I’ve had the R10 pretty much since it came out and overall I really like it. No IBIS turned out to be a bit of a benefit for me since I’m mainly using the camera with adapted older EF telephoto lenses with IS (EF 500mm f/4L IS USM and EF 400mm f/4 DO IS USM). I found on the IBIS bodies like the R7 and R5 there can be some conflicts resulting in all stabilization being shut down. With the R10 I haven’t experienced that yet. The sensor readout speed on the R10 isn’t all that fast so I tend to stick with EFCS when doing any kind of action photography and so far that’s worked out well.
I initially purchased the camera as a backup to my R6 but have actually used it as the primary camera on a couple of trips including one to Bosque Del Apache this past December to photograph birds and overall I was very pleased.
The controls are a little limited but after I got used to them I didn’t really find it to be an issue. After several months of use I have found the camera to be a great deal. It’s no R5 or R3 but it is in my opinion a great performer for a very reasonable price.
G Lavaty wrote:
I’ve had the R10 pretty much since it came out and overall I really like it. No IBIS turned out to be a bit of a benefit for me since I’m mainly using the camera with adapted older EF telephoto lenses with IS (EF 500mm f/4L IS USM and EF 400mm f/4 DO IS USM). I found on the IBIS bodies like the R7 and R5 there can be some conflicts resulting in all stabilization being shut down. With the R10 I haven’t experienced that yet. The sensor readout speed on the R10 isn’t all that fast so I tend to stick with EFCS when doing any kind of action photography and so far that’s worked out well. ...Show more →
Hmm, maybe certain EF lenses, but not all, have conflicts with R7 IBIS? I've been using the R7 with many different EF and EF-S lenses and IBIS and IS has been working great for me, at least with my EF 70-300 4-5.6L IS USM, EF-S 35 2.8 Macro IS STM, EF-S 18-135 IS USM, EF-S 10-18 IS STM, EF 35 2.0 IS USM and a few others. In fact, much fewer images spoiled by hand shake than I've ever seen so IS and IBIS has been good for me.
Canon lists which lenses are compatible with R series camera features:
Gochugogi wrote:
Hmm, maybe certain EF lenses, but not all, have conflicts with R7 IBIS? I've been using the R7 with many different EF and EF-S lenses and IBIS and IS has been working great for me, at least with my EF 70-300 4-5.6L IS USM, EF-S 35 2.8 Macro IS STM, EF-S 18-135 IS USM, EF-S 10-18 IS STM, EF 35 2.0 IS USM and a few others. In fact, much fewer images spoiled by hand shake than I've ever seen so IS and IBIS has been good for me.
Canon lists which lenses are compatible with R series camera features:
Yes, those lenses you listed are newer EF lenses than the ones I'm often using. I have also found that the newer EF lenses generally work well with the IBIS in the R7, R6 & R5
Those are some beautiful captures. I do not own any canon teles. How do you find it in low light/indoors.
G Lavaty wrote:
I’ve had the R10 pretty much since it came out and overall I really like it. No IBIS turned out to be a bit of a benefit for me since I’m mainly using the camera with adapted older EF telephoto lenses with IS (EF 500mm f/4L IS USM and EF 400mm f/4 DO IS USM). I found on the IBIS bodies like the R7 and R5 there can be some conflicts resulting in all stabilization being shut down. With the R10 I haven’t experienced that yet. The sensor readout speed on the R10 isn’t all that fast so I tend to stick with EFCS when doing any kind of action photography and so far that’s worked out well.
I initially purchased the camera as a backup to my R6 but have actually used it as the primary camera on a couple of trips including one to Bosque Del Apache this past December to photograph birds and overall I was very pleased.
The controls are a little limited but after I got used to them I didn’t really find it to be an issue. After several months of use I have found the camera to be a great deal. It’s no R5 or R3 but it is in my opinion a great performer for a very reasonable price.
It’s a crop camera and I think the sensor is based on an older design (like from the 80D) so don’t expect any miracles. I try to keep it to iso 1600 or lower and not underexpose and I’m pretty happy with the results.
Thank you for this post-- I am considering an R50 as my SL1 replacement and seeing pictures from essentially the same camera on older EF lenses is helpful.
I really love the combination of a light and cheap camera on the end of older glass. In my case, I use an SL1 on an EF400 f5.6L and you really can't beat the size and weight, especially when walking around a provincial park birding. My only complaint is the focusing accuracy and I think a mirrorless body will help.
I picked up the r10 kit (18-45) and
happy with the AF and tracking for home and family vacation use. I find it much better than the z50 for AF usage.
The kit lens is okay , would prefer something sharper and faster, but that would then compromise the size.
I can fit the r10 with the small kit lens in my coat pocket.
Any suggestions on a vacation usage lens that's smallish but sharp/fast? EF or RF? I would have to purchase an adapter for EF lens.
f_a_98 wrote:
I picked up the r10 kit (18-45) and
happy with the AF and tracking for home and family vacation use. I find it much better than the z50 for AF usage.
The kit lens is okay , would prefer something sharper and faster, but that would then compromise the size.
I can fit the r10 with the small kit lens in my coat pocket.
Any suggestions on a vacation usage lens that's smallish but sharp/fast? EF or RF? I would have to purchase an adapter for EF lens.
If I could only take 1 small RF lens on vacation for general street/landscape/people on a crop body it would be the RF 35 1.8. Very small very sharp and a comparative bargain. As soon as you add an ef-rf adaptor no EF lens is as small as the RF equivalent.
Thanks for the guidance. Will look at it. Wouldn't it be a bit too tight with the 1.6 crop of the r10 sensor for general use?
dmahar wrote:
If I could only take 1 small RF lens on vacation for general street/landscape/people on a crop body it would be the RF 35 1.8. Very small very sharp and a comparative bargain. As soon as you add an ef-rf adaptor no EF lens is as small as the RF equivalent.
It is 48mm FF equivalent - a good general purpose focal length. Add the even smaller RF 16 2.8 for wider angle use (about 24mm FF equivalent). I find these 2 cover most of non non-wildlife needs when traveling light with my R7 or even my R5. YMMV
f_a_98 wrote:
Any suggestions on a vacation usage lens that's smallish but sharp/fast? EF or RF? I would have to purchase an adapter for EF lens.
I've been using the kit RF 18-150 as walk around on my R7. It covers a long reach, focuses quite close (up to about 60 mm) and is still fairly sharp at 150 in the center at least. It is a good flower and landscape lens. I used 18-150 and 100-400 at a family event and was quite pleased with the group people shots and portraits, admitting that the portraits were not the dreamy f1.4 variety.
If Canon lives up to Canon-Rumors expectations and releases the 11-22 for RF then the 11-22, 18-150, and 100-400 would make a great three lens kit for any of these small bodies. In the mean time I use adapted EF-S 10-18, 35 macro, and 60 macro and am quite happy with these.
Unfortunately the 18-150 kit wasn't available here at the time of purchase from my local dealer. So I 3nded up with the 18-45 kit. The 18-150 makes more sense, along with a small prime, like the 35 f1.8 perhaps.
Jeff Nolten wrote:
I've been using the kit RF 18-150 as walk around on my R7. It covers a long reach, focuses quite close (up to about 60 mm) and is still fairly sharp at 150 in the center at least. It is a good flower and landscape lens. I used 18-150 and 100-400 at a family event and was quite pleased with the group people shots and portraits, admitting that the portraits were not the dreamy f1.4 variety.
If Canon lives up to Canon-Rumors expectations and releases the 11-22 for RF then the 11-22, 18-150, and 100-400 would make a great three lens kit for any of these small bodies. In the mean time I use adapted EF-S 10-18, 35 macro, and 60 macro and am quite happy with these....Show more →
dmahar wrote:
It is 48mm FF equivalent - a good general purpose focal length. Add the even smaller RF 16 2.8 for wider angle use (about 24mm FF equivalent). I find these 2 cover most of non non-wildlife needs when traveling light with my R7 or even my R5. YMMV
35mm*1.6= 56mm FF equivalent, not 48. To my eye 56mm is less perfect as a general purpose focal length than 48mm. I've used the EF 35mm f/2.0 IS USM on the 70D and M50, and.... it's kind of meh sometimes.
The ef-m 32mm is 51.2 FF equivalent, and that's still on the tight side as a general purpose lens. The 50mm f/1.2 GM is actually 48mm or so, which is a whole lot better. Those few millimetres absolutely matter if you want to stay with one prime for general shooting.
The 16mm will do 25.6mm FF equivalent. The 24mm = 38.4. I would go with the 24mm for general shooting, as it's f/1.8, stabilized, and it stays below the 50mm equivalent whereas the 35mm is beyond getting just too tight. The new 28mm is kind of interesting for field of view as well, but there's no stabilization and it's only f/2.8, which is, in terms of equivalence darker than f/4.0.....
f_a_98 wrote:
I picked up the r10 kit (18-45) and
happy with the AF and tracking for home and family vacation use. I find it much better than the z50 for AF usage.
The kit lens is okay , would prefer something sharper and faster, but that would then compromise the size.
I can fit the r10 with the small kit lens in my coat pocket.
Any suggestions on a vacation usage lens that's smallish but sharp/fast? EF or RF? I would have to purchase an adapter for EF lens.
steamtrain wrote:
... and it's only f/2.8, which is, in terms of equivalence darker than f/4.0.....
I don't understand this logic. If I use an f2.8 lens on FF then APS-C in Av mode both cameras use the same ISO and shutter speed. The APS-C camera's gain settings adjust for its sensor's smaller light gathering area so I don't have to. Yes APS-C is noisier per ISO than FF but with current sensors the difference is only significant at higher ISOs. The DOF is different on a crop sensor for a given FOV but that is not light level.
I would really appreciate a technical explanation of why f2.8 is not f2.8 on APS-C.
Equivalence usually refers to a FF FOV; as in a 35mm lens is equivalent to a 56mm FOV on APS-C. I don't understand your usage of the term referring to f stop. Equal ISOs, shutter speeds, and f stops for an equivalently exposed image seems pretty equivalent to me. The APS-C image will have a narrower FOV leading to deeper DOF, but it shouldn't be darker if the camera manufacturer has done their job right. Do you have to double your exposure times moving an f2.8 lens to crop? Not in my experience.
