I just got the R10 with 18-150. My hope that it will serve me as a mini R5.
The R5 is my favorite camera but the lenses I have are huge and I can't really take it with me when I go skiing with my kids.
I used to take the M6 mark II skiing (with 11-22mm, 32mm and 55-250mm) but I never liked it because:
- No EVF (since last winter I got an EVF, but then the EVF sticks out a lot)
- Multiple lenses, pain to change
- The grip is too small
- No EFCS, I have to use Electronic with the 55-250, but then no burst, just single frames
- No joystick - this is HUGE when skiing, I can control my R5 with gloves on. I am hoping the same for the R10.
I am gonna set up the C1 and C2 modes the same way as my R5.
First impressions on R10:
The shutter is LOUD, much louder than R5 (I love the quiet shutter on the R5)
The body feels SUPER cheap (I am used to R5, R, 5Dm2), but even the M6m2 is definitely more premium feeling. But honestly I don't care for a travel camera, the plastic everywhere makes it SUPER light.
The R10 + 18-150 weighs pretty much the same as R5 body only.
The 18-150 seems decently sharp, but I will test this against my other lenses.
I have other RF lenses (15-35, 35, 50 1.8, 24-70, 70-200 2.8, 100-500) but I expect to use the 18-150 on the R10 95% of the time. Maybe the nifty 50 will get some use.
If I use bigger lenses I might as well just pop it on the R5.
I've had my R10/18-45mm for about 3 weeks now. Short story: I like it. The feature I like the best is its diminutive size and weight. I bought an EL-100 to go with it; it is an amazingly versatile and powerful (enough) flash for $150. The flash really completes the setup. I do intend to keep the R10, though I'll probably never mount another lens to it. Which makes the $200 control ring adapter mostly a waste of my money. I've have repeatedly considered the Sony RX10 IV as a 'travel' camera, but it is just too expensive. The RX10/18-45 was a Refurb on Black Friday, so it cost my less than 1/2 the price of the Sony. I have already had the sit-down talk with all my other cameras (6DII, 90D, Elan 7s), they know the R10 is an addition to the family, not any kind of replacement. Oh, and the feature I like the worst is the EVF; it truly sucks for anything that is moving. "Smooth" doesn't help.
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
Those are two fine choices, I agree. In fact, Canon's non-L RF primes are more useful on APS-C than any of the EF equivalents were, due to their faster maximum apertures and good sharpness wide open.
That said, The 35 on a Canon is actually a 56mm-equivalent, since Canon's 1.6x APS-C != everyone else's APS-C.
But I am still partial to the EF-S 24mm pancake. Lovely rendering and sharpness wide open, and even with the adapter, still light and small. (In fact, the adapter makes it a bit easier to handle, IMO.)
24mm on Canon APS-C is a 38mm equivalent, which is perfect for environmental portraits and general photography. I generally pair this lens with a 10-18mm and a 50 1.8 STM.
I really want the R10
Just biding my time so to speak
I already own the lenses I intend to pair with it
RF16/2.8
RF50/1.8
RF85/2
Fully intend to add the RF28/2.8
Those 4 lenses will then give me the FF equivalent of 25, 45, 80, 135. Sounds perfect!!
I have absolutely no desire to buy any other lenses.
Like the poster above who mentioned the SL1 small form factor…totally agree.
I love small items be it cars or cameras - I really detest oversized statements. Each to their own.
TomSchriefer wrote:
I've had my R10/18-45mm for about 3 weeks now. Short story: I like it. The feature I like the best is its diminutive size and weight. I bought an EL-100 to go with it; it is an amazingly versatile and powerful (enough) flash for $150. The flash really completes the setup. I do intend to keep the R10, though I'll probably never mount another lens to it. Which makes the $200 control ring adapter mostly a waste of my money. I've have repeatedly considered the Sony RX10 IV as a 'travel' camera, but it is just too expensive. The RX10/18-45 was a Refurb on Black Friday, so it cost my less than 1/2 the price of the Sony. I have already had the sit-down talk with all my other cameras (6DII, 90D, Elan 7s), they know the R10 is an addition to the family, not any kind of replacement. Oh, and the feature I like the worst is the EVF; it truly sucks for anything that is moving. "Smooth" doesn't help....Show more →
And….
That last paragraph completely rules out the R10 for me, the only reason for me to buy the R10 is for the mirrorless advantage of using EVF, if it sucks then there’s no reason whatsoever to purchase it.
I still have my M bodies M50, M5, M6 etc etc their EVF’s are adequate at best
Pixelpuffin wrote:
And….
That last paragraph completely rules out the R10 for me, the only reason for me to buy the R10 is for the mirrorless advantage of using EVF, if it sucks then there’s no reason whatsoever to purchase it.
I still have my M bodies M50, M5, M6 etc etc their EVF’s are adequate at best
Please keep in mind that my comment was aimed not at the R10, specifically, but EVFs in general. I looked at the R50, R10, R7, and R6 at best buy. They all suck (if targeting moving subjects). And "smooth" doesn't help... enough. I can't stand the way a perfectly nice looking image (in EVF) goes immediately to a grainy, blurry mess if/when I try to follow a moving subject. It is a near-instant headache. Also keep in mind that I am a dyed-in-the-wool film shooter. I am used to a crystal-clear glass VF that stays crystal clear no matter how I move the camera. For my money, the new(er) Canon EVFs are no better than the Panasonic FZ-8 I had 15 years ago. They are OK for shooting static stuff, and fail miserably for tracking anything. If you can use the M-series cameras, I am sure you can use any RF camera. I am glad I bought new 90D and 6DII recently.
Pixelpuffin wrote:
I'm equally glad I didn't sell my 80D and 6Dii (never got round to buying the 90D), but picked up the M6ii so halfway there!!
If I had to sell one of my cameras, it would be the R10. I just prefer SLRs (35mm and digital). I am keeping the R10 mostly because it is so small and light. Well, that and the IQ is way better than any of the P&S cameras I've tried. My R10 is well worth what I paid for it.
I did sell my 90D and 6D MK II last year and don't miss them much. Well, I prefer the optical viewfinder in bright and contrasty light—the EVF blocks up shadows—but for most things I prefer the EVF. I pan running and flying critters regularly and the EVF of my R6 MK II keeps up fine and is not grainy or blurry. I disabled image review to reduce lag. Plus I get a lot more in focus keepers than I ever got with my 90D or 6D2. Of course I'm shooting in the blazing Hawaiian sun when said critters are out and about. I've only seen a grainy (noisy) and laggy EVF in really low light—too dim to actually shoot action unless flash is used. In fairness, an optical VF is almost blacked out in the same light albeit no lag or grain.
