thunder storm wrote:
Sittatunga 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,
Not cheap as an APS-C wide-ish standard lens, there have been some complaints here about its price as a FF wideangle.
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.
The R10 should be a better action camera than the RP.
That's isn't worth anything when all the affordable RF primes come with stm AF only. The 24-240mm and 100-400mm come with USM AF, however, these lenses don't offer the brighter apertures you would typically need for shooting action. A soccer game in bright sunlight will work, however, as soon as it gets overcast a crop sensor will already suffer at f/8.0...
Who but a masochist uses a prime lens with a single camera for football? An R10 with a 70-200mm would be much better, and it would be less unwieldy than an R6 with a 100-400mm.
So yes, the AF capabilities of the body are better than the RP, bus as soon as it comes to the RF lenses you would need to benefit from it the price difference between the R10 and R6 will become marginal compared to the prices of those lenses.
I'm not arguing. I use APS-C primarily for size and weight, but find FF a better compromise between ultimate image quality and price. That's why I use both formats.
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.
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.
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. 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. 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.
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.
Is this theory or practice? In theory diffraction starts to show at f/5.6 for APS-C. In practice Optical Limits found no significant difference in resolution between f/5.6 & f/8 at 400mm for the RF 100-500mm.
There's some headroom above the DLO which can be found doing the math, however, the difference between f/5.6 and f/8.0 is clearly visible with my M6II when using good glass. It's possible the RF 100-500mm isn't that good. It's amongst the best in it's class, but in it's class only.
What size of print are you talking about here?
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. The lens focuses fast enough to make you benefit from the focusing capabilities of the R10.
The 16mm looks attractive for APS-C too - it's a good size, with a nice angle of view and the worst of the distortion cropped off before correction.
But it isn't gathering a lot of light for that price. Get yourself an RP + used 24mm f/2.8 IS USM and you will get a better equivalent aperture and stabilization too at the same price. With that same RP the 16mm will give you a wide angle option which even doesn't exist for the R10.
All in all the R10 seems pretty poor value for money to me as long as Canon doesn't come up with both affordable AND fast focusing relatively bright primes.
It's a successor to an 850D, and to me it looks like better value (or not as poor value). Even with the EF mount adapter it's still smaller and slightly lighter, than the 850D, but it's still not my cup of tea, and I'm still not convinced of the value of general purpose crop R cameras. Small, affordable AND fast focussing relatively bright primes make more sense (to people worried about them cannibalising FF RF mount lenses) in EF-M mount.
- R7 + RF 100-500mm L. That lens will be able to satisfy that detail hungry sensor. No, it's not exactly affordable.
-- hide signature --
45 is more than enough, but 500.000 isn't
