For me, it fills the niche for those wanting the advanced AF system of the R7, and a reasonably high FPS for bird and wildlife photography, but looking for a small and light kit. Pre-ordered this am and will pair it with my RF 100-400 for a small and light combo that saves me $500 compared to the R7. R7 is definitely tempting though and may ultimately be the better deal, but will try the R10 first and see if it meets my needs. Don't need IBIS with this lens, 2 card slots would be nice, but not worth the additional money.I think the R7 sounds like a nice camera and reasonable merger of the 7DII and 90D. Given the price, the compromises of the R7 seem quite acceptable.
To add a little perspective, you can get an R7 and an R5 for less than the price of an R3. If you are not a sports shooter the combination may be a better value.
Personally, the lack of a battery grip is no big deal to me. I have a grip for the R5 and never use it and I find the R3 to be a bit of a brick with its integrated grip (I realize others have different opinions, but that's mine).
I am perplexed by the R10. I'm not sure what niche it fills, other than to upsell buyers to the R7, RP or R. It seems too expensive for what it is and too stripped down for its price point.
Basically, it means more pixels on duck. Cropping the R5's 45mp to APS-C size gives ~17mp. To have an equivalent full frame sensor would mean >80mp which would be difficult to have a high fps to suit sports shooters (R1 may prove me wrong!)Genuinely curious, what do you mean about buying it for pixel density? I truly can't imagine that as part of a buying decision.
It cuts the extra SD card and IBIS at a price that affords an extra lens. It also doesn't have full sensor 4k 60 but reviews show the feature is pixel binned on the R7 and it's sharper to use crop mode anyway, which the R10 is better for.I am perplexed by the R10. I'm not sure what niche it fills, other than to upsell buyers to the R7, RP or R. It seems too expensive for what it is and too stripped down for its price point.
I hope there will be a way, even though early reviews imply otherwise.I’d bet Canon will release a battery grip for both the R7 and the R10, in the same way that the grip for the R5 fits the R6. I’ll be honest though, the moment after I placed my order I was Googling “Canon R7 battery grip”
That’s a fair point of a technical nature. The bigger picture is that the sensor in the R7 is neither BSI nor stacked. therefore, rolling shutter as illustrated in the image I posted will still be a problem with the R7. Whether it affects your images will depend on what you shoot. Most sports have a ball that is round. With birds, it would likely be unnoticeable. Then again, 15 FPS is not slouching.Stop being sarcastic and learn to have a decent conversation!
That's the advantage of the stacked sensor and not BSI. Two totally different things. Yes, most stacked sensors are also BSI but BSI alone has barely any advantage in image quality department. The fast readout is made possible by the memory embedded in the sensor.
Same here. I’m also wondering how often I hit the stupid on off switch that is in place of the aperture dial on my r5. I was hoping to be able to seamlessly switch between the r5 and r7 like you can with the r5/6. I figured the r7 was going to take the same vertical grip and everything. It seems very strange to me that canon decided to change the ergonomics on this camera in order to save a couple of grams and mm. Especially when this camera is just begging to be paired with a large telephoto lensDisappointed.
Was hoping for a pro-level wildlife/sports body based on the R6, but it seems that Canon have elected to make it a prosumer 90D replacement.
The swipe bar on the original R was considered awkward and too easy to operate accidentally, and I have a horrible feeling that Canon have fallen into the same "experimental" trap again by putting a huge control ring around the AF joystick on the R7.
The low resolution EVF and rear screen are also mistakes IMO.