nnowak wrote:
thunder storm wrote:
nnowak wrote:
Lepewhi wrote:
I was trolling the camera store this afternoon. I found the Canon R10. Has anyone had any experience with this camera? I'd never heard of it. Thanks for any info.
This summer, Canon launched the R10 alongside the R7 as the first RF mount cameras with crop sensors. At this time, the only crop specific RF mount lenses are the 18-45mm f/4.5-6.3 and the 18-150mm f/3.5-6.3. However, there are several full frame RF mount lenses that are relatively small, light, and inexpensive that would work well on the R10 such as the 16mm f/2.8,
24m f/1.8,
the 24mm f/1.8 inexpensive? I'm not saying it isn't reasonably value for money on a full frame camera, however, reasonable value for money isn't the same as inexpensive, and that's especially true when talking crop sensor performance. It's kind of the same thing as the EF 40mm f/2.8 stm adapted to an RP. That 40mm can be found used at 1/4th of the price of this RF 24mm.
In the USA, the RF 24mm is only $599. Not cheap, but certainly affordable, especially given the capabilities. While the EF 40mm STM is a decent lens, it is hardly comparable to the RF lens.
That's nonsense. On full frame it's the same field of view and the same equivalent aperture. That's very comparable.
The RF 24mm is f/1.8 versus f/2.8, is stabilized, and also focuses far closer for pseudo macro use. Fast,
For AF it's not fast, it's slow stm just like the 40mm, and for the aperture on crop is the same as it's equivalent on full frame. Like I said before: pretty comparable.
sharp, stabilized,
granted, that's a meaningful difference, however, only for those affordable bodies making the poor man pay twice for paying a huge price for every lens he gets to get his stabilization.
and macro
half way, not true macro
capability is a combination that can't be matched with any single EF-M lens.
35mm f/1.8,
We're talking 56mm f/2.8 equivalent here. The RF nifty fifty on the RP will do a better job at less than half the price.
The nifty fifty is not stabilized,
granted, that's a meaningful difference, however, only for those affordable bodies making the poor man pay twice for paying a huge price for every lens he gets to get his stabilization.
nowhere near as sharp wide open,
But wide open isn't an apples to apples comparison, as the 50mm on a full frame body has it's equivalent aperture at f/2.8, and at THAT aperture that RF 50mm will be DEFINITELY sharper than the 35mm on a crop sensor.
nor can it focus as close.
That's only an advantage if you need that. And even if you would need it, how many lenses with this capability do you really need for a bit closer focusing?
The R10 is also all-around more capable than the RP. If you want to shoot anyt video, the R10 + RF 35mm is far better than the RP + RF 50mm
For video, yes. This statement reminds me of the Uncle Jeff Tony was mentioning.
50mm f/1.8,
Get a used EF 85mm f/1.8 USM, slap it on the RP via the adapter, stop it down at f/2.8 and it will outperform this RF lens.
Neither of these would be my first choice as they both have issues. The RF 50mm is not sharp wide open,
on full frame you should compare at f/2.8
but the 85mm has massive amounts of fringing.
Again, on full frame you should compare at f/2.8, where the fringing is significantly reduced. If you're to lazy to correct in post you can even use in camera corrections.
The 85mm on the adapter is about 4 times the weight of the 50mm.
IQ and especially a lovely bokeh come with some weight. When carrying a dedicated camera and an extra prime lens next to the phone those view extra grams are worth it to get you the result you really want. Personally I wouldn't bother to carry an extra camera if the portrait results would be limited to what you could get from an R10 + RF 50mm f/1.8 stm. If that's all the phone is good enough, and that's the true light weight option.
and 100-400mm f/5.6-8. The gaping hole in the crop RF lineup is any sort of wide angle zoom. Canon will surely launch a crop wide angle zoom for RF, but is anyone's guess as to when.
Canon EF-M and RF are not cross compatible in any way and it is impossible to adapt lenses from one to the other. By all indications, Canon is phasing out the EF-M mount and consolidating crop and full frame under the RF mount. Any future crop RF lenses beyond the two standard zooms are a complete unknown at this point. There will likely be more crop RF lenses but it is unknown what those lenses might be or when they would launch.
In general, it is a bit of a confusing time to buy into a Canon crop system. The EF-S crop DSLR lineup is clearly dead and many lenses are already discontinued. The EF-M system is a known entity, but all appearances suggest that it is also dead, just not quite as dead as the DSLRs. Crop RF definitely has a future, but the future lens lineup is a complete unknown and may never include a specific lens you might want.
I'll tell you this: if you want something like the Sigma 56mm f/1.4 you can wait forever. If you want the ef-m 32mm to be ported over to the RF mount there's a chance it will happen, however, you will have to pay a substantial RF tax.
What "RF tax"? The RF 18-150mm is the same price as the EF-M 18-150mm.
Not in my market.
Same for the RF 18-45mm and EF-M 15-45mm.
Same price, less range. The same?
If 16mm is your focal length f/2.8 is all you got, no f/1.4 Sigma to give you those two stops extra.
At a significant size and weight penalty. The RF 16mm is pretty tiny and cheaper too.
It would be even cheaper if Canon wouldn't have cr*ppeld it's xx-45mm stabilized kitzoom with cutting of it's wide end.
22mm pancake? Not as compact in the bag due to the bigger mount, if it will ever happen anyway, as the 24mm acts as a step up to full frame.
A whole extra 8mm of diameter.
Doesn't matter. It won't come anyway as it would cannibalize that too expensive RF 24mm.
The RF 100-400mm will be okayish on the 24Mp R10, but if you want max pixels per duck - which is often the case at these focal lengths on a crop sensor - with the R7 diffraction will be a sharpness killer.
Diffraction doesn't matter.
It does.
More megapixels is always better.
I wasn't stating the opposite.
To me there are only two reasonable appealing combination of an RF-s camera + RF lens: - the R10 + RF 24-240mm IS USM. With 24Mp diffraction isn't a problem.
Diffraction is never a problem. The only people that should worry about diffraction are those doing focus stacking. For everyone else it is a red herring.
That's nonsense.
The lens focuses fast enough to make you benefit from the focusing capabilities of the R10.
- R7 + RF 100-500mm L. That lens will be able to satisfy that detail hungry sensor. No, it's not exactly affordable.
The main point is that crop RF is not nearly as lens deficient as some might claim. Some of these RF lenses might not be everyone's first choice, but they are still very viable options
Extremely poor value for money compared to the lens options you can get for a full frame RP, and that's not even comparing to the full frame options of the FE mount.
When factoring in the value for money for glass the Sony A7III is more affordable camera than the R10.
with many offering capabilities not possible with EF-M.
But I wasn't comparing to M. I was comparing to the RP.
-- hide signature --
45 is more than enough, but 500.000 isn't
