R10 as supplement to R6II?

Has anyone here with a FF R mount camera bought one of the crop sensor bodies as a lighter weight and smaller sized option for travel, hiking or any other time when the size and weight of FF gear is too much? If so, do you use as much as you thought you would?

I switched from m43 to a FF R6 last year. Very happy with the improvement in image quality and autofocus has greatly improved since I bought my Panasonic G85. My only complaint is the increased size and weight.

Depending on what lenses I take bringing my R6 often means having to check a bag when I go on vacation instead of just a carry on. If I am going somewhere to visit relatives the R6 and 24-105 can fit into my carry on with enough room for everything else but on other vacations I want to take other lenses and run out of room. I found the G85 small and light enough I could put the body with a 12-60 and 100-300 zoom lenses in a pack when I went on long hikes but the FF R6 and 100-500 is too much.

In addition to upgrading to a FF body I also bought better lenses. With m43 I had the G85 body, variable aperture 12-60 and 100-300 zooms and 45mm f1.8 plus 60mm f2.8 macro primes. My Canon system is the R6 II with the L grade 24-105 and 100-500 zooms, the 100mm macro and also a 1.4 teleconverter for the 100-500.

While I could keep the m43 gear the better autofocus and image quality of my R6II has spoiled me and I would also like something that has similar controls and menus. An R10 with a 18-150 would be great while hiking and could also provide greater reach with telephoto lenses and more magnification with my macro lens. My R6II is going to remain my primary camera and see a lot more use.

Excuse me for thé OT comment, but… maybe the lenses, but an R6, I would never trust the system enough to put an R6 in my checked suitcase. Theft, even more than damage.

But maybe that’s what you meant, only the lenses. In any case, I apologize for the OT comment.

dmartin92 said:

I would never trust the system enough to put an R6 in my checked suitcase.

Click to expand...

Neither would I. If I run out of room in my carry on due to a lot of camera gear things like clothing and other personal items go into the checked bag. The camera gear is always in the carry on.

I have never had a bag lost or item stolen from a checked bag but it happens. And I have seen how checked bags are thrown around. I never put anything valuable, breakable or irreplaceable in a checked bag.

I came here to research this exact topic. R6m2 is my main camera and likely not going anywhere. Considering an R10 for travel, knockaround use. Admittedly wondering if the R10 is good enough to justify getting rid of the R6m2 in its favor. As I said above- not likely- but I would consider it based on feedback.

I am purely an enthusiast, but I have just gotten spoiled by the battery, weather sealing, and FF of the R6m2, to name just a few, and am ultimately willing to suck up the extra weight to use it as my primary. I also wonder if the smaller size of the r10 is going to throw things way out of balance with the larger and L lenses the way I experienced it with the R8.

My travel camera is the R7. That's bigger and heavier than the R10, and only a bit smaller and lighter than the R6II. But the lenses I take with it are much smaller. On a recent trip to the UK, I took the two Sigma F2.8 zooms (10-18, 18-50), the Canon RF 18-150 (for more reach), and the RF 85 F2 (for portraits). I didn't really need the 85, but I love that lens. It's probably the best IQ non-L RF lens there is. The Sigma 10-18 was a bit of an indulgence. I sold my RF-S 10-18 when I bought that, but rarely use it wide open (I usually want more DOF). It is a really nice lens, though. Even though the R7 body isn't a lot lighter than the R6II body, the R7 with 18-50 mounted feels a lot lighter and smaller than the R6II with 24-105.

--
“When I die, I want to go peacefully in my sleep like my grandfather. Not screaming in terror, like the passengers in his car.” Jack Handey
Alastair
http://anorcross.smugmug.com
Equipment in profile

Dave Lively said:

Has anyone here with a FF R mount camera bought one of the crop sensor bodies as a lighter weight and smaller sized option for travel, hiking or any other time when the size and weight of FF gear is too much? If so, do you use as much as you thought you would?

I switched from m43 to a FF R6 last year. Very happy with the improvement in image quality and autofocus has greatly improved since I bought my Panasonic G85. My only complaint is the increased size and weight.

Depending on what lenses I take bringing my R6 often means having to check a bag when I go on vacation instead of just a carry on. If I am going somewhere to visit relatives the R6 and 24-105 can fit into my carry on with enough room for everything else but on other vacations I want to take other lenses and run out of room. I found the G85 small and light enough I could put the body with a 12-60 and 100-300 zoom lenses in a pack when I went on long hikes but the FF R6 and 100-500 is too much.

In addition to upgrading to a FF body I also bought better lenses. With m43 I had the G85 body, variable aperture 12-60 and 100-300 zooms and 45mm f1.8 plus 60mm f2.8 macro primes. My Canon system is the R6 II with the L grade 24-105 and 100-500 zooms, the 100mm macro and also a 1.4 teleconverter for the 100-500.

While I could keep the m43 gear the better autofocus and image quality of my R6II has spoiled me and I would also like something that has similar controls and menus. An R10 with a 18-150 would be great while hiking and could also provide greater reach with telephoto lenses and more magnification with my macro lens. My R6II is going to remain my primary camera and see a lot more use.

Click to expand...

I have an R7 alongside my R5. It takes the same batteries (LP-E6NH) as the R5, which is a big advantage when travelling. It’s an excellent wildlife body for extra “reach” with the 100-500L. It’s also great on its own for lightweight travel, I use the RF-S 18-150 and 10-18, recently been cycling in France and Switzerland with this combination, it’s also been on many city trips.

The R7 is just 180g heavier than the R10, and is a little bigger. This difference is compensated for by sharing batteries and charger - less stuff to carry while travelling. I had an R10, which was perfectly acceptable but changed it for an R7 for the above reasons. An R10 would make a great companion for an R8 (same battery LP-E17).

Dave Lively said:

Has anyone here with a FF R mount camera bought one of the crop sensor bodies as a lighter weight and smaller sized option for travel, hiking or any other time when the size and weight of FF gear is too much? If so, do you use as much as you thought you would?

Click to expand...

I have some experience, not exactly what you are faced with but similar.

My previous gear was a 6D ii + L lenses (24-105L ii, 100-400L ii, 100L IS, 35 IS etc) plus a lighter combo of M5 + EF-M lenses, and EF adapter so that I could use the EF lenses on M5 as a backup body. I traveled with a subset of both bodies and some of each lenses. It just got too heavy at about 11kg.

Last year, I changed to R10 + RF 100-400, R8 + RF 24=-105L f4, and RF 15-30 as my total kit - it weighs 5.5kg and is MUCH more manageable. I carry the R10 with 100-400 mounted and R8 with 24-105L mounted, so I have a FF equivalent (FoV) of 24-640mm ready to go at any time. The advantages of carrying 2 bodies, and both bodies being 100% compatible with all lenses is significant - at least to me.

my previous EF and EF-M systems were partially compatible, at least in one direction - more so than your Canon + Panasonic systems, but now with both bodies being fully RF compatible, and I can use any combination of the 2 bodies and 3 lenses (to suit differing focal length or light level requirements), it is great.

Dave Lively said:

I switched from m43 to a FF R6 last year. Very happy with the improvement in image quality and autofocus has greatly improved since I bought my Panasonic G85. My only complaint is the increased size and weight.

Depending on what lenses I take bringing my R6 often means having to check a bag when I go on vacation instead of just a carry on. If I am going somewhere to visit relatives the R6 and 24-105 can fit into my carry on with enough room for everything else but on other vacations I want to take other lenses and run out of room. I found the G85 small and light enough I could put the body with a 12-60 and 100-300 zoom lenses in a pack when I went on long hikes but the FF R6 and 100-500 is too much.

Click to expand...

A R10 + RF 100-400 would give you longer reach than your current gear, at over 1100g less weight (less than half the weight) - the RF 100-400 takes the TC without (focal length) restriction - albeit turning it into a slow f11 lens at just over 1300g (significantly less than the RF 100-500 by itself) total for a FF equivalent FoV of 900mm.

Dave Lively said:

In addition to upgrading to a FF body I also bought better lenses. With m43 I had the G85 body, variable aperture 12-60 and 100-300 zooms and 45mm f1.8 plus 60mm f2.8 macro primes. My Canon system is the R6 II with the L grade 24-105 and 100-500 zooms, the 100mm macro and also a 1.4 teleconverter for the 100-500.

While I could keep the m43 gear the better autofocus and image quality of my R6II has spoiled me and I would also like something that has similar controls and menus. An R10 with a 18-150 would be great while hiking and could also provide greater reach with telephoto lenses and more magnification with my macro lens. My R6II is going to remain my primary camera and see a lot more use.

Click to expand...

I got the RF-S 18-150 lens with my R10, and I have used it a few times, but I rarely carry it. It is pretty good though. I had the "same" EF-M 18-150, and often carried it on my M5 when I wanted to travel light.

I have R8, not R6 ii, and in some ways the R10 has better ergonomics than R8 - the AF button is better placed on R10 than R8, and the joystick can either be used to move AF point when I have the screen folded away, or as an extra button. R10 also the "traditional" Canon power switch, whereas R8 (and R6 ii) have the switch rotating in the opposite direction.

I find that for most use, R10 AF is as good as R8/R6 ii, though it doesn't have the Auto subject detection. The frame rate of 15fps in mechanical and 23fps in electronic is plenty fast enough for most uses. R10 + RF 100-400 is a quite formidable combination considering the size, weight & cost.

In my case I am comparing it with R8, which is obviously R6 ii's poor little cousin, and R10 compares very favorably. For me it does have the advantage of sharing a battery and charger, and both have essentially the same screens & EVFs, so I am not "stepping" down from a R5 or R6 ii level EVF for example, so I don't notice the same differences that you might coming from a R6 ii.

But IMO, if you wanted something, smaller, lighter and capable of extending the reach of longer lenses like 100-400 or 100-500, R10 will not disappoint. I have found it to be more capable than my 6D ii in every respect except low light and battery life.

As regards low light, I changed a few months ago to DxO, and now find that R10 in low light + DxO is arguably more capable than 6D ii in low light with no DxO. R8 is even better (as would R6 ii be - since they share a sensor and AF capablility).

As regards battery life, many make a big deal of the little LP-E17 battery, but in real world use, I find that I rarely (never ?) get as bad as the CIPA spec would suggest, and if shooting something like wildlife in bursts, shot levels in the thousands are quite possible. Also, the (genuine Canon) LP-E17 batteries are significantly cheaper and smaller than the latest LP-E6 derivatives, so carrying a couple of spares is easy, and 3 batteries would see you through just about any shooting (stills) session you might think of. Where it may (and I have never tried because I shoot stills) be a limitation might be video - if trying to shoot lengthy videos the smaller battery might cause some issues.

UGARC said:

I came here to research this exact topic. R6m2 is my main camera and likely not going anywhere. Considering an R10 for travel, knockaround use. Admittedly wondering if the R10 is good enough to justify getting rid of the R6m2 in its favor. As I said above- not likely- but I would consider it based on feedback.

Click to expand...

As above, I have almost best of both worlds with R10 + R8 - with not a lot of budget & weight penalty.

UGARC said:

I am purely an enthusiast, but I have just gotten spoiled by the battery,

Click to expand...

As above, the R10/R8 battery life isn't the issue (for still shooting) that some people make it out to be. The little LP-E17 batteries are a fraction of the price of the latest LP-E6 batteries, so easy to buy and carry a couple of spares.

UGARC said:

weather sealing,

Click to expand...

I do not, intentionally shoot in the rain. I have also never seen a spec on Canon's "weather sealing", although there is touted to be differing levels between R1, R5, R6 and R10/R8 - exactly how that is quantified seems to be unknown though.

UGARC said:

and FF of the R6m2,

Click to expand...

comparing R8 (same sensor as R6 ii) and R10 - well, they are a bit different, so it is hard to say which is "better". R10 is "better" for getting more reach from lenses, but obviously "worse" for wide angle use. R8 (FF) is "better" for low light, though this gap is reduced somewhat by the latest software noise reduction (like DxO PL8)

UGARC said:

to name just a few, and am ultimately willing to suck up the extra weight to use it as my primary. I also wonder if the smaller size of the r10 is going to throw things way out of balance with the larger and L lenses the way I experienced it with the R8.

Click to expand...

Although I still have my EF 100-400L ii (and adapter), I now use RF 100-400 in favour with R10, so while I did use the big white on R10, not extensively.

I would say that with the much deeper grip of R10 (the same or deeper than my old 6D ii which was 22mm), both R10 and R8 are deeper at 24mm, and both FAR better than my old M5 grip (at 8mm), so I find them much more suited to larger lenses than M5 was. I have no doubt that R6 ii would feel even better though. I find that R10 and R8 feel very similar, so if you didn't like R8, you probably won't like R10 either.

drsnoopy said:

The R7 is just 180g heavier than the R10, and is a little bigger. This difference is compensated for by sharing batteries and charger - less stuff to carry while travelling. I had an R10, which was perfectly acceptable but changed it for an R7 for the above reasons. An R10 would make a great companion for an R8 (same battery LP-E17).

Click to expand...

Exactly right.

I wanted both FF & APS-C bodies and was choosing between R& + R6 ii, or R8 + R10 for my kit, and the smaller bodies won out - simply because I planned to carry both (not either or), and both size-weight & budget was important to me.

If carrying both, I thing that sharing a battery & charger is an important consideration for obviously reasons. If Canon started making batteries (in both sizes) that could be charged directly with a USB-C cable (like some third party batteries), that would probably change things, but that hasn't happened yet.

drsnoopy said:

The R7 is just 180g heavier than the R10, and is a little bigger. This difference is compensated for by sharing batteries and charger - less stuff to carry while travelling. I had an R10, which was perfectly acceptable but changed it for an R7 for the above reasons. An R10 would make a great companion for an R8 (same battery LP-E17).

Click to expand...

From my perspective the R7 is only 58 grams lighter than my R6mk2. My brother has an R7 and when we were comparing cameras it didn't seem much different than my R6m2 with the same lens. The main advantage would be if I used a 18-150 lens which is quite a bit lighter than my 24-105. I normally buy cameras online but in this case I may need to buy from a physical store so I can handle an R10 before I decide. It might not seem as light as the specs make it sound.

I had not considered the batteries being different but would be nice not having to buy more spare batteries. The chargers are pretty compact so carrying two would not be a deal breaker. I rarely shoot video which helps with battery life.

Andy01 said:

Last year, I changed to R10 + RF 100-400, R8 + RF 24=-105L f4, and RF 15-30 as my total kit - it weighs 5.5kg and is MUCH more manageable. I carry the R10 with 100-400 mounted and R8 with 24-105L mounted, so I have a FF equivalent (FoV) of 24-640mm ready to go at any time. The advantages of carrying 2 bodies, and both bodies being 100% compatible with all lenses is significant - at least to me.

Click to expand...

Having two bodies that can both use the same lenses is one of the reasons I am thinking of switching to a crop sensor Canon instead just using my m43 gear. If I am hiking or traveling as light as possible I could take R10 and 18-150 plus 100-400. At other times I could take my R6mk2 and use both bodies the same way you do. Its nice to have options.

Andy01 said:

I have R8, not R6 ii, and in some ways the R10 has better ergonomics than R8 - the AF button is better placed on R10 than R8, and the joystick can either be used to move AF point when I have the screen folded away, or as an extra button. R10 also the "traditional" Canon power switch, whereas R8 (and R6 ii) have the switch rotating in the opposite direction.

Click to expand...

The R10 having a joystick and two dials are two of the reasons I am looking at it instead of the less expensive and slightly lighter R50. I want the ergonomics to be as similar as possible to the R6mk2 and have gotten very used to moving the focus point with the joystick and using both dials.

Andy01 said:

In my case I am comparing it with R8, which is obviously R6 ii's poor little cousin, and R10 compares very favorably. For me it does have the advantage of sharing a battery and charger, and both have essentially the same screens & EVFs, so I am not "stepping" down from a R5 or R6 ii level EVF for example, so I don't notice the same differences that you might coming from a R6 ii.

Click to expand...

The R6II does have a great viewfinder which I really like. But I have used cameras with EVFs of different sizes and quality in the past I found that a lot easier to deal with than cameras that had different control layouts or ergonomics.

Andy01 said:

As regards battery life, many make a big deal of the little LP-E17 battery, but in real world use, I find that I rarely (never ?) get as bad as the CIPA spec would suggest, and if shooting something like wildlife in bursts, shot levels in the thousands are quite possible. Also, the (genuine Canon) LP-E17 batteries are significantly cheaper and smaller than the latest LP-E6 derivatives, so carrying a couple of spares is easy, and 3 batteries would see you through just about any shooting (stills) session you might think of. Where it may (and I have never tried because I shoot stills) be a limitation might be video - if trying to shoot lengthy videos the smaller battery might cause some issues.

Click to expand...

I rarely shoot video and do not go through a lot of batteries. A fully charged battery in the camera and a spare has always been enough although I have come close to running out once or twice.

Thanks for the detailed reply, it was helpful.

Dave Lively said:

Andy01 said:

Last year, I changed to R10 + RF 100-400, R8 + RF 24=-105L f4, and RF 15-30 as my total kit - it weighs 5.5kg and is MUCH more manageable. I carry the R10 with 100-400 mounted and R8 with 24-105L mounted, so I have a FF equivalent (FoV) of 24-640mm ready to go at any time. The advantages of carrying 2 bodies, and both bodies being 100% compatible with all lenses is significant - at least to me.

Click to expand...

Having two bodies that can both use the same lenses is one of the reasons I am thinking of switching to a crop sensor Canon instead just using my m43 gear. If I am hiking or traveling as light as possible I could take R10 and 18-150 plus 100-400. At other times I could take my R6mk2 and use both bodies the same way you do. Its nice to have options.

Dave Lively said:

I have R8, not R6 ii, and in some ways the R10 has better ergonomics than R8 - the AF button is better placed on R10 than R8, and the joystick can either be used to move AF point when I have the screen folded away, or as an extra button. R10 also the "traditional" Canon power switch, whereas R8 (and R6 ii) have the switch rotating in the opposite direction.

Click to expand...

The R10 having a joystick and two dials are two of the reasons I am looking at it instead of the less expensive and slightly lighter R50. I want the ergonomics to be as similar as possible to the R6mk2 and have gotten very used to moving the focus point with the joystick and using both dials.

Click to expand...

Bear in mind that the differences between R50 and R10 is a long list and goes a long way beyond ergonomics. Myself and others have commented in a few threads outlining some of the differences, and it is a long list, with much of it not immediately obvious in overview spec sheets.

I would definitely not recommend a R50 - unless it is very consciously a cut-back compact for less demanding situations.

Dave Lively said:

Dave Lively said:

In my case I am comparing it with R8, which is obviously R6 ii's poor little cousin, and R10 compares very favorably. For me it does have the advantage of sharing a battery and charger, and both have essentially the same screens & EVFs, so I am not "stepping" down from a R5 or R6 ii level EVF for example, so I don't notice the same differences that you might coming from a R6 ii.

Click to expand...

The R6II does have a great viewfinder which I really like. But I have used cameras with EVFs of different sizes and quality in the past I found that a lot easier to deal with than cameras that had different control layouts or ergonomics.

Click to expand...

I agree, and I find that the EVF in both R10 & R8 isn't bad at all.

Dave Lively said:

Dave Lively said:

As regards battery life, many make a big deal of the little LP-E17 battery, but in real world use, I find that I rarely (never ?) get as bad as the CIPA spec would suggest, and if shooting something like wildlife in bursts, shot levels in the thousands are quite possible. Also, the (genuine Canon) LP-E17 batteries are significantly cheaper and smaller than the latest LP-E6 derivatives, so carrying a couple of spares is easy, and 3 batteries would see you through just about any shooting (stills) session you might think of. Where it may (and I have never tried because I shoot stills) be a limitation might be video - if trying to shoot lengthy videos the smaller battery might cause some issues.

Click to expand...

I rarely shoot video and do not go through a lot of batteries. A fully charged battery in the camera and a spare has always been enough although I have come close to running out once or twice.

Thanks for the detailed reply, it was helpful.

Click to expand...

Thanks for the feedback. I have actually owned the R8 two separate times, the second time thinking that maybe I had just gotten a lemon the first time, but they each overheated on me while shooting only stills- once in the Austrian Alps (which I could chalk up to extended time in direct sunlight) and once while shooting live music indoors. I don't get it, but it amounted to something like the two bite rule of dogs- first one I can forgive; second one you're done.

I really wanted to love the R8, but maybe it just didn't love me back.

UGARC said:

Thanks for the feedback. I have actually owned the R8 two separate times, the second time thinking that maybe I had just gotten a lemon the first time, but they each overheated on me while shooting only stills- once in the Austrian Alps (which I could chalk up to extended time in direct sunlight) and once while shooting live music indoors. I don't get it, but it amounted to something like the two bite rule of dogs- first one I can forgive; second one you're done.

I really wanted to love the R8, but maybe it just didn't love me back.

Click to expand...

I’m pretty shocked to read about your overheating issues with the R8. So far I’ve yet to have it prevent me from taking pictures even when out in the direct sunlight of the west Texas desert in 100+F temperatures that I could hardly stand being out in. I’ve often seen the little thermometer icon pop up but I’ve never seen it higher than two bars.

BirdShooter7 said:

UGARC said:

Thanks for the feedback. I have actually owned the R8 two separate times, the second time thinking that maybe I had just gotten a lemon the first time, but they each overheated on me while shooting only stills- once in the Austrian Alps (which I could chalk up to extended time in direct sunlight) and once while shooting live music indoors. I don't get it, but it amounted to something like the two bite rule of dogs- first one I can forgive; second one you're done.

I really wanted to love the R8, but maybe it just didn't love me back.

Click to expand...

I’m pretty shocked to read about your overheating issues with the R8. So far I’ve yet to have it prevent me from taking pictures even when out in the direct sunlight of the west Texas desert in 100+F temperatures that I could hardly stand being out in. I’ve often seen the little thermometer icon pop up but I’ve never seen it higher than two bars.

Click to expand...

Not half as shocked as I was to go thru it...twice. I promise I'm not making it up. I had an RP before with zero troubles, and bought the R8 twice to give it another shot.

Maybe it was some kind of subliminal manifestation of a desire to return to the R6 platform, which I had traded for that first R8...a self-fulfilling prophecy, if you will...

UGARC said:

BirdShooter7 said:

UGARC said:

Thanks for the feedback. I have actually owned the R8 two separate times, the second time thinking that maybe I had just gotten a lemon the first time, but they each overheated on me while shooting only stills- once in the Austrian Alps (which I could chalk up to extended time in direct sunlight) and once while shooting live music indoors. I don't get it, but it amounted to something like the two bite rule of dogs- first one I can forgive; second one you're done.

I really wanted to love the R8, but maybe it just didn't love me back.

Click to expand...

I’m pretty shocked to read about your overheating issues with the R8. So far I’ve yet to have it prevent me from taking pictures even when out in the direct sunlight of the west Texas desert in 100+F temperatures that I could hardly stand being out in. I’ve often seen the little thermometer icon pop up but I’ve never seen it higher than two bars.

Click to expand...

Not half as shocked as I was to go thru it...twice. I promise I'm not making it up. I had an RP before with zero troubles, and bought the R8 twice to give it another shot.

Maybe it was some kind of subliminal manifestation of a desire to return to the R6 platform, which I had traded for that first R8...a self-fulfilling prophecy, if you will...

Click to expand...

Definitely not suggesting that you are making it up, I’m just really curious why our experience is so different.

BirdShooter7 said:

UGARC said:

BirdShooter7 said:

UGARC said:

Thanks for the feedback. I have actually owned the R8 two separate times, the second time thinking that maybe I had just gotten a lemon the first time, but they each overheated on me while shooting only stills- once in the Austrian Alps (which I could chalk up to extended time in direct sunlight) and once while shooting live music indoors. I don't get it, but it amounted to something like the two bite rule of dogs- first one I can forgive; second one you're done.

I really wanted to love the R8, but maybe it just didn't love me back.

Click to expand...

I’m pretty shocked to read about your overheating issues with the R8. So far I’ve yet to have it prevent me from taking pictures even when out in the direct sunlight of the west Texas desert in 100+F temperatures that I could hardly stand being out in. I’ve often seen the little thermometer icon pop up but I’ve never seen it higher than two bars.

Click to expand...

Not half as shocked as I was to go thru it...twice. I promise I'm not making it up. I had an RP before with zero troubles, and bought the R8 twice to give it another shot.

Maybe it was some kind of subliminal manifestation of a desire to return to the R6 platform, which I had traded for that first R8...a self-fulfilling prophecy, if you will...

Click to expand...

Definitely not suggesting that you are making it up, I’m just really curious why our experience is so different.

Click to expand...

Understood. It confuses me as well. I really thought that the first one was a lemon after shooting with the second one for a while, but when I got the temperature warning shooting stills indoors, I just took that as a sign.

I am definitely not an R8 hater. To each his own, as it were. I am ultimately glad to get back into the R6 platform, though, weight be damned. Having the second card slot, bigger battery, joystick, and the generally more solid, substantial feel and deeper grip just give me more confidence in the end.

Yes

My R10 is a very nice "mini R5" - and I have set up the controls on the R5 so to mirror those on the R10. Only thing it misses is the third dial (I use the control ring for that on adaptors or lenses).

Cracking little camera the R10.

I currently have both the R6MK2 and the R10. Previously had the R6. Use the RFS18-150 mostly on the R10 and sometimes the full frame RF16-28 F2.8 STM. Mostly shoot landscapes, which, after processing i view on a Sony 77" OLED TV.

Under the same conditions I don't see any real difference. Mainly shooting at low ISO on a tridop. I enjoy the R10 when hiking and travelling, size is great as well.

some pics from both below.




R10




R6MK2




R10




R10




R10









--
A wise man once said nothing.

I've had my R6II for over a year now and love it, I had upgraded from a 7D, so it's my first full-frame and mirrorless camera. I bought it as a kit with the RF24-105 F4L, the image quality and autofocus (subject eye detection) are excellent. No more eye focusing and recomposing. But it does come with a higher price tag and increased weight. I took it on a recent vacation and stored it in a Lowepro sling bag for ease of storage/removal.

Over the course of the vacation, I found it a bit cumbersome both in weight and flash attachment/removal. I missed the pop-up flash on my 7D as I frequently used it for fill-flash outdoors for portraits with bright backgrounds. I have a Canon 270EX II Speedlight which works well for fill-flash, but I found it annoying to have to attach and remove everytime I wanted to snap a pic and move on.

So I did buy an R10 a couple of weeks ago along with the EF mount adaptor, since I have a Canon EFS 15-85mm that I like both for it's size and image quality. However, because of the extra length, I often get a shadow from the lens barrel when I use the pop-up flash. So, I'm on the hunt for an equivalent RF lens, but I have not been able to find one that interests me. Reviews of the existing Canon RF-S lens have been disappointing with respect to image quality. I'm still looking for a reasonably priced zoom lens in the 15-85mm range for an APS-C sensor camera.

Last week, I did rent the Sigma 18-50mm F2.8 DC DN Contemporary Lens and found it to work very well. Image quality was excellent and size and weight were minimal. However, I did miss the 85mm on the long end. The 2.8 aperture is nice to have, but I rarely used it, since most of my pics were outdoors.

To pair with an R6II, I think you'll be happy with the R10, but you may struggle to find good lens options.