CANON 90D vs CANON R10

amos roth wrote:

...

I understand the disadvantage of using EF-S lens on mirrorless camera are minor,

but I still have doubts about the ergonomic of the R10. I feel better to hold the 90D (specially during tracks, even it's heavier), than holding the light-weight R10. The 90D feels more robust, at least for me.

At the bottom line - I'm more confused now than I was yesterday....

No need to be more confused.  What are the features that are important to you and how do they rank?  That is what should drive your decision.

Ergonomics is important and if you really don't like the feel of the R10 that should be a consideration.  When I bought my G9 I eliminated a number of cameras because they just felt too small.

It seems to me that the R7 would be the mirrorless you should be comparing to given your comments about ergonomics.  It looks like the D90 sits between the R10 and R7 in price.

Are there features of the R7 that might be of value to you for the type of photography you do?  I would think that IBIS would be useful for landscape photography, particularly in low light.  Are there other features that would be useful to you?

If not, maybe the 90D is the way to go.

KevinRA wrote:

John Crowe wrote:

The sensor of the 90D is far superior to the R10,

Far superior - would question this. I own the M6II with the same sensor as 90D and the R10 - and other than 1.15X linear resolution, see next to no difference shooting RAW.

The R7 does appear to have a very slight advantage over the 90D and does have IBIS of course - which the 90D does not.

The M6II and the 90D do share the same 33 megapixel sensor the R10 has a 24 megapixel sensor.

It is the R7 that has the 33 megapixel sensor.

KevinRA wrote:

thunder storm wrote:

John Photo wrote:

thunder storm wrote:

CompleteUtterNonsense wrote:

thunder storm wrote:

The problem: at this point it's uncertain if Canon will bring out RF-s replacements for all your current EF-s lenses. The 18-135mm is kind of replaceable with the RF-s 18-150mm (check AF speed though), the 50mm is a full frame lens and can be replaced by the RF 50mm f/1.8 stm. A wide angle zoom will likely happen, but to my eye it's highly unlikely we will see something like that EF-s f/2.8 standard zoom for the RF mount.

Is there anything wrong with adapting the EF-S lenses to the R10? From everything I have read, there is not penalty for adapting.

Nothing wrong with it, but the M50 will give you the same IQ as the R10 at a much lower price point, while replacing current lenses for RF-s lenses comes at a risk you will replace those twice if you have to move full frame because the RF-s lens line up won't become complete enough for your needs.

I would think this is an advantage since you don't need to replace the lens.

The same is true for the M50. Go check prices of used M50s. It's a steal. Shoot it for 4 years and you will know a lot more about glass availability, while the R10 will have come down in price what you've payed for that M50. You can decide then if you want to go with an RP or an R10 or whatever options Canon will have in 2027.

The availability of RF-s glass is pretty much unknown for now. \

True. However, glass that works well in not limited as R, EF, and EF-S glass all works well.

So the only advantage of the R10 over the M50 is the compatibility with R glass. For a crop sensor that's a pretty poor advantage................

The M50 can be used with the ef-m 11-22mm, ef-m 32mm f/1.4 stm and Sigma 56mm f/1.4. On crop that's unbeatable compared to all the R glass options. The 11-22mm might come to the RF mount, but for the other 2 primes it's the M50 having the best glass options.

True re optics and lenses - the R10 is a far better camera in many other ways other than size - in which the larger size and grip makes it nice to use with larger lenses. The controls and AF

I think the R10 will AF well with the RF 24-240mm f/4.0-6.3 IS USM and 100-400mm f/5.6-8.0 IS USM.   The large aperture USM lenses aren't in the same segment as the R10, so the benefit of the better AF is pretty limited imo.

are far better IMHO.

thunder storm wrote:

John Photo wrote:

thunder storm wrote:

CompleteUtterNonsense wrote:

thunder storm wrote:

The problem: at this point it's uncertain if Canon will bring out RF-s replacements for all your current EF-s lenses. The 18-135mm is kind of replaceable with the RF-s 18-150mm (check AF speed though), the 50mm is a full frame lens and can be replaced by the RF 50mm f/1.8 stm. A wide angle zoom will likely happen, but to my eye it's highly unlikely we will see something like that EF-s f/2.8 standard zoom for the RF mount.

Is there anything wrong with adapting the EF-S lenses to the R10? From everything I have read, there is not penalty for adapting.

Nothing wrong with it, but the M50 will give you the same IQ as the R10 at a much lower price point, while replacing current lenses for RF-s lenses comes at a risk you will replace those twice if you have to move full frame because the RF-s lens line up won't become complete enough for your needs.

I would think this is an advantage since you don't need to replace the lens.

The same is true for the M50. Go check prices of used M50s. It's a steal. Shoot it for 4 years and you will know a lot more about glass availability, while the R10 will have come down in price what you've payed for that M50. You can decide then if you want to go with an RP or an R10 or whatever options Canon will have in 2027.

The availability of RF-s glass is pretty much unknown for now. \

True. However, glass that works well in not limited as R, EF, and EF-S glass all works well.

So the only advantage of the R10 over the M50 is the compatibility with R glass.

yes.... apart from the R10 has

almost 50% more batty life

2 control dials

joystick

DPAF in 4K vid

no 4K 30P crop down sampled from 6K

4K60P vs 30P

HD 120p vs 60p

bit rates up to 470 MBS vs 120MBS

23 FPS vs 10 (only 7,5 with AF-c

eye AF

animal AF

car AF

651 VS 143 af POINTS

UHSii SD card

partial metering

center weigted metering

average metering

spot meting AF point

USB charging

apart from all that what have the Romans ever done for us????????

For a crop sensor that's a pretty poor advantage. The sharpness of non L zooms is so so on a crop sensor. The L zooms are too expensive for a crop sensor, and the same is true for the L primes. The non L primes are good enough for IQ, but ironically it are the non L EF primes that will give you fast USM AF to make the most of the improved AF of those RF crop bodies whereas the RF primes only have slow stm AF.....

The M50 can be used with the ef-m 11-22mm, ef-m 32mm f/1.4 stm and Sigma 56mm f/1.4. On crop that's unbeatable compared to all the R glass options. The 11-22mm might come to the RF mount, but for the other 2 primes it's the M50 having the best glass options.

Another approach would be to shoot the 600D for one more year. I think that makes sense given the black box of the future RF-s situation.

davev8 wrote:

thunder storm wrote:

John Photo wrote:

thunder storm wrote:

CompleteUtterNonsense wrote:

thunder storm wrote:

The problem: at this point it's uncertain if Canon will bring out RF-s replacements for all your current EF-s lenses. The 18-135mm is kind of replaceable with the RF-s 18-150mm (check AF speed though), the 50mm is a full frame lens and can be replaced by the RF 50mm f/1.8 stm. A wide angle zoom will likely happen, but to my eye it's highly unlikely we will see something like that EF-s f/2.8 standard zoom for the RF mount.

Is there anything wrong with adapting the EF-S lenses to the R10? From everything I have read, there is not penalty for adapting.

Nothing wrong with it, but the M50 will give you the same IQ as the R10 at a much lower price point, while replacing current lenses for RF-s lenses comes at a risk you will replace those twice if you have to move full frame because the RF-s lens line up won't become complete enough for your needs.

I would think this is an advantage since you don't need to replace the lens.

The same is true for the M50. Go check prices of used M50s. It's a steal. Shoot it for 4 years and you will know a lot more about glass availability, while the R10 will have come down in price what you've payed for that M50. You can decide then if you want to go with an RP or an R10 or whatever options Canon will have in 2027.

The availability of RF-s glass is pretty much unknown for now. \

True. However, glass that works well in not limited as R, EF, and EF-S glass all works well.

So the only advantage of the R10 over the M50 is the compatibility with R glass.

yes.... apart from....

"The only advantage" should be understood within it's context:

glass that works well (with the R10) is not limited, as R, EF, and EF-S glass all works well.

Kmccarthy wrote:

I think the bottom line is that the R10 and the R7 are the best APS-C cameras that Canon has ever made. While the sensors themselves are not dramatically better than the latest DSLRs, the AF is game changing.

yes 100% and the FPS at 15 with a mec shutter in a rebel-priced body that the only DSLR to match that is $6000

thunder storm wrote:

davev8 wrote:

thunder storm wrote:

John Photo wrote:

thunder storm wrote:

CompleteUtterNonsense wrote:

thunder storm wrote:

The problem: at this point it's uncertain if Canon will bring out RF-s replacements for all your current EF-s lenses. The 18-135mm is kind of replaceable with the RF-s 18-150mm (check AF speed though), the 50mm is a full frame lens and can be replaced by the RF 50mm f/1.8 stm. A wide angle zoom will likely happen, but to my eye it's highly unlikely we will see something like that EF-s f/2.8 standard zoom for the RF mount.

Is there anything wrong with adapting the EF-S lenses to the R10? From everything I have read, there is not penalty for adapting.

Nothing wrong with it, but the M50 will give you the same IQ as the R10 at a much lower price point, while replacing current lenses for RF-s lenses comes at a risk you will replace those twice if you have to move full frame because the RF-s lens line up won't become complete enough for your needs.

I would think this is an advantage since you don't need to replace the lens.

The same is true for the M50. Go check prices of used M50s. It's a steal. Shoot it for 4 years and you will know a lot more about glass availability, while the R10 will have come down in price what you've payed for that M50. You can decide then if you want to go with an RP or an R10 or whatever options Canon will have in 2027.

The availability of RF-s glass is pretty much unknown for now. \

True. However, glass that works well in not limited as R, EF, and EF-S glass all works well.

So the only advantage of the R10 over the M50 is the compatibility with R glass.

yes.... apart from....

"The only advantage" should be understood within it's context:

the context is you say "so the only advantage of the R10 is the compatibility with the R glass" .. which it clearly is not from the very big list i listed

which i shall relist

almost 50% more batty life

2 control dials

joystick

DPAF in 4K vid!!!!!!!!

no 4K 30P crop down sampled from 6K

4K60P vs 30P

HD 120p vs 60p

bit rates up to 470 MBS vs 120MBS

23 FPS vs 10 (only 7,5 with AF-c

eye AF

animal AF

car AF

651 VS 143 af POINTS

UHSii SD card

partial metering

center weigted metering

average metering

spot meting AF point

USB charging

apart from all that what have the Romans ever done for us????????

glass that works well (with the R10) is not limited, as R, EF, and EF-S glass all works well.

You're missing the context, when interpreting the word "only"....,  again.