90D announced

[BB Gun]

My progression was Rebel Ti (2005) -> 50D (2009) -> 70D refurb (2016)

Might be time to upgrade again soon. The increased shutter speed, ISO capabality, and crop room from the extra megapixels is compelling.

https://www.usa.canon.com/internet/...dslr-and-mirrorless-cameras/dslr/eos-90d-body

(My lens kit is pretty sparse... 18-135 USM EFS, 24-105L EF, 100-400L EF but it does what I need it to do. Though occasionally I do find myself wanting a quality wide angle zoom).

BB

 

[Jandor]

I own a Nikon D90... nice to see Canon adopting the same name.
Hope they still support Windows 7, Vista, XP, 2000 and Me and all the bunch of MacOSes as they used to until now.

 

[UnknownSouljer]

It might be worth it for you to consider moving to full frame. Which is the move I'd make. Where I am I can find used 5D III's for $750. Used 5D IV's are $1700 used, which is hard to justify... considering I could buy a Sony A73 NEW for that amount.
Moving to full frame would have the advantage of making your lenses "wider". You'd see 24mm at full 24mm as opposed to 38.4mm when calculating for Canon's 1.6x crop. But generally I'd make the move for shallower depth of field. The 5D III is "slightly" older now, it was a camera that I used as my primary camera for a few years. Past ISO 3200 it's not the best, but knowing this limitation it's possible to shoot around it.

The 90D advantages seem to be mostly based around video. If you need to shoot 4k video or HFR slow-mo, then the 90D has all the modern tools including dual-pixel AF, which the 5D III doesn't have. I'm sure it also will do much cleaner high-ISO as well.

 

[IdiotInCharge]

The 90D is a bit surprising; it feels a bit like an admission from Canon that the product segmentation that they've been known for isn't going to fly in the waning DSLR market. It's no Nikon D500 but it is a very competent camera that's probably the most well-rounded one can get in its class, despite not being 'class leading' in any particular aspect outside of Canon's video focus (and Live View stills) capabilities and perhaps the sheer depth of Canon's EF-mount system.

I advised my wife to skip on the 80D for the 77D, just due to smaller size and lighter weight, but the 90D would be worth the sacrifice IMO!


Some thoughts to add to the conversation:

The increased shutter speed

This could help, and regularly does for action, but the 70D is no slouch here. I'd consider it a side benefit.

ISO capabality

This is perhaps a bigger deal -- the exposure latitude, especially when shooting inside, or when setting up for longer exposures at ISO100 for say landscapes where exposure bracketing isn't feasible, is significantly improved vs. the 70D.

crop room from the extra megapixels is compelling

Higher resolution can help in a number of ways, but with slower zoom lenses that are likely to force higher ISOs and require stopping down to the point of inducing diffraction softening, it's not likely to help that often.

Though occasionally I do find myself wanting a quality wide angle zoom

Canon's EF-S 10-18 IS STM is fit for the purpose, including video if you use the 4k crop mode that's a bit sharper, and Tokina's f/2.8 11-16 and 11-20 zooms have been well received over the years.

But in combination with the desire for cropping ability / higher resolution period, I'd also recommend looking at a few faster primes.

• Canon's 50/1.8 STM is a surprising omission in your list as it's generally considered a must-have lens due to its low cost and high utility, whether shooting APS-C, full-frame, or even a Canon Cinema EOS camera fitted with the EF mount.
• The EF-S 24/2.8 STM, similarly inexpensive, is also a solid and extremely compact option, and is optically good from wide open (as an f/2.8 prime should be).
• Canon's aging 100/2.0 USM, the oft-forgotten sibling to the 85/1.8 USM, is a better lens optically while providing the same fast autofocus not found in competitors and will provide plenty of focus isolation where needed. Due note that its focus motor is not well-suited for video; it's an older design, that while snappy for stills is loud and jerky during video focus pulls. The STM lenses above, or modern ring-USM lenses from Sigma or Tamron in the 85mm range would be more desirable for video as both perform well with Canon's video AF.

It might be worth it for you to consider moving to full frame.

This makes sense for mirrorless, but for Canon DSLRs (or DSLRs period), the ability to use APS-C lenses from Canon and others helps keep cost, size, and weight down, especially if having two systems isn't desirable (I keep my 6D for what it's good at, but mainly run my EOS M5, while my wife uses her 77D).

But generally I'd make the move for shallower depth of field.

While it has its uses, shallower depth of field is rarely that big of a deal for general shooting. I almost always find myself stopping down a little bit where possible, and generally speaking, I much prefer my EOS M5 with the 32/1.4 over the similar field of view and depth of field of my 6D with the 50/1.8 STM. Mirrorless also wins for autofocus here with respect to portraiture.

The 5D III is "slightly" older now

Really the advantages of the 5D III and its successors come in terms of ergonomics, flexibility, and the system that you can build around them. Same for the 7D II and 1D X. Canon ergonomics and usability here are unbeatable for the widest range of photography, and understanding that actually getting the shot is more important than various technical aspects of photography gives insight into why Canon is still the market leader.

These cameras do work, as I'm sure you know.

If that's what the OP is interested in, a used 5D III would be extremely hard to pass up.

Past ISO 3200 it's not the best, but knowing this limitation it's possible to shoot around it --snip -- I'm sure it also will do much cleaner high-ISO as well

With the 5D III, higher ISO was a bit of an issue, but the real limitation was the lower dynamic range versus competitors up to ISO400, and that there was pattern noise introduced.

However, both of these issues manifest primarily when you're pushing the limits of exposure, so represent contingency cases more so than problems that need to be 'shot around' during everyday shooting -- excepting when those contingencies are the kind of photography being focused on. For high and low ISO, I expect the 90D to be a bit better in absolute terms, however I don't expect that delta to be common for most use cases.