon, not me. I keep stating that Canon is utterly delusional for thinking they're going to lose Cx00 sales to a P&S or a MILC/DSLR, but their actions speak quite loudly.

If you can come up with a better explanation for why Canon is pulling p24 from new models and why they continually lag on video features after once leading I'm all ears.

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.

The only utterly delusional one here still seems to be you

 

[nonac]

I quit paying attention after discovering it only has one card slot, a non-starter for me.