Canon EOS 90D Review

Nah, he would have told us already

Sounds painful. Heres hoping you can walk properly again soon.

Remember what you wrote above (and I agree with it). Refer to it next time someone raises the same bias concern - and DPReview again goes through the denial routine.

The only way a camera can get a gold award is if it offers some significant technological improvement over it's peers. I don't think the 90D does that because everything it offers has been available previously. As far as video, I think more people find it important than you think. For that reason video performance plays a big part in the ratings. The rating has to be based on the totality of the camera or there would be 3 ratings, one for stills, one for video and a third for a combination of the two.

It comes down to usage, these cameras are mostly used for stills that's what matters.

@tbcass Not true. Sony badge = gold on dpreview. The bias is pretty conclusively evident in this review by the time it got to the conclusions and opinions.

I use a 80d and its AF is much better than what DPReview claimed in their review. I expect that the 90d will be better with the iTR enhancements.

I use the 80d a lot for wildlife and birds. The 80d's AF performs very well in these applications. That is my experience. I would not agre with DPReview's views on the pros and cons.

Ditto what Yossarian1 said. I had an 80D until I switched to MFT and used viewfinder tracking autofocus frequently. I never had an issue with it, contrary to what DPR found.

Go read a bit of other peoples reviews, and you will see that this camera focused really well, basing your buying decision on one narrow scope test isn't the smartest thing when you are spending a chunk of change on something

The amount of denial around here is ridiculous.

Stop encouraging people to buy underperforming products.

It's not denial, it's real world experience.

Having shot with the 80d for over 3 years, my experience is that the AF performs better than what DPReview has claimed. I expect that the 90d will also perform better than the review based on this experience.

I am in no rush to replace my 80d because it still performs exceptionally but see the 90d as a worthy upgrade.

@maximumeffort I'll bite, tell me in what way this is underperforming?

A6400: No real weather sealing, small battery, cramped buttons, bad EVF, bad LCD, no touch screen control (except from AF point selection), touch screen isn't responsive, UHS I slot (writing times and buffer cleaning are slow), only lossy conpressed RAWs, really horrible rolling shutter, 4K@30p has significant crop. You continue.
But hey, these are just "minor" issues because it has EyeAF!

But hey, these are just "minor" issues because it has EyeAF!

Well, they are. There are many workarounds for Sony's. Get an extra battery or buy protective covers designed to withstand elements. Third party accessories are cheap anyway. Rolling shutter is not much of a big deal - your audience won't really care much. 4K @ 30 is cropped but it is OVER SAMPLED to 6K anyway. All I am saying is that the extra $200 you save for these features is better spent on new lenses.

Except no one "really" sees exactly what their image will look like in the viewfinder.

Regarding exposure? Maybe, if the VF brightness is properly adjusted for the ambient lighting.

Regarding focus? Not really, because the VF is a lot lower resolution than the actual image.

Regarding color, contrast, highlights, shadows, and everything else we work with in post? Not even close.

There's no WYSIWYG if you're planning on processing from raws yourself or using flash, so an EVF doesn't have much to offer me (nor do histograms that are based on processed JPEGs).

Canon doesn't get bad press on here. This got a good score and a mostly positive write-up. But, the ability to make a good press camera doesn't imply the ability to make a stand-out mass-market one (or, rather, it doesn't ensure that a company will). The 90D is a good camera, we just didn't think it was a great one.

Putting aside any discussion of the inertia present in the buying habits of press photographers, this is why we review cameras, not brands.

One brand could make a great mid-range camera and an indifferent 'pro' grade one, or might not even compete in the professional space. You can't extrapolate from one model to another, especially not across such different sectors.

@Richard Butler just a quick question, when you say you only review cameras, why do you keep referring to the kit lens being appalling the whole time? It causes a lot of confusion for the reader, as some may believe that you are marking the camera down on this as it always included under the cons of the some of the different areas of the review and under the conclusion.

I understand that this is probably just for extra information purposes, but i feel it muddles the facts a bit, as this is a review of the camera in isolation. For those that are buying this as a body only it makes little to no sense to have to read about how bad the kit lens is, especially as their are 2 options for the kit lens.

The vast majority of people buying these cameras are not interested in proffesional video. So long as the family holiday or kids singing are fine then they don't care. For budding filmakers, the story is of far more importance than 24p. If the can't get that right then no amount of technical quality will save them. Canon gets this. The small subset that are DPR forum commentators don't come into the equation.

I would still buy the cameras I do even if they had no video capability at all. I have never once taken a video with my camera and I know many similar photographers.

@baldcol well then you and your circle of photographer friend must be hobbyist or retired. Photographs by themselves don't cut it anymore. Customers and businesses want video too. They want a package of photographs and video. It doesn't matter if you're a wedding photographer or product photographer or any artist. No one reads magazines, newspapers or print anymore. Everything is consumed on the internet. Just like this website. It is a company that requires video. Start-ups and beginners can't afford 50k canon cinema cameras. If you're making any kind of bank from you work, you're going to need video to add value. If nothing more than documenting your work for promotion.

Canon's removing 24p from everything is dumb.

I wonder what percentage of the market is as you called them "Hobbyist or retired", compared to the class of consumer that requires 24p and is looking to make videos to sell to customers?

Would be an interesting comparison and probably explain better to us why Canon are doing what they are doing

24p is not required to make good quality videos. How many corporate companies know or care whether the promotional video they have is 24p, 25p, 30p or other. How many you tube videos are in 24p. I honestly have no idea myself.
I understand that 24p has a certain look, but I really couldn't tell if I was watching a video shot in 24p or 30p.
Should Canon put it in all of their cameras, probably, do they need to, probably not.

" hobbyist or retired"... indeed I am a hobbyist; sadly not retired. If Canon only sold to 'professionals' they would be out of business very quickly.

As a non-professional hobbyist, I have zero to no interest in video, so doesn't make a difference to me.

It amazes me that a few years back, everyone complained that Canon didn't include 4K video in a DSLR release, now we complaining that it doesn't have a certain framerate, when the next camera releases what will we then complain about? That it doesn't tickle your chin while you take video?

That doesn't make sense. 4k and 24p are completely different. 4k was a feature some wanted added. 24p has been on cameras for decades and they removed it. You have no problem with them removing features until it's something "you" use.

"It amazes me that a few years back, everyone complained that Canon didn't include 4K video in a DSLR release, now we complaining that it doesn't have a certain framerate, when the next camera releases what will we then complain about? That it doesn't tickle your chin while you take video?"

You clearly haven't got a clue about the video side of things so how about not spouting uninformed nonsense?

@IamToddNorris I am sitting here trying to comprehend how you came to the conclusion that I think that 4K and 24p is the same thing. . . I definitely don't my comment was aimed towards the fact that we are never happy with anything anymore. In that if they bring out something that lacks what we want, we complain, if they then bring it out, but remove a feature subset, we complain, nowhere did I say that they were the same. So let's go ahead and calm down. And by the way, who says that I don't use that feature? Why are you so presumptuous?

@maximumeffort wow, another presumption based on a chirp that we as humans appear to not be satisfied by anything anymore. But cool, read what you want into my comment. I hope you calling my observation "uninformed nonsense" made you feel better. You really made your case very well . . . .

what is wrong is the 90D score. It is damn high!!! That's what I said before. How can a camera that does so poor at video can have such score?!?? The same score as the A6400?!??!! Came on!!! I mean, the camea offers fake 4K video, 120fps at 1080p with no sound, nor AF, no 24p, bad form factor, it is heavy like a dinosaur, uses old tech, and has a dated design, bad low light performance, etc... Who wants to go around carrying such heavy camera, when you can achieve much better results with any mirrorless camera from Sony, Fuji, or Panasonic? This kind of heavy tech, with no appealing design, doesn't impress younger audience, that's why DSLR is losing to mirrorless, but most of all, to Smartphones... Canon cameras, such as this one, the 6D Mark II, and others from Canon/Nikon, are the real elephants in the room, in the shrinking camera market.... an ugly and heavy camera, smelling old tech, like this in 2020?!?!? Oh man!!! When technology is getting smaller, and more powerful??!?!?!

It is right, because it is Canon :) You won't see much praise for Canon and Panasonic on this site.

As much as review sites try to be objective, the personal preferences of the reviewer will always have some impact on the final conclusion / score.
DPR does a pretty good job of it, even if for me personally they give to much weight to video features.
For me this would have been a nice uograde from my 7D if I hadn't drowned it a couple of years ago and bought the 80D already. As I don't tend to updrade very often and the 80D works well for me, I will give it a pass.
For others, they have different wants / needs and will buy something else.
The amount of angst on here about score to high / score to low is kind of pointless.
Try different cameras and buy what you like. No muss, no fuss.
The only number Canon will care about is the number of sales.

@blackcoffee17 If there are features that are disappointing then the score should be lower. It’s got rocket science.

Infinite

By that reasoning, McDonalds make the best burgers on earth....

@user unknown

I see that a new name and log-in hasn't improved the veracity of your posts.

The 90D is #741 in Camera and Photo and the A6400 is #776. Even the venerable A6000 is #859, so your claim that the 90D is 'well ahead' and the Sonys are 'nowhere to be seen' is completely false.

Amazon isn't even offering the A6100 and A6600 for sale yet, something you well know but fail to mention.

https://www.amazon.com/Canon-Digital-Camera-Body-Only/dp/B07WFQYDD5/ref=sr_1_2?keywords=canon+90D&qid=1570105768&s=gateway&sr=8-2
https://www.amazon.com/Sony-Mirrorless-Digitial-3-0-Inch-16-50mm/dp/B00I8BICB2/ref=sr_1_4?keywords=Sony+a6000&qid=1570106015&s=gateway&sr=8-4
https://www.amazon.com/Sony-Mirrorless-Digitial-3-0-Inch-16-50mm/dp/B00I8BICB2/ref=sr_1_4?keywords=Sony+a6000&qid=1570106015&s=gateway&sr=8-4

Video is probably the only differentiator nowadays. Apparently, for photo taking, all cameras suffice. So if it weren't for video in photo cameras, DPreview would have no reason to exist.

Ok here it is the deal, you buy a DSLR for the OVF right? The camera has a 45 point AF with ITR, you depend on both the OVF and the AF system to get properly focused images right? So if the most basic function and feature of a DSLR is performing poorly, that's reason enough to go down in any review mate.

Welcome to 2014.

@flip 21
You do give up in the end it seems......😁
Just a sad troll wasting everyone’s time.........🙄

@Kandid

Just so you know, your posts are not any different to flip 21's.

The only difference is he writes LOLLOL and you use emoticons.

@Rubber....
Hi there 😁 - quote for me please one post of mine which starts a thread with the kind of nonsense this person writes? Always happy however to reply to your dubious contributions......👍👍👍👍😊😊😊😊

@Rubber...
Waiting.................or of course an apology will be sufficient 😊..........

guys, guys, don't fight over me... please!! LOL :) well said RubberDias, if I'm a troll, Kandid is a bully... Kandid doesn't understand that Canon is leading the market in terms of sales, so it was their obligation to push things forward. Instead, Canon continues to thinks it is alone in the market. It is an arrogant posture that already cost dearly to other brands, such as Commodore in the 90s... Usually the next product is always better and cheaper than the competition. We even speak about, how that brand is going to answer to another's brand product, etc... But not with Canon... Canon response to Sony's more advanced cameras, is always bitter... Canon cripples their products intentionally.. That annoys me... Sorry!

@flip 21
😴😴😴😴😴😴😴😴

Oh Kandid, I've watched your gear closely again, and man, let me tell you, I'me really worried about your back man, carrying those old dinosaurs all day long.. Jesus!! you should change to mirrorless... your ratio "quality to weight", is really low :(... we are in 2020 almost. You have a bunch of 4Kvideo less cameras. And the M50?!??! Man, no dual pixel in 4K, wich is upscaled from 1080p by the way, what were you thinking?!??! :( I just hope you will see the light n some moment of your life ... best luck to you... ;)

ok, your a photographer, but you have to see that cameras today are hybrids... everything counts... That's why smartphones are evaluated also for their camera capabilities... In fact, you don't need a great camera to take good photos, that's true, but for video it is a totally different story, because there is IBIS, low light, you have to rely on good Auto Focus performance, etc... and also resolution... 4K, is only 8mp frames... Bad 4K, is even less...

DPR to be renamed to MLLV). Seriously, I'm feeling bad for that officially
claimed bias toward mirrorless and live view. Wondering if it will be changed in next DSLR review from different manufacturer LOL. For now, I'll just skip their attitude and just see the facts somewhere else. RIP classic DPR.

IBIS is still not extremely common *in this particular class* of bodies though. Cameras should be first and foremost compared to their peers.

I actually laughed out loud when I realized that most Sony APS-C bodies don’t, in actuality, have IBIS. Reading internet comments one would be lead to believe that every non-Canon camera on the planet has IBIS!

Olympus, Panasonic and Pentax all offer IBIS in this class. Nikon, Canon, Sony and Fujifilm don't.

Note that pros and cons aren't generally factored into scoring (we're not marking cameras down for not having IBIS). They are a list of factors that would-be buyers might wish to be aware of. If it doesn't impact you, you can (and should) ignore it.

Score another one for the underdogs.

@Richard Thanks, fair enough.

Thanks for the heads up, Mr. Butler, and for the link for qualifying :)
Cheers ..

MFT cameras really aren't in the same class, as they provide different methods for creating images...you wouldn't claim a full-frame camera is in the same class as an APS-C, but you do for MFT and APS-C? I find that odd as these are typically not cross-shopped at all.

Canon's undersized 1.6x APS-C sensor is much closer in size to M43 than it is to full frame. 35mm/FF is 2.56x bigger than Canon APS-C, while Canon APS-C is only 1.38x times bigger than Micro Four Thirds. Yes, an enormous 38% larger.

Sensor performance tends to be very similar, with recent M43 cameras offering better dynamic range than most Canon APS-C cameras, and noise performance that usually isn't far off either. So yeah, there is a pretty good argument for them being in the same class.

Richard Butler, not sure If I got it right - do you claim Olympus and Panasonic have anything in that class? OMG, definitions these days are very____

@EarthQuake Where did you get this 38% figure? m4/3 is 17.3x13.0mm = 225mm^2. Canon APS-C is 23.6x15.7mm= 325mm^2. 325mm^2 / 225mm^2 = 46% larger. (Other APS-C sensors are 64% larger.)

@quiquae, looks like I was looking at the sensor area (18 mm × 13.5 mm) rather than imaging area, which is slightly smaller. I'm getting 44.4% larger here, which isn't a terribly significant difference. Even 64% is a pretty small difference when we're talking real-world photography. Again, the difference between Canon APS-C and FF is 256%.

So yeah, we can pretend like Canon's undersized APS-C sensors are behemoths compared to M43, or look at it with a bit of perspective and context. In reality, we've got crop sensors (most APS-C), slightly smaller crop sensors (Canon APS-C), and yet again slightly smaller crop sensors (M43). All of which are more similar than they are different.

@Sharlin

//I actually laughed out loud when I realized that most Sony APS-C bodies don’t, in actuality, have IBIS.//

The 90D is a DSLR. Every single DSLR that Sony has made has had IBIS.

RubberDials, not only is that not true at all, but Sony doesn't make DSLRs, they make SLT cameras that have a translucent mirror that does not move.

Kevin. They certainly did. Sony designed many mirrored cameras before the SLT design. And. Yes. Those cameras had IBIS. Go read the 13 year old review of the Sony A100 if you don’t believe us.

And there you have it.
Thanks to the brutal enforcement of equivalence sharia, we now have people condemning some camera systems and elevating others based on nothing but the dimension of their sensors.
Not engineering, not technology, not lenses, not soft or firm-ware, not tradeoffs of one parameter over another. Just the most simplistic and banal of all digital camera metrics, width x height. Why?

Rubber. Don’t confuse this with facts. You’re messing up the whole argument.

@Rubberdials
If I want to buy a new Sony APSC sized camera from the Sony shop in Indonesia (where I live) today my choices are:
a5100
a6000
a6300
a6400
a6500
I'm sure that I'll be corrected if I am wrong, but of those only the a6500 has IBIS.
The a6100 & a6600 are not available in Indonesia yet, but as i understand it, only the a6600 has IBIS, the a6100 does not.
It seems that Sony does not think that IBIS is necessary in most of its APSC cameras otherwise they would include it, or are they like Canon and "crippling" their lower end cameras to force people to buy more expensive models?
By the way, I don't think either company is crippling cameras, they are simply looking at different price points and market segments and putting in the features that they think are necessary and affordable to be able to sell profitably in that range.

Some here are trying to justify why Canon hasn’t developed IBIS technology. Then someone said. “But. But. Butt. Sony doesn’t have IVIS in all their bodies”. Remind you canon still doesn’t have IBIS in any of their bodies. This whole discussion has gotten foolish.

Either you think it’s a valuable capability, particularly for primes that don’t have OIS. Or you don’t. Sony (and others) give you the option to buy cameras that have it. (Sony has given you this option for 13 years)

Currently canon doesn’t give you this option. Some question whether they should. Pretty much all of the others have developed this technology now and market it in at least one camera. Canon is working on it based on the news of a recent patent. But to date they don’t offer it for sale.

Everyone just buy what you want.

I stand corrected. Legitimately had no previous knowledge of Sony producing any DSLR because they weren't a relevant company in this space until they moved toward the SLT and mirrorless designs. I've also read, falsely, from several sources that Pentax was the first DSLR to feature IBIS when it was actually Konica/Minolta, later purchased by Sony.

Judging from some quick education this morning, these early IBIS systems were pretty terrible in their infancy. I've been in this professional world for over 13 years and I've never seen a single Sony DSLR and only 3 people ever using their SLTs, so I don't believe they were ever very popular.

You don’t seem to have a clue how technology development works. The 90D sensor generation can do uncropped 4K. The older R sensor cannot, at least not without compromises that Canon deems unacceptable.

One is crop the other is full frame.

"The "full" 90D sensor is already cropped 1.6X compared to the sensor in the FF EOS R."

It does not matter. That's why it's APS-C and that's why lenses are designed for it, giving equivalent field of view to FF lenses.

Why does award color even matter? So that fanboys can compare their cameras?
I think it's much more valuable to read the actual review and decide if the camera is for you or not.