Has anyone upgraded from a 90D to an R7 or R10? If so, what are your thoughts? Any regrets?
I’m thinking of making the jump to mirrorless for the better AF (including animal AF) and lighter weight. I’m actually leaning towards the R10 for the weight.
My main hesitation is the EVF, which is pretty low resolution . I think I will miss the beautiful optical viewfinder of the 90D. While the R7/R10 have better AF, it may be harder to judge focus in the field through the low-res EVF.
Very few thoughts here. But once I got used to the R7 EVF, I came to prefer it in most situations over the 90D VF. As light gets lower, it is much easier to judge focus with an EVF. The optical VF is better is a little better in extreme bright light—white sand beach at noon—and while jamming a volley of shots during panning. I also liked the VF level on the 90D more than that huge color level on the R7. The auto level using IBIS is nice on the R7.
Kmccarthy wrote:
Has anyone upgraded from a 90D to an R7 or R10? If so, what are your thoughts? Any regrets?
I’m thinking of making the jump to mirrorless for the better AF (including animal AF) and lighter weight. I’m actually leaning towards the R10 for the weight.
My main hesitation is the EVF, which is pretty low resolution . I think I will miss the beautiful optical viewfinder of the 90D. While the R7/R10 have better AF, it may be harder to judge focus in the field through the low-res EVF.
Thoughts?
Get the R7. I will take the newer EVF's over the OVF's any day. There is zero problem judging focus through the EVF, plus the exposure you see in it is the exposure you will get on the sensor, unlike an OVF.
Oh, there are thought enough! But I have no experience of neither 90D nor R7. Of course that fact has never stopped anyone.
So, My pre-mirorless was the 1DX and 5D4 and made a 1DX to R as I found the otherwise mighty 1DX lacking in Mp. Now I have R5, RP and R10 and really enjoy them.
There is much talk about side-by-side reviews, and they have their solid place. but on my part I have found it better to use one body a few week so we "grow together" as such things as body geometry has a great impact especially on fast shooting, BIF and other IF´s.
Got my R10 in September and have used it as the tele-camera, mostly with RF 100-400 (with an angle of view of a 160-640) and RF 24-240 ( about 40-400mm), but also with the RF 16mm and ZE 15/2.8, ZE 135/2 etc.
Yesterday I took the R5 and 100-500 along instead and found the AF more steady. It stays on target better as has been found and mentioner in several (R7)threads. The R10 is still very very good. The difference is mainly that you have to lock AF shoot, lock again shoot and so on. With the R5 you can stay locked for longer and shoot at will.
I have medium sized male hands, more power than length. But I can handle the R10 perfectly even with fat at the root lenses like the 24-240 and 100-500. Just get used to the camera. As always, be it a hammer, TIG welder handle or wife.
It has crossed my mind that I would be totally in love with the R10 and RF 100-400 if it was my only gear and without any contact to this bloody interweb were all the newest goodies are presented by skilled shooters and more or less masters of post processing which blurs/sharpens any deficiencies in the images. _Or_ who point out meaningless issues as if they were Destroyers of Worlds. The R10 is such a powerful photographic equipment in its own right! It lack yada yada yada, yes. But within its superhandy supersmall body it packs a mighty punch like DW´s right on our poor Robert´s nose last Sunday...
The R7 is 50% heavier and it is pocketable with the RF 100-400!
TeamSpeed wrote:
Wouldn't the R10 be a downgrade regarding resolution. 24 vs 32?
Technically yes, but in practice you only get the benefit of 32MP if you are using very high quality glass. One of my main goals is to reduce weight so I will be more inclined to take the camera with me on trips. Therefore, I will often be using it with light kit lenses.
Imagemaster wrote:
Get the R7. I will take the newer EVF's over the OVF's any day. There is zero problem judging focus through the EVF, plus the exposure you see in it is the exposure you will get on the sensor, unlike an OVF.
The R7 is only half a pound more than the R10.
I have no doubt the R7 is a better camera than the R10, and well worth the extra $500. However, one of my main goals is to reduce weight so I will be more inclined to take the camera on trips. I currently have an SL2 and 90D. The 90D is obviously much better than the SL2. However, I find myself almost always taking the SL2 over the 90D. I'm hoping the R10 can take the place of both cameras. It's actually a bit lighter than the SL2, but almost as capable as the 90D. (AF is actually better).
The only situation where I might miss the 90D's 32MP is when taking pictures of birds with my 70-300L. However, I'm hoping the AF improvements will outweigh the slight resolution advantage in most cases. The animal eye AF is intriguing!
The R10 seems to be a fine camera. It even (remarkably) has a full AF joystick, something not even the 6D Mark II could muster.
I agree with your rationalizations about the R10 almost entirely. The only thing that makes me hesitate about the R10 is the lack of IBIS. However, most RF, RF-S and EF-S lenses that one might be tempted to use with this camera have OIS built-in, so perhaps that is moot.
Thank you for the clarification. There are several advantages of having the higher resolution, not just the need to help resolve detail with great glass, but they likely may not matter too much then if this is more of a travel kit.
garyvot wrote:
The R10 seems to be a fine camera. It even (remarkably) has a full AF joystick, something not even the 6D Mark II could muster.
I agree with your rationalizations about the R10 almost entirely. The only thing that makes me hesitate about the R10 is the lack of IBIS. However, most RF, RF-S and EF-S lenses that one might be tempted to use with this camera have OIS built-in, so perhaps that is moot.
The IBIS, weather sealing, big battery, dual card slots and 60P 4K video are all very compelling advantages of the R7, and well worth the $500 extra. However, since my current SL2 and 90D do not have most of those features either (except weather sealing and big battery on 90D), I don't think I will miss them. On the other hand, I'm hoping the light weight and superior AF of the R10 will dramatically increase my likelihood to use the camera, and my "keeper" rate.
The reality is that the R10 just needs to beat my SL2 and my iPhone by a significant enough margin to make it worth taking :-)
I wish Canon would come out with a small, light 15-85mm RF-S kit lens. The current 18-45mm and 18-150mm are not wide enough for me.
Kmccarthy wrote:
The IBIS, weather sealing, big battery, dual card slots and 60P 4K video are all very compelling advantages of the R7, and well worth the $500 extra. However, since my current SL2 and 90D do not have most of those features either (except weather sealing and big battery on 90D), I don't think I will miss them. On the other hand, I'm hoping the light weight and superior AF of the R10 will dramatically increase my likelihood to use the camera, and my "keeper" rate.
The reality is that the R10 just needs to beat my SL2 and my iPhone by a significant enough margin to make it worth taking :-)
I wish Canon would come out with a small, light 15-85mm RF-S kit lens. The current 18-45mm and 18-150mm are not wide enough for me. ...Show more →
Thanks. I agree about the size/weight. If you look at Camera Size Comparison, the R10 is about the size of a Rebel SLx model, but with a better grip and ergonomics. This is appealing to me for travel.
I too prefer to have the 24mm FOV, and find the RF-S kit lenses to be uninspiring. But in addition, I favor people photography, so I've never really been satisfied with the slow-ish kit zooms for APS-C. I prefer more subject isolation. For several years my travel kit consisted of a Rebel SL1 with the 24 pancake and the 50 1.8 STM primes, along with the 10-18 and 55-250.
The two primes were perfect for people. Even being limited to f/2.8, the EF-S 24mm still had really nice rendering wide open. If I were to buy an R10 today, I would probably just duplicate this lens kit until Canon comes out with equivalent RF-S lenses (if they ever do).
Kmccarthy wrote:
I wish Canon would come out with a small, light 15-85mm RF-S kit lens. The current 18-45mm and 18-150mm are not wide enough for me.
I´m quite confident that C will bring those lenses in due time. And meanwhile the RF 16mm does very well on the R10 as a 25.6mm FF field of view, the crop cuts out most of the maths based corrections of the outer parts of the image and it is very small and light, such a sweet and light package.
The lightness is the main reason I chose the R10, smallness&handiness too.
I have both the 90D and the R7. I would say for your stated purposes the R7 is a worthy upgrade. You haven't mentioned the lenses you intend using. Having to use the adapter negates the weight advantage of the R7 and moves the lens's weight away from the grip. With the EF-S lenses I use the adapter is not an issue. Real weight savings can be had moving to the R7 + RF 100-400 f8: 2.7 lbs compared to 3.3 for the 90D + 70-300 II. There are similar weight savings comparing those bodies with their native mount L 100-#00s. The R7's ergonomics allow it to handle an adapted EF 100-400 well.
The 18-150 kit superzoom is decent if slow, but like the 100-400 f8 focuses extremely close. Unfortunately the 18-150 is the only native mount RF-S lens worth considering. I supplement the limited native lenses with EF-S 10-18, 35 macro, 60 macro and 55-250 which, adapted, is still lighter and faster than the native 100-400. IBIS gives the 60 macro new life! I also like using the R7 with adapted 24-70 f4 L. The RF STM primes are also a consideration.
The object tracking AF is really nice for finding wildlife and recomposing the image once AF is locked on. The kinds of images ImageMaster and others have posted here. It is also nice for other kinds of photography where it can find a discrete object to lock on to. I have the Af-On button programed to toggle servo off and on since sometimes the AF goes crazy looking for an object. There is a learning curve. I've found the R7's image quality is the same as the 90D's in my use. I really like the focus stacking and panorama builder. I've been using XXD cameras since the 10D and while very nice the new AF has not been a revolution in the quality of images I bring home. It is still a worthy upgrade in the line of APS-C cameras and I recommend it.
Kmccarthy wrote:
I wish Canon would come out with a small, light 15-85mm RF-S kit lens. The current 18-45mm and 18-150mm are not wide enough for me.
So am I - and an 11-22! But not slow the aperture, which has been Canon's habit recently. I'm seriously considering the RF 16 f2.8. According to some reviews if you shoot raw and PP using adobe it is considerably wider than 16 so I'm hoping it will be a 15mm equivalent.
The R7 is really small and light. Tiny. I don't think I'd notice the extra 190g of weight in my bag over an R10. The main weight is found in the lenses.
I owned a couple cameras with the LP-E17 battery—77D and M6—and they tend to poop out pretty quickly while traveling. The LP-E6NH lasts all day for me on the R7, unless shooting video.
I used the EF-S 15-85 3.5-5.6 IS USM on my R7 for a few weeks before selling it. Yes, an ideal range and a little better optically than the RF 18-150 3.5-6.3 IS STM. But, with adapter, it felt like a lead pipe on the tiny R7.
Hopefully, Sunwayfoto, SmallRig, etc., will come out with a grip extension so I can get another finger on the R7 grip.
I agree. The current RF-S lens selection is definitely a big issue. I'm really hoping Canon fixes that soon. If they could do a 15-85mm in the 300g range (like the 18-150mm) it would be perfect.
R10 (429g) + 300g lens = 729g --> Great!
R10+adapter (110g)+15-85mm (588g) = 1127g --> Not good
For comparison (weighed on my own scale)
SL2+18-55mm = 676g
SL2+15-85mm = 1043g
90D+15-85mm = 1289g
Incidentally, I recently picked up a used Canon G5X Mark II compact camera. It has a fast (f1.8-2.8) 24-120mm equivalent lens, 1" sensor, 4K 30p uncropped video, and a decent EVF. In most situations, I think it will beat my iphone 12pro (except HDR and ultra wide). It will probably be replacing my SL2 for quick trips. It only weighs 340g!
15-85 ergonomics is the reason we switched from the SL2 to the 77D. But the compacts are so good they are a temptation. I've been using a G1X3 and it has me wondering why I still carry a 5D4. I often pair it with my R7 to cover the normal 24-70 range. I don't feel I'm sacrificing much.
jwin wrote:
If they can convert EF-M 18-150mm to RF-S, then I love to see them do the same to EF-M 11-22mm. Love that EF-M 11-22mm lens.
If they can shrink R7/R10 to smaller form factor about EOS M6, that would be super cool too..
a) Canon made sure there would be no real way to utilize EFM lenses one way or RF lenses the other, given the very tiny deltas in mount distances of the two. I think it's silly because if they could allow migration of EFM lenses to RF bodies, then this gives a very clear migration path of M owners to RF. Maybe they still can figure something out yet though, but it would require that the EFM lens actually sit inside the RF mount in some way or another (like EFS lenses on EF bodies, but here it would require an adapter in addition to the lens).
b) The rumored R100 would likely be that M-factor you mention.
