Canon EOS R7 & R10

[LenR]

Canon has introduced APS-C versions of the EOS mirrorless range.

https://www.dpreview.com/reviews/can...initial-review

[DanK]

Indeed. I did a little reading about them this morning. As someone who has been dithering about going to smaller equipment, I have to say that I'm disappointed. It's hard to draw a good analogy, but it looks like the R7 is more of a replacement for the D90 than a successor to the 7D II. The R7 has odd controls, if one is used to the Canon standard, although perhaps they would work fine once familiar. It lacks a top LCD, which I use a great deal on my 5D IV.

On the positive side, the body is small and light, and early reviews say the AF system is very good. It also has good IBIS.

It's still a possibility on my list, but for now, the fly in the ointment is that there is no sign yet of L-level APS-C (RF-S) lenses. The two they released with the R7 and R10 would be a big step down from what I'm using now. I'll wait and see whether they introduce more lenses. I also want to see what the dynamic range is, although it has to be at least as good as the 90D, which is only one stop less than my 5D. (According to photons to photos, the OM-1, which I find very appealing in some respects, is a 2-stop loss.)

[LenR]

Dan, agreed. Can't say I am enthused about the controls and lack of quality lenses either. I doubt I will be running out to acquire one any time soon.

[inkista]

... there is no sign yet of L-level APS-C (RF-S) lenses. ...

To be fair, Canon never did put a red ring on any EF-S lens, and it took a few years from the first APS-C bodies to the release of any EF-S glass, let alone the EF-S 17-55/2.8. And if you were an L shooter before you're likely already looking at the RF lenses and a full frame R body, anyway.

Agree, the R7 controls look weird, but the dpreview guys were split on the usefulness of combining the wheel with the joystick. I didn't get the removal of the top-deck LCD from the R6, either [shrug]. But at least they have IBIS, and now this gives an alternative for the folks looking to transition from Canon dSLR to Canon mirrorless who want to stay with crop; and for newbs who were eyeing the EOS M system but holding back because of imminent orphaning. And I figure the EOS R crop glass will mostly hit by the time an $800 R100 dRebel model gets announced.

And. You can put an RF 800 f/11 or RF 600 f/11 on an R7/R10 as a budget wildlife/birding setup. Just saying.

[DanK]

True. There was never a really good, fixed aperture EF-S walk-around lens. I used the 15-85, which was OK but slow. The new RF 18-45 is yet slower, but it may be a good lens otherwise.

For other focal lengths, one can use EF/RF lenses, adjusting for the crop factor. That's what i did in the day. For example, the 70-200 f/4 IS was a very good complement to the 15-85. The drawback of that approach, of course, is that the glass is wider than it needs to be for APS-C, hence more expensive and heavier than it needs to be.

[inkista]

True. There was never a really good, fixed aperture EF-S walk-around lens.

The EF-S 17-55/2.8 doesn't count?

I used the 15-85, which was OK but slow.

Yes, but it was more or less the crop analog to the 24-105 f/4L, which was also, if not slow, not exactly fast.

The new RF 18-45 is yet slower, but it may be a good lens otherwise.

I see it as the new 18-55 kit lens, just as the other RF-S lens is the new 18-135, which is where they have to start to have something to put in the box with the body. Also slower means a smaller lens. I am curious to see if they go with an MFT-like affinity for pancakes or a near-pancake kit lens like Sony's 16-50 or the Panasonic 12-32. Or if they start doing off-the-wall stuff like a crop 1:1 magnification version of the RF 35mm f/1.8 IS STM Macro (which, I was kind of sad to see ditched the built-in ring light of the EF-S 35mm f/2.8 IS STM Macro), or crop 400mm or 500mm little-brother to the 600/11 and 800/11 prime for birders.

Also if they're going to follow Sony's lead and come to 3rd-party agreements to open up the lens mount communication for folks who sign an agreement and an NDA or not. Sony shooters seem to more often rely on 3rd-party or adapted glass than native lenses. Sigma has yet to take their Sony full-frame E-mount designs and adapt them for Canon R, Nikon Z, or Panasonic S.

For other focal lengths, one can use EF/RF lenses, adjusting for the crop factor. That's what i did in the day. For example, the 70-200 f/4 IS was a very good complement to the 15-85. The drawback of that approach, of course, is that the glass is wider than it needs to be for APS-C, hence more expensive and heavier than it needs to be.

Also because the bigger image circle also requires more correction for corner performance APS-C doesn't see. I also find it interesting that they're designating the crop lenses RF-S, since the S designation was for "short" iirc (i.e., EF-S lense sit closer to the sensor than EF lenses (smaller mirrors), which can also help with performance. It seems likely to me that even if it's the same case with RF-S lenses, without any mirrorbox, RF-S crop lenses could be mounted on and used by full-frame bodies (something Nikon did even on their dSLRs).

[DanK]

Yes, but it was more or less the crop analog to the 24-105 f/4L, which was also, if not slow, not exactly fast.

I think that's a good analogy, but it's a full stop slower at the long end. I have found that I rarely need faster than f/4, and I use the 24-105 L II more than any other lens. It's optically not up to the best of the 24-70 lenses, but the huge convenience of that extra 35 mm, which is a range I use a lot, makes it worthwhile. I'd be content with a similar lens for the R7.

Also if they're going to follow Sony's lead and come to 3rd-party agreements to open up the lens mount communication for folks who sign an agreement and an NDA or not.

It's striking that they haven't yet. Perhaps they don't want to interrupt the cash flow they have from the new RF lenses, at least until they amortize some of the transition costs. Given that some of the new RF lenses are total redesigns (e.g., 70-200 f/4), those transition costs were probably very big.

The EF-S 17-55/2.8 doesn't count?

True. I should have stuck an "almost" in there somewhere.

I'm not a birder, so I don't much care about lenses that are longer than, say, 400mm FF equivalent. That's the longest I use currently with my 5D IV: the Canon 100-400 f/45.-5.6, which is a bear at 1640g. And I rarely use the one lens I have that's wider than 24mm. For my uses, the key is the 24-300 oe 24-400 range.

The bottom line for me is hurry up and wait. My main interest in APS-C is reduced weight, and I won't get all that much reduction if I carry the lenses I have now.

[inkista]

I think that's a good analogy, but it's a full stop slower at the long end. I have found that I rarely need faster than f/4, and I use the 24-105 L II more than any other lens. It's optically not up to the best of the 24-70 lenses, but the huge convenience of that extra 35 mm, which is a range I use a lot, makes it worthwhile. I'd be content with a similar lens for the R7.

The issue mostly being that it's likely Canon will continue to assume a crop-shooter won't want/need L glass. (sigh).

Re: 3rd-party.

It's striking that they haven't yet. Perhaps they don't want to interrupt the cash flow they have from the new RF lenses, at least until they amortize some of the transition costs. Given that some of the new RF lenses are total redesigns (e.g., 70-200 f/4), those transition costs were probably very big.

Well that and the fact they've never done it before. Sigma/Tamron/Tokina have been reverse-engineering all this time. But Sony took a leaf out of the micro four-thirds playbook. Panasonic S, of course, is already in a similar consortium with L-mount. So now it's a matter of seeing if Canon, Nikon, or Fuji follow suit, or whether they remain closed proprietary systems. But it definitely makes things easier for Sigma to make E-mount lenses.

Also, Sigma et. al may be waiting until Canon slows down development and a fuller lens lineup is out so they can identify the lineup holes and fill them (like their old DC 30mm f/1.4 took care of fast-normal-on-a-crop which Canon never bothered to make).

I'm not a birder, so I don't much care about lenses that are longer than, say, 400mm FF equivalent.

I am a birder, and supertelephoto was the one area where Canon had clear superiority in OEM selection over Nikon and all other comers, in terms of variety and price points, and it remains an area where affordable >400mm options remain few and far between for OEM mirrorless glass (nearly everyone goes with the Tamron 150-600 or a Bigma these days). That Canon went straight for <$1000 priced 600mm and 800mm primes [coupled with animal eye-AF] indicates they're aggressively staking out wildlife shooter territory again. But the nice part for you with a crop R system is that to get 400mm equivalence, you'd only need a 250mm lens.

The bottom line for me is hurry up and wait. My main interest in APS-C is reduced weight, and I won't get all that much reduction if I carry the lenses I have now.

Yup. But "hurry up and wait" is pretty much how I've been feeling ever since the R/RP were introduced. They haven't quite hit the goldlocks zone squarely enough for me to swap from MFT, since I'd also have to deal with increased weight/bulk. But if you look at the RF glass lineup to date, and consider that the EOS R was introduced in 2019, the wait may not be that much longer. Canon's been incredibly aggressive at rolling out new lenses.

[DanK]

Well that and the fact they've never done it before

Didn't they do it for the EF mount?

They haven't quite hit the goldlocks zone squarely enough for me to swap from MFT, since I'd also have to deal with increased weight/bulk.

We may meet in the middle. I'm looking at APS-C as a possible way to lessen weight without going all the way to MFT. However, the new OM-1 is very tempting. It has a high-res mode that works even handheld, so I wouldn't lose resolution. The main things I'd lose compared with my curent 5D IV is weaker low-light performance and about 2 stops DR. That's holding me back for now.

[Polar01]

Dan not sure what you are talking about in your post #2, you state 'R7 is more of a replacement for the D90", the D90 is a Nikon camera for what 2009. Not making the linkage between the two.

Cheers: Al

[DanK]

Oops. Typo. 90D, not D90


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

[inkista]

Didn't they do it for the EF mount?

Nope, not as far as I'm aware. The only other "open" (well, partially) system prior to Sony doing this was the four-thirds consortium. As I said, up until this point the 3rd-parties have all been reverse-engineering the mount communication. Hence the need for firmware updating capability or rechipping.

We may meet in the middle.

Grin. Unless I want to go back to full frame at which point we cross in opposite directions.

I'm looking at APS-C as a possible way to lessen weight without going all the way to MFT. However, the new OM-1 is very tempting. It has a high-res mode that works even handheld, so I wouldn't lose resolution. The main things I'd lose compared with my curent 5D IV is weaker low-light performance and about 2 stops DR. That's holding me back for now.

Also don't forget the deeper DoF. But for a wildlife shooter the weight shed and increased "reach" via crop, + actual IP-rated weather/water proofing makes it an incredibly attractive option. And if they do insect/flower macros as well, then increased DoF becomes a feature not a bug.

[Polar01]

Thanks Dan for clearing that up for me, I do not shoot Canon thus did not know that they had a 90D model.

Cheers: Al

[DanK]

And if they do insect/flower macros as well, then increased DoF becomes a feature not a bug

And as I do a fair amount of insect and flower macros...

For field macro--live bugs--the pixel density that gives the greater reach (in combination with the narrower AOV) is a big plus, but for a different reason: the size of the bug on the sensor is determined by how close you can get--up to MWD--and a higher density means more pixels on the subject. Not a big deal if you manage to pretty much fill the frame, but it can be a big deal if you have to crop severely.

In fact, I have a 7D (first generation) that I've held onto primarily for bugs, although I occasionally use it for my doomed forays into birds and wildlife.

AF is nearly useless for bugs when using a DSLR. I sometimes use it to get a first approximation, but then I move the camera to achieve focus. Needless to say, this generates a huge number of discards. I want to see whether any of the really good tracking systems on new mirrorless cameras can actually follow a bug's eye as they wobble on a flower.

[DanK]

IMHO, there aren't yet enough reviews to know how good the R7 is. In particular, I want to see data about dynamic range and high-ISO noise, given the small pixel pitch. But given the specs that have been released and initial reviews, it seems like a compromise to me, definitely more of an "enthusiast" camera than an APS-C "semi-pro" camera. Some of the specs are very good (e.g., the AF system), but some aren't. From what I've read, the viewfinder has a resolution of 2.36 M dots, compared with the 3.69 in the R6 and the 5.76M in the R5. I haven't yet checked the refresh rate of the viewfinder. Like the R6, it doesn't have a top LCD panel, which I use constantly with my 5D IV.

It seems clear that they cut some corners to make this camera cheaper (MSRP only $1500), at the cost of making it more of an enthusiast camera than a semi-pro one.

I might be tempted to buy one despite these issues, given that the initial reviews are very positive (e.g., on The Digital Picture) and it's small and very light. Having a lighter camera with better AF would be a bit plus for me. But at this point, I wouldn't be able to buy one because Canon has not produced any high-quality walk-around zooms with a focal length range appropriate for this sensor size. The two first RF-S lenses they have released are barely what I would call enthusiast lenses.

[rpcrowe]

It took years for Sony mirrorless glass to come close to matching the plethora of lenses that were available for the Canon or Nikon family of DSLR cameras - especially for the crop frame mirrorless cameras.

However, Sony as well as third party companies such as Sigma, Tamron, and a myriad of others have flooded the market with great glass in the Sony E mount.

I would not worry that there is a scarcity of glass for the newer Canon Cameras at present. I suspect that if the latest Canon offerings become as popular as the Sony A6xxx camera line, there will be an influx of lenses for those offerings.

IMO, one of the most important lenses for any camera system is a mid-range zoom lens with a constant f/2.8 aperture. When I shot Canon DSLR gear, my favorite APSC mid-range zoom lens was the 17-55mm f/2.8 IS which along with the reasonably small 70-200mm f/4L IS was the lens combo I carried all over the world. The only problem with the 17-55mm lens was its size and weight. The 17-55mm lens and a 7D camera weighs 1464g while the Sigma 18-50mm f/2.8 and Sony A6600 weigh just about half as much at 743g and provides just about the same capabilities.

One advantage that Canikon DSLR cameras have over the Sony mirrorless competitors is the profusion of excellent used lenses. I was given a Canon EOS mount, Tokina 28-70mm f/2.8 lens by a friend who bought it for me on the used market in Japan. This lens was produced to the design of the Angenieux 28-70mm f/2.8 lens that Tokina had purchased. Although the lens was fairly heavy, it became my favorite studio lens. Those Tokina lenses are now running well under $300 on the used market.



Actually for people shooting, which is what I enjoy doing, a combination of the A6600, Sony 85mm f/1.8 and Sigma 18-70mm f/2.8 is a dandy combination. The weight totals out to 1114g....

[DanK]

IMO, one of the most important lenses for any camera system is a mid-range zoom lens with a constant f/2.8 aperture.

Exactly, although given what I shoot, I'm happy having that at a constant f/4.0. It's the absence of a high-quality lens of that sort that is one of the main reasons I won't consider the R7.

I know quite a number of photographers who are happy with the Fuji APS-C cameras, but the combination of the closed system and the X-trans sensor are enough to put me off. Some Fuji users say that if you want to be happy with Fuji, the price is giving up Lightroom/ ACR, which is more than I want to bite off.

If I could justify two entirely different systems--which I certainly can't do at this point--I'd keep my FF and add an OM-1.