I only state what I am confident to assert.
The purpose of my statement is so those who were thinking of getting will do so before they are labeled as
discontinued.
The 90D is a cheaper to manufacture
alternative to the 7D Mark II.
RF full frame body lineup may mirror that of Sony's at 5.
- High ISO
- High MP
- High Continuous shooting
- Compact form factor/cheap
- General purpose
The 90D AF system is not as good as the 7D Mark II. It's the same AF system that the 80D had. I've tested it, and so have many others who have said the same thing. One would expect an R7 to be much better than either the 90D or the 7D Mark II in terms of AF, just as the R5 is much better than the 5D Mark IV.
The 90D has a lower shutter life rating than the 7D Mark II (120K vs. 200K). Many 7D Mark II users put a LOT of mileage on those bodies. I put about 9,000 frames per year on all of my 5-Series bodies combined. I put about 30K frames on my 7D Mark II body per year.
Those two things alone led me to decide not to buy a 90D. I'll buy another 7D Mark II before I buy a 90D.
The 90D
is a better general purpose APS-C body than the 7D Mark II. I don't use the 7D Mark II as a general purpose body, though. My current general purpose body is a 5D Mark IV.
Eventually my general purpose body will likely be an R5, if I'm still shooting enough to justify the cost in a couple of years. An R7 would not be a general purpose body for most of the folks who would buy it. It certainly would not be a general purpose body for me.