R7 or R/RP for shooting my toddler?

Hi there!

I have at the moment a Canon 700D with the kit lens, the EF-S 10-18mm STM and the EF 35mm f/2.

I'm thinking of buying into the mirrorless system, because I have a daughter with 20 months, and I want to be able to photograph her and take some videos where I can rely on the autofocus.

I know the R7 has IBIS and better video, but I'm no birder nor do I shoot sports. Are the R/RP better options for me or are they too long on the tooth?

lightwriter wrote:

Hi there!

I have at the moment a Canon 700D with the kit lens, the EF-S 10-18mm STM and the EF 35mm f/2.

I'm thinking of buying into the mirrorless system, because I have a daughter with 20 months, and I want to be able to photograph her and take some videos where I can rely on the autofocus.

I know the R7 has IBIS and better video, but I'm no birder nor do I shoot sports. Are the R/RP better options for me or are they too long on the tooth?

The R7 would be a very nice upgrade. You can easily adapt the 10-18 STM lens to the R7, and the 35 f/2. The AF will easily grab your daughter's eyes. Plus in low light it will work much better than your 700D.

I owned the R, and now have the R6. its main purpose is to take pics of my family, especially the grandkids. The improvements of the R6 in AF are noticeable. The R7 is similar in that regard to the R6. It will also have a better resale value if you upgrade in the future, though it appears that you keep your body for quite a while.

lightwriter wrote:

Hi there!

I have at the moment a Canon 700D with the kit lens, the EF-S 10-18mm STM and the EF 35mm f/2.

I'm thinking of buying into the mirrorless system, because I have a daughter with 20 months, and I want to be able to photograph her and take some videos where I can rely on the autofocus.

I know the R7 has IBIS and better video, but I'm no birder nor do I shoot sports. Are the R/RP better options for me or are they too long on the tooth?

I owned RP and owning R7.

R7 has a much superior AF system which might help to capture running kids ( I mean she will reach that age in no time). It also has a good resolution to capture lots of details. Solid video specs as well. But this one is a APSC, so your high ISO performance will not be great. I assume you'll frequently reach high ISO for indoor shooting.

RP is a nice little camera, but R beats it in almost everything.

So my vote will be R for it's 30mp FF sensor with eye tracking. It has decent video specs as well. You'll get good noise performance from a FF sensor.

For lens, you can try 35mm and 50mm f/1.8. They are fantastic lenses and should cover most of your needs. If you need wider, try that 16mm f/2.8.

You can opt for zoom lenses in that range, but my analysis tells me cheaper zoom lens IQ is lesser than that of prime. Although that's my personal view.

I would pick an R7 simply for the more advanced AF system and better subject tracking.

The RP will cost 500-700 dollars less than the R and R7, have great low low light performance, and get the job done and far as family pics or children moving around the house. If money is not constraint I agree the R7 and R are better cameras. The R10 is also an option at the same price of the RP.

lightwriter wrote:

Hi there!

I have at the moment a Canon 700D with the kit lens, the EF-S 10-18mm STM and the EF 35mm f/2.

I'm thinking of buying into the mirrorless system, because I have a daughter with 20 months, and I want to be able to photograph her and take some videos where I can rely on the autofocus.

I know the R7 has IBIS and better video, but I'm no birder nor do I shoot sports. Are the R/RP better options for me or are they too long on the tooth?

I would take R7 - AF is great and it is a new camera. You can use it also later when your toddler starts to run faster. I do not know any benefits of FF cameras for toddler photography.

Distinctly Average wrote:

lightwriter wrote:

Hi there!

I have at the moment a Canon 700D with the kit lens, the EF-S 10-18mm STM and the EF 35mm f/2.

I'm thinking of buying into the mirrorless system, because I have a daughter with 20 months, and I want to be able to photograph her and take some videos where I can rely on the autofocus.

I know the R7 has IBIS and better video, but I'm no birder nor do I shoot sports. Are the R/RP better options for me or are they too long on the tooth?

Have you considered the R10?

I have indeed, but Canon's cripple hammer striked again in the left out IBIS...I would like to film some clips, and that's kind of a deal breaker.

Distinctly Average wrote:

lightwriter wrote:

Distinctly Average wrote:

lightwriter wrote:

Hi there!

I have at the moment a Canon 700D with the kit lens, the EF-S 10-18mm STM and the EF 35mm f/2.

I'm thinking of buying into the mirrorless system, because I have a daughter with 20 months, and I want to be able to photograph her and take some videos where I can rely on the autofocus.

I know the R7 has IBIS and better video, but I'm no birder nor do I shoot sports. Are the R/RP better options for me or are they too long on the tooth?

Have you considered the R10?

I have indeed, but Canon's cripple hammer striked again in the left out IBIS...I would like to film some clips, and that's kind of a deal breaker.

Fair comment.,Sort of knocks out the R and RP too

Unless I'm wrong, and the IS built in the lenses is sufficient...

KariP wrote:

lightwriter wrote:

Hi there!

I have at the moment a Canon 700D with the kit lens, the EF-S 10-18mm STM and the EF 35mm f/2.

I'm thinking of buying into the mirrorless system, because I have a daughter with 20 months, and I want to be able to photograph her and take some videos where I can rely on the autofocus.

I know the R7 has IBIS and better video, but I'm no birder nor do I shoot sports. Are the R/RP better options for me or are they too long on the tooth?

I would take R7 - AF is great and it is a new camera. You can use it also later when your toddler starts to run faster. I do not know any benefits of FF cameras for toddler photography.

I've thought about that; when she starts to run, the AF of the R7 is going to prove invaluable.

Fjzk wrote:

The RP will cost 500-700 dollars less than the R and R7, have great low low light performance, and get the job done and far as family pics or children moving around the house. If money is not constraint I agree the R7 and R are better cameras. The R10 is also an option at the same price of the RP.

The thing that irks me is that the R10 doesn't have IBIS, while all the competitors do have it. Nowadays I think it's a basic feature to have, but maybe that's just me.

Abbott Schindler wrote:

lightwriter wrote:

Hi there!

I have at the moment a Canon 700D with the kit lens, the EF-S 10-18mm STM and the EF 35mm f/2.

I don't know how useful you'll find the 10-18 for your toddler. You might want to consider eventually getting a RF 24-240.

I'm thinking of buying into the mirrorless system, because I have a daughter with 20 months, and I want to be able to photograph her and take some videos where I can rely on the autofocus.

Having had crop cameras for many years and then moved to FF a few years ago, I tend to recommend FF cameras now. The R6 is a wonderful camera and would serve you well; the R7 may be a bit better for you because of its denser sensor, newer AF and other goodies. Keep in mind, though, that there's no battery grip for the R7 and it's got some other differences from the R5/R6. R7/6/5 all have remarkably better AF than what you're used to.

While the R7 currently seems to be the hot camera on forums, you might want to consider a R6 instead for more composition flexibility, larger EVF and other things. R6 with a 24-240 would probably please you greatly.

A caution about video: if you're planning to shoot 4K/8K, be sure your computer's up to the task.

I know the R7 has IBIS and better video, but I'm no birder nor do I shoot sports. Are the R/RP better options for me or are they too long on the tooth?

I wouldn't worry about "long on the tooth"; it's not like your 700D's current, and it doesn't sound like it's really failing you. At this point I think that almost any R camera you choose will be a huge upgrade to what you now have, and will probably last you for many years unless you acquire a bad case of "gotta have that new one" syndrome :0)

The 10-18 is a good lens to frame my kid and see plenty of environment at the same time. At least that's what I'm using it for.

I wouldn't mind having a R5 or R6, but they are outside my budget...

You're right, I'm not the kind of person to pursue the latest and greatest. I just have to choose right

lightwriter wrote:

Distinctly Average wrote:

lightwriter wrote:

Distinctly Average wrote:

lightwriter wrote:

Hi there!

I have at the moment a Canon 700D with the kit lens, the EF-S 10-18mm STM and the EF 35mm f/2.

I'm thinking of buying into the mirrorless system, because I have a daughter with 20 months, and I want to be able to photograph her and take some videos where I can rely on the autofocus.

I know the R7 has IBIS and better video, but I'm no birder nor do I shoot sports. Are the R/RP better options for me or are they too long on the tooth?

Have you considered the R10?

I have indeed, but Canon's cripple hammer striked again in the left out IBIS...I would like to film some clips, and that's kind of a deal breaker.

Fair comment.,Sort of knocks out the R and RP too

Unless I'm wrong, and the IS built in the lenses is sufficient...

I think it's more than sufficient for video. In fact, the digital IS in my M6II works really well. I rarely use video, but when I have done on my M6II, I've been really pleased with how well the digital IS works for lenses that don't even have IS. I was at my niece's wedding last week. I had my M6II with 22 F2 and 56 F1.4, just for casual shots (the official photographer was using a pair of R6s). Neither of those lenses has IS. I was asked to film a special dance that a bunch of cousins had choreographed. I popped on the 22 (I had mostly been using the 56), switched the M6II to video mode, with standard digital IS enabled, and just went with the defaults (I'm no videographer). I was amazed at how good the result was. Not only was the video sharp, but it was also steady. The digital IS imposes a crop (it needs the edges to do the stabilization), but not a particularly drastic one. If you want the IBIS for video, I think you'll be fine with lens IS and digital IS. I would think IBIS will be much more important for stills, because you can't use digital IS for that. And if you're mostly taking shots of your kids, you'll want to use fast enough shutter speeds to freeze the action anyway.

I really like my R, its a great camera for still subjects, but its not so hot for things that move. This is the reason I have an R6

I still use the R for portrait/landscape work and the R6 for anything that move.

I would get the R7, the R6 would work great also but at a higher cost and dont let the fact its a crop brother you. I used the 30D,70D,7d,7DII for more than a few years and not one complaint on IQ:)

lightwriter wrote:

Fjzk wrote:

The RP will cost 500-700 dollars less than the R and R7, have great low low light performance, and get the job done and far as family pics or children moving around the house. If money is not constraint I agree the R7 and R are better cameras. The R10 is also an option at the same price of the RP.

The thing that irks me is that the R10 doesn't have IBIS, while all the competitors do have it. Nowadays I think it's a basic feature to have, but maybe that's just me.

With IS lenses - don’t think you’ll miss IBIS

Another vote for the R10 - AF is great and nice handling / good ergonomics- nice IQ

Forget the R and RP. They're full frame cameras, and you'll need all new lenses. You could use the lenses you have, but you would be using less than half of the camera sensor, and you wouldn't be getting the best out of either lens or camera body.

There's a myth that full frame cameras will give you better low-light performance than the APS-C cameras like your camera and the R7. That's not quite true. A full frame camera with an appropriate, large-aperture lens will get you better low-light performance. At considerable additional cost. In other words, you would need at least one new lens. And besides, you can get that low-light advantage, only if will accept only a narrow depth of field, and are willing to take great pains and care to focus accurately. (Some people want a narrow depth of field, and so require a full-frame camera with a fast lens. I don't recommend that for moving children, and I suspect that you're the type of person to do that. For children, keep it simple.

The R7 will give you fabulous low-light performance. (Keep in mind that all cameras require some light to make pictures, but the R7 will do the job just fine unless you live in a cave.)  The R10 would also be good -- probably plenty good -- but the sensor performance is not quite as good as the R7 sensor.  (There's no way to know whether you would find it good enough, but I'm pretty sure I could make it work.)

For children, I suspect that you won't have much use for your 10-18 mm lens, however. An ultra-wide lens like that is good for photographing large environments, but not so good for children.

Start by taking many pictures of the family that you have now. You'll soon learn what you need and how to do it. Your current camera will actually work well for this. I recommend that you keep the camera near at hand and ready to go on a moment's notice. That's how you can get great photos of children.

My suggestion is not to try for ultimate image quality.  To do that, you would probably sacrifice some emotional content, and that's a bad tradeoff in my opinion.  Think about why you want the pictures.