CANON 90D vs CANON R10

thunder storm wrote:

Steve Balcombe wrote:

amos roth wrote:

Hello, I decided to replace my old CANON 600D, which I owned for +10 years.

Since all my lenses are CANON / for CANON (18-135IS, 50mm 1.8, 17-55mm 2.8, Sigma 10-20mm), I've doubts about 2 optiion: the CANON 90D, or to switch to mirrorless - the R10 (which is approx. the same budget).

After reading many reviews, I'm afraid the the R10 will be like "enrty lelvel mirrorless camera", as the 600D was when I purchased it more than 10 years ago (of course with update technology), and if I want to step forward to the next level of cameras, than the 90D is a good option, unless I'll pay much more for a mirrorless like the R7 or R.

I'm shooting mostly landscapes, and street photography.

If you keep your cameras for 10 years, it's definitely worth buying the best you can. The R7 would give you the best of both, including 32 MP obviously (very useful for landscapes), and also IBIS (great for low light street photography as well as sharper hand-held landscapes). The mirrorless viewfinders are very similar and both better than the 90D, but the R7's has a higher magnification (1.15x vs 0.95x) which makes it nicer to use.

For landscapes and street, some would automatically point you towards full frame, but before you do that, see this comparison by the always-reliable Chris Frost:

I could be wrong, but I think this test was don by using the 40mm Art on both cameras.

That's the best non telephoto lens for IQ.

With a bit weaker lenses the larger sensor has an advantage.

I'm never really sure about this. I understand the potential advantage of physically larger pixels to make lens weaknesses less apparent, but the other side of that coin is that 'weaker lenses' are often best in the centre of the image, which may benefit crop.