Canon EOS 90D Specification List [CR1]
- Thread starter Canon Rumors Guy
- Start date
I have bought lots of digital photography equipment over the past 20 years. I began with Kodak and Fuji digital P&S cameras, to now having a number of Canon DSLRs, an M5 with lots of EF, EF-S and EF-M lenses and accessories. Two of my most used cameras are my 80D and M5.
I am sharing my experience with you - here, in that Canon's APS-C mirrorless cameras (e.g. the M5) are quite different in use to a APS-C DSLR (despite e.g. M5 and 80D having similar sensors). While DPAF (dual pixel auto focus) is great in many ways (e.g. in decent light it's extremely accurate and fairly quick). But in dim light autofocus reaches limitations, especially with 'slow' glass (i.e. slower than f/2.8). The M5 is not as responsive as the 80D in terms of shot to shot use, AF tracking. The playback and menu system are slower on the M5 too. In bright light, I much prefer the OVF (optical view finder) of the 80D. But in dim light the M5's view finder can be really helpful.
I have used the EOS R (FF mirrorless) - and it's EVF (electronic view finder) is notably better than the M5's (bigger, brighter and more accurate colours and in representing dynamic range). The M5 with medium to large sized adapted EF lenses (e.g. my 70-300mm L or even my 100mm L) soon feels uncomfortable to hold for long periods compared to my 80D.
Where the M5 shines is: having a smaller, lighter and more portable travel camera. It's great to be less intrusive for casual and street photography too. The Canon EF-M lenses I own are all handy in their own right. These are the: 22mm f/2, 15-45mm and 18-150mm - with all working well for different purposes. I also have the Samyang/Rokinon 12mm f/2, which is GREAT for astrophotography.
But If I would need to limit myself to 1 camera, I would choose my 80D (which often pairs with the very versatile 15-85mm for general purpose and travel). Or for ultra wide angle, the Sigma 8-16mm, for macro the 100mmL, for portraits the 50mm (or 100mmL) and for telephoto, the 70-300mm L. I will keep a close eye on the M5mkII, but at this stage, will also keep a DSLR or 2 - because they complement the mirrorless offerings. Hence the 90D is interesting for me from a future proofing perspective.
Meanwhile, I will also be tempted to move to the EOS RF mount FF mirrorless in the future, when a more responsive body is available, and hopefully one which has IBIS. The 24-240mm looks like a decent travel lens, and I hope its optical quality is fairly decent for a 'super zoom'. Will be interesting to see.
PJ
I like the m5 a lot but it falls apart with anything that is moving erratically with sudden changes of direction (think tennis). I only have one M lens (18-150) which is not bad. My two favorite lenses on the camera are the EF 40mm f2.8 pancake and the EF 70-200 f4 L IS II. Believe it or not, I think the balance is great with he 70-200 and it is pretty fast focus. The 40mm f2.8 is insanely sharp. The 24-70 f2.8 L II has great IQ on the M5, but is a bit unwieldy. I typically prefer zooms over fixed focal length lenses. I would love to have an capable m5 form factor camera with 7dII capabilities (Fuji X-T3??) as a backup to my 1dxII on wildlife trips. I would also take a "90d" if it has enough 7dII DNA. I prefer a fast APS-C over my 5dIV for wildlife trips. I had the 7d & 7dII but was never happy with ISO above 800 and finally sold the 7d II. Basically, just give me a high spec APS-C sensor camera with great high ISO performance and a 10-12fps burst rate with a 100 shot buffer and they can call it a ZippyRocket for all I care.
D
Deleted member 378664
Guest
if you copy the russian text in the search engine of your choice you will find a russian website containing exactly these sentences.
Frank
P.S.: I did not translate the rest of the page to find out if there are some more useful informations
Yes, we agree on the use of the M5 - great as a travel / casual camera, and very convenient size with native EF-M lenses. Indeed, it does well with adapted lenses too, though the larger / heavier lenses soon make the M5's small grip uncomfortable for me. I have used my M5 briefly with my 70-300mm L, and find it uncomfortable, whereas the 70-300mm L on my 7D or 80D balances well.
AF speed on the M5 with quality lenses (e.g. USM or STM) is pretty good. The 18-150mm is a great lens, but it doesn't focus as fast as some of the primes though. I also have the EF-M 18-150mm and 15-45mm, as well as the 22mm /2. The EF-S 18-135 nano USM focuses insanely fast on the 80D, particularly in optical AF mode, but also very good in live view.
I use the M5 as a backup to my DSLRs (e.g. having a certain lens attached that I might use less frequently while on a photography outing. The image quality of it is very close to the 80D (but the back screen is over saturated compared to the 80D). And the M5's EVF is no where near as good as the EOS R's EVF.
You're right, the M5 doesn't track erratically moving subjects as well as most Canon DSLRs. So the overall user experience for fast and erratic moving subjects, and it's lack of speed is indeed an issue. for that type of photography.
The 40mm f/2.8 pancake is indeed very sharp, as is the EF-S 24mm f/2.8. I sold my 40mm f/2.8 as I also had the 50mm f/1.8 STM, and found by f/2.8 they were just as good as each other optically, and the 50mm STM is still a small / light lens (though not as 'pancake short'). The M5 with small lenses works well for me.
If Canon put out a M5 with improved specs, I would love a bit larger grip. But it would really need to have something special for me to upgrade my M5. The 90D would be ideal if it was the size of the 80D, with at least the sensor of the 80D, but speed and AF of the 7D II, and a few other nice tricks up its sleeves. That would tempt me to buy a 90D. Hopefully both cameras would keep the same batteries as their predecessors.
PJ
For what it's worth: If two lenses share the exact same optical formula and one is made to be used on a camera with a 44 mm registration distance and the other is made to be used on a camera with a 20mm registration distance, the latter will necessarily be 24 mm longer than the former so that the total distance from sensor to front of lens is exactly the same.
I agree. I’d love to see an aps-c R mount 7diii/90D replacement. If Canon want people to start buying into the R system then THAT is the way!
Maybe they should exchange engineers. A color science guy for Sony and a sensor developer for Canon.
It allowed a transition as you say.
Canon wanted to do it right not first.
That is why when the EOS truly pro level cameras left Nikon in the trash heap for nearly 30 years as Nikon refused to join the 21st century and abandon the whirly lever slapping anqique lenses they had. They were like molasses in the winter in response time vs EF lenses. As we know it is only recently that Nikon among others finally abandoned the levers and whirly screwdrivers etc for something more modern that canon did over 30 years ago. The F-1 was still a pro level camera but during it's life the Nikon dominated the pro market and only the far superior and advanced EOS was able to crush Nikon. Canon just wanted it right not first.
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.
Last edited:
It doesn't make sense to make an EF-S/M equivalent for every EF lens. E.g. The crop equivalent of EF 500mm f/4L IS USM would be, for all practical purpose, an EF 300mm f/4L IS USM, which Canon already makes.
I agree.
I am not arguing that there should be an equivalent for every EF lens. My point is that there is currently a lack of RF and EF-M lenses, which at the moment creates a problem.
I agree there's a lack of RF lenses, but it seems Canon is going to resolve this one.
My point the smaller number of EF-M lenses, by itself, does not lead to the conclusion there's a lack of them.
The size and weight advantage of the EF-M 11-22 is not so apparent in comparison to the EF-S 10-18 though, and Canon does in fact make an EF-M 11-22, which does not support your position that M owners are being deprived. I don't believe that using an adapter is better than not using an adapter, but using an adapter is a practical solution that gives M camera owners access to 75 EF and EF-S lenses.
No the crop equivalent of a 500mm f4 would be a 312mm f2.5, basically a 300mm f2.8 which Canon, and everybody else, also make. But please, if we are using the word equivalent let’s use the correct method of Equivalence.
Go to store and compare. Then you see big difference. 11-22 half size of 10-18. 11-22 sharper, 10-18 less vignette. No best lens.
Oh please. Let's not start that debate again. There is nothing authoritative about the essay you cite. You and others choose to place greater emphasis on apparent depth of field over exposure equivalence. That's your choice, but it is a choice, nothing more. We've been round and round on this topic way too many times in the past. Let's not revive it.
What EF-M lenses do you feel are lacking? Personally, I think the lineup is effective for my own use cases with the M series.
