# Canon EOS 90D full specifications



## Canon Rumors Guy (Aug 20, 2019)

> Here are the full specifications for the upcoming Canon EOS 90D.
> The EOS 90D is a powerful, fully equipped interchangeable lens camera providing you with everything you need at your fingertips to advance your photography and video skills. The EOS 90D shoots a fast 10 frames per second continuous shooting with full autofocus tracking. Paired with the 3” vari-angle LCD touch screen, the EOS 90D allows you to get creative and photograph your subject from any angle. The camera also comes equipped with a 32.5 MP APS-C CMOS sensor and the ability to shoot 4K 30p and Full HD 120p movies.
> 
> 
> ...



Continue reading...


----------



## keithcooper (Aug 20, 2019)

Guess this kills off any 7D mk3 ;-)


----------



## dslrdummy (Aug 20, 2019)

The big question for me as somebody primarily interested in wildlife and sports photography is how well a 32.5MP APS-C sensor will cope at ISO's above 1600.


----------



## Jasonmc89 (Aug 20, 2019)

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

Wonder what I could use that for?


----------



## SecureGSM (Aug 20, 2019)

Jasonmc89 said:


> I’m still surprised at that 1/16000 shutter speed!
> 
> Wonder what I could use that for?



for environmental portraiture wide open at F1.4 in full sun


----------



## AlanF (Aug 20, 2019)

dslrdummy said:


> The big question for me as somebody primarily interested in wildlife and sports photography is how well a 32.5MP APS-C sensor will cope at ISO's above 1600.


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.


----------



## Keith_Reeder (Aug 20, 2019)

dslrdummy said:


> The big question for me as somebody primarily interested in wildlife and sports photography is how well a 32.5MP APS-C sensor will cope at ISO's above 1600.



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...


----------



## AntlerstoPeaks (Aug 20, 2019)

Will be interesting to see how they price this. 

What’s the usual delay from announcement to release? I have an end of September trip that this would be perfect for.


----------



## PureClassA (Aug 20, 2019)

Kinda odd, the frame rates on the video... Doesn't seem like a full listing


----------



## criscokkat (Aug 20, 2019)

Keith_Reeder said:


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


Weird. I didn't see the picture in the post, but replying to your post I see the picture in the edit window. Very nice and sharp with very little noise. Nice!


----------



## Keith_Reeder (Aug 20, 2019)

criscokkat said:


> Weird. I didn't see the picture in the post, but replying to your post I see the picture in the edit window. Very nice and sharp with very little noise. Nice!


Yep, and I expect the 90D to be approaching a stop better.


----------



## privatebydesign (Aug 20, 2019)

dslrdummy said:


> The big question for me as somebody primarily interested in wildlife and sports photography is how well a 32.5MP APS-C sensor will cope at ISO's above 1600.


At the same reproduction size (not percent) it will be no worse and probably better than any previous Canon.


----------



## BillB (Aug 20, 2019)

SecureGSM said:


> for environmental portraiture wide open at F1.4 in full sun


Especially when you forget to bring any neutral density filters with you.


----------



## Diltiazem (Aug 20, 2019)

PureClassA said:


> Kinda odd, the frame rates on the video... Doesn't seem like a full listing



Yes, incomplete. Video does say 4K 25p/30p.


----------



## knight427 (Aug 20, 2019)

This could be a great option for me. I currently use my 6D for everything, and it's kind of rough shooting BiF (I'm sure film wildlife shooters from the past would feel very sorry for me! ). I use the 100-400ii, but I also own both the 1.4x and 2x TC, but those mostly get used for moon photos due to f/8 AF limits on the 6D. I understand that the 90D would give me a the equivalent of a glassless 1.6x TC. I'm curious if it would retain AF with either the 1.4x or 2X . The 2x would be pushing usability anyway, but I'm still curious.

On the other hand, as the R comes down in price, that is a more attractive single body solution. As much as I love the low light performance of my 6D, I am finally getting god enough at Milky Way photos to be DR limited. Users here have reported acceptable AF performance using the 100-400ii+2x TC, which would level the BiF playing field between the R and 90D+1.4x. But in addition I'd presumably get more DR for recovering shadows in the foreground of my Milky Way photos.

So my current hypothetical dilemma is to consider a dual body solution (6D + 90D) or a single body solution (R).


----------



## bsbeamer (Aug 20, 2019)

This looks really appealing. Waiting for price info and maybe some video samples/tests, but should be great replacement for two 70D's I use for certain projects. Really wish the 5D4 would get this 4K recording mode, even at crop...


----------



## codynpatterson (Aug 20, 2019)

As a customer who buys from them even though they don't listen, it's frustrating that they don't! We have consistently asked to be brought up to atleast par with other cameras from 4 years ago. 2 card slots and 4k 60 would have easily sold me on this, unfortunately, I will not be getting this now.


----------



## ethanz (Aug 20, 2019)

How many MP would you get from making a full frame sensor from this 32.5 MP ASP C sensor?


----------



## SUNDOG04 (Aug 20, 2019)

Keith_Reeder said:


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


Good posting and with proof. BTW is this a Red-backed Vole?


----------



## Keith_Reeder (Aug 20, 2019)

codynpatterson said:


> As a customer who buys from them even though they don't listen



Why should they listen to you?

When have you ever actually spoken to a Canon executive with the power to make you your perfect camera?


> We have consistently asked to be brought up to at least par with other cameras from 4 years ago



Who's this "we"?

And - again - who did you ask?

(Banging on about something on an internet forum is _not _"asking Canon...")


----------



## Keith_Reeder (Aug 20, 2019)

SUNDOG04 said:


> Good posting and with proof. BTW is this a Red-backed Vole?


No, it's a European Bank vole - very similar critters occupying similar ecological niches, as far as I can tell.


----------



## ketsang (Aug 20, 2019)

ethanz said:


> How many MP would you get from making a full frame sensor from this 32.5 MP ASP C sensor?


 83.2mpx


----------



## neonlight (Aug 20, 2019)

But it will probably have the AA filter, making it somewhere between 40 and 50 MP equivalent...
Certainly a more difficult choice if we're not going to have a 7DIII. Between this and an R. Seems it will do pretty much what a 7DII does and a bit more. My guess is that this is the last semi-pro APS-C body in the EF (s) range?


----------



## Lee Jay (Aug 20, 2019)

I wonder what "Uncropped/Cropped 29.97 " means. Two modes, one full-sensor, one 1:1 crop? Variable digital zoom between them? Same thing with 1080P? I'd dearly love a 1:1 pixel crop mode in video like we had many years ago on the Rebels.


----------



## amorse (Aug 20, 2019)

codynpatterson said:


> As a customer who buys from them even though they don't listen, it's frustrating that they don't! We have consistently asked to be brought up to atleast par with other cameras from 4 years ago. 2 card slots and 4k 60 would have easily sold me on this, unfortunately, I will not be getting this now.


I guess I'm a bit out of the loop, but I'm drawing a blank on what this is missing when compared to an equivalent tier camera from 4 years ago?


----------



## Lee Jay (Aug 20, 2019)

amorse said:


> I guess I'm a bit out of the loop, but I'm drawing a blank on what this is missing when compared to an equivalent tier camera from 4 years ago?



You aren't paying attention. I'll give you a list.

Direct wireless neural interface.
Molecule tracking based on DNA detection.
8k/1000p.
Radioisotope thermoelectric generator instead of lithium rechargeable batteries.
Warp field generator to eliminate weight and inertia.
Thin film fluidic lens covering all focal lengths seamlessly.
Option to buy two and use them as a long-baseline optical interferometer or a 3D setup.
Built-in spectrophotometer for white balance.
Built in stabilization not only in our 6 axes, but those of several other universes as well.
Do try to pay attention to the market next time.


----------



## -pekr- (Aug 20, 2019)

I am curious about Canon explaining the 90D. Is that really a 7D ii replacement, with just one card slot? Maybe they have just upped the game for the xxD line and 7D iii later?


----------



## djkraq (Aug 20, 2019)

Thanx Canon for including all the video features I wanted except for...ya kno.... LOG... No C-Log, come on man


----------



## hazydave (Aug 20, 2019)

ethanz said:


> How many MP would you get from making a full frame sensor from this 32.5 MP ASP C sensor?


A full frame sensor with the same pixel pitch would have an 83.2 megapixel sensor. And hey, the rumor mill does suggest a FF EOS 5DS replacement may sport something in the 70-80 megapixel range.


----------



## Hector1970 (Aug 20, 2019)

Lee Jay said:


> You aren't paying attention. I'll give you a list.
> 
> Direct wireless neural interface.
> Molecule tracking based on DNA detection.
> ...


Does that mean I'll have a nuclear waste problem when my battery stops working. 
Couldn't Canon just use Dilithium crystals like Sony do.


----------



## ethanz (Aug 20, 2019)

hazydave said:


> A full frame sensor with the same pixel pitch would have an 83.2 megapixel sensor. And hey, the rumor mill does suggest a FF EOS 5DS replacement may sport something in the 70-80 megapixel range.


Thanks for calculating it.

That's what I'm thinking. So maybe the next 5DS replacement will be 83 MP.


----------



## amorse (Aug 20, 2019)

-pekr- said:


> I am curious about Canon explaining the 90D. Is that really a 7D ii replacement, with just one card slot? Maybe they have just upped the game for the xxD line and 7D iii later?


I think they're splitting the difference. Finding a spot between 80D and 7Dii with the 7Diii never coming. So it's a bit more than one would expect in an update to the 80D, but not quite what one would expect in a 7Diii. Maybe the vision is that a spiritual successor to the 7Dii will be mirrorless. The 7D series really depends on focus speed and accuracy, and I think there are certainly opportunities for focusing advancement in mirrorless if you have enough processing power. For all we know, that could be why the M5ii was rumoured as delayed (healthy dose of speculation there).


----------



## Hector1970 (Aug 20, 2019)

Hmm - I would have liked to be excited by this. The M6II seems alot more exciting.
I'd have liked 12 FPS to get me interested.
Maybe the price will amaze me or the reviews.
Am I reading it right - does it do 30 FPS with the mirror up?


----------



## hazydave (Aug 20, 2019)

djkraq said:


> Thanx Canon for including all the video features I wanted except for...ya kno.... LOG... No C-Log, come on man


No mention of 24p in these, either. And still the completely pointless 30 minute recording limit. Still no support for 64-bit files, even though every SDXC card is formatted with a 64-bit file system (ok, that last one is kind of a minor nit). 

And not much in the way of higher frame rates. The fact they're supporting full frame 4K suggested this was a new Canon sensor technology. And maybe it is. But the current one seems to have had several interrelated problems. Speed (frame rate), heat (no possibility for IBIS, even on mirrorless), and 4K crop (heat again) all being basically the same issue with their level of tech. 

Kind of hoping this was the year Canon wasn't two sensor generations behind Sony. Then again, I've been hoping for that since 2013 or so ...


----------



## hazydave (Aug 20, 2019)

amorse said:


> I think they're splitting the difference. Finding a spot between 80D and 7Dii with the 7Diii never coming. So it's a bit more than one would expect in an update to the 80D, but not quite what one would expect in a 7Diii. Maybe the vision is that a spiritual successor to the 7Dii will be mirrorless. The 7D series really depends on focus speed and accuracy, and I think there are certainly opportunities for focusing advancement in mirrorless if you have enough processing power. For all we know, that could be why the M5ii was rumoured as delayed (healthy dose of speculation there).


I'd bet that this is here to placate both 80D and 7Dii users, beast as any single model can, and yeah, the real pro/enthusiast upgrade to the 7Dii will be mirrorless. And yeah, that puts Canon in the weird position of supporting two incompatible APS-C systems.


----------



## Chaitanya (Aug 20, 2019)

My 500D is already dead so this will be a nice addition to bag for shooting macro videos.


----------



## wockawocka (Aug 20, 2019)

ethanz said:


> Thanks for calculating it.
> 
> That's what I'm thinking. So maybe the next 5DS replacement will be 83 MP.



It's likely as the 7D ii sensor was a scaled down 5Ds sensor if memory serves me correctly.


----------



## highdesertmesa (Aug 20, 2019)

ethanz said:


> Thanks for calculating it.
> 
> That's what I'm thinking. So maybe the next 5DS replacement will be 83 MP.



If it's the same sensor scaled up, then a 3-image vertical stitched pano should approximate the new high-res 35mm sensor (plus a little on the top and bottom). But since the high-res R will likely not have an AA filter, 1:1 from the 90D won't be the same.


----------



## Canon1966 (Aug 20, 2019)

codynpatterson said:


> As a customer who buys from them even though they don't listen, it's frustrating that they don't! We have consistently asked to be brought up to atleast par with other cameras from 4 years ago. 2 card slots and 4k 60 would have easily sold me on this, unfortunately, I will not be getting this now.


Missing: 2 card slots, IBIS. Still behind in my opinion.


----------



## Hendzelm (Aug 20, 2019)

So they did the same stupid thing they did with the RP and removed 1920x1080 @ 24p. I would love to hear the logic behind removing that frame rate. It simply cannot be explained outside of intentionally crippling the camera. It's like cannon is going out of their way to push video users over to Sony or Panasonic.


----------



## Kharan (Aug 20, 2019)

Hendzelm said:


> So they did the same stupid thing they did with the RP and removed 1920x1080 @ 24p. I would love to hear the logic behind removing that frame rate. It simply cannot be explained outside of intentionally crippling the camera. It's like cannon is going out of their way to push video users over to Sony or Panasonic.



^THIS. I’m perplexed. Canon have finally decided to build an attractive, well-specced model... and then made it completely unusable for me (and many others, I’m sure). For no good, apparent, or easily explained reason.


----------



## x-vision (Aug 20, 2019)

dslrdummy said:


> The big question for me as somebody primarily interested in wildlife and sports photography is how well a 32.5MP APS-C sensor will cope at ISO's above 1600.


Well, you won't get FF-level image quality, that's for sure .

The thing is, the more MPs increase, the more room you have for noise-reduction without detail destruction.
If Canon has kept the quality of the pixels the same as on the 80D, then the extra resolution will result in less overall image noise.
I used to think that more megapixels is bad, as it makes noise worse - but not anymore. 
Noise reduction is so good these days and only works better with more MPs.


----------



## [email protected] (Aug 20, 2019)

keithcooper said:


> Guess this kills off any 7D mk3 ;-)



Yes and good for Canon to consolidate lines - looks like a good camera and release but likely to be the last XXD in the series along with a future 5D MK V.


----------



## dtaylor (Aug 20, 2019)

codynpatterson said:


> As a customer who buys from them even though they don't listen, it's frustrating that they don't! We have consistently asked to be brought up to atleast par with other cameras from 4 years ago. 2 card slots and 4k 60 would have easily sold me on this, unfortunately, I will not be getting this now.



What prosumer tier ILC with an APS-C sensor had 4k 60p four years ago? Did any m43 bodies even have it back then? How many, if any, consumer/prosumer tier ILCs had dual card slots?


----------



## Scenes (Aug 20, 2019)

djkraq said:


> Thanx Canon for including all the video features I wanted except for...ya kno.... LOG... No C-Log, come on man



I don't think its the market this camera is aimed at. Video wise It's for casual shooters who wan't a step up and vloggers who want to shoot without any fuss. If you want Log and raw ect thats more black magic's crowd at this price point.


----------



## kamilkp (Aug 20, 2019)

The video specs here was not exactly complete in the first place as someone observed. How sure are we that there indeed won’t be 23.976fps recording on this camera?

Also, what kind of crop is there for 120p? The promo video said „narrower fov” but I didn’t see anything about how much narrower in these specs...

The fact that it records in mp4 H.264 means that it records only in IPB? ALL-I was outputting MOVs right?

No chroma subsampling specs as well? 4:2:0 only? Can it record an external recorder?

Also no bitrate information, so it all implies that these specs are not exaclty a fully comprehensive specification. Is it? It is official information?


----------



## flip314 (Aug 20, 2019)

djkraq said:


> Thanx Canon for including all the video features I wanted except for...ya kno.... LOG... No C-Log, come on man



This camera was never going to get C-Log.


----------



## Scenes (Aug 20, 2019)

Seems like a pretty decent upgrade all things considered. For those who love shooting with an 80D this is more of the same with 4K in a manageable file size if the 120mbs bitrate is correct. As a YouTuber that's exactly what I'm looking for. Already got a quote for trading in the body of my 80D so I'll be ordering day one.

One thing I haven't seen mentioned is does it still have a mic and a headphone socket. You can't really tell from the video. Hoping it hasn't lost functionality. Lol.


----------



## Scenes (Aug 20, 2019)

kamilkp said:


> The video specs here was not exactly complete in the first place as someone observed. How sure are we that there indeed won’t be 23.976fps recording on this camera?
> 
> Also, what kind of crop is there for 120p? The promo video said „narrower fov” but I didn’t see anything about how much narrower in these specs...
> 
> ...



Video only calls our a narrow field of view with 120fps. 4K says cropped / uncropped for 4K. I presume that means its uncrossed but with a 1.1 option for the sensor like the 70D had..

It looks like its MP4 IPB in everything leaked so far.

Bitrate is 120mbps.


----------



## MadisonMike (Aug 20, 2019)

Canon1966 said:


> Missing: 2 card slots, IBIS. Still behind in my opinion.


IBS would be awesome, but unexpected. 2 card slots for this to be a proper upgrade from the 7DMII. Just my opinion. Come on Canon, you can do it.


----------



## Canon1966 (Aug 20, 2019)

I don't really see anything really innovative here unless I'm missing something. I love Canon...and the ergonomics but I wish I had a Canon with Sony specs...


----------



## kreb's cyclist (Aug 20, 2019)

No mention of anti-aliasing filter. Anyone know?


----------



## Canon1966 (Aug 20, 2019)

It is true that if we want certain features, we can all just go and buy into another system. But I think we tend to have some sort of brand loyalty and just want "our brand" to be just as creative if not more so than the rest. Having invested in native lenses is another concern some of us may have as well.


----------



## privatebydesign (Aug 20, 2019)

Hendzelm said:


> So they did the same stupid thing they did with the RP and removed 1920x1080 @ 24p. I would love to hear the logic behind removing that frame rate. It simply cannot be explained outside of intentionally crippling the camera. It's like cannon is going out of their way to push video users over to Sony or Panasonic.


Product differentiation. Canon ran the numbers and they believe their data suggests they will make more money by not having it in some lower level cameras than having it despite the fact that they know it will cost them some sales. 

Basically if you were a potential 90D purchaser and now won't buy one because it doesn't have 24p then Canon believe they have a good estimate of your number and believe it would have cost them more revenue to leave it in.


----------



## TrubadorPhotography (Aug 20, 2019)

FINALLY!!! 

After over a year of patiently waiting while rumors slowly dripped about this camera release, it's finally here. And, for me, this is *exactly* what I've been hoping for. As I stated in last week's post about the soon-coming 90D, I've been using an old Rebel T3i for the last 5-½ years with several lenses (kit and otherwise, including an L-lens). I needed a new top-level crop sensor camera to push me further on my photography journey and growth (along with getting a few more new lenses: 85mm, a wide-angle, etc.). Just about every spec that's listed is making me verrrrrrry happy.

This will definitely be my next camera (body-only) which I will use for the next 5 years. At that point in time, a mature and proven mirrorless 5D type camera will be my next step up the ladder as an aspiring part-time professional.

I just hope I don't have to wait many months before it's finally available for purchase.


----------



## dak3 (Aug 20, 2019)

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.


----------



## Kharan (Aug 20, 2019)

privatebydesign said:


> Product differentiation. Canon ran the numbers and they believe their data suggests they will make more money by not having it in some lower level cameras than having it despite the fact that they know it will cost them some sales.
> 
> Basically if you were a potential 90D purchaser and now won't buy one because it doesn't have 24p then Canon believe they have a good estimate of your number and believe it would have cost them more revenue to leave it in.



It could well be true... and in that case, it would also speak badly of Canon’s user base. If they’re willing to pay more for an EOS R with less features, just to get 24p recording, for example, that’s a shame. Supporting deliberate and blatant crippling is a bridge too far, in my opinion.


----------



## amorse (Aug 20, 2019)

Regarding frame rates, maybe they did exclude 24p, but maybe not. I have a hard time believing that the camera can only shoot 1080 at 120fps (nothing slower), and the only way to do 60 fps is in regular HD. 

There is one frame rate listed per resolution. I would more suspect that maybe these are max frame rates per resolution and not a comprehensive list of all frame rates available - that would make some sense. Let's wait and see.


----------



## amorse (Aug 20, 2019)

privatebydesign said:


> Product differentiation. Canon ran the numbers and they believe their data suggests they will make more money by not having it in some lower level cameras than having it despite the fact that they know it will cost them some sales.
> 
> Basically if you were a potential 90D purchaser and now won't buy one because it doesn't have 24p then Canon believe they have a good estimate of your number and believe it would have cost them more revenue to leave it in.


I'm not convinced that it isn't in there to be honest. They only have one frame rate listed per resolution - that looks more like max frame rates per resolution rather than a comprehensive list of frame rates (which would make some sense). We'll see.


----------



## Kharan (Aug 20, 2019)

amorse said:


> Regarding frame rates, maybe they did exclude 24p, but maybe not. I have a hard time believing that the camera can only shoot 1080 at 120fps (nothing slower), and the only way to do 60 fps is in regular HD.
> 
> There is one frame rate listed per resolution. I would more suspect that maybe these are max frame rates per resolution and not a comprehensive list of all frame rates available - that would make some sense. Let's wait and see.



I hope you’re correct


----------



## dtaylor (Aug 20, 2019)

amorse said:


> I'm not convinced that it isn't in there to be honest. They only have one frame rate listed per resolution - that looks more like max frame rates per resolution rather than a comprehensive list of frame rates (which would make some sense). We'll see.



On top of that I'm still suspicious that these spec sheets are fakes. The information is mostly accurate based on the leaked videos, but there are too many typos to be Canon documents IMHO.


----------



## dtaylor (Aug 20, 2019)

dak3 said:


> 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.



One post by a new user and it's a "poor Canon" troll post. I'm convinced at this point that Sony is paying people to do this.


----------



## PhotographerJim (Aug 20, 2019)

If I read those specs right, I saw a top 1/16,000 shutter speed.... when was the last Canon to have that?!


----------



## amorse (Aug 20, 2019)

Kharan said:


> I hope you’re correct


Sounds like we'll find out in a week! I'm not ready to put money on it one way or the other, but we've seen errors in the release as it is so it isn't unreasonable to expect that the info isn't complete. Also, there isn't even one PAL frame rate listed, so unless Europeans are expected to never shoot video under artificial light, I suspect some information is missing. Soon soon!


----------



## privatebydesign (Aug 20, 2019)

Kharan said:


> It could well be true... and in that case, it would also speak badly of Canon’s user base. If they’re willing to pay more for an EOS R with less features, just to get 24p recording, for example, that’s a shame. Supporting deliberate and blatant crippling is a bridge too far, in my opinion.


I don't have an iron in this fire as I'm not interested in a 90D or an R and video frame rates are way down on my list of priorities for the cameras I do buy so I'm not condoning or dismissing Canon for what they are doing, just trying to point out a rational reason why they are doing it, I can be fairly certain that there is a lot of thought put into it though.

I will probably get the M5 MkII and won't give a seconds thought to the fact that it almost certainly won't have 24p. I think, in general, Canon are pretty smart and know their market, if 24p is put in a cheap camera I'd expect it to be in the M50 MkII as that was always promoted as the"'vloggers" tool.


----------



## privatebydesign (Aug 20, 2019)

amorse said:


> I'm not convinced that it isn't in there to be honest. They only have one frame rate listed per resolution - that looks more like max frame rates per resolution rather than a comprehensive list of frame rates (which would make some sense). We'll see.


Maybe, I was just trying to offer a thoughtful reason why Canon are leaving 24p off some of their cameras. People don't seem to be able to put themselves on the other side of the equation, Canon want to make money selling cameras, sometimes putting a feature in one model impacts the sales of another to the point that it costs them revenue. 

If I sell an 8" x 10" print for $20 and it costs me $10 I make $10 per print (overly simplistic I know but relatable) If I sell 50 copies of that print I make $500. If I don't offer that image as an 8" x 10" but only offer it as a 16" x 24" that costs me $25 but I sell for $100, I might only sell 10 of them but I make $750. It is a darn sight easier to find 10 buyers than 50, especially in a shrinking market like the camera market!


----------



## trounds (Aug 20, 2019)

Happy!!!
Cant wait to give one a try.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Aug 20, 2019)

codynpatterson said:


> As a customer who buys from them even though they don't listen, it's frustrating that they don't! We have consistently asked to be brought up to atleast par with other cameras from 4 years ago. 2 card slots and 4k 60 would have easily sold me on this, unfortunately, I will not be getting this now.


They *DO* listen. You buy their products...you are clearly articulating that they are doing the right thing.


----------



## Shutterbug (Aug 20, 2019)

Hendzelm said:


> So they did the same stupid thing they did with the RP and removed 1920x1080 @ 24p. I would love to hear the logic behind removing that frame rate. It simply cannot be explained outside of intentionally crippling the camera. It's like cannon is going out of their way to push video users over to Sony or Panasonic.


Right! I also hope the final specs list 24fps because as is, it will not work as the video backup (2nd body) I had it in mind for, to the 7DmkII. Also, no dual slots? Keeping stills on one card and video on the other. Ah well. Fuji is looking better these days. At least Canon wasn't teasing with the 90D naming , it is a good upgrade from the 80D. But not viable enough of an upgrade from the 7dmkII or even as a 2nd body at this point.


----------



## BroncosFan (Aug 20, 2019)

Keith_Reeder said:


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


----------



## AprilForever (Aug 20, 2019)

Where am I supposed to go? I shoot 7d mkii for birds and wildlife. I have and shoot a 5d mkiv, using it mostly for landscapes. Where does Canon want me to go from here? No 7d mk iii? The 90d looks to be an inadequate replacement for a 7d mk ii. If they made a pro level crop, even aps-h body, I would buy it. 

There is no visible way forward here.


----------



## amorse (Aug 20, 2019)

privatebydesign said:


> Maybe, I was just trying to offer a thoughtful reason why Canon are leaving 24p off some of their cameras. People don't seem to be able to put themselves on the other side of the equation, Canon want to make money selling cameras, sometimes putting a feature in one model impacts the sales of another to the point that it costs them revenue.
> 
> If I sell an 8" x 10" print for $20 and it costs me $10 I make $10 per print (overly simplistic I know but relatable) If I sell 50 copies of that print I make $500. If I don't offer that image as an 8" x 10" but only offer it as a 16" x 24" that costs me $25 but I sell for $100, I might only sell 10 of them but I make $750. It is a darn sight easier to find 10 buyers than 50, especially in a shrinking market like the camera market!


True and I understand the motivation, but while I'm not a video shooter either (and don't have a horse in this race) I can understand why some were frustrated with the RP not having the 24/1080 frame rate considering that nearly every other ILC that Canon had sold since the 5DII had the feature, up and down the lineup (the only cameras I can see released after the 5DII that didn't have 24/1080 was the 50D - which didn't have video at all without magic lantern). Even the 4000D has it right now - the RP seems to be the only video-capable ILC Canon made that doesn't have 24/1080. To continue that trend in the 90D seems like a step back.

Low frame rates (i.e. rates that aren't limited by hardware) seem like an unusual tool to segment products when Canon has offered 24/1080 everywhere for over 10 years. I'm sure Canon has their reasons, but if the expectation is that removal of 1080/24 will push vloggers to spend another $1000 on an R over an RP (or maybe buy something better than a 90D), then that may incentivize buyers to find older and maybe used Canon models which have the feature (any other Canon ILC in the last 10 years). It just seems like an inefficient way to segment - they could have not given the RP a mic or headphone jack and had a more reasonable segmentation on the same user base. There are better ways to segment than low frame rates, so I suspect it was either an oversight, or some sort of limitation caused by getting 4K out of a sensor that couldn't do it on the 6DII (who knows). We'll see I guess!


----------



## jvillain (Aug 20, 2019)

Scenes said:


> I don't think its the market this camera is aimed at. Video wise It's for casual shooters who wan't a step up and vloggers who want to shoot without any fuss. If you want Log and raw ect thats more black magic's crowd at this price point.



The R has log and this is the flagship APS-C DSLR and has the same processor as the R so it wouldn't have been a stretch to include it. Also there are a number of sub $1000 cameras that come with log now. CW is saying the 90D will be $1399 USD at launch. But yes I lost faith in Canon and pulled the trigger on the BMPCC 6K. I will still bust out the R when I need the better auto focus but other than that I consider that after having kickstarted the hybrid camera movement Canon has more or less decided to abandon it.



amorse said:


> I'm not convinced that it isn't in there to be honest. They only have one frame rate listed per resolution - that looks more like max frame rates per resolution rather than a comprehensive list of frame rates (which would make some sense). We'll see.





privatebydesign said:


> I think, in general, Canon are pretty smart and know their market, if 24p is put in a cheap camera I'd expect it to be in the M50 MkII as that was always promoted as the"'vloggers" tool.



That is whyy I didn't mention it in the other thread. 80D had 24P. Not only would it be a step backwards to take it out here, but it would really start to give Canon a reputation as movie haters. 24 is the movie standard. Maybe Canon engineers don't understand the art side of things and want to push every thing to a different frame rate not understanding why that is a non-starter. The 80D was the vloggers camera for quite a while and still used by a lot of vloggers.


----------



## privatebydesign (Aug 20, 2019)

jvillain said:


> That is whyy I didn't mention it in the other thread. 80D had 24P. Not only would it be a step backwards to take it out here, but it would really start to give Canon a reputation as movie haters. 24 is the movie standard. Maybe Canon engineers don't understand the art side of things and want to push every thing to a different frame rate not understanding why that is a non-starter. The 80D was the vloggers camera for quite a while and still used by a lot of vloggers.


I'd be shocked if it was an engineering decision, I'd be almost certain it is a marketing decision and if it costs them more than they thought it would it could be put back in via a firmware upgrade.


----------



## Jasonmc89 (Aug 20, 2019)

Hendzelm said:


> So they did the same stupid thing they did with the RP and removed 1920x1080 @ 24p. I would love to hear the logic behind removing that frame rate. It simply cannot be explained outside of intentionally crippling the camera. It's like cannon is going out of their way to push video users over to Sony or Panasonic.



Forgive my lack of knowledge, for I am a stills only guy, but why is 24p so important? What’s wrong with using a different frame rate?


----------



## dak3 (Aug 20, 2019)

dtaylor said:


> One post by a new user and it's a "poor Canon" troll post. I'm convinced at this point that Sony is paying people to do this.


No, I'm not a troll. I have invested in Canon for years, and own thousands of dollars in Canon! Unfortunately, I'm just frustrated with the company. Canon doesn't bring a professional 7D Mark III body to its professional wildlife shooters. I sold my 7D Mark II due to mediocre ISO performance and went with the 1Dc. Yes, less megapixels, but I'm not looking back on the quality of the photos. Looking at the Nikon D500, Canon had the opportunity to match or exceed those specs; not flood us with a camera with similar / mediocre photo specs to what is considered average, all the while sugar coat the 90D with more video features that are not necessarily needed for pro-shooters. But, I am aware that this is a xxD and not a xD camera. That being said, Canon let us xD folks in the dark this time around.

I share the same sentiments as the following post said earlier:



[USER=564]AprilForever[/USER] said:


> "Where am I supposed to go? I shoot 7d mkii for birds and wildlife. I have and shoot a 5d mkiv, using it mostly for landscapes. Where does Canon want me to go from here? No 7d mk iii? The 90d looks to be an inadequate replacement for a 7d mk ii. If they made a pro level crop, even aps-h body, I would buy it. There is no visible way forward here. "


----------



## amorse (Aug 20, 2019)

Jasonmc89 said:


> Forgive my lack of knowledge, for I am a stills only guy, but why is 24p so important? What’s wrong with using a different frame rate?


There's nothing wrong with using a different frame rate - it's just a different look in some cases, but it can result in flickering in other cases. I'm not a video shooter, but in my very limited understanding 24p makes a difference compared to 25 fps depending on region and lighting. It has to do with the lighting frequency - North American lighting frequency is 60Hz (NTSE) while Europe is 50Hz (PAL) - 24, 30, and 60 fps will align well with 60Hz, while 25, and 50 fps will align well with 50Hz. Exclusion of 24fps means that the slowest frame rate you can use while aligning to lighting in North America is 30 fps. Since some people feel that 24 fps is critical to getting that film-like look (most movies are shot at this frame rate, and faster rates played back at normal speed can seem strange to the eye), they'd have to shoot in 30 fps and then convert to 24. You can do that, but the video may stutter because you have to remove 6 frames from every second of footage - that can result in video that looks a bit "jumpy". 

Again, that's a non-video shooter's explanation based on limited info, so I'd be happy to be corrected!


----------



## gzroxas (Aug 20, 2019)

Even though some people might say that DSLR are long in the tooth and that Mirrorless is the future, and even though I think I will also move to mirrorless next, I think this is a pretty nice upgrade: the 80D was a solid “do everything” camera and this improves on it: joystick, more resolution, more FPS, better metering, better video, and hopefully better DR/ISO performance 
Nice


----------



## dtaylor (Aug 20, 2019)

dak3 said:


> No, I'm not a troll. I have invested in Canon for years, and own thousands of dollars in Canon! Unfortunately, I'm just frustrated with the company. Canon doesn't bring a professional 7D Mark III body to its professional wildlife shooters. I sold my 7D Mark II due to mediocre ISO performance and went with the 1Dc. Yes, less megapixels, but I'm not looking back on the quality of the photos. Looking at the Nikon D500, Canon had the opportunity to match or exceed those specs; not flood us with a camera with similar / mediocre photo specs and sugar coated with more video features that are not necessarily needed.



The 90D matches or exceeds (big MP gain) most of the D500's specs and will probably land at a price $300-$500 less (6-12 months out). The D500 has more AF points, but that's not by itself an indicator of tracking performance. The D500 also has dual card slots. What else?

No one here has any idea if a 7D3 or a pro APS-C mirrorless RF are in the pipeline or not. If they are then they would have to 'blow away' the D500's specs to have any separation with the 90D. If they're not, then Canon's market research determined that such a body wouldn't sell enough units in this contracted market. It seems to be difficult for people to understand, but your choices are not set by evil greedy executives at Canon headquarters. They're set by your peers, other photographers. If there's no future 7D3 it's because not enough other photographers want one.


----------



## Lee Jay (Aug 20, 2019)

amorse said:


> True and I understand the motivation, but while I'm not a video shooter either (and don't have a horse in this race) I can understand why some were frustrated with the RP not having the 24/1080 frame rate ...



I can't. 24p is meaningless, outdated and unnecessary.


----------



## criscokkat (Aug 20, 2019)

Jasonmc89 said:


> Forgive my lack of knowledge, for I am a stills only guy, but why is 24p so important? What’s wrong with using a different frame rate?


Essentially there’s 6 frames every second that need to be dropped or processed to get down to cinematic 24frames. Though if it’s played back on broadcast tv it’s back at 30. There are endless debates on wether this is worth it or not on the internet. It really comes down to what details you want preserved. Google the hobbit 48fps for some interesting arguments on it, Peter Jackson was the first to really experiment with high frame rates and the results were not as some expected.

Edit: I should have said the internet along with every director, critic and film room editor. FPS arguments have a lot in common with right vs left, nature vs nurture, free will vs destiny, etc. it’s a matter of choice for some that borders on fanatical.


----------



## StoicalEtcher (Aug 20, 2019)

Lee Jay said:


> You aren't paying attention. I'll give you a list.
> 
> Direct wireless neural interface.
> Molecule tracking based on DNA detection.
> ...


Hah, so it's true then: it won't make my coffee for me in the morning!!

That's it, I will not be buying one!


----------



## amorse (Aug 20, 2019)

Lee Jay said:


> I can't. 24p is meaningless, outdated and unnecessary.


You can't understand why some people would be frustrated with the lack of a frame rate which is commonly used? Maybe they don't feel that it is meaningless, outdated or unnecessary? Also, considering that the RP can only do 4K in 24p, would that then mean that the RP's highest resolution video mode is meaningless, outdated and unnecessary as well? 

To each their own in my opinion - everyone has their own needs.


----------



## Shutterbug (Aug 20, 2019)

Jasonmc89 said:


> Forgive my lack of knowledge, for I am a stills only guy, but why is 24p so important? What’s wrong with using a different frame rate?


For submitting to certain film festivals and covering film festivals. Footage preferably needs to be at 24p. It's not a must but it makes life easier as that's what the film community has embraced. Once a team of videographers decide to cover an event if everyone has already been set to 24p and you want to join in, it makes life so much easier if you can get 24p out of cam. So having that option is a must. Card running when everyone is covering with different fps settings is at the very least annoying.


----------



## StoicalEtcher (Aug 20, 2019)

On a more serious note, this seems like a pretty good update to the 80D, for photographers (Video is not where I make any money, and clients don't ask me to shoot it either, so cinematographic features don't register for me).

Stoical


----------



## Lee Jay (Aug 20, 2019)

amorse said:


> You can't understand why some people would be frustrated with the lack of a frame rate which is commonly used? Maybe they don't feel that it is meaningless, outdated or unnecessary? To each their own in my opinion.



I can't understand why it would be commonly used. It was originally done as a compromise.

To me, it's like not being willing to buy a camera because it doesn't offer 1600x1200 still image mode.

Shoot in 25 or 60 and downsample if you really like the jerky look of 24fps.


----------



## dak3 (Aug 20, 2019)

dtaylor said:


> The 90D matches or exceeds (big MP gain) most of the D500's specs and will probably land at a price $300-$500 less (6-12 months out). The D500 has more AF points, but that's not by itself an indicator of tracking performance. The D500 also has dual card slots. What else?
> 
> No one here has any idea if a 7D3 or a pro APS-C mirrorless RF are in the pipeline or not. If they are then they would have to 'blow away' the D500's specs to have any separation with the 90D. If they're not, then Canon's market research determined that such a body wouldn't sell enough units in this contracted market. It seems to be difficult for people to understand, but your choices are not set by evil greedy executives at Canon headquarters. They're set by your peers, other photographers. If there's no future 7D3 it's because not enough other photographers want one.



What else? A much higher, and cleaner, ISO and lack of an anti-aliasing filter! A big difference. Many pro-Canon shooters have complained about these two issues on their 7D Mark II cameras.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Aug 20, 2019)

amorse said:


> True and I understand the motivation, but while I'm not a video shooter either (and don't have a horse in this race) I can understand why some were frustrated with the RP not having the 24/1080 frame rate considering that nearly every other ILC that Canon had sold since the 5DII had the feature, up and down the lineup (the only cameras I can see released after the 5DII that didn't have 24/1080 was the 50D - which didn't have video at all without magic lantern). Even the 4000D has it right now - the RP seems to be the only video-capable ILC Canon made that doesn't have 24/1080. To continue that trend in the 90D seems like a step back.


The RP has 2160p24, which every other Canon ILC since the 5DII has certainly not had. 

Maybe the logic is that if you care enough about _Le Cinéma_ to shoot in p24, you’d be foolish to choose 2K over 4K resolution.


----------



## amorse (Aug 20, 2019)

Lee Jay said:


> I can't understand why it would be commonly used. It was originally done as a compromise.
> 
> To me, it's like not being willing to buy a camera because it doesn't offer 1600x1200 still image mode.
> 
> Shoot in 25 or 60 and downsample if you really like the jerky look of 24fps.


If you down sample to 24 from 60 it may stutter, and if you use 25 it won't align with North American lighting standards and may flicker. Again, I'm no video pro, but I'd always read it was best to shoot in whatever frame rate you plan on presenting in (with the exception of 60/30 being transferrable and 25/50 too). 

I think part of the reason so many people want it is because bloggers seem to use it a lot and present their videos in that on youtube and motion pictures/documentaries use that frame rate. If I take a sampling of the YouTubers I regularly watch, almost all of them present in 24, so if I were trying to get into video and emulate their content, I would have likely been influenced toward 24 as well, right or wrong. 

I edited my previous comment while you were replying I think, but I would also note that the RP *only* shoots 4K in 24p - so I don't think even Canon would agree that 24 is useless.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Aug 20, 2019)

StoicalEtcher said:


> Hah, so it's true then: it won't make my coffee for me in the morning!!
> 
> That's it, I will not be buying one!


Wait for the Sony a7RV. It’ll be out in a year, it’ll make coffee and _then_ Canon will be *******.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Aug 20, 2019)

dtaylor said:


> One post by a new user and it's a "poor Canon" troll post. I'm convinced at this point that Sony is paying people to do this.


 When these trolls show up as they frequently do, I always picture them as Charlie Brown just before Lucy yanks away the football and he falls on his ass. “_I’m going to predict doom for Canon again, and *this* time I’m just sure I’ll kick that ball!!”_


----------



## slclick (Aug 20, 2019)

"The 90D specs won't allow me to use it for my masterpiece in the Sundance Film Festival." 


Not sure why you'd expect a XXD series body to be the professional tool they have never been. Once again, glad to be uninterested in video, so much to whine and complain about.


----------



## amorse (Aug 20, 2019)

neuroanatomist said:


> The RP has 2160p24, which every other Canon ILC since the 5DII has certainly not had.
> 
> Maybe the logic is that if you care enough about _Le Cinéma_ to shoot in p24, you’d be foolish to choose 2K over 4K resolution.


If that were true then the R, 5D IV, and M50 likely wouldn't have 24/1080 either, so I'm not sure I'd buy into that logic. The outcome here is that no-matter how you slice it you can't have 24p video footage at 1080 or higher without a crop on the RP. I have no issue with segmentation, but omitting 24/1080 just seems odd to me and not in the "Canon has cheated me from something it owes me" way; in the "I don't understand the plan here" way. If they wanted to push people who want that feature to move up a level for the R, they could have just as easily removed the headphone or mic jack, which could have (theoretically) brought down manufacturing costs.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Aug 20, 2019)

amorse said:


> If that were true then the R, 5D IV, and M50 likely wouldn't have 24/1080 either, so I'm not sure I'd buy into that logic. The outcome here is that no-matter how you slice it you can't have 24p video footage at 1080 or higher without a crop on the RP. I have no issue with segmentation, but omitting 24/1080 just seems odd to me and not in the "Canon has cheated me from something it owes me" way; in the "I don't understand the plan here" way. If they wanted to push people who want that feature to move up a level for the R, they could have just as easily removed the headphone or mic jack, which could have (theoretically) brought down manufacturing costs.


So three older cameras have something and two (maybe three if you count the M6, I honestly have no idea whether it’s there or not) newer cameras lack it. There is logic there.


----------



## Marximusprime (Aug 20, 2019)

People have complained about this being an insufficient upgrade from the 7D II, but I think I'd be plenty happy trading in my 7D II for it. I've never used dual cards, and the frame rate is just as fast; the one thing that I haven't seen anybody mention is the fantastic battery life! 1300 shots is almost double that of the estimate for the 7D II, and that can be almost doubled again with the grip. It's also lighter even than the 80D, and it's still got weather sealing and a fully articulated screen. As long as the buffer isn't completely garbage, I just may pick this up. It'd probably be my last DSLR, though; I mainly need something responsive enough for wildlife, and mirrorless cameras, with their viewfinder lag, don't quite cut it yet.


----------



## slclick (Aug 20, 2019)

I don't see the logic in thinking that the next iteration of the XXD line will be a successor to the 7D line. Grasping at CR1 straws me thinks. There has always been a gulf between the two and a typical Canon baby step upgrade will not be a bridge you hope and want simply due to the higher end model 's line demise. If wishes were fishes. I would rather read and hear about the 80D to 90D differences and improvements and leave the 7D out of the discussion. It's tiring.


----------



## amorse (Aug 20, 2019)

neuroanatomist said:


> So three older cameras have something and two (maybe three if you count the M6, I honestly have no idea whether it’s there or not) newer cameras lack it. There is logic there.


Not exactly, 1080/24 is in every ILC Canon has made since the 5DII except the RP and the 50D (which didn't have video at all) based on my limited review. I have yet to find an other ILC made by Canon that does not have 1080/24 since they started putting video into mirrorless or DSLR cameras (in all honesty I'd be happy to be proven wrong here). I used the M50, 5DIV, and R in my example because they're the only ones with 4K at all and are most directly comparable, which suggests (to me anyway) that Canon has been willing to put 24p into cameras at both 4K and 1080p resolution. Maybe that is indeed changing moving forward, or maybe it is just omitted info - we'll know soon.

Again, I'm not trying to troll here as I don't care about video at all, I just don't get the decision, where I usually find Canon's decisions understandable.

Edit - I found 2 that didn't have 1080/24 but were released after the 5DII - the T1 and T1i, though I suspect that was more hardware limitation and not marketing choice.


----------



## Lee Jay (Aug 20, 2019)

Marximusprime said:


> People have complained about this being an insufficient upgrade from the 7D II, but I think I'd be plenty happy trading in my 7D II for it.



I wouldn't. I have an 80D and it's harder and slower to use. The joystick will help but the AF point selection method and the options are worse.



> I've never used dual cards,


I use them almost every time I shoot.



> and the frame rate is just as fast; the one thing that I haven't seen anybody mention is the fantastic battery life! 1300 shots is almost double that of the estimate for the 7D II,



I've taken 2,250 shots and 30 minutes of video, all with IS, on 90% of one battery on my 7DII.


----------



## Lee Jay (Aug 20, 2019)

dak3 said:


> What else? A much higher, and cleaner, ISO and lack of an anti-aliasing filter!



No AA filter = no sale.


----------



## Stereodude (Aug 20, 2019)

amorse said:


> If that were true then the R, 5D IV, and M50 likely wouldn't have 24/1080 either, so I'm not sure I'd buy into that logic. The outcome here is that no-matter how you slice it you can't have 24p video footage at 1080 or higher without a crop on the RP. I have no issue with segmentation, but omitting 24/1080 just seems odd to me and not in the "Canon has cheated me from something it owes me" way; in the "I don't understand the plan here" way. If they wanted to push people who want that feature to move up a level for the R, they could have just as easily removed the headphone or mic jack, which could have (theoretically) brought down manufacturing costs.


They removed it because it if was included the footage would be too similar to what can be done in their Cinema cameras and potentially cost them some sales of their Cinema cameras (using Canon logic). Canon seems to be systematically removing it from their new cameras to create market separation even though predecessor models had p24. IE: G7X II had p24, G7X III doesn't. 80D has p24, 90D won't.

I expect we're going to find out that the crop free 4K on the 90D and the M6 II are not full sensor readout scaled down to 4K. I'm guessing it's either line skipping or pixel binned and scaled to 4K. Hence the "through image processing" * in the promo videos.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Aug 20, 2019)

amorse said:


> Not exactly, 1080/24 is in every ILC Canon has made since the 5DII except the RP and the 50D (which didn't have video at all) based on my limited review. I have yet to find an other ILC made by Canon that does not have 1080/24 since they started putting video into mirrorless or DSLR cameras (in all honesty I'd be happy to be proven wrong here). I used the M50, 5DIV, and R in my example because they're the only ones with 4K at all and are most directly comparable, which suggests (to me anyway) that Canon has been willing to put 24p into cameras at both 4K and 1080p resolution. Maybe that is indeed changing moving forward, or maybe it is just omitted info - we'll know soon.
> 
> Again, I'm not trying to troll here as I don't care about video at all, I just don't get the decision, where I usually find Canon's decisions understandable.


My point was that 1080p24 is lacking only from the 2-3 newest cameras, i.e. present in cameras launched through 2018, lacking in cameras launched in 2019. Suggests a watershed. 

Could just be differentiation of lower end models.


----------



## amorse (Aug 20, 2019)

neuroanatomist said:


> My point was that 1080p24 is lacking only from the 2-3 newest cameras, i.e. present in cameras launched through 2018, lacking in cameras launched in 2019. Suggests a watershed.
> 
> Could just be differentiation of lower end models.


Ah, ok I understand now. You could be right. Another poster noted that 24p was not present in the g7xiii but was present in the g7xii, and they appear to be correct, so maybe Canon is indeed removing that feature from new bodies. 

At the same time, if the M6ii and 90D don't have it, it wouldn't be as big a deal provided that they have no crop on the 4k 24p: it could be cleanly converted later for the equivalent outcome, provided that the bit rate isn't as high (storage hungry) as in the R. I guess we'll know more soon.


----------



## GMCPhotographics (Aug 20, 2019)

I'm kind of surprised that this new camera doesn't have dual card slots and the 7DII's 65 point AF system...after all it's supposed to be a hybrid of the 80D and 7DIII


----------



## amorse (Aug 20, 2019)

Stereodude said:


> They removed it because it if was included the footage would be too similar to what can be done in their Cinema cameras and potentially cost them some sales of their Cinema cameras (using Canon logic). Canon seems to be systematically removing it from their new cameras to create market separation even though predecessor models had p24. IE: G7X II had p24, G7X III doesn't. 80D has p24, 90D won't.
> 
> I expect we're going to find out that the crop free 4K on the 90D and the M6 II are not full sensor readout scaled down to 4K. I'm guessing it's either line skipping or pixel binned and scaled to 4K. Hence the "through image processing" * in the promo videos.


I'm not sure omission in the RP was to protect the cinema line - I really can't see potential buyers cross shopping cinema cameras vs the RP - they're just wildly different prices. Obviously same for the G7x iii - I really don't think someone (or business) who can afford a cinema camera would choose a G7x iii because it is cheaper - I'd expect those cameras are targeted at very different markets.

If Canon was worried about the RP cannibalizing cinema lines, then they'd already have that problem with the R, which a number of bloggers have said operates like a mini C200 as it is. I'm wondering if the RP omission had something to do with getting 4K video out of a sensor which wasn't made for it - hence why the 6DII shares the sensor but can't do 4K. I'm no engineer, so that's a lot of speculation from me to be clear. I'll be curious to see final specs of the M6ii and 90D.


----------



## dtaylor (Aug 20, 2019)

dak3 said:


> What else? A much higher, and cleaner, ISO



Like every camera, at really high ISOs the D500 is performing a digital push, no different than pushing in your RAW converter or in PS. It also spits out unrecognizable trash at all of the ISOs above the ISO cap on the 7D2 (51,200). If you're so easily fooled by marketing claims then just push a 7D2 file in PS to get the same unrecognizable trash.

As to the actual, real difference between them at usable high ISOs: 0.5ev is not "much higher and cleaner." That's about what I'm seeing looking at dpreview's D500 RAWs vs both the 80D and the 7D mark II. At the same high ISO the D500 is a bit cleaner than either, but if you compare to the next higher ISO on the D500 (1 stop) the D500 is worse. To me "much higher and cleaner" means a couple stops, or at least 1 stop. We're looking at a fraction of a stop.

Now I will grant that D500 files are sharper thanks to no AA filter. When at high ISO, if you sharpen the 80D or 7D2 files to match then the noise gap grows larger. But...



> and lack of an anti-aliasing filter!



That's not likely to matter with the 90D's 32mp sensor. With that kind of resolution gap the 90D is likely to be as sharp or sharper (viewed at the same size).

So we have a truly insignificant high ISO difference and an AA filter difference that won't matter with the 90D, which has major gain in resolving power. What else have you got?

*Side note:* as I'm so fond of pointing out, modern sensors are already very efficient photon counters, and there are no easy gains left to be made in high ISO performance. If you are expecting a new camera from any manufacturer to add 1-2 stops usability within a format then get set for disappointment. If today's APS-C cannot deliver the high ISO you need, you need to add FF for low light, not wait for a future crop sensor to bend the laws of physics.


----------



## unfocused (Aug 20, 2019)

GMCPhotographics said:


> I'm kind of surprised that this new camera doesn't have dual card slots...


I think it is time for dual card slot people to recognize that Canon does not share their point of view. It's pretty clear to me that dual card slots were primarily included in order to accommodate different types of recording media -- Compact Flash, Secure Digital and CFast. With Compact Flash on its way out, I think Canon feels like they don't really need two card slots anymore. 

This may be augmented by data on card failure rates, improvements in the design and durability of SD cards, the availability of high capacity SD cards at low cost and the fact that most manufacturers offer very effective recovery software.


----------



## SecureGSM (Aug 20, 2019)

neuroanatomist said:


> Wait for the Sony a7RV. It’ll be out in a year, it’ll make coffee and _then_ Canon will be *******.


Neuro, it will make you a coffee. Confirmed. However SONY branded coffee capsules will be in short supply initially but will be discontinued in 6 months from the day camera was announced with no spares in stock globally. 
Sony Camera service centres will honour warranty repairs on this model but only if you never used water in your coffee due to the camera weather protection being limited. 
Not too worry though as the next model after this one will be fantastic.


----------



## SecureGSM (Aug 20, 2019)

unfocused said:


> I think it is time for dual card slot people to recognize that Canon does not share their point of view. It's pretty clear to me that dual card slots were primarily included in order to accommodate different types of recording media -- Compact Flash, Secure Digital and CFast. With Compact Flash on its way out, I think Canon feels like they don't really need two card slots anymore.
> 
> This may be augmented by data on card failure rates, improvements in the design and durability of SD cards, the availability of high capacity SD cards at low cost and the fact that most manufacturers offer very effective recovery software.



Oh, I get it. Write to both cards simultaneously option is to accomodate for different types of recording media. Right, right. 
And in case of physical failure I can recover my data from an SD card is like almost guaranteed. 
Right, right. 

Phew.....


----------



## neuroanatomist (Aug 20, 2019)

Stereodude said:


> They removed it because it if was included the footage would be too similar to what can be done in their Cinema cameras and potentially cost them some sales of their Cinema cameras (using Canon logic).


No, that’s using what you apparently believe passes for logic. 

Your contention is that people who might buy an EOS Cinema camera would buy a 90D instead is ludicrous. By your logic, a heated steering wheel is not available on the Yaris because Toyota doesn’t want people buying it instead of the Lexus RS series.


----------



## AprilForever (Aug 20, 2019)

neuroanatomist said:


> No, that’s using what you apparently believe passes for logic.
> 
> Your contention is that people who might buy an EOS Cinema camera would buy a 90D instead is ludicrous. By your logic, a heated steering wheel is not available on the Yaris because Toyota doesn’t want people buying it instead of the Lexus RS series.


 So, why would they do it?


----------



## Stereodude (Aug 20, 2019)

neuroanatomist said:


> No, that’s using what you apparently believe passes for logic.
> 
> Your contention is that people who might buy an EOS Cinema camera would buy a 90D instead is ludicrous. By your logic, a heated steering wheel is not available on the Yaris because Toyota doesn’t want people buying it instead of the Lexus RS series.


When you have eliminated the impossible, whatever remains, however improbable, must be the truth.


----------



## Stereodude (Aug 20, 2019)

AprilForever said:


> So, why would they do it?


Because the gracious overlords at the all benevolent and wonderful Canon have determined that it is not necessary for us to have it in cameras such as these. Do not question the makers!


----------



## 3kramd5 (Aug 20, 2019)

Stereodude said:


> When you have eliminated the impossible, whatever remains, however improbable, must be the truth.


Can you provide your comprehensive list of impossibilities which only leaves technical differentiation between products developed for fundamentally different markets? I expect it to be long and fascinating.


----------



## syder (Aug 20, 2019)

amorse said:


> If you down sample to 24 from 60 it may stutter, and if you use 25 it won't align with North American lighting standards and may flicker. Again, I'm no video pro, but I'd always read it was best to shoot in whatever frame rate you plan on presenting in (with the exception of 60/30 being transferrable and 25/50 too).
> 
> I think part of the reason so many people want it is because bloggers seem to use it a lot and present their videos in that on youtube and motion pictures/documentaries use that frame rate. If I take a sampling of the YouTubers I regularly watch, almost all of them present in 24, so if I were trying to get into video and emulate their content, I would have likely been influenced toward 24 as well, right or wrong.



I'm not convinced that anyone really notices a difference in look between 24p and 25p.

If using 25fps with 60hz lighting you can use a safe shutter angle/speed to avoid flicker. https://www.red.com/flicker-free-video

For those of us outside of NTSC land this isn't an issue. Also, frame rate conversions have always been done for different TV systems and between cinema and TV.

And lets face it, if you're buying a 90D for video it's for YouTube, not making video designed for a cinema or broadcast release.

https://www.red.com/flicker-free-video


----------



## snappy604 (Aug 21, 2019)

Scenes said:


> Seems like a pretty decent upgrade all things considered. For those who love shooting with an 80D this is more of the same with 4K in a manageable file size if the 120mbs bitrate is correct. As a YouTuber that's exactly what I'm looking for. Already got a quote for trading in the body of my 80D so I'll be ordering day one.
> 
> One thing I haven't seen mentioned is does it still have a mic and a headphone socket. You can't really tell from the video. Hoping it hasn't lost functionality. Lol.




Bingo! that's pretty much how I feel reading these specs. It'll be a decent camera, the 80D sure is, but definitely not as large a jump as people had hoped for. Typical canon minor iterative evolution and certainly not motivational enough to buy from 80D level. Maybe real reviews will show a bigger improvement than it seems.


----------



## unfocused (Aug 21, 2019)

SecureGSM said:


> Oh, I get it. Write to both cards simultaneously option is to accomodate for different types of recording media. Right, right.
> And in case of physical failure I can recover my data from an SD card is like almost guaranteed.
> Right, right.
> 
> Phew.....



Whining isn't going to change anything. I'm just explaining what I see as Canon's point of view on the feature. You are welcome to disagree, but it isn't going to change what they do.


----------



## syder (Aug 21, 2019)

Stereodude said:


> They removed it because it if was included the footage would be too similar to what can be done in their Cinema cameras and potentially cost them some sales of their Cinema cameras (using Canon logic). Canon seems to be systematically removing it from their new cameras to create market separation even though predecessor models had p24. IE: G7X II had p24, G7X III doesn't. 80D has p24, 90D won't.
> 
> I expect we're going to find out that the crop free 4K on the 90D and the M6 II are not full sensor readout scaled down to 4K. I'm guessing it's either line skipping or pixel binned and scaled to 4K. Hence the "through image processing" * in the promo videos.



I can only assume that you've never used a cinema camera. If you think anyone is weighing up whether to buy a C200 or a 90D you're an idiot. Sorry.

If you dont understand the differences around ergonomics, image quality, connectivity, sound quality, monitoring etc. that's on you. 

I understand that as an internet critic you think reading a specsheet is all there is to a camera (and lets be honest, you've failed even at that simple task, as 12bit RAW and 8-bit compressed 4:2:0 aren't very similar to anyone but you), but perhaps try using some actual cameras before subjecting us to your 'insights' in future.


----------



## Stereodude (Aug 21, 2019)

syder said:


> I can only assume that you've never used a cinema camera. If you think anyone is weighing up whether to buy a C200 or a 90D you're an idiot. Sorry.
> 
> If you dont understand the differences around ergonomics, image quality, connectivity, sound quality, monitoring etc. that's on you.
> 
> I understand that as an internet critic you think reading a specsheet is all there is to a camera (and lets be honest, you've failed even at that simple task, as 12bit RAW and 8-bit compressed 4:2:0 aren't very similar to anyone but you), but perhaps try using some actual cameras before subjecting us to your 'insights' in future.


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.


----------



## Stereodude (Aug 21, 2019)

3kramd5 said:


> Can you provide your comprehensive list of impossibilities which only leaves technical differentiation between products developed for fundamentally different markets? I expect it to be long and fascinating.


I'm not the one making the claim that there are a pile of more reasonable explanations why Canon offered p24 in nearly every camera they introduced with video capability for about 8-9 years only to start removing it across the board in the last year or so. If you think there are a bunch of reasonable explanations why cameras capable of p25 can't also do p24 other than the cripple hammer have at it.


----------



## slclick (Aug 21, 2019)

GMCPhotographics said:


> I'm kind of surprised that this new camera doesn't have dual card slots and the 7DII's 65 point AF system...after all it's supposed to be a hybrid of the 80D and 7DIII


See there it is again, that conjecture of a hybrid. I'm curious if there is anything from Canon, such as an interview where this has been said.


----------



## 3kramd5 (Aug 21, 2019)

Stereodude said:


> I'm not the one making the claim that there are a pile of more reasonable explanations why Canon offered p24 in nearly every camera they introduced with video capability for about 8-9 years only to start removing it across the board in the last year or so. If you think there are a bunch of reasonable explanations why cameras capable of p25 can't also do p24 other than the cripple hammer have at it.


I don’t record video, so I have no opinion on whether a decision by canon in that space is reasonable. I do have an opinion about whether the motive you ascribe is likely. If prior non-Cine cameras offered it, then differentiation from the consumer and Cine lines should be put out to pasture.

Since you seem to think that’s the only possible reason, I’d still like to see that of impossibilities you’ve identified.

I hope to see how at least these two topics are demonstrated as impossible:
1) human error (e.g., 24p inadvertently left off the requirements document),
2) technical error (e.g., 24p not working quite right with this configuration at this time and thus left off in favor of release schedule).


----------



## neuroanatomist (Aug 21, 2019)

Stereodude said:


> I'm not the one making the claim that there are a pile of more reasonable explanations why Canon offered p24 in nearly every camera they introduced with video capability for about 8-9 years only to start removing it across the board in the last year or so. If you think there are a bunch of reasonable explanations why cameras capable of p25 can't also do p24 other than the cripple hammer have at it.


For the umpteenth time, they are NOT removing p24 from their cameras. They are no longer offering 1080p24 in cameras that offer 2160p24.

It’s as if you’re complaining that Canon took away 35-zone monochromatic metering from cameras that now have 256-zone RGB+IR metering. And claiming that constitutes ‘crippling’ those models. And claiming that Canon’s sales will suffer for it. And stomping your feet like a petulant child because you want your precious 35-zone metering back.

Get over it.


----------



## Bennymiata (Aug 21, 2019)

I think we should wait for some reviews before we criticize it too much.
After all, we are just pissing in the wind without actually seeing for ourselves what it has or does not have.

Personally, I think Canon have improved the sensor and I'm sure this will be a very good camera for 90% of the target market.
I bet it has a few good surprises in store for us.


----------



## Stereodude (Aug 21, 2019)

3kramd5 said:


> I don’t record video, so I have no opinion on whether a decision by canon in that space is reasonable. I do have an opinion about whether the motive you ascribe is likely. If prior non-Cine cameras offered it, then differentiation from the consumer and Cine lines should be put out to pasture.


Not at all. Canon went from class leading video features in their ILCs to class lagging. What happened in the mean time? They started selling Cinema cameras. We can clearly rule out a lack of technical ability as being responsible for the feature lagging since their Cinema cameras have the very features that are missing from their ILCs. They have been slow rolling video features into their ILCs ever since they started selling Cinema cameras. As to why they're only getting around to removing p24 now, it's not hard to explain. Their ILCs video capabilities were getting too close to the Cinema cameras in other picture quality metrics. They can no long cripple the footage in enough other ways to create market separation between the Cinema cameras and their ILCs. They can't get away with selling a camera with an extra crop in 4K anymore. They can't reply on bad rolling shutter now that they've had to improve the sensor readout speed. They can't rely on only shooting MJPEG or any of the other ways they've crippled video in the past. The old ways of crippling the video capabilities are no longer market viable so they've had to move to other methods of creating market separation. This is apparently the one they've settled on.

Canon wouldn't be doing this if they didn't think it was going to make them more money. p24 video is as close to free of a feature to implement on a camera that can already exceed that as there is. Yet, it is being removed from new cameras despite market demand for it. So, how does excluding a feature that effectively costs you no money to include make you more money when it will inevitably cost you some sales of the model it's been excluded from? The belief that doing so protects the sales of other more expensive and higher profit margin models and result in some upsells from people who must have the feature is the only explanation. Apparently someone did the math with highly flawed inputs/assumptions and concluded this was going to make them more profit.



neuroanatomist said:


> For the umpteenth time, they are NOT removing p24 from their cameras. They are no longer offering 1080p24 in cameras that offer 2160p24.


For the umpteenth time, a lie repeated often enough does not become true, though you seem quite determined to disprove the maxim.

The 90D / M6 II don't do 2160p24. They don't do anything p24. It's been removed/excluded. The G7X III and G5X II don't do anything p24. It's been removed/excluded.

The EOS RP only has 2160p24 because it couldn't do 2160p30 [hardware limitation(s)] and it had to have 4K video on the feature list to be viable in the market. Otherwise it would be similarly missing 2160p24 like it is 1080p24.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Aug 21, 2019)

Stereodude said:


> The 90D / M6 II don't do 2160p24. They don't do anything p24. It's been removed/excluded. The G7X III and G5X II don't do anything p24. It's been removed/excluded.


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.


----------



## 3kramd5 (Aug 21, 2019)

Stereodude said:


> We can clearly rule out a lack of technical ability as being responsible for the feature lagging since their Cinema cameras have the very features that are missing from their ILCs.



Agreed. However technical inability is not the same as either of the two topics I raised. 



Stereodude said:


> As to why they're only getting around to removing p24 now, it's not hard to explain. Their ILCs video capabilities were getting too close to the Cinema cameras in other picture quality metrics. They can no long cripple the footage in enough other ways to create market separation between the Cinema cameras and their ILCs.



That’s *a* possibility. My objection is that you represented it as the *only* possibility. 



Stereodude said:


> This is apparently the one they've settled on.



That’s not apparent.


----------



## David - Sydney (Aug 21, 2019)

M


neuroanatomist said:


> No, that’s using what you apparently believe passes for logic.
> 
> Your contention is that people who might buy an EOS Cinema camera would buy a 90D instead is ludicrous. By your logic, a heated steering wheel is not available on the Yaris because Toyota doesn’t want people buying it instead of the Lexus RS series.


My RC350 doesn't have a heated steering wheel but it isn't too cold here


----------



## David - Sydney (Aug 21, 2019)

neuroanatomist said:


> 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.


I'm not a video guy but IF p24 is critical and memory cards are cheap... Couldn't you record 1024p120 and then discard 5 of the 6 frames in post? A second step and takes time but if it is critical....


----------



## neuroanatomist (Aug 21, 2019)

David - Sydney said:


> I'm not a video guy but IF p24 is critical and memory cards are cheap... Couldn't you record 1024p120 and then discard 5 of the 6 frames in post? A second step and takes time but if it is critical....


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.


----------



## David - Sydney (Aug 21, 2019)

neuroanatomist said:


> 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.


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


----------



## NetMage (Aug 21, 2019)

Stereodude said:


> The 90D / M6 II don't do 2160p24. They don't do anything p24. It's been removed/excluded. The G7X III and G5X II don't do anything p24. It's been removed/excluded.



And you know this how? You've used one?


----------



## neuroanatomist (Aug 21, 2019)

David - Sydney said:


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


Makes perfect sense to me. But then, I’m not a video guy either.

Nor am the one lamenting the omission of p24, ascribing malicious motives to Canon for doing so, or claiming that Canon's sales are ‘in a death spiral’ due to the lack of p24. Nor am I the guy who, when asked repeatedly to describe the advantages of p24 by several posters (who, like you and I are not video guys), finally came up with this pithy answer:



Stereodude said:


> Other frames rates don't look like p24, which why you shoot at p24.


----------



## SecureGSM (Aug 21, 2019)

unfocused said:


> Whining isn't going to change anything. I'm just explaining what I see as Canon's point of view on the feature. You are welcome to disagree, but it isn't going to change what they do.


Who is winning? Someone is being silly and that isn’t me. 
I have just pointed out that logic suggests that Canon’s designations of the second memory card option is not what you thought it is. 
I do not literary care about second card slot in R or RP. I am not in market for one of those 
However, the pro level R body will be offered with a second card slot as a redundancy or process continuity feature. : shoot to multiple cards or switch card automatically when first card is full.


----------



## Stereodude (Aug 21, 2019)

NetMage said:


> And you know this how? You've used one?


I read the spec sheets and watched the promo videos. They don't do p24.



David - Sydney said:


> I'm not a video guy but IF p24 is critical and memory cards are cheap... Couldn't you record 1024p120 and then discard 5 of the 6 frames in post? A second step and takes time but if it is critical....


Because it doesn't work like that. You can't shoot with a desired 180 degree shutter for p24(~1/50th of a second) at p120. Additionally you get no AF and a crop at p120 in the 90D.


----------



## Stereodude (Aug 21, 2019)

3kramd5 said:


> That’s *a* possibility. My objection is that you represented it as the *only* possibility.


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.


----------



## Scenes (Aug 21, 2019)

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.


----------



## Stereodude (Aug 21, 2019)

neuroanatomist said:


> 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.


No, Canon thinks they can make more money by not having the feature on these models. Unless you're going to try to argue that Canon isn't driven by the pursuit of profit but rather altruism.



Scenes said:


> 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.


No, you're not right. It would have taken you all of 15 seconds to confirm that the 80D, like every ILC camera released by Canon since the 5D2 except for 2 early Rebel models had p24 (prior to the 90D and M6 II).


----------



## 3kramd5 (Aug 21, 2019)

Stereodude said:


> 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.



I gave you two feasible alternatives.
Another is: arbitrary decision unrelated to the Cine line. However, I’m not the one who claimed to have ruled out all but one possibility. The onus is on you.

And note, I didn’t insist your conclusion is wrong. I merely find it far-fetched.

Human error is, IMO, far more plausible than canon’s leadership thinking that 24p is all that someone buying a dedicated cinema camera cares about, and that but for it being in a 90D, people who have historically built up film rigs would abandon the form factor in favor of an SLR, and that by withholding it, those customers will continue buying 5-figure cameras from canon and not jump to another make who offers 24p cheaply. If indeed they believe that, I cannot explain their market success.


----------



## genriquez (Aug 21, 2019)

It is strange that they dropped 24p. But 25p is there. FWIW most films are recorded at 24p and then processed up to 30fps for NTSC when viewed on a TV. So one can record at 25p and process for NTSC. For other viewing platforms you can just keep it at 25p. Is 24p vastly different from 25p?


----------



## slclick (Aug 21, 2019)




----------



## neuroanatomist (Aug 21, 2019)

Stereodude said:


> 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 (Aug 21, 2019)

neuroanatomist said:


> 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 (Aug 21, 2019)

neuroanatomist said:


> 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 (Aug 21, 2019)

Scenes said:


> 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 (Aug 21, 2019)

Aussie shooter said:


> 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 (Aug 21, 2019)

Aussie shooter said:


> 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 (Aug 21, 2019)

neuroanatomist said:


> 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 (Aug 21, 2019)

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 (Aug 21, 2019)

Aussie shooter said:


> 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 (Aug 21, 2019)

Aussie shooter said:


> 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 (Aug 21, 2019)

Aussie shooter said:


> 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 (Aug 21, 2019)

unfocused said:


> 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 (Aug 21, 2019)

AlanF said:


> 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 (Aug 21, 2019)

unfocused said:


> 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 (Aug 21, 2019)

navastronia said:


> 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 (Aug 21, 2019)

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 (Aug 21, 2019)

AlanF said:


> 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 (Aug 21, 2019)

Kharan said:


> 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 (Aug 21, 2019)

Stereodude said:


> 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 (Aug 21, 2019)

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


----------



## Proscribo (Aug 21, 2019)

dtaylor said:


> *Side note:* as I'm so fond of pointing out, modern sensors are already very efficient photon counters, and there are no easy gains left to be made in high ISO performance. If you are expecting a new camera from any manufacturer to add 1-2 stops usability within a format then get set for disappointment. If today's APS-C cannot deliver the high ISO you need, you need to add FF for low light, not wait for a future crop sensor to bend the laws of physics.


This. I'd wait for a sensor that reduces photon noise but as that will not happen I'll wait for a sensor that requires as little white balancing and color correction as possible.


----------



## privatebydesign (Aug 21, 2019)

nonac said:


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


Interesting, what do you shoot that can't be shot with a camera with a single card slot?


----------



## DaBaoZi (Aug 21, 2019)

ethanz said:


> How many MP would you get from making a full frame sensor from this 32.5 MP ASP C sensor?


Multiplex by crop factor sqared 1,6x1,6 = 2,56


----------



## Joules (Aug 21, 2019)

Mt Spokane Photography said:


> 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


Did you note that the M6 manages over 40% more pixel per second throughput than the 1DX II? It also seems to be the greatest relative improvement in throughput over the respective predecessor in recent Canon history (Possibly ever. At least greater than the 1DX > 1DX II, 7D > 7D II and 70D > 90D improvements were). The 90D only beats the 1DX II by just over 10%, likely because it is held back by a mechanical shutter.

Still, to me this clearly screams new sensor technology. After all, the processor is the same we've seen a few times now. Why are those cameras so much slower?

And I'd personally be surprised if Canon executives thought to themselves "Let's change our sensor manufacturing to address the major speed limitations we have - but make sure not to improve anything that has an effect on image quality!". But those guys also seemed to have removed 24p recordings so I guess no thing's impossible


----------



## Stig Nygaard (Aug 21, 2019)

Joules said:


> Did you note that the M6 manages over 40% more pixel per second throughput than the 1DX II?



How do you calculate it?
If you are referring to the 30fps raw-burst mode, that seems to be in some kind of "crop-mode". But I haven't seen any info how big that crop is.
And btw, the spec-shet seems to says 23 fps, not 30fps?
4K video seems to be recorded at some (unspecified) lower resolution and upscaled to 4K output. At least that is how I read the small print.

But "new technology" is of course also always a relative term. It IS a new sensor, and it should have some improvements of various size and importance.

In general I think it looks like interesting cameras. The 90D seems like a great update to 80D. But even though I will consider purchasing 90D as a secondary camera with other strenghts, I still can't see it as a 7DII replacement.


----------



## Scenes (Aug 21, 2019)

David - Sydney said:


> I'm not a video guy but IF p24 is critical and memory cards are cheap... Couldn't you record 1024p120 and then discard 5 of the 6 frames in post? A second step and takes time but if it is critical....


Nice thought but It doesn’t really work like that. Imagine ripping a frame every second out the movies you watch. There would be a rhythmic judder.


----------



## Scenes (Aug 21, 2019)

Stereodude said:


> No, you're not right. It would have taken you all of 15 seconds to confirm that the 80D, like every ILC camera released by Canon since the 5D2 except for 2 early Rebel models had p24 (prior to the 90D and M6 II).



I have an 80D. Also a had a 70D. I’ve never even looked for the 24p option so didn’t even know it was there. I guess Canon feels if you want to shoot 24 then buy something more expensive that does?


----------



## xps (Aug 21, 2019)

Anybody heared an rumor how many RAW shots at 10fps are possbile? (burst)


----------



## Dalantech (Aug 21, 2019)

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


----------



## Michael Clark (Aug 21, 2019)

neonlight said:


> But it will probably have the AA filter, making it somewhere between 40 and 50 MP equivalent...
> Certainly a more difficult choice if we're not going to have a 7DIII. Between this and an R. Seems it will do pretty much what a 7DII does and a bit more. My guess is that this is the last semi-pro APS-C body in the EF (s) range?



Except it wont. It has the 80D's more limited 45 point AF with fewer AF point selection modes and there's no mention of iTR, probably because cameras with iTR have dual DiG!C processors instead of one.


----------



## Kit. (Aug 21, 2019)

Stereodude said:


> I'm not the one making the claim that there are a pile of more reasonable explanations why Canon offered p24 in nearly every camera they introduced with video capability for about 8-9 years only to start removing it across the board in the last year or so. If you think there are a bunch of reasonable explanations why cameras capable of p25 can't also do p24 other than the cripple hammer have at it.


I think that the explanation that Canon just doesn't want to support an obsolete format unless necessary is _more_ reasonable than an explanation that Canon is afraid that its Powershots would compete with its cinema line.


----------



## Proscribo (Aug 21, 2019)

Dalantech said:


> 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


Are you for real? Pixel size doesn't affect diffraction at all.


----------



## Dalantech (Aug 21, 2019)

Proscribo said:


> Are you for real? Pixel size doesn't affect diffraction at all.



Diffraction causes light to spread out into a cone. Noticeable diffraction is defined as light coning out so that it spills half way into adjacent pixels. So how can pixel size not effect diffraction? Even gaps between pixels can effect noticeable diffraction, if that light diffracts into a gap instead of a pixel.


----------



## Proscribo (Aug 21, 2019)

Dalantech said:


> Diffraction causes light to spread out into a cone. Noticeable diffraction is defined as light coning out so that it spills half way into adjacent pixels. So how can pixel size not effect diffraction? Even gaps between pixels can effect noticeable diffraction, if that light diffracts into a gap instead of a pixel.


That is the property of the lens (aperture) and is the same no matter the sensor or if there is a sensor at all.


----------



## Michael Clark (Aug 21, 2019)

PhotographerJim said:


> If I read those specs right, I saw a top 1/16,000 shutter speed.... when was the last Canon to have that?!



I wouldn't be surprised if it is a Live View only option with electronic first curtain. The "specs" are jumbled with viewfinder shooting and LV shooting conflated at times. Look at the AF specs. 'Dual Pixel CMOS AF' is a LV only thing, yet it's listed in the same section with the description of the 45 point PDAF dedicated Af sensor array.


----------



## Dalantech (Aug 21, 2019)

Proscribo said:


> That is the property of the lens (aperture) and is the same no matter the sensor or if there is a sensor at all.



Yes, at a given Fstop the level of diffraction will be the same, but how the sensor records that diffracted light changes with the properties of the sensor. Why do you think that some sensors are more diffraction limited than others? Do you even shoot macro bro?...


----------



## Kit. (Aug 21, 2019)

Kharan said:


> 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).


Why can't it be closer to 360º if you have a rolling shutter anyway?


----------



## Michael Clark (Aug 21, 2019)

privatebydesign said:


> Maybe, I was just trying to offer a thoughtful reason why Canon are leaving 24p off some of their cameras. People don't seem to be able to put themselves on the other side of the equation, Canon want to make money selling cameras, sometimes putting a feature in one model impacts the sales of another to the point that it costs them revenue.
> 
> If I sell an 8" x 10" print for $20 and it costs me $10 I make $10 per print (overly simplistic I know but relatable) If I sell 50 copies of that print I make $500. If I don't offer that image as an 8" x 10" but only offer it as a 16" x 24" that costs me $25 but I sell for $100, I might only sell 10 of them but I make $750. It is a darn sight easier to find 10 buyers than 50, especially in a shrinking market like the camera market!



On the other hand, it's often easier to find 20 buyers willing to pay $20 for something *almost* as good as something that costs $100 than it is to find 10 buyers willing to pay $100.


----------



## Proscribo (Aug 21, 2019)

Dalantech said:


> Yes, at a given Fstop the level of diffraction will be the same, but how the sensor records that diffracted light changes with the properties of the sensor. Why do you think that some sensors are more diffraction limited than others? Do you even shoot macro bro?...


So now that is out of the way, can you see any reason why 32mp sensor would give worse results than a 24mp sensor?


----------



## PerKr (Aug 21, 2019)

Wow... There are people who actually believe the 90D should have provided an upgrade path from the 7Dmk2? Really? Did you also expect the 6Dmk2 to provide an upgrade path from the 5Dmk4? or the 7Dmk2 to be an upgrade from the 1D series? Sony A7mk3 to be an upgrade from the A9?

As for video, yes, it's a shame it doesn't seem to have 24p. If it's a huge deal to you, just get a different camera. Your Canon lenses will work on your choice of Fuji or Sony body with an adapter if 24p is really that important. Why sit around and whine about it?


----------



## Joules (Aug 21, 2019)

Stig Nygaard said:


> How do you calculate it?


1DX II: 16 F/s * 20.2 MP/F = 323 MP/s
M6 II: 14 F/s * 32.5 MP/F = 455 MP/s

455 / 323 = 1.41 ~ 141% Throughput. Even if they achieved that by lowering the bits per pixel, they surely didn't do it in the 90D which does 11 FPS in Live View. 

There are no numbers available for the crop mode. If it is only a fraction of the resolution, it might have the same total throughput.


----------



## Stig Nygaard (Aug 21, 2019)

PerKr said:


> Wow... There are people who actually believe the 90D should have provided an upgrade path from the 7Dmk2? Really?



There has been rumours that Canon would merge the xxD and 7Dx camera lines into a single camera line. I think that is what people are reacting on (At least that is the reason I have commented on it).


----------



## Dalantech (Aug 21, 2019)

Proscribo said:


> So now that is out of the way, can you see any reason why 32mp sensor would give worse results than a 24mp sensor?



Potentially, yes. Smaller pixels = more diffraction limited (diffraction softening appering at lower Fstops). More pixels also = more resolution, and it's possible that the later could out way the former provided the glass can out resolve the sensor. That was pretty much my question. Kinda important for me cause I don't focus stack and shoot at F11 all the way to 5x -like this...



Snoozing European Wool Carder Bee VI by John Kimbler, on Flickr

Was reading in this same thread how more pixels = less detail loss when removing image noise, so that could also be a plus.


----------



## koenkooi (Aug 21, 2019)

Dalantech said:


> Potentially, yes. Smaller pixels = more diffraction limited (diffraction softening appering at lower Fstops). More pixels also = more resolution, and it's possible that the later could out way the former provided the glass can out resolve the sensor. That was pretty much my question. Kinda important for me cause I don't focus stack and shoot at F11 all the way to 5x -like this...
> 
> 
> 
> ...



How do you process your images? Using DLO in DPP4 does wonders for crappy lenses, but also gives me a sightly better result than LR when using F/13 with the MP-E on my RP. 
In LR the new 'texture' tool improves things a lot when going over F/13. I haven't worked out which (un)sharpening I prefer, the DPP or LR one.


----------



## Proscribo (Aug 21, 2019)

Dalantech said:


> More pixels also = more resolution, and it's possible that the later could out way the former provided the glass can out resolve the sensor.


But how would that happen, the diffraction is anyway the same with both so it cannot have less detail. Worst case scenario is that you don't gain any detail, but at that point you should be so deep into diffraction limited region that you would very, very clearly see it (airy disk diameter over two times the diagonal of a pixel).


----------



## Dalantech (Aug 21, 2019)

koenkooi said:


> How do you process your images? Using DLO in DPP4 does wonders for crappy lenses, but also gives me a sightly better result than LR when using F/13 with the MP-E on my RP.
> In LR the new 'texture' tool improves things a lot when going over F/13. I haven't worked out which (un)sharpening I prefer, the DPP or LR one.



My main editor is Photoshop Elements 17. I'm using Topaz Denoise AI to remove image noise, Topaz Sharpen AI (sharpening), and Topaz Clarity for contrast and saturation adjustments (minor change, but makes my photos "pop").


----------



## Dalantech (Aug 21, 2019)

Proscribo said:


> But how would that happen, the diffraction is anyway the same with both so it cannot have less detail. Worst case scenario is that you don't gain any detail, but at that point you should be so deep into diffraction limited region that you would very, very clearly see it (airy disk diameter over two times the diagonal of a pixel).



Well that's what I don't know; the diffraction limit of the 90D. It could quite possibly be so close the the diffraction limit of the 80D that it's a mute point.


----------



## Stereodude (Aug 21, 2019)

neuroanatomist said:


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


Because somehow removing p24 (which costs them nothing to add) is going to cause smartphones to all disappear in a puff of smoke instead. They sure know what they're doing!!!


----------



## Stereodude (Aug 21, 2019)

syder said:


> 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.
> 
> ...


Yes, it's so bottomless and hard to solve that only phone manufacturers and action cam makers have figured it out along with Sony, Panasonic, and the rest of the ILC makers. It's beyond the grasp of the god company, our holy, gracious, and most beloved Canon, bless her name.



> The only utterly delusional one here still seems to be you


Projection is real folks.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Aug 21, 2019)

Stereodude said:


> They sure know what they're doing!!!


Like a broken analog clock that shows the right time twice a day, you have finally managed to make a statement that is supported by the available evidence. I’d say ‘well done’, but we both know you didn’t mean to be correct, it was just an accident.


----------



## Stereodude (Aug 21, 2019)

Scenes said:


> I have an 80D. Also a had a 70D. I’ve never even looked for the 24p option so didn’t even know it was there. I guess Canon feels if you want to shoot 24 then buy something more expensive that does?


So you admit the cripple hammer is real and Canon did it to make more money. We're making progress here folks!



Kit. said:


> I think that the explanation that Canon just doesn't want to support an obsolete format unless necessary is _more_ reasonable than an explanation that Canon is afraid that its Powershots would compete with its cinema line.


For as much as people claimed my explanation mocking Canon was far fetched you managed to come up with one that's way further out there. Congrats!!!

 The dominant frame rate used in non-live video production is obsolete. 

Tell us another fairy tale Kit!!!



Kit. said:


> Why can't it be closer to 360º if you have a rolling shutter anyway?


Do you even understand what rolling shutter is? Seems like no, and what does changing the shutter angle have to do with p24 vs. p30?


----------



## syder (Aug 21, 2019)

Stereodude said:


> Yes, it's so bottomless and hard to solve that only phone manufacturers and action cam makers have figured it out along with Sony, Panasonic, and the rest of the ILC makers. It's beyond the grasp of the god company, our holy, gracious, and most beloved Canon, bless her name.



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.

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


----------



## privatebydesign (Aug 21, 2019)

Michael Clark said:


> On the other hand, it's often easier to find 20 buyers willing to pay $20 for something *almost* as good as something that costs $100 than it is to find 10 buyers willing to pay $100.


True, but in this contracting camera market all of the camera companies have projected the later, fewer numbers of sales but higher earning higher end models are where they have all stated the market is going and how they are going to achieve projected income levels in that smaller market.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Aug 21, 2019)

Stereodude said:


> So you admit the cripple hammer is real and Canon did it to make more money. We're making progress here folks!


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.

I guess it just might be possible they excluded it because they knew the target market didn’t want it, and as-close-to-free-as-possible still isn’t free (an example is orientation linked AF point and AFMA, both of which were available on prior cameras, but on the 1D X the former ‘broke’ the latter requiring a firmware update to fix). 

You’re right that it’s about increasing profit. Since you seem able to understand that corporations like profit, can you also grasp that Canon almost certainly has data and/or modeling to support increased profit based on inclusion or exclusion of select features in certain models? Further, are you able to comprehend that Canon has been making these sorts of decisions for years, and the outcome in aggregate is continued domination of the ILC market? If so, then we actually are making progress, because that brings us to the conclusion that Canon is excluding p24 from current models for a logical, valid reason.

Somehow, I think that train of logical thought will derail itself in your head, because the next stop on those tracks is the realization that your incessant complaining about the omission of p24 amounts merely to the whining of a petulant child.


----------



## Kit. (Aug 21, 2019)

Joules said:


> 1DX II: 16 F/s * 20.2 MP/F = 323 MP/s


Why not 60 * 8MP?


----------



## 3kramd5 (Aug 21, 2019)

Proscribo said:


> I'll wait for a sensor that requires as little white balancing and color correction as possible.



I could see how maybe choosing the filter values could align the sensor maybe to a given band of light, but in general color balancing and correction is a software function, no?


----------



## Canon1966 (Aug 21, 2019)

The Canon 90D does have it's improvements over the 80D, but not over it's competitors'. I was hoping for dual card slot and IBIS; which is becoming the norm in this day and age. All this makes me think of buying a new car without air conditioning or some standard feature. Don't get me wrong I love Canon; they make workhorses and in my opinion they have the best ergonomics and articulating screens, but they have been lagging behind Sony and even Nikon. I think for many of us we have "Brand Loyalty" and would like to be proud of the company that has given us amazing products in the past by meeting or exceeding the rest in innovation. All this being said I know a good photographer doesn't need most of those features if he knows what he is doing. I'm no tech person, but as of right now Sony is leading the way with Nikon, then Canon following. Just my thoughts. I'm just venting.


----------



## Kit. (Aug 21, 2019)

Stereodude said:


> The dominant frame rate used in non-live video production is obsolete.


Are you in the delusion that you are not yet living in the smartphone era?



Stereodude said:


> Do you even understand what rolling shutter is? Seems like no,


Do you? Obviously no.



Stereodude said:


> and what does changing the shutter angle have to do with p24 vs. p30?


Can you calculate by yourself to which shutter angle at p30 corresponds the shutter speed of 1/48 seconds, or do you need help?


----------



## PureClassA (Aug 21, 2019)

Lee Jay said:


> You aren't paying attention. I'll give you a list.
> 
> Direct wireless neural interface.
> Molecule tracking based on DNA detection.
> ...


You forgot about paranormal mode setting that will AF in -10EV onto any ectoplasm or full floating vapor apparition haunting your basement at night


----------



## 3kramd5 (Aug 21, 2019)

Stereodude said:


> Do you even understand what rolling shutter is? Seems like no, and what does changing the shutter angle have to do with p24 vs. p30?



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.


----------



## AlanF (Aug 21, 2019)

Dalantech said:


> Yes, at a given Fstop the level of diffraction will be the same, but how the sensor records that diffracted light changes with the properties of the sensor. Why do you think that some sensors are more diffraction limited than others? Do you even shoot macro bro?...


More pixels will always give you more resolution. But, when the radius of the Airy disk from diffraction gets larger than the length of a pixel, you get diminishing returns - see https://www.canonrumors.com/forum/index.php?threads/diffraction-airy-disks-and-implications.36639/


----------



## PureClassA (Aug 21, 2019)

kamilkp said:


> The video specs here was not exactly complete in the first place as someone observed. How sure are we that there indeed won’t be 23.976fps recording on this camera?
> 
> Also, what kind of crop is there for 120p? The promo video said „narrower fov” but I didn’t see anything about how much narrower in these specs...
> 
> ...



Yeah that was me. I find it really odd ball to include a 120fps capability but NOT 24fps... The video specs we see now may be correct just NOT COMPLETE. It said 25/30 on the video. 25 is a PAL framerate. That video may been intended elsewhere in the world. Just wait and see what the official Canon USA announcement and spec list says. If no 24 again, then we can sigh and head shake. 

Otherwise I reallly like this new 90D!!!


----------



## Braintoggle33 (Aug 21, 2019)

I like watching grown man argue about camera specs


----------



## Dalantech (Aug 21, 2019)

AlanF said:


> More pixels will always give you more resolution. But, when the radius of the Airy disk from diffraction gets larger than the length of a pixel, you get diminishing returns - see https://www.canonrumors.com/forum/index.php?threads/diffraction-airy-disks-and-implications.36639/



Thanks!


----------



## Proscribo (Aug 21, 2019)

3kramd5 said:


> I could see how maybe choosing the filter values could align the sensor maybe to a given band of light, but in general color balancing and correction is a software function, no?


Yeah but if the start colors are way off noise gets multiplied a lot in not-so-nice ways. Ideally we wouldn't have the colourful patches (this again won't probably happen).

Mostly I am still dreaming tho, but who knows?


----------



## BillB (Aug 21, 2019)

Braintoggle33 said:


> I like watching grown man argue about camera specs


Yep. Time for some more popcorn.


----------



## djack41 (Aug 21, 2019)

AlanF said:


> 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.


I shoot bird-in-flight. The big question is the AF. The Nikon D500's AF leaped far ahead of the 7d2. Another question is the buffer size. Sure hope that Canon got rid of the silly AA filter.


----------



## jayphotoworks (Aug 21, 2019)

privatebydesign said:


> Interesting, what do you shoot that can't be shot with a camera with a single card slot?



For video work after using dual card camera systems, I too am reluctant to go back to single card cameras. Originally, like others I thought that it would be nice to have a safety factor for shooting critical moments that cannot be re-shot, and this has allowed me to rely on a single primary card that I don't swap out anymore for most shoots. But later, I realized it was also convenient to pass off the second card to an editor after a shoot without waiting for the file copy to complete. I can head home after the shoot and start working up color grade samples in Davinci while the editor works on the edit. Same day edits would arguably benefit as well since you can just keep swapping out card 2 without having to worry about data corruption if you gave the editor your primary card. Most data corruption occurs from bad card readers and improper mounting/ejecting of media.

But FWIW, Canon still does not allow you to simultaneously record video to dual slots at the same time even if the camera has dual slots.


----------



## jayphotoworks (Aug 21, 2019)

privatebydesign said:


> True, but in this contracting camera market all of the camera companies have projected the later, fewer numbers of sales but higher earning higher end models are where they have all stated the market is going and how they are going to achieve projected income levels in that smaller market.



This is the part that I hope Canon gets the message. Yes, Canon has gained market share in aggregate, but it would be speculation to say which product lines are successful. I would like to think that when the entry market finally finds its new normal and Canon's revenue needs to come from higher end models, that they will understand that the removal of 24p (or differentiation like this) will probably alienate enthusiasts much more than a tourist with a kit lens combo that doesn't know the difference.


----------



## AntlerstoPeaks (Aug 21, 2019)

AlanF said:


> More pixels will always give you more resolution. But, when the radius of the Airy disk from diffraction gets larger than the length of a pixel, you get diminishing returns - see https://www.canonrumors.com/forum/index.php?threads/diffraction-airy-disks-and-implications.36639/



Looks like with a 32.2MP sensor for a crop will give you roughly 3.24um pixels, down from the 80ds 3.73um pixels. This would reduce the DLA from f/6 to f/5 ish. Well have finally reached the point where most f/5.6 lenses will be diffraction limited wide open.


----------



## Joules (Aug 21, 2019)

Kit. said:


> Why not 60 * 8MP?


Do we know that's comparable? Is that 14 bit Data coming of the sensor, or lowered before passing the Bottleneck because it is only used for video.


----------



## AlanF (Aug 21, 2019)

AntlerstoPeaks said:


> Looks like with a 32.2MP sensor for a crop will give you roughly 3.24um pixels, down from the 80ds 3.73um pixels. This would reduce the DLA from f/6 to f/5 ish. Well have finally reached the point where most f/5.6 lenses will be diffraction limited wide open.


True. That's one reason why I am keeping my 400mm f/4!


----------



## AlanF (Aug 21, 2019)

djack41 said:


> I shoot bird-in-flight. The big question is the AF. The Nikon D500's AF leaped far ahead of the 7d2. Another question is the buffer size. Sure hope that Canon got rid of the silly AA filter.


I also shoot BIF. The D500 is indeed better at tracking than the Canon. But, the 5DIV, 5DSR etc lock on faster than the D500 (according to those who use both). I use the central 9 points on the 5DSR and 5DIV and pan myself rather than use sensor tracking, and find that they are really good at capturing small fast birds in flight and even dragonflies because they lock on so fast. I would like the AA-filter to be dropped but will have to live with one - it probably loses about 10% on a high density filter, based on my experience comparing the 5DIV with the 5DSR, allowing for the difference in pixel density.


----------



## trounds (Aug 21, 2019)

Maybe I miss it somewhere. What is the 90D's shutter life?


----------



## SecureGSM (Aug 21, 2019)

Proscribo said:


> That is the property of the lens (aperture) and is the same no matter the sensor or if there is a sensor at all.



Not quite correct. 






Diffraction Limited Photography: Pixel Size, Aperture and Airy Disks







www.cambridgeincolour.com


----------



## Ricardo_fon (Aug 21, 2019)

I must say that this looks great. My last DSLR was a 40d which I loved, and I haven't really been keen on another. But this one appeals to me a lot.


----------



## Scenes (Aug 21, 2019)

Stereodude said:


> So you admit the cripple hammer is real and Canon did it to make more money.



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.


----------



## Timedog (Aug 21, 2019)

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.


----------



## slclick (Aug 21, 2019)

djack41 said:


> I shoot bird-in-flight. The big question is the AF. The Nikon D500's AF leaped far ahead of the 7d2. Another question is the buffer size. Sure hope that Canon got rid of the silly AA filter.


How is the 80D's AF system compared to the D500? That should be your yardstick, not a vastly different body like a higher tier model, discontinued or not.


----------



## yeahright (Aug 21, 2019)

SecureGSM said:


> Not quite correct.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


In the very link you posted it even explicitly says "Diffraction thus sets a fundamental resolution limit that is independent of the number of megapixels, or the size of the film format. It depends only on the f-number of your lens, and on the wavelength of light being imaged. One can think of it as the smallest theoretical "pixel" of detail in photography."
which supports the claim that diffraction has nothing to do with the sensor or its pixel size.

The diffraction limit of a sensor is merely the f-number above which it is not possible to take full advantage of its high pixel density, but this doesn't imply that the result is any worse than from a sensor with a lower pixel density. Given a particular f-stop there is a particular smallest pixel size whose further decrease will not give you more resolution due to the diffraction limit. But this doesn't mean it will give you *less* resolution. It will simply not increase any further. A sensor with higher pixel density always provides at least as much resolution as a lower pixel density sensor. But, after the diffraction limit has passed, not necessarily any more. And you can always downscale the image to get the (almost) exact same result.


----------



## Don Haines (Aug 21, 2019)

Jasonmc89 said:


> 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 (Aug 21, 2019)

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 (Aug 21, 2019)

Scenes said:


> 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 (Aug 21, 2019)

I'd buy this for...

....$1,199? 

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


----------



## Stereodude (Aug 21, 2019)

syder said:


> 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.



neuroanatomist said:


> 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 (Aug 21, 2019)

preppyak said:


> 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 (Aug 21, 2019)

3kramd5 said:


> 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 (Aug 21, 2019)

David - Sydney said:


> 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 (Aug 21, 2019)

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 (Aug 21, 2019)

Dalantech said:


> 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 (Aug 21, 2019)

Dantana said:


> 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 (Aug 21, 2019)

Scenes said:


> 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 (Aug 21, 2019)

privatebydesign said:


> 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 (Aug 21, 2019)

Keith_Reeder said:


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


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 (Aug 21, 2019)

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 (Aug 21, 2019)

Stereodude said:


> 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 (Aug 21, 2019)

Timedog said:


> 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 (Aug 21, 2019)

preppyak said:


> 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 (Aug 21, 2019)

AlanF said:


> 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 (Aug 21, 2019)

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 *******?

* "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.


----------



## Sharlin (Aug 21, 2019)

gambo1953 said:


> Minor concern over Magnesium alloy body (7DmII) v Aluminum alloy (90D) and the extent of the weather sealing on the 90D.



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.


----------



## dtaylor (Aug 21, 2019)

victorshikhman said:


> 1) No IBIS. This is a breakthrough technology whose time has come, and its very unfortunate Canon didn't include it.



Most Canon lenses have OIS, including their amateur zooms. IBIS is not a breakthrough if you have IS lenses. I get that there are some gems which do not have IS (24-70 f/2.8L II; 22mm f/2 EF-M), but at this point you almost have to work to put together an EF lens collection without IS.

IBIS is not a breakthrough in this context. I would like to see Canon introduce it, but it's no reason to wait on one of these two cameras.



> 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



You don't even know if it needs an update. We know from the new iTR sensor that it's likely improved. Why are you trashing a feature that hasn't been tested yet?


----------



## Kit. (Aug 21, 2019)

Stereodude said:


> 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.


It was your attempt. I was talking about a different topic. But if you insist...



Stereodude said:


> The target shutter angle for video is generally 180 degrees.


At which frame rates and for what reason?



Stereodude said:


> It doesn't have to be but it can't be larger than 360 degrees.


Of course it can. You shoot at 360 degrees, then you can make, for example, 720 degrees by sliding average of two consequent frames. Or you shoot 120fps at 360 and average 3 frames from the set of 5, getting 24fps at 216 degrees.



Stereodude said:


> p30 with a larger shutter angle doesn't make it the same as p24 with a ~180 degree shutter.


And shouldn't. p24 is overrated.



Stereodude said:


> 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.


Rolling electronic shutter is a way to obtain 360 degrees on a sensor without extra storage to momentarily duplicate the sensor's full content. You read and reset the exposure on pixel by pixel basis, continuing the exposure of the pixels that aren't currently read.

Yes, it may give noticeable artifacts at slow frame rates like p24. Don't use p24 unless you absolutely need it.


----------



## AlanF (Aug 21, 2019)

tron said:


> 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 compansate any loss of detail by using the sharpness section as well or you leave that for a later stage (like Adobe ACR)?
> 
> Thanks


PL on my computer automatically sets Luminance to 40 for PRIME. I tend to leave it at that unless I go above iso1600, when I will increase the Luminance setting to 50, 60 or even 70. There seems to be no significant loss of detail. I do use the DxO lens sharpening at the standard settings at 0, 0, 50. But, it can over-sharpen with the 5DSR with the 100-400mm II at 400, and I frequently set the "Global" to -2. With the 1.4xTC on or using the 5DIV, it doesn't oversharpen. I prefer the DxO lens sharpening to using sharpening with PS.


----------



## Kharan (Aug 21, 2019)

Kit. said:


> Why can't it be closer to 360º if you have a rolling shutter anyway?


Because it looks *very blurry* then. I think most of us who like to shoot video have done it at some point when it's too dark. Recording 24p at 1/25 is sometimes the only way, but honestly the footage looks almost comically blurry. It was done in some horror movies to create "ghostlike" footage.


----------



## Kit. (Aug 21, 2019)

Kharan said:


> Because it looks *very blurry* then.


Even at 120p?


----------



## Kharan (Aug 21, 2019)

Kit. said:


> Even at 120p?


I've never tried that, to be honest... but I guess it'd be *worse* in my case, since 120p footage exists only to be slowed down to 24p. Which is what I thought we were talking about. It should be less of a problem at 120p shown at that speed.


----------



## Kit. (Aug 21, 2019)

Kharan said:


> I've never tried that, to be honest... but I guess it'd be *worse* in my case, since 120p footage exists only to be slowed down to 24p. Which is what I thought we were talking about.


We were talking about dropping frames, not shooting slo-mo.


----------



## djack41 (Aug 21, 2019)

AlanF said:


> I also shoot BIF. The D500 is indeed better at tracking than the Canon. But, the 5DIV, 5DSR etc lock on faster than the D500 (according to those who use both). I use the central 9 points on the 5DSR and 5DIV and pan myself rather than use sensor tracking, and find that they are really good at capturing small fast birds in flight and even dragonflies because they lock on so fast. I would like the AA-filter to be dropped but will have to live with one - it probably loses about 10% on a high density filter, based on my experience comparing the 5DIV with the 5DSR, allowing for the difference in pixel density.


True, Canon's AF is slightly faster in making initial focus. However Canon's AF is nervous and does not hold focus well on fast moving subjects against a complex background. Nikon and Sony do a much better job retaining focus lock. I shoot a 1dx2, a 5DSR and a 7D2. With it's slow FR and small buffer, the 5DSR is a poor choice for BIF. JMHO


----------



## djack41 (Aug 21, 2019)

slclick said:


> How is the 80D's AF system compared to the D500? That should be your yardstick, not a vastly different body like a higher tier model, discontinued or not.


Since the 7D2 will not see an upgrade, I hope the 90D will fill the void as a sports and wildlife camera but this will require real upgrade of the 80D to compete with the Nikon D500.


----------



## Kharan (Aug 21, 2019)

Kit. said:


> We were talking about dropping frames, not shooting slo-mo.


OK, I didn't catch that. I guess that one could shoot 60 FPS at 1/50, and then drop frames, but I don't think that the results would be pretty or convincing.

It's sooooo much easier to just be able to record 24p on camera in the first place


----------



## Dalantech (Aug 21, 2019)

Canon1966 said:


> Great Shot!



Thanks!


----------



## AlanF (Aug 21, 2019)

djack41 said:


> True, Canon's AF is slightly faster in making initial focus. However Canon's AF is nervous and does not hold focus well on fast moving subjects against a complex background. Nikon and Sony do a much better job retaining focus lock. I shoot a 1dx2, a 5DSR and a 7D2. With it's slow FR and small buffer, the 5DSR is a poor choice for BIF. JMHO


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.


----------



## Michael Clark (Aug 21, 2019)

Proscribo said:


> Yeah but if the start colors are way off noise gets multiplied a lot in not-so-nice ways. Ideally we wouldn't have the colourful patches (this again won't probably happen).
> 
> Mostly I am still dreaming tho, but who knows?



What are "start colors?"

The thing you see when you open a raw file is not "THE raw file". It is one particular interpretation of the monochromatic brightness values collected by the camera's photosites. That interpretation is one of a countless number that are equally legitimate interpretations of the raw data. That interpretation is based on the default or user selected values used by the processing software, be it the camera's built-in firmware that creates the JPEG preview image or an external raw convertor. Enter different color multiplier values and reprocess the raw data and there is very little, if any, difference in the amount of noise caused by different color balances.

On the other hand, if you're talking about manipulating the colors of a JPEG image, that's an entirely different ball game. When you converted from raw to JPEG you threw away most of the information you need to change the color by any significant amount. But that isn't the camera's/sensor's fault. It collected the data you needed to have almost infinitely adjustable color. You're the one who decided to not use the vast majority of that data.


----------



## dtaylor (Aug 21, 2019)

AlanF said:


> 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. 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.



Brilliant shots Alan.


----------



## dtaylor (Aug 21, 2019)

djack41 said:


> True, Canon's AF is slightly faster in making initial focus. However Canon's AF is nervous and does not hold focus well on fast moving subjects against a complex background. Nikon and Sony do a much better job retaining focus lock.



This drives me nuts because it's literally a firmware fix. Their iTR metering/tracking sensors have enough pixels to do a better job here. It's like Canon just needs to bump the "stickiness" factor.


----------



## Michael Clark (Aug 21, 2019)

Timedog said:


> 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.



Canon has been including both numbers in the official specs for at least 15-20 years.

I'm sure the 24.4 MP "total pixels" number was a typo. It's already been changed in the OP to 34.4 MP.

How many rows one needs around the edges depends on the demosaicing algorithm one is using. Only the most basic and crude algorithms use only one additional row. Most use several with those closest having more weight than those further away. Then there are things such as masked pixels, used to measure the noise floor at a given moment (it varies based on things such as sensor/internal temperature, analog amplification, etc.).


----------



## Michael Clark (Aug 21, 2019)

trounds said:


> Maybe I miss it somewhere. What is the 90D's shutter life?



If the mechanical shutter can deliver 1/16000 second Tv, it's either:

1) A lot more advanced and robust than the current 80D or 7D Mark II shutter in order to approach the same 100,000 rating as the 80D

or

2) It's like a candle made to burn at both ends at the same time...


----------



## Michael Clark (Aug 21, 2019)

Ricardo_fon said:


> I must say that this looks great. My last DSLR was a 40d which I loved, and I haven't really been keen on another. But this one appeals to me a lot.



Anything currently on the market will be a significant upgrade from the 40D.


----------



## preppyak (Aug 21, 2019)

Scenes said:


> 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?


I travel for work, meaning I dont have the luxury of having a camera for every need with me. BM would be great if the battery life wasnt comically bad and if it had useable AF. Likewise, I dont want to carry large hard drives the world over to capture ProRes if I dont need it.

I prefer cameras that are swiss army knives, and by and large, the XXD model has been that. Great for photography except in the lowest light conditions at a budget point that makes a lot of sense. Solid enough on video to work as a B-cam as well to whatever my primary video camera is (currently GH5, but has been a variety of more video focused options). Sturdy and well built despite not being xD level sealed. Doubly impressive since a lot of people were pissed when the 60D lost the build of the 50D, and yet it became their best-seller.

I understand Canon using old sensors on their R and RP cameras. I understand them recycling older focus systems onto the XXD cameras. I understand them not putting top end features (IBIS, 4:2:2, etc) into them. That's all in service of keeping the price down and keeping their higher end models selling. Removing a baseline video feature like 24p....cant explain it with any reasoning. It'd be like removing the Large Jpeg mode and only leaving Small.

Im not really angry though; sadly I've grown used to these dumb Canon decisions. Not adding 4k to the 6dII. Dropping battery size on the RP and excluding 1080/24. Ive mostly been waiting for the next upgrade to the a6500 to just completely move off Canon. A solid 90D, especially when it comes down in price in holiday sales, might have tempted me to stay a little longer, since I've owned the 50D, 60D, and now 80D and have found them all very reliable. But if they are dumping baseline features for fun...no reason to stay.


----------



## privatebydesign (Aug 21, 2019)

Dantana said:


> 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.


I agree, it was just a question of scale of the difference, I did say _"but it would look different". _


----------



## tron (Aug 21, 2019)

AlanF said:


> 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.
> ...


Alan these are fantastic shots.


----------



## tron (Aug 21, 2019)

AlanF said:


> PL on my computer automatically sets Luminance to 40 for PRIME. I tend to leave it at that unless I go above iso1600, when I will increase the Luminance setting to 50, 60 or even 70. There seems to be no significant loss of detail. I do use the DxO lens sharpening at the standard settings at 0, 0, 50. But, it can over-sharpen with the 5DSR with the 100-400mm II at 400, and I frequently set the "Global" to -2. With the 1.4xTC on or using the 5DIV, it doesn't oversharpen. I prefer the DxO lens sharpening to using sharpening with PS.


Many thanks Alan.


----------



## Michael Clark (Aug 21, 2019)

victorshikhman said:


> 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:
> ...



Re: Reasons to wait.

1) I basically agree with this. 

2) Canon has had face detect in LV on many camera models for quite a while. With the 90D they are adding Eye AF. One should probably wait until we've actually seen how well it works in the 90D before trashing it as hopelessly behind.

3) Not everyone buys a DLSR only because it is cheaper than a MILC. Some folks actually choose a DSLR on the basis of what DSLRs still do better than MILCs. The difference between OVFs and EVFs is the most fundamental one. Both have advantages and disadvantages over the other. Those differences will remain unless and until an EVF is indistinguishable from an OVF to the user.

3a) Beyond that, though, the 90D will also be discounted from it's introductory price by the time it has been out as long as the R has already been out. This will be the case particularly when one is looking at gray market bodies from non-Canon Authorized sellers, which is where the price of the R is remotely approaching the expected introductory price of the 90D. Heck, in the U.S. right now you can get a 5Ds from a fly-by-night gray market importer with no Canon warranty for $1,600. But you can't get one with a U.S. warranty from an authorized Canon USA dealer for less than about $3.5K


----------



## Canon1966 (Aug 21, 2019)

AlanF said:


> 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 186119
> View attachment 186120
> ...


Great Shots!


----------



## Michael Clark (Aug 21, 2019)

djack41 said:


> Since the 7D2 will not see an upgrade, I hope the 90D will fill the void as a sports and wildlife camera but this will require real upgrade of the 80D to compete with the Nikon D500.



Nikon has officially announced they will not be updating the D500. Ever.

Both the 7D Mark II and the D500 are lame ducks at this point.


----------



## Michael Clark (Aug 21, 2019)

djack41 said:


> True, Canon's AF is slightly faster in making initial focus. However Canon's AF is nervous and does not hold focus well on fast moving subjects against a complex background. Nikon and Sony do a much better job retaining focus lock. I shoot a 1dx2, a 5DSR and a 7D2. With it's slow FR and small buffer, the 5DSR is a poor choice for BIF. JMHO



Those three Canon models have user selectable settings for tracking sensitivity, accel/decel sensitivity, and AF pt auto switching. Have you tried changing tracking sensitivity to a lower setting if you feel the camera switches targets too fast?


----------



## neuroanatomist (Aug 21, 2019)

Stereodude said:


> > Canon crippled my 1D X by not including in-camera HDR even though the all their other ILCs and even several PowerShots offered that
> 
> 
> Please tell us more lies. Youve got a knack for it. Which Canon cameras have HDR video?


Where did I state in-camera HDR video? Are you so video-centric that nothing else exists in your mind? Did you forget that these cameras also shoot still images? Or can you simply not read?


----------



## privatebydesign (Aug 21, 2019)

djack41 said:


> True, Canon's AF is slightly faster in making initial focus. However Canon's AF is nervous and does not hold focus well on fast moving subjects against a complex background. Nikon and Sony do a much better job retaining focus lock. I shoot a 1dx2, a 5DSR and a 7D2. With it's slow FR and small buffer, the 5DSR is a poor choice for BIF. JMHO


Specifically what AF settings are you using on the 1DX MkII?

Since ignoring Case modes and fine tuning the three AF variables individually I have found the AF to be incredibly responsive and programmable, to the extent that I can shoot the same subject on different days with different setting depending on how alert or tired I am.


----------



## Michael Clark (Aug 21, 2019)

privatebydesign said:


> Specifically what AF settings are you using on the 1DX MkII?
> 
> Since ignoring Case modes and fine tuning the three AF variables individually I have found the AF to be incredibly responsive and programmable, to the extent that I can shoot the same subject on different days with different setting depending on how alert or tired I am.



Probably not Case 2 or Case 6 with tracking sensitivity turned all of the way down.

The Case modes are just starting points for the three variables. You can change and save the three settings for each of the Case modes. You can then switch from one of your own customized setups to another on the fly more easily. Each Case mode can become, in effect, a "C1", "C2", "C3", etc. for the three AF variables.


----------



## Michael Clark (Aug 21, 2019)

neuroanatomist said:


> 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.



Don't forget, they also deprived you of all of those Scene Modes, too!


----------



## privatebydesign (Aug 21, 2019)

Michael Clark said:


> Probably not Case 2 or Case 6 with tracking sensitivity turned all of the way down.
> 
> The Case modes are just starting points for the three variables. You can change and save the three settings for each of the Case modes. You can then switch from one of your own customized setups to another on the fly more easily. Each Case mode can become, in effect, a "C1", "C2", "C3", etc. for the three AF variables.


Indeed, I just find it easier to ignore Cases completely and I have a MyMenu tab set up with the three adjustable and change them as I feel the need from there.

I found I was the biggest inconsistency in the AF and was getting annoyed that sometimes I'd have a great hit rate and other times with the same settings and subjects have very low hit rates, turned out the AF was thrown out by my variable performance, sometimes I could keep things within an AF point, other times I'd need to adjust the switching to adjust for my varying abilities.

Got the idea from a Grant Atkinson video, he used to post here and had a lot of good info.


----------



## SecureGSM (Aug 21, 2019)

yeahright said:


> In the very link you posted it even explicitly says "Diffraction thus sets a fundamental resolution limit that is independent of the number of megapixels, or the size of the film format. It depends only on the f-number of your lens, and on the wavelength of light being imaged. One can think of it as the smallest theoretical "pixel" of detail in photography."
> which supports the claim that diffraction has nothing to do with the sensor or its pixel size.
> 
> The diffraction limit of a sensor is merely the f-number above which it is not possible to take full advantage of its high pixel density, but this doesn't imply that the result is any worse than from a sensor with a lower pixel density. Given a particular f-stop there is a particular smallest pixel size whose further decrease will not give you more resolution due to the diffraction limit. But this doesn't mean it will give you *less* resolution. It will simply not increase any further. A sensor with higher pixel density always provides at least as much resolution as a lower pixel density sensor. But, after the diffraction limit has passed, not necessarily any more. And you can always downscale the image to get the (almost) exact same result.



Well, you asked for it right 

Please note:

When the diameter of the airy disk's central peak becomes large relative to the pixel size in the camera (or maximum tolerable circle of confusion), it begins to have a visual impact on the image. Once two airy disks become any closer than half their width, they are also no longer resolvable (Rayleigh criterion).

Do you read “relative to the pixel size”?


----------



## Don Haines (Aug 21, 2019)

Michael Clark said:


> Don't forget, they also deprived you of all of those Scene Modes, too!


I don’t understand how anyone could use a camera that does not have green box mode.


----------



## Don Haines (Aug 21, 2019)

s66 said:


> 32.5*1.6^2= 83.2


I would not be the least bit surprised to see the new high density FF camera with an 83.2Mpixel sensor


----------



## AlanF (Aug 21, 2019)

SecureGSM said:


> Well, you asked for it right
> 
> Please note:
> 
> ...


To be precise, it’s when the _centres_ of the Airy discs become closer than the radius of a disc they are no longer resolvable.


----------



## yeahright (Aug 21, 2019)

SecureGSM said:


> Well, you asked for it right
> 
> Please note:
> 
> ...


There is no contradiction between your last statement and mine. So of course (everything else unchanged) the airy disk becomes visible at the pixel level as the pixels get smaller. But that doesn't make the higher resolution image any worse than the lower resolution image or higher resolution cameras less usable at higher f-stops than lower resolution cameras as some posts (not yours) were suggesting. Because if the airy disk is exactly 1 pixel in size in sensor A and therefore not visible, if we double the resolution in height and width in sensor B it will occupy 4 pixels and will therefore be visible. If we downsample image from B to the size of sensor A we end up with exactly the same image. In this case: nothing gained by doubling the resolution, but nothing lost either.

And I was merely commenting on your post #214


SecureGSM said:


> > Proscribo said:
> > That is the property of the lens (aperture) and is the same no matter the sensor or if there is a sensor at all.
> 
> 
> Not quite correct.



which is wrong, as is also stated in the link you posted. Because it is simply correct that the effect of diffraction and the size of the airy disk is independent of the sensor, which was what Proscribo was talking about. Only whether we can see it or not in an image recorded by a sensor is of course dependant on its resolution.


----------



## Dantana (Aug 22, 2019)

Don Haines said:


> I don’t understand how anyone could use a camera that does not have green box mode.


I want my camera to come in a green box. Not buying otherwise.


----------



## Scenes (Aug 22, 2019)

preppyak said:


> I travel for work, meaning I dont have the luxury of having a camera for every need with me. BM would be great if the battery life wasnt comically bad and if it had useable AF. Likewise, I dont want to carry large hard drives the world over to capture ProRes if I dont need it.
> 
> I prefer cameras that are swiss army knives, and by and large, the XXD model has been that. Great for photography except in the lowest light conditions at a budget point that makes a lot of sense. Solid enough on video to work as a B-cam as well to whatever my primary video camera is (currently GH5, but has been a variety of more video focused options). Sturdy and well built despite not being xD level sealed. Doubly impressive since a lot of people were pissed when the 60D lost the build of the 50D, and yet it became their best-seller.
> 
> ...



As I said before, whatever the specs of the 90D it doesn’t mean the current canon cameras you own stop working. Carry on using those at 24p. Or, as you’ve said. Move away from canon completely. Life’s to short to be so angry. I read the 6500 successor is being announced the day after the 90D so get that.


----------



## dslrdummy (Aug 22, 2019)

dtaylor said:


> 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 *******?


Didn't the person who posted it say the Spec sheet came direct from Canon Australia? Could be a draft but not likely to be fake.


----------



## codynpatterson (Aug 22, 2019)

amorse said:


> I guess I'm a bit out of the loop, but I'm drawing a blank on what this is missing when compared to an equivalent tier camera from 4 years ago?



I'll restate for those in the back that can't read... 4k60 and dual card slots. Oh wait and ibis. Man o man.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Aug 22, 2019)

codynpatterson said:


> I'll restate for those in the back that can't read... 4k60 and dual card slots. Oh wait and ibis. Man o man.


Yeah, clearly not having those over the past 4 years has cost Canon market share. Oh wait, they gained market share. Man o man.


----------



## dslrdummy (Aug 22, 2019)

The spec sheet for the 80d on Canon's website specifically mentions that it has a low pass filter. Just maybe this doesn't.


----------



## codynpatterson (Aug 22, 2019)

neuroanatomist said:


> Yeah, clearly not having those over the past 4 years has cost Canon market share. Oh wait, they gained market share. Man o man.


Man o man, no one mentioned market share.


----------



## djack41 (Aug 22, 2019)

tron said:


> Alan these are fantastic shots.


The 5DSR produces wonderful IQ for bird portraits but has a previous generation AF (vs the 5D4). It can capture images of BIF but lacks AF performance, frame rate and buffer to be a camera of choice for most serious BIF photographers. Also, it produces excessive noise at higher ISOs vs a 1DX2, 5D4, D5, D850 or A9. It was never designed to be a sports/action camera.


----------



## amorse (Aug 22, 2019)

codynpatterson said:


> I'll restate for those in the back that can't read... 4k60 and dual card slots. Oh wait and ibis. Man o man.


I guess I'm really out of the loop! I don't think I can name one camera in a comparable price range and sensor size which has 2 card slots, IBIS, and 4K 60 which was on the market as of August 2015, if we're indeed saying that is 4 year old tech. 

Let's look at some comparable cameras that had been released by August 2015, 4 years ago. I think the closest comparable cameras for this price point would likely be the Sony a6000, Sony a68, the Fujifilm XT1, Fujifilm XT10, Nikon D7200, and I'm sure others exist too. None have 4K, one has 2 card slots, one had IBIS. I don't think these features are 4 years old, as you suggest. 

In fact, I'm struggling to identify a camera on the market right now with *all* of those features in a comparable price range. Let's look at the closest comparable cameras on the market now. XT3 has 2 card slots and 4K 60, but no IBIS, and I'd argue that it is positioned at a higher tier than the 90D or M6. What about the XH1 - it has IBIS and 2 card slots but no 4K60, but again, it's priced even higher than the XT3 so not really comparable. What about the XT30, much more comparable price - no 4K 60, no IBIS, single card slot. How about Sony's offerings - a6400 has no 4k60, no dual card slots, no IBIS. Maybe the a6500 - no 4k60, no dual card slots, but yes IBIS. What about Nikon - the D500 is a tier above in my opinion, but let's look anyway - no IBIS, no 4k60, yes dual card slots. D7500 isn't much better, no 4k60, no 2 card slots (removed from its predecessor no less!), no IBIS. 

So I guess I must be really missing something because I'm struggling to find a comparable camera that has all these features. What APS-C sensor camera has 4k60, 2 card slots, IBIS, and is priced at least comparably to the 80D on release, and was at least announced by 4 years ago - August 2015? Are there any on the market now? I'm asking honestly, because I can't think of any.


----------



## Timedog (Aug 22, 2019)

Michael Clark said:


> Canon has been including both number is the official specs for at least 15-20 years.
> 
> I'm sure the 24.4 MP "total pixels" number was a typo. It's already been changed in the OP to 34.4 MP.
> 
> How many rows one needs round the edges depends on the demosaicing algorithm one is using. Only the most basic and crude algorithms use only one additional row. Most use several with those closest having more weight than those further away. Then there are things such as masked pixels, used to measure the noise floor at a given moment (it varies based on things such as sensor/internal temperature, analog amplification, etc.).


Using a bunch of extra rows/columns seems like it would just incur more blur, but i'm sure there's some edge preserving algorithm stuff going on. Thanks for the reply.


----------



## Mark D5 TEAM II (Aug 22, 2019)

So, to summarize this 15-page thread so far, the new body priced at ~1300 USD has 99% of the features/specs of the ~2000 USD body it was meant to replace. It doesn't have A-DEP on the mode dial so the Youtubers & vloggers who mostly upload 720p30/1080p30 video should avoid this model and buy the Sony/Fuji/Nikon equivalent instead. Got it.


----------



## dtaylor (Aug 22, 2019)

djack41 said:


> The 5DSR produces wonderful IQ for bird portraits but has a previous generation AF (vs the 5D4). It can capture images of BIF but lacks AF performance, frame rate and buffer to be a camera of choice for most serious BIF photographers.



Judging from Alan's photos your assertion is false.



> Also, it produces excessive noise at higher ISOs vs a 1DX2, 5D4, D5, D850 or A9.



Alan just posted a clean ISO 6400 shot, and you reply with this myth? I mean...I don't even have to screenshot DP Review RAW comparisons in response. Alan's real world photo is sufficient evidence all on its own.


----------



## SecureGSM (Aug 22, 2019)

All right. Let’s Summarise and conclude:

Pixel pitch / pixel size affects DLA. Sensor size does not affect DLA. Done and dusted. 



yeahright said:


> There is no contradiction between your last statement and mine. So of course (everything else unchanged) the airy disk becomes visible at the pixel level as the pixels get smaller. But that doesn't make the higher resolution image any worse than the lower resolution image or higher resolution cameras less usable at higher f-stops than lower resolution cameras as some posts (not yours) were suggesting. Because if the airy disk is exactly 1 pixel in size in sensor A and therefore not visible, if we double the resolution in height and width in sensor B it will occupy 4 pixels and will therefore be visible. If we downsample image from B to the size of sensor A we end up with exactly the same image. In this case: nothing gained by doubling the resolution, but nothing lost either.
> 
> And I was merely commenting on your post #214
> 
> ...





yeahright said:


> There is no contradiction between your last statement and mine. So of course (everything else unchanged) the airy disk becomes visible at the pixel level as the pixels get smaller. But that doesn't make the higher resolution image any worse than the lower resolution image or higher resolution cameras less usable at higher f-stops than lower resolution cameras as some posts (not yours) were suggesting. Because if the airy disk is exactly 1 pixel in size in sensor A and therefore not visible, if we double the resolution in height and width in sensor B it will occupy 4 pixels and will therefore be visible. If we downsample image from B to the size of sensor A we end up with exactly the same image. In this case: nothing gained by doubling the resolution, but nothing lost either.
> 
> And I was merely commenting on your post #214
> 
> ...


----------



## SecureGSM (Aug 22, 2019)

AlanF said:


> To be precise, it’s when the _centres_ of the Airy discs become closer than the radius of a disc they are no longer resolvable.


Thank you for clarifying this, Alan.


----------



## thomste (Aug 22, 2019)

I see a lot of people disappointed/stating that the 90D won't be a replacement of the 7Dii.
Other than it is not called 7Diii (some egos bruised by a xxD name?) and doesn't have 2 card slots I am failing to understand why it is not an improvement to the 7Dii?

32mp vs 20mp
Dual Pixel AF on both
10-11fps vs 10fps
1/16000sec max shutter speed vs 1/8000
Iso 100-25600 vs 100-16000
Touch & flippy screen vs not
WiFi vs No Wifi
700g vs 900g
Joystick on both
Possibly a better DR on the 90D

I understand the 7Dii has 65 points AF and the 90D will only have 45 but until we see the performances of the new AF system we can't say it is not an improvement. I'd rather have 45 faster & accurate points than 65 less reliable ones.
I was considering getting a 7dii for wildlife but to me, at least on paper, the 90D will do what the 7dii does and a bit more.
So are the missing second card slot and the allegedly lower weather sealing the only two things making it not a 7dii upgrade?


----------



## Ricardo_fon (Aug 22, 2019)

Michael Clark said:


> Anything currently on the market will be a significant upgrade from the 40D.



Yeah. Was my last DSLR, not my last camera. Had a few in-between.


----------



## AlanF (Aug 22, 2019)

djack41 said:


> The 5DSR produces wonderful IQ for bird portraits but has a previous generation AF (vs the 5D4). It can capture images of BIF but lacks AF performance, frame rate and buffer to be a camera of choice for most serious BIF photographers. Also, it produces excessive noise at higher ISOs vs a 1DX2, 5D4, D5, D850 or A9. It was never designed to be a sports/action camera.



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.

If you don't believe me, go to one of our favourite sites




__





Photographic Dynamic Range versus ISO Setting






www.photonstophotos.net




and you will see that the dynamic ranges of the 1DXII, 5DIV and 5DS are virtually identical and slightly better than the D850 above iso 600 - the dynamic range is limited by sensor noise and photons.

The 5DS and 5DSR may not have been designed nature photography and for BIF, but they are darned good at it.


----------



## max_sr (Aug 22, 2019)

David - Sydney said:


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



But you lose sound and autofocus.


----------



## Hector1970 (Aug 22, 2019)

thomste said:


> I see a lot of people disappointed/stating that the 90D won't be a replacement of the 7Dii.
> Other than it is not called 7Diii (some egos bruised by a xxD name?) and doesn't have 2 card slots I am failing to understand why it is not an improvement to the 7Dii?
> 
> 32mp vs 20mp
> ...


I think you make fairly decent points here but if you have a 7DII its not a compelling upgrade.
Weather sealing would be important to me (I'm in a wet country). The 7DII is pretty robust in this regard.
I'd need to see some real world usage of it to be convinced.
ISO performance will be of interest. If it were a considerable improvement that would be useful.
I use it alot for sport. It's an insignificant improvement in FPS. I don't know why they didn't go to 12 FPS. That would be a selling point.
I don't seem to have found a real use for Wifi so far in a camera. 
Flippy screen might be useful but its a point of failure. 
200g less would be nice but not a deciding feature.
The MP isn't an attraction for me. It's wasted on sport generally but in other genres like birds it would be an asset.
I think I will continue on with the 7DII until if fails (which could be anytime from now on as I'd say it has a massive shutter count)


----------



## Hector1970 (Aug 22, 2019)

AlanF said:


> 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.
> 
> If you don't believe me, go to one of our favourite sites
> 
> ...


You are a great defender of the 5DS And the 5DSR and you back it up with real world photographs that show the great performance you get out of it.
My 5DSR is fine at low ISO. I don't like it all at high ISO 1600 or above. I find the the 5D IV much better in that ISO range. The images just look better straight out of the camera. I find recovering shadows with the 5DIV much better too. I don't condemn the 5DSR outright. It's very good at ISO 100 in studios and doing landscapes in reasonable light on a tripod where I can keep the ISO low. I always wonder if I just have a bad copy. I was an early adopter (which I'm not sure is a good idea, I'm sure Canon have to fix the cameras a little bit after initial complaints come in).


----------



## tron (Aug 22, 2019)

djack41 said:


> The 5DSR produces wonderful IQ for bird portraits but has a previous generation AF (vs the 5D4). It can capture images of BIF but lacks AF performance, frame rate and buffer to be a camera of choice for most serious BIF photographers. Also, it produces excessive noise at higher ISOs vs a 1DX2, 5D4, D5, D850 or A9. It was never designed to be a sports/action camera.


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.


----------



## AlanF (Aug 22, 2019)

Hector1970 said:


> You are a great defender of the 5DS And the 5DSR and you back it up with real world photographs that show the great performance you get out of it.
> My 5DSR is fine at low ISO. I don't like it all at high ISO 1600 or above. I find the the 5D IV much better in that ISO range. The images just look better straight out of the camera. I find recovering shadows with the 5DIV much better too. I don't condemn the 5DSR outright. It's very good at ISO 100 in studios and doing landscapes in reasonable light on a tripod where I can keep the ISO low. I always wonder if I just have a bad copy. I was an early adopter (which I'm not sure is a good idea, I'm sure Canon have to fix the cameras a little bit after initial complaints come in).


What RAW converter do you use? I found DxO with PRIME noise reduction improved my 7DII at high iso considerably and then the 5DSR as well when I went to that. Keith Reeder swears by Noise Ninja for his 7DII, and that it is superb as well. DPP is pretty awful and I don't like PS. I too like the 5DIV very much, and it is more resilient to being slightly out of focus than is the 5DSR - when the 5DSR is not spot on, the image deteriorates badly.


----------



## GMCPhotographics (Aug 22, 2019)

slclick said:


> See there it is again, that conjecture of a hybrid. I'm curious if there is anything from Canon, such as an interview where this has been said.


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?


----------



## koenkooi (Aug 22, 2019)

GMCPhotographics said:


> 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 (Aug 22, 2019)

Sharlin said:


> 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 (Aug 22, 2019)

AlanF said:


> 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 (Aug 22, 2019)

Keith_Reeder said:


> 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 (Aug 22, 2019)

Keith_Reeder said:


> 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 (Aug 22, 2019)

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 (Aug 22, 2019)

AlanF said:


> 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 186119
> View attachment 186120
> ...


Galapagos hawk!! Very jealous!

Amazing shots!


----------



## privatebydesign (Aug 22, 2019)

much said:


> I guess they need to be bankrupt to understand that we need good specs to buy canon  (Still on Panasonic GH5 with lightyears ahead )


Unless you want better video AF and really don't like the look from m4/3, oh and it is a $1,700 body with a comparatively small sensor even when compared to Canon's 1.6 crop sensors......


----------



## chrysoberyl (Aug 22, 2019)

To all who have made this thread educational (especially regarding DLA's), thank you very much. To the whiners and trolls, can't you find anything constructive to do?


----------



## djack41 (Aug 22, 2019)

tron said:


> 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.


----------



## M. D. Vaden of Oregon (Aug 22, 2019)

*Wow .. over 300 comments already.*

*This must be the most important topic of the year !!*


----------



## AlanF (Aug 22, 2019)

djack41 said:


> 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.


----------



## gsealy (Aug 22, 2019)

dak3 said:


> 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.


----------



## dtaylor (Aug 22, 2019)

AlanF said:


> 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. 

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.


----------



## dtaylor (Aug 22, 2019)

djack41 said:


> 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.


----------



## dtaylor (Aug 22, 2019)

M. D. Vaden of Oregon said:


> *Wow .. over 300 comments already.
> 
> This must be the most important topic of the year !!*



We're still trying to figure out if *CANON. IS. *******.*


----------



## AlanF (Aug 22, 2019)

dtaylor said:


> No mention of me? I practically live to come to these forums and point out that more pixels = more noise is a myth.
> 
> Regarding this topic:
> 
> ...


Absolutely correct, dtaylor, you certainly are one of the exploders of the more pixels more noise myth, and more power to your elbow!


----------



## neuroanatomist (Aug 22, 2019)

AlanF said:


> 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.


----------



## djack41 (Aug 22, 2019)

AlanF said:


> 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.


----------



## Mark D5 TEAM II (Aug 22, 2019)

In short, when shooting real-world wildlife photos, AlanF is a better autofocuser than djack41.


----------



## AlanF (Aug 22, 2019)

neuroanatomist said:


> 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.
> 
> View attachment 186134


Actually, they are rated on a 1-100 scale with 100 being best from the www.canonisdoomed.com site. It is truly remarkable what junk is dragged up on occasion as evidence, especially when it contradicts the case being presented.


----------



## Digic_shooter20 (Aug 22, 2019)

This camera will be a nice update to my ageing EOS 50D that I’ve had since 2012. I’ve been considering the 7d mark 2 but when this is released It will be on my wish list.


----------



## dtaylor (Aug 22, 2019)

djack41 said:


> 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.



I think it's fair to say you want a higher frame rate or deeper buffer for action shooting. But it is personal preference, and others will make the trade off for the exceptional resolution of the 5Ds/sr (or other high MP body in another line).



> 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.



Pre-focused shutter lag is a measure of how fast the camera can move the mirror out of the way and fire. Shutter lag with AF is a measure of how fast the camera can acquire the target (determine focus and drive the lens to that position) and move the mirror out of the way. Shutter lag with AF is obviously affected by the lens itself and by the amount by which the lens is out of focus.

You're correct that bodies like the 1DX2 can drive the lens faster during initial acquisition for a shorter AF shutter lag, but other Canon bodies including the 5Ds/sr can drive it pretty fast as well. As for pre-focused shutter lag, I believe that's nearly identical among Canon's "pro" bodies even going back a generation or two.

Once a target is acquired tracking AF movements are relatively small. There's no voltage related advantage here and the shutter lag is essentially the pre-focused time *unless* the camera has lost the target and is trying to re-acquire.



> 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.



I think you're making a mountain out of a small hill. There were certainly improvements in the 1DX2 and 5D4. But they were refinements to an AF system that has been refined for three decades. The AF system in the 5Ds/sr, which you're suggesting might cost you a critical moment shot, is equal to or better than the AF systems in all of the EOS 1 and 1D bodies prior to the 1DX2. I don't recall 1D3 owners complaining about missed BiF shots due to slow AF. For that matter I don't recall EOS 1v or EOS 3 owners complaining about this either.

I don't have the stick time on a 5D4 to truly judge the improvements. I believe Alan does and would trust his input. But again, if you want high MP shots of BiF the 5Ds/sr are up to the task. If you want a faster frame rate and deeper buffer there are other choices.


----------



## Randywayne (Aug 22, 2019)

I'm just waiting to see the first real world sample photos. I use my 5D IV daily and also shoot with my a7III quite a bit but would love another Canon APS-C body, if for no other reason than to use a couple of favorite EF-S lenses that have been collecting dust for a couple of years now.


----------



## AlanF (Aug 22, 2019)

It's interesting to see how this discussion developed. It started with the provocative opinion:


djack41 said:


> With it's slow FR and small buffer, the 5DSR is a poor choice for BIF. JMHO


There is no doubt that the 1DXII is Canon's flagship for action shots. But, just because it is the best, it doesn't mean that other Canon models are poor choices - they may be not as good, but that doesn't make them "poor". If you know how to use them and their limitations, you can get great shots from all Canon models.
To back up the opinion, it was then stated


djack41 said:


> it produces excessive noise at higher ISOs vs a 1DX2, 5D4, D5, D850 or A9.


This was shown to be incorrect. Then it was written


djack41 said:


> The slow frame rate produces is considerable shutter lag.


Which again, is incorrect.
There may be better choices for BIF in Canon's repertoire as well as in other manufacturers', but it doesn't make a 5DSR, a 7DII or other models poor choices.


----------



## tron (Aug 22, 2019)

Here is the EOS 5DsR reliever....

If someone wants to get rid of their mediocre 5DsR body I would gladly have it.I will pay for postage of course


----------



## thomste (Aug 22, 2019)

Hector1970 said:


> I think you make fairly decent points here but if you have a 7DII its not a compelling upgrade.
> Weather sealing would be important to me (I'm in a wet country). The 7DII is pretty robust in this regard.
> I'd need to see some real world usage of it to be convinced.
> ISO performance will be of interest. If it were a considerable improvement that would be useful.
> ...


Yes I agree that the 90D might be an underwhelming upgrade for current 7dii owners (and a no go for people who need dual card slots) but for people like me looking for a decent wildlife camera I think the 90D would make more sense than the 7dii, as long as the AF system is improved from the 80D.


----------



## dslrdummy (Aug 23, 2019)

Given the 7D line is obviously dead, the 90D reads like a very capable sports and wildlife camera for those of us not in the market for a full frame body . The MP boost is very welcome. IQ and low light performance are important considerations for me, as I'm sure they are for many. Looking forward to the official release and initial reviews.


----------



## djack41 (Aug 23, 2019)

AlanF said:


> It's interesting to see how this discussion developed. It started with the provocative opinion:
> 
> There is no doubt that the 1DXII is Canon's flagship for action shots. But, just because it is the best, it doesn't mean that other Canon models are poor choices - they may be not as good, but that doesn't make them "poor". If you know how to use them and their limitations, you can get great shots from all Canon models.
> To back up the opinion, it was then stated
> ...


So, if the 5DSR's very slow FR, small buffer, dated AF, and lack-luster ISO performance satisfies your needs for BIF, go for it. But it obviously is a poor choice given the other available options. It is a very fine landscape, studio, and perched bird camera. I like my 5DSR but accept and admit its limitations. Enjoy.


----------



## Don Haines (Aug 23, 2019)

thomste said:


> I see a lot of people disappointed/stating that the 90D won't be a replacement of the 7Dii.
> Other than it is not called 7Diii (some egos bruised by a xxD name?) and doesn't have 2 card slots I am failing to understand why it is not an improvement to the 7Dii?
> 
> 32mp vs 20mp
> ...


As a 7D2 owner, if I were buying now and had to choose between the two, I would get the 90D. Gee.... who would have thought that 5 more years of development would result in a better product......


----------



## AussieSimon (Aug 23, 2019)

Stereodude said:


> I expect we're going to find out that the crop free 4K on the 90D and the M6 II are not full sensor readout scaled down to 4K. I'm guessing it's either line skipping or pixel binned and scaled to 4K. Hence the "through image processing" * in the promo videos.



I agree. And we can guess what it's likely to be from the fact that it produces a nominal 6960 x 4640 still picture:

Cropped 4K will obviously be the center 3840 x 2160 pixels. That's an incredibly tiny area: only 55% of the width and less than half of the sensor area. Combined with the 1.6x APS-C crop, that's a total crop factor of 2.9x relative to full frame.
Uncropped will almost certainly be skipped or binned from the 6960 x 4640 image into a 3480 x 1958 or "3.4K" intermediary image that is finally upscaled and compressed. (Or it might be slightly less than 3.4K if digital IBIS is available and enabled.)
If this uncropped 4K mode is pixel binned and not pixel/line skipped, the image quality will likely be a massive step up from 1080p on the 80D. Otherwise it will probably have relatively poor low light performance as well as high sensitivity to moire artifacting.

Meanwhile, enthusiasts would probably love it if Canon could offer a "3.4K" output resolution so they could scale it in their video editor—perfect for people targeting ultra high quality 1080p. Unlikely to ever happen until Magic Lantern finally makes it to the 90D in another three to five years.


----------



## Alejko (Aug 23, 2019)

As someone that is interested in getting started with photography (especially wildlife) would this be a good model to start with?

BR Alejko


----------



## SypSkiii (Aug 23, 2019)

I've just had it on hands from a friend at APKNite. I can say that if they put dual pixel in 4k without crop and good dynamic range, this camera will clean up. But will they? Or will Panasonic, Sony and Blackmagic carry on laughing to the bank?


----------



## AlanF (Aug 23, 2019)

djack41 said:


> So, if the 5DSR's very slow FR, small buffer, dated AF, and lack-luster ISO performance satisfies your needs for BIF, go for it. But it obviously is a poor choice given the other available options. It is a very fine landscape, studio, and perched bird camera. I like my 5DSR but accept and admit its limitations. Enjoy.


By the same token, as you are shooting by spec sheets, your 1DXII is a poor choice compared with a Sony A9, which has much faster FR, superior AF with far more points and better tracking, and higher DR at high iso. But, just maybe, the skill of the photographer comes into it.


----------



## Mark D5 TEAM II (Aug 23, 2019)

"A bad workman always blames his tools."


----------



## tron (Aug 23, 2019)

The big question (and requirement) for me. Programmable buttons just like 7DII, 5DsR, etc...


----------



## tron (Aug 23, 2019)

djack41 said:


> ...
> 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.
> ...


 I remember seeing this about 7D2 but where did you see it for 5D4?


----------



## TPatS (Aug 23, 2019)

The main feature that tells me that the 7d3 will never come is the joystick on the 90D. Why? Well cast your mind back to the year 2010. The 7d had just come out. And it took its place as the flagship aps c camera. Before that it was the x0D line which acted as the flagship aps c model. To ensure that the models were put into their right place, from the transition from the 50D to the 60D, canon removed the joystick from the body AND reduced the fps rate to ensure that the 7d was king. But now that the joystick is back on the 90D model along with a substantial fps increase says to me that the exact reverse of 2010 is happening. And why, well the only possible explanation is if there was hole in the lineup that needed to be filled.. The 7d3....


----------



## tron (Aug 23, 2019)

TPatS said:


> The main feature that tells me that the 7d3 will never come is the joystick on the 90D. Why? Well cast your mind back to the year 2010. The 7d had just come out. And it took its place as the flagship aps c camera. Before that it was the x0D line which acted as the flagship aps c model. To ensure that the models were put into their right place, from the transition from the 50D to the 60D, canon removed the joystick from the body AND reduced the fps rate to ensure that the 7d was king. But now that the joystick is back on the 90D model along with a substantial fps increase says to me that the exact reverse of 2010 is happening. And why, well the only possible explanation is if there was hole in the lineup that needed to be filled.. The 7d3....


I think they removed the GPS from 90D. Not a big deal but it was nice to have an embedded choice...


----------



## Sharlin (Aug 23, 2019)

tron said:


> The big question (and requirement) for me. Programmable buttons just like 7DII, 5DsR, etc...



I hope there will be more customizability than in the 80D, which is moderately customizable but not at the level of the higher-end bodies.


----------



## AlanF (Aug 23, 2019)

Alejko said:


> As someone that is interested in getting started with photography (especially wildlife) would this be a good model to start with?
> 
> BR Alejko


If you already have EF or EF-S lenses, a definite yes. It will have good resolution with its high megapixel sensor and the other specs are very appropriate. I personally prefer an optical viewfinder and the unfussy centre spot focussing of a Canon DSLR. But, you might want to hang on and see what Canon is doing in the mirrorless. I will buy one as it will pair really well with my 100-400mm II. The f/5.6 of that telephoto is about as narrow as you would want for that sensor and the lens will provide excellent reach and range. There are also very reasonably priced and excellent EF-S lenses like the the 55-250 STM which will give quite good reach with that sensor.


----------



## RayValdez360 (Aug 23, 2019)

Kharan said:


> ^THIS. I’m perplexed. Canon have finally decided to build an attractive, well-specced model... and then made it completely unusable for me (and many others, I’m sure). For no good, apparent, or easily explained reason.


No 60fps listed either


----------



## Quirkz (Aug 23, 2019)

djack41 said:


> 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



Alan showed some astounding photos demonstrating why the 5ds is actually a great BIF camera for him - perhaps you can show us photos you’ve taken from a camera used for ‘serious’ BIF, and explain how the camera helped for that shot?


----------



## RayValdez360 (Aug 23, 2019)

dtaylor said:


> We're still trying to figure out if *CANON. IS. *******.*


probably with videographers in a couple of generations if they keep this nonsense up. luckily photos dont depend on specs and features as much to get the job done.


----------



## Stereodude (Aug 23, 2019)

AussieSimon said:


> I agree. And we can guess what it's likely to be from the fact that it produces a nominal 6960 x 4640 still picture:
> 
> Cropped 4K will obviously be the center 3840 x 2160 pixels. That's an incredibly tiny area: only 55% of the width and less than half of the sensor area. Combined with the 1.6x APS-C crop, that's a total crop factor of 2.9x relative to full frame.
> Uncropped will almost certainly be skipped or binned from the 6960 x 4640 image into a 3480 x 1958 or "3.4K" intermediary image that is finally upscaled and compressed. (Or it might be slightly less than 3.4K if digital IBIS is available and enabled.)
> ...


Haven't they already said the 4K on the Canon is not cropped? The EOS RP has the same disclaimer in it's specs for 4K and it's plain as day that it's not spitting out a 1:1 image from the 3840x2160 part of the sensor it's cropped to. The EOS R doesn't have that disclaimer on its 4K and its noticeable sharper than the RP (though it's not all that good in it's own right).


----------



## Michael Clark (Aug 23, 2019)

privatebydesign said:


> Indeed, I just find it easier to ignore Cases completely and I have a MyMenu tab set up with the three adjustable and change them as I feel the need from there.
> 
> I found I was the biggest inconsistency in the AF and was getting annoyed that sometimes I'd have a great hit rate and other times with the same settings and subjects have very low hit rates, turned out the AF was thrown out by my variable performance, sometimes I could keep things within an AF point, other times I'd need to adjust the switching to adjust for my varying abilities.
> 
> Got the idea from a Grant Atkinson video, he used to post here and had a lot of good info.



If you are only wanting to change one parameter, that works well. But if you want to change two or even all three parameters at once, saving your desired "presets" for different shooting situations in one of the use cases (you don't have to leave each use case on the default settings for each parameter, you can change them to your liking and they will retain your changes) allows one to switch faster. As best I can tell, there are no "under the surface" differences between the default use cases beyond the settings for the three alterable parameters. (Unlike 'Picture Styles', where a "0" for saturation in the 'Standard' PS is different than a "0" for saturation in the "neutral" PS.)


----------



## Michael Clark (Aug 24, 2019)

thomste said:


> I see a lot of people disappointed/stating that the 90D won't be a replacement of the 7Dii.
> Other than it is not called 7Diii (some egos bruised by a xxD name?) and doesn't have 2 card slots I am failing to understand why it is not an improvement to the 7Dii?
> 
> 32mp vs 20mp
> ...



If the leaked spec sheet is correct, it's also missing a couple of AF point selection modes that many 7DII users prefer: Single AF point with four expanded "assist" points and Single AF point with eight expanded "assist" points are missing from the 80D menu and missing from the leaked 90D spec sheet.

The 80D's 9 point zone setting is _not_ the same as Single AF point with 8 "assist" points. The former gives equal weight to all 9 AF points in a "zone", with the highest area of contrast over the entire 9 points what the AF system attempts to focus. In AI Servo AF the latter gives much more weight to the single selected AF point and uses the "assist" points surrounding it to track a subject that was over the single AF point when AF was first initiated. In One Shot AF the latter gives much more weight to the single selected AF point and uses the surrounding "assist" points when there is no area of sufficient contrast over the selected AF point. Anyone who has shot with both the 80D using 9-point Zone AF and the 7DII using Single AF-point with expansion should understand the difference.

The leaked spec sheet also includes no mention of iTR, which the 7D Mark II has along with the 1D X Mark II, 1D X, and 5D Mark IV. There is at least one source that says the 90D will include iTR. The 90D will have an RGB+IR light meter that is required for iTR, but then again, the 80D also has an RGB+IR meter but no iTR. The extra processing load iTR requires is usually handled by an independent processor in addition to the DiG!C image processor(s). For example, the 1D X used a DiG!C 4 processor for AF/iTR in addition to the dual DiG!C 5+ image processors. We'll just have to wait and see if the 90D offers iTR.

There's also a difference between the magnesium alloy body of the 7DII and polycarbonate body of the 80D and 90D. That's significant for commercial users that put their gear through the wringer day in and day out.

The 7DII has a 200,000 shutter rating. The 80D has a 100,000 shutter rating. It remains to be seen what the 90D shutter rating will be, but if the 1/16000 Tv is a standard two curtain operation option (rather than an electronic first curtain option in LV, which is what I think it will turn out to be), then the shutter curtains will be either a) moving much faster than the shutter curtains on either the 80D or the 7D Mark II or b) more precise so that a narrower slit between the first and second curtain can be accurately maintained. Making the same shutter curtains faster tends to wear them out quicker, so cameras with faster shutter curtains also tend to have more robust (and more expensive) shutter assemblies. Otherwise, increasing the shortest Tv from 1/8000 to 1/16000 will have the same effect on shutter life as burning a candle at both ends does on the life expectancy of the candle.

All one needs to add WiFi to the 7D Mark II is a $40 WE-1 card that goes in the SD card slot. The CF card slot is still available for use to record images and video. The only currently available new 7D Mark II bodies from authorized Canon dealers have that WE-1 card included with the camera body. The 7D Mark II body without the WiFi card was officially discontinued in October of last year.


----------



## TPatS (Aug 24, 2019)

Michael Clark said:


> The leaked spec sheet also includes no mention of iTR,


I think the 90D does have iTR. It was mentioned in the video i think. 



https://imgur.com/odydTei


----------



## Aussie shooter (Aug 24, 2019)

AlanF said:


> 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 186119
> View attachment 186120
> ...


Looks like you had a good trip. Hope you didn't regret leaving the prime behind.


----------



## Sharlin (Aug 24, 2019)

TPatS said:


> I think the 90D does have iTR. It was mentioned in the video i think.



Yep. The 80D has ”color tracking with skintone detection” but no full iTR due to the low resolution of the metering sensor. According to the promo video the 90D has iTR with face tracking etc. I presume that’s really the killer app for the upgraded metering sensor—the 80D autoexposure is consistently spot-on so I’m not sure how much visible improvement the increase in resolution will bring, metering-wise.


----------



## AlanF (Aug 24, 2019)

Aussie shooter said:


> Looks like you had a good trip. Hope you didn't regret leaving the prime behind.


No! It was the correct decision. The closeness of the wild life meant I was having to zoom much of the time and it was only on rare occasions I used an extender. I would have missed so many shots with the limitations of a prime. The extra stop of the f/4 of the prime would have been useful when under the canopy of the Amazon, but that was far outweighed overall by the flexibility of the zoom. If the birds and animals had been far away and we had been spending most of the time in a safari vehicle like in Tanzania, then I would have missed the prime. However, I have to say that a 100-400mm II + 1.4xTC on a 5DSR gives slightly better resolution than the 400mm DO II + 2xTC on the 5DIV. (My favourite is the prime plus 1.4xTC on the 5DSR for distance shots, and l look forward to using the lens on a 90D).


----------



## Michael Clark (Aug 24, 2019)

TPatS said:


> I think the 90D does have iTR. It was mentioned in the video i think.
> 
> 
> 
> https://imgur.com/odydTei




I couldn't remember where I had seen that, but the part you eliminated from your quote of my comment included such.



Michael Clark said:


> The leaked spec sheet also includes no mention of iTR, which the 7D Mark II has along with the 1D X Mark II, 1D X, and 5D Mark IV. There is at least one source that says the 90D will include iTR.


----------



## Aussie shooter (Aug 24, 2019)

AlanF said:


> No! It was the correct decision. The closeness of the wild life meant I was having to zoom much of the time and it was only on rare occasions I used an extender. I would have missed so many shots with the limitations of a prime. The extra stop of the f/4 of the prime would have been useful when under the canopy of the Amazon, but that was far outweighed overall by the flexibility of the zoom. If the birds and animals had been far away and we had been spending most of the time in a safari vehicle like in Tanzania, then I would have missed the prime. However, I have to say that a 100-400mm II + 1.4xTC on a 5DSR gives slightly better resolution than the 400mm DO II + 2xTC on the 5DIV. (My favourite is the prime plus 1.4xTC on the 5DSR for distance shots, and l look forward to using the lens on a 90D).


It is Incredible how close the wildlife allows to to get in the Galapagos isn't it?


----------



## Kernow (Aug 25, 2019)

I think the 7D3 will come in the form of a R variant at some point , for the 90D this will be a great upgrade to the 80d and coming from a rebel also makes it come closer to bridge the gap from the 7D line. Just a hunch that's all .


----------



## 3kramd5 (Aug 26, 2019)

Kernow said:


> I think the 7D3 will come in the form of a R variant at some point , for the 90D this will be a great upgrade to the 80d and coming from a rebel also makes it come closer to bridge the gap from the 7D line. Just a hunch that's all .


I don't expect any RF amount camera to be called EOS 7D mk III.


----------



## Kernow (Aug 26, 2019)

3kramd5 said:


> I don't expect any RF amount camera to be called EOS 7D mk III.


Yes i do agree, dont think it will be called that but possibly a APS-C R worthy version to succeed the 7Dll? long shot i know lol


----------



## koenkooi (Aug 26, 2019)

Kernow said:


> Yes i do agree, dont think it will be called that but possibly a APS-C R worthy version to succeed the 7Dll? long shot i know lol



Since the R series so far has no numbers, maybe they'll name it the Rbif


----------



## Kernow (Aug 26, 2019)

koenkooi said:


> Since the R series so far has no numbers, maybe they'll name it the Rbif


----------



## Phil Standfield (Aug 27, 2019)

As a 7 D mk2 user (x2) for Sports (Non league Football standard) in the UK i am hoping for a Mk 3 not this 90, my reasons are,
The 7d mk2 body takes a hammering pitchside at football/rugby, American Football etc and my 2 current ones are dented,scratched, well worn etc could the 90 body stand up to that abuse if not its a no no. Is it as good weather sealed as the 7d as in the UK the weather can be very wet even using wet weather covers they still get soaked. 
For me auto focus and Focus points are ok along with fps as i try to judge the action than spray n pray then have to go through tens of shots instead of a few so happy with the fps rate.
I always use a CF card in one body and a SD card in the other, i have a Lexor card reader on the laptop so can take out either card or both and upload both if needed at the same time at half /full time so one card slot will mean i can't upload 2 cards a time unless i have 2 card readers.
Video & movable rear screen for me never had/doubt will ever feel the need for video so not bothered by it and the movable screen is surely a weak link and just asking during sports & possibly wildlife shots to get broke off. 
Same batteries as the 7 d mk 2 so good news there.
Also something i have not seen mentioned anywhere which to many of us in the UK is a massive help is the anti flicker on the 7 d mk2, in the UK doing Non league Football/Rugby you would be surprised how much that kicks in with the terrible flood lights we have to contend with. 
Last September i had to spend £500 for a new shutterbox etc as i had reached the end of the shutter count so my other (newer) body must be nearly there as well which is another reason i am not interested in a 90 if in a few months a 7 d mk3 or similar comes about , so if it goes do i spend £500 to repair or use that towards a new 7 d mk3 which are now quite long in the tooth.
Yes i know some of you will say move to the 1 dx mk 2 it will solve most of my dilemma, yet unless someone gives me a 1 dx mk 2 the lack of money just short of £5000 UK rules that out could get 2 brand new 7 d mk2 and have change.


----------



## nonac (Aug 29, 2019)

privatebydesign said:


> Interesting, what do you shoot that can't be shot with a camera with a single card slot?


I shoot freelance sports for media outlets that have time deadlines. If a card fails, I don't have time to try and recover the information. And yes, I have had cards fail before.


----------



## Don Haines (Aug 29, 2019)

nonac said:


> I shoot freelance sports for media outlets that have time deadlines. If a card fails, I don't have time to try and recover the information. And yes, I have had cards fail before.


But you can back up this camera to a Phone or tablet as you shoot! Surely having an independent backup on a separate device is more reliable than a second card?


----------



## koenkooi (Aug 29, 2019)

Don Haines said:


> But you can back up this camera to a Phone or tablet as you shoot! Surely having an independent backup on a separate device is more reliable than a second card?



RAW as well, or jpeg only?


----------



## tron (Aug 29, 2019)

koenkooi said:


> RAW as well, or jpeg only?


+1
That's what I have said too in a previous post. Plus the transfer speed is a joke relative to a fast card.


----------



## Don Haines (Aug 29, 2019)

tron said:


> +1
> That's what I have said too in a previous post. Plus the transfer speed is a joke relative to a fast card.


I don't know if it transfers RAW that way, but as to speed, it does not matter that much because unless you are averaging more than a shot every few seconds, eventually the wireless transfer will catch up


----------



## privatebydesign (Aug 29, 2019)

nonac said:


> I shoot freelance sports for media outlets that have time deadlines. If a card fails, I don't have time to try and recover the information. And yes, I have had cards fail before.


Why aren't you FTP'ing the files in real time? Nothing makes an event organizer or news outlet go all gooey more than being told they will get images in real time they can post on social media etc. I pitched it once and got a three day music festival contract out of it.

If you have had multiple card failures I'd look at card quality or handling protocols.


----------



## koenkooi (Aug 29, 2019)

Don Haines said:


> I don't know if it transfers RAW that way, but as to speed, it does not matter that much because unless you are averaging more than a shot every few seconds, eventually the wireless transfer will catch up



The current 'auto-transfer' in Camera Connect is jpeg only. If you set your camera to RAW only, it will convert it to jpeg on the fly while sending it.


----------



## tron (Aug 29, 2019)

koenkooi said:


> The current 'auto-transfer' in Camera Connect is jpeg only. If you set your camera to RAW only, it will convert it to jpeg on the fly while sending it.


Wifi is less reliable compared to dual cards and I remember a youtube presentation regarding the auto transfer of images from EOS R saying something like do not touch (mess with) your phone during transfer.

As for FTP this is the only solution that auto tranfers RAW files. I believe it is an option only for 5DIV and 1DxII (and maybe with an expensive addon transmitter for some other cameras?). But unless we talk 1DXII and Gigabit Ethernet FTP using wifi and transferring RAW files is not fast enough at least for sports.


----------



## much (Aug 30, 2019)

privatebydesign said:


> Unless you want better video AF and really don't like the look from m4/3, oh and it is a $1,700 body with a comparatively small sensor even when compared to Canon's 1.6 crop sensors......


You are right, I have been using Canon for too long 5d mk2, 7d, 550d, 6d, c100, c200, and I know what I'm dealing with. I like the Canon colour since and AF but that's not enough...


----------



## AlanF (Aug 30, 2019)

Phil Standfield said:


> As a 7 D mk2 user (x2) for Sports (Non league Football standard) in the UK i am hoping for a Mk 3 not this 90, my reasons are,
> The 7d mk2 body takes a hammering pitchside at football/rugby, American Football etc and my 2 current ones are dented,scratched, well worn etc could the 90 body stand up to that abuse if not its a no no. Is it as good weather sealed as the 7d as in the UK the weather can be very wet even using wet weather covers they still get soaked.
> For me auto focus and Focus points are ok along with fps as i try to judge the action than spray n pray then have to go through tens of shots instead of a few so happy with the fps rate.
> I always use a CF card in one body and a SD card in the other, i have a Lexor card reader on the laptop so can take out either card or both and upload both if needed at the same time at half /full time so one card slot will mean i can't upload 2 cards a time unless i have 2 card readers.
> ...


The 7DII is still a very good body, and you can buy one from Hdew for £945 at present, less than for a 90D. For you as sports pro, the 7DII's rugged specs and dual card slots are clearly over-riding concerns. For me as a hobbyist who wants more reach with lighter lenses, the extra 27% resolution given by a 32.5 Mpx sensor is the key factor in a body sufficiently tough for my lesser demands.


----------



## SecureGSM (Aug 30, 2019)

Don Haines said:


> I don't know if it transfers RAW that way, but as to speed, it does not matter that much because unless you are averaging more than a shot every few seconds, eventually the wireless transfer will catch up


Wireless transfer is going to kill your camera battery faster than the wireless transfer will catch up, Don 
There are also a high chances for transfer to fail. then you will end up having a partial set of files. I tried shooting in studio and eventually gave up.
Second card or cable
That said, 5G wireless can be a game changer potentially.


----------



## AlanF (Aug 30, 2019)

Don Haines said:


> But you can back up this camera to a Phone or tablet as you shoot! Surely having an independent backup on a separate device is more reliable than a second card?


Don, my iBook Pro had a serious glitch on our birding holiday and would not recognise my cameras or card reader. Fortunately, I had brought an iPad Pro as an emergency back up with me, after much agonising over whether to get a Western Digital card-reader drive. The iPad was a revelation, which many here will know already but was a novelty for me. The mishap was a blessing in disguise as it is so fast and easy to edit on the iPad - even Photos was very good for a quick edit and I do have LR as part of my Adobe subsciption. Also, the new iOS operating system, which is being beta-tested will allow for the first time external hard drives to back up data.


----------



## Quirkz (Sep 6, 2019)

AlanF said:


> Don, my iBook Pro had a serious glitch on our birding holiday and would not recognise my cameras or card reader. Fortunately, I had brought an iPad Pro as an emergency back up with me, after much agonising over whether to get a Western Digital card-reader drive. The iPad was a revelation, which many here will know already but was a novelty for me. The mishap was a blessing in disguise as it is so fast and easy to edit on the iPad - even Photos was very good for a quick edit and I do have LR as part of my Adobe subsciption. Also, the new iOS operating system, which is being beta-tested will allow for the first time external hard drives to back up data.



You’re paying for a Lightroom subscription? You’re paying to rent your software, and get ripped off by adobe who just want to take your money?

.... I’m also paying my monthly fee quite happily for the ability to upload on my laptop, and browse/edit on my iPad a few minutes later  (or visa versa), knowing that it’s also being backed while I’m traveling. Having had laptop/camera stolen on a trip once, and losing all my photos, the monthly fee is a pittance.


----------



## AlanF (Sep 6, 2019)

Quirkz said:


> You’re paying for a Lightroom subscription? You’re paying to rent your software, and get ripped off by adobe who just want to take your money?
> 
> .... I’m also paying my monthly fee quite happily for the ability to upload on my laptop, and browse/edit on my iPad a few minutes later  (or visa versa), knowing that it’s also being backed while I’m traveling. Having had laptop/camera stolen on a trip once, and losing all my photos, the monthly fee is a pittance.


I am pleased Adobe fulfils your needs. I have a full Adobe subscription because I need for my professional purposes InDesigh, Acrobat Pro etc. PS and LR are thrown in but I do not use LR and rarely use PS for my photography as I far prefer DxO for RAW conversion and do minimal post processing. I back up using other cloud services that are far more suitable for storage of data and documents and sharing folders with colleagues. 

I switched off LR on the iPad after I found it was harvesting and uploading all my image files.


----------



## ronaldbyram (Sep 6, 2019)

Well looking thru the 90D manual, I see some features missing that the 7DII has/had. 
1. # of possible images to take on LCD display is 3 digit not 4. 
2. No Custom File naming Prefix. 
3. No custom Shooting modes.

Anyone else have any note worthy observations? 

Anyone know what the Buffer is for burst shooting? I want to shoot RAW but have to revert to JPG when doing sports.
Its easy for me to run thru 3000 frames in 2 hrs of Sprts events and the 7DII buffer cant keep up unless Im in JPG.


----------



## AlanF (Sep 6, 2019)

ronaldbyram said:


> Well looking thru the 90D manual, I see some features missing that the 7DII has/had.
> 1. # of possible images to take on LCD display is 3 digit not 4.
> 2. No Custom File naming Prefix.
> 3. No custom Shooting modes.
> ...


It has C1 and C2 on the mode dial for Custom Shooting.


----------



## Quirkz (Sep 6, 2019)

AlanF said:


> I switched off LR on the iPad after I found it was harvesting and uploading all my image files.



That’s the feature I love the most! 

Why do you say ‘harvesting’ and not ‘backing up to the cloud’? Is adobe doing something with my images on a paid subscription that I’m not aware of?


----------



## AlanF (Sep 6, 2019)

Quirkz said:


> That’s the feature I love the most!
> 
> Why do you say ‘harvesting’ and not ‘backing up to the cloud’? Is adobe doing something with my images on a paid subscription that I’m not aware of?


Without my knowing it, LR had gone in to my Photos files and had uploaded 100 GB before I had culled them, and it also used up storage on my iPad by storing files that I had subsequently deleted from Photos. My workflow is to download, back up all on an external hard drive and then after culling upload to the cloud. A quick internet search found lots of complaints about LR doing this and people unable to disable the harvesting functions. I was able to stop it by denying LR access to Photos, and I then had to delete the LR files. I can understand that the automatic upload is fine for you, but not for me.


----------



## koenkooi (Sep 6, 2019)

AlanF said:


> Without my knowing it, LR had gone in to my Photos files and had uploaded 100 GB before I had culled them, and it also used up storage on my iPad by storing files that I had subsequently deleted from Photos. My workflow is to download, back up all on an external hard drive and then after culling upload to the cloud. A quick internet search found lots of complaints about LR doing this and people unable to disable the harvesting functions. I was able to stop it by denying LR access to Photos, and I then had to delete the LR files. I can understand that the automatic upload is fine for you, but not for me.



I would love being able to bypass the 'film roll' on the ipad and have it import directly to 'files'. And LR being able to read files from there.


----------



## AlanF (Sep 6, 2019)

koenkooi said:


> I would love being able to bypass the 'film roll' on the ipad and have it import directly to 'files'. And LR being able to read files from there.


Photos does a reasonable job as a RAW converter and quick editing. Of course I do the real editing on my laptop, but I’d like to be able to keep the jpegs from Photos on the iPad and delete the RAW but haven’t found a way of doing it directly.

The iPad is so blisteringly fast at RAW conversion it makes it easier for culling than from my laptop.


----------



## Quirkz (Sep 6, 2019)

AlanF said:


> Without my knowing it, LR had gone in to my Photos files and had uploaded 100 GB before I had culled them, and it also used up storage on my iPad by storing files that I had subsequently deleted from Photos. My workflow is to download, back up all on an external hard drive and then after culling upload to the cloud. A quick internet search found lots of complaints about LR doing this and people unable to disable the harvesting functions. I was able to stop it by denying LR access to Photos, and I then had to delete the LR files. I can understand that the automatic upload is fine for you, but not for me.



That’s frustrating! I can understand you’re ire. I must have disabled that when I first started, as I don’t recall that happening to me. If it had, I’d have been pretty annoyed.


----------



## SteveC (Sep 6, 2019)

AlanF said:


> Without my knowing it, LR had gone in to my Photos files and had uploaded 100 GB before I had culled them.



That verges on criminal, IMHO. Some people have monthly data limits (mobile data) and for some damn piece of software to just hog up that much data without warning you its doing so...well, I'd hate to see the bill of anyone who doesn't have throttling turned on in their plan...and I'd hate to be them if they do, wondering why their internet speeds suck so badly because they've been throttled since, oh, about five hours into the new billing cycle.


----------



## Dvsdanny (Sep 8, 2019)

AlanF said:


> Without my knowing it, LR had gone in to my Photos files and had uploaded 100 GB before I had culled them, and it also used up storage on my iPad by storing files that I had subsequently deleted from Photos. My workflow is to download, back up all on an external hard drive and then after culling upload to the cloud. A quick internet search found lots of complaints about LR doing this and people unable to disable the harvesting functions. I was able to stop it by denying LR access to Photos, and I then had to delete the LR files. I can understand that the automatic upload is fine for you, but not for me.


According to Adobe, this is setup automatically with its creative cloud editions of Lightroom. Did you by chance forget to turn that off when you install it?

“Yes, Lightroom automatically backs up all your photographs to the cloud and lets you access and work with your photos from any desktop or mobile device.”






Common questions about Adobe Photoshop Lightroom for mobile and Apple TV


Get answers to frequently asked questions about Adobe Photoshop Lightroom for mobile and Adobe Photoshop Lightroom for Apple TV.




helpx.adobe.com


----------



## AlanF (Sep 8, 2019)

Dvsdanny said:


> According to Adobe, this is setup automatically with its creative cloud editions of Lightroom. Did you by chance forget to turn that off when you install it?
> 
> “Yes, Lightroom automatically backs up all your photographs to the cloud and lets you access and work with your photos from any desktop or mobile device.”
> 
> ...


Do you read all the small print every time you log into a webpage and tick a box?


----------



## Sharlin (Sep 8, 2019)

AlanF said:


> Do you read all the small print every time you log into a webpage and tick a box?



To be fair, being cloud storage based is pretty much the centerpiece feature of the ”new” Lightroom.


----------



## Dvsdanny (Sep 9, 2019)

AlanF said:


> Do you read all the small print every time you log into a webpage and tick a box?


It wasn’t only the fine print but one of, if not the main, advertised feature of the new crap Adobe is putting out. Obviously I’m staunchly against it, but I suppose for some it certainly is a better option than working offline. Either way, there’s no way this was only in the fine print.


----------



## AlanF (Sep 9, 2019)

Dvsdanny said:


> It wasn’t only the fine print but one of, if not the main, advertised feature of the new crap Adobe is putting out. Obviously I’m staunchly against it, but I suppose for some it certainly is a better option than working offline. Either way, there’s no way this was only in the fine print.


I installed the app from the AppStore. It didn’t say anywhere during the installation procedure that the app would automatically access my Photos Albums, transfer files to LR and upload them. It might have been advertised elsewhere, but not then.


----------



## thomste (Sep 9, 2019)

Interesting how people are happy to spent $$$$ on cameras, lenses and anything they need/want to fulfil the ambitions they have with their hobby but really resent paying a (quite small) subscription fee to get access to really valuable pieces of software (LR/PS etc)
Most services are based on subscriptions these days which you can highly customise and easily cancel....what about Dropbox, OneDrive or Netflix & Spotify ( do you prefer to buy DVDs and CDs?). Not sure why these ones are ok but Adobe 'just wants your money' 

You can still buy versions of LR or/and PS for a flat fee but then you don't get updates etc.. You also don't have to use the cloud based versions if you don't want your photos to be uploaded to the Adobe space.
Plenty of options.


----------



## Dvsdanny (Sep 9, 2019)

AlanF said:


> I installed the app from the AppStore. It didn’t say anywhere during the installation procedure that the app would automatically access my Photos Albums, transfer files to LR and upload them. It might have been advertised elsewhere, but not then.


Well, that seems like a different issue. Any app must specifically request permission to access albums within Photos. I was under the impression you were talking about the automatic uploading of photos imported into Lightroom.


----------



## koenkooi (Sep 9, 2019)

thomste said:


> Interesting how people are happy to spent $$$$ on cameras, lenses and anything they need/want to fulfil the ambitions they have with their hobby but really resent paying a (quite small) subscription fee to get access to really valuable pieces of software (LR/PS etc)
> Most services are based on subscriptions these days which you can highly customise and easily cancel....what about Dropbox, OneDrive or Netflix & Spotify ( do you prefer to buy DVDs and CDs?). Not sure why these ones are ok but Adobe 'just wants your money'
> 
> You can still buy versions of LR or/and PS for a flat fee but then you don't get updates etc.. You also don't have to use the cloud based versions if you don't want your photos to be uploaded to the Adobe space.
> Plenty of options.



My problem with subscription services isn't so much the price, but that they might go away. Another issue is that on e.g. dropbox you can log in with your google ID, which google can block at will.
And yes, for movies and series I really like I do get the physical disk. Netflix is more convenient, but I hard a hard time explaining to my 2 year old why she couldn't watch Timmy Time anymore because netflix deleted it (and the DVDs took a few days to arrive).

My day job is for a storage provider, so I might be a bit more paranoid about backups and redundancy than the average person


----------



## AlanF (Sep 9, 2019)

Dvsdanny said:


> Well, that seems like a different issue. Any app must specifically request permission to access albums within Photos. I was under the impression you were talking about the automatic uploading of photos imported into Lightroom.


It’s not a different issue, that was the issue all along! If you had read the original post and then the next set of replies that quoted it, you would have seen the whole issue.


----------



## Sergio Smorovoz (Sep 11, 2019)

Dalantech said:


> More pixels also = more resolution, and it's possible that the later could out way the former provided the glass can out resolve the sensor. That was pretty much my question. Kinda important for me cause I don't focus stack and shoot at F11 all the way to 5x -like this



*Diffraction-Limited-Aperture*
You will find "DLA" referenced in many of the DSLR camera reviews on the site. DLA is an acronym for Diffraction Limited Aperture. This aperture value is the result of a mathematical formula that approximates the aperture where diffraction begins to visibly negatively affect image sharpness at the pixel level.

Canon 80D DLA - f/6.0


----------



## AlanF (Sep 11, 2019)

Sergio Smorovoz said:


> *Diffraction-Limited-Aperture*
> You will find "DLA" referenced in many of the DSLR camera reviews on the site. DLA is an acronym for Diffraction Limited Aperture. This aperture value is the result of a mathematical formula that approximates the aperture where diffraction begins to visibly negatively affect image sharpness at the pixel level.
> 
> Canon 80D DLA - f/6.0


You will find it discussed here





Diffraction, Airy Disks and implications


Two points of light are clearly resolved when they are separated by distances that are much larger than the radius of the disk. As the separation decreases, the disks start overlapping and the resolution decreases. When the separation is the same as the radius, the disks have coalesced. Closer...




www.canonrumors.com


----------



## Michael Clark (Sep 17, 2019)

Sergio Smorovoz said:


> *Diffraction-Limited-Aperture*
> You will find "DLA" referenced in many of the DSLR camera reviews on the site. DLA is an acronym for Diffraction Limited Aperture. This aperture value is the result of a mathematical formula that approximates the aperture where diffraction begins to visibly negatively affect image sharpness at the pixel level.
> 
> Canon 80D DLA - f/6.0



The next three paragraphs of Bryan's article about DLA at The-Digital-Picture:

"Diffraction at the DLA is only barely visible when an image is viewed at full-size (100%, 1 pixel = 1 pixel) on a monitor or when output to a very large print. As sensor pixel density increases (on any brand camera), the narrowest aperture we can use to get perfectly pixel-sharp images gets wider.

DLA does not mean that narrower apertures should not be used – it is simply the point where image sharpness _begins_ to be compromised for increased DOF and longer exposures.

And, higher resolution sensors generally continue to deliver more detail than lower resolution sensors at apertures narrower than the DLA – until the "Diffraction Cutoff Frequency" is reached. The progression from sharp to soft as the aperture narrows beyond DLA is not an abrupt one – and the change from immediately prior camera models to new models is usually not dramatic."


----------

