Here are a few Canon EOS R10 specifications [CR3]

[unfocused]

Canon Rumors OP. I was just trying to point out that there are inconsistencies in the post and things should be taken with a grain of salt in spite of the [CR3] rating...

Okay. Well, it may be confusing because when Canon Rumors calls an image a "mockup" what they really mean is that it is a fictional illustration based on nothing. They just grab an image off the internet and maybe do a quick Photoshop job on a few details. It isn't a mockup in any real sense of the word and is a bit misleading.

 

[lustyd]

"No benefit to a viewfinder": I hope you are kidding.
Ever tried to use a 600mm or a macro without tripod only using the screen to focus and frame?

I said no inherent benefit, not no benefit. Just because you learned to do it that way doesn't make it correct or the only way. Have you dried using a screen to focus and frame for more than a few minutes? You write as though your first effort with a viewfinder was a masterpiece and took no practice.

 

[lustyd]

Interesting. But do you walk around without its EVF, shooting in live view?

Yes, I don't use the EVF at all, it's pointless for video and doesn't add much for the occasional photo.

 

[Del Paso]

I said no inherent benefit, not no benefit. Just because you learned to do it that way doesn't make it correct or the only way. Have you dried using a screen to focus and frame for more than a few minutes? You write as though your first effort with a viewfinder was a masterpiece and took no practice.

Not convinced at all...
Nobody said the VF was the only way, but, unlike the rear screen, it can be used without any problems with long teles, for instance.
Good luck trying to focus a hand-held 600mm using the screen.
PS: I too am sometimes using the rear screen. Only your post gave the impression it was about wonderful new world vs. obsolete past.

 

[lustyd]

Practice more, you'll get there.

 

[SnowMiku]

I just hope we don’t see the outrageous trait of EF-S mount lenses not being comparable with full-frame RF.

I think using an RF-S lens will just make the full frame R bodies crop the sensor automatically. Just like when you use an EF-S lens with the adapter. Unless if Canon decides to change their mind and only wants full frame lenses on full frame bodies making people buy the more expensive RF full frame wide angle.

 

[SnowMiku]

The R10 will be an interesting option for the RF 600mm (equivalent 960mm) and RF 800mm F11 (equivalent 1280mm) for those who would just end up cropping a lot if they had a full frame. The rumored 15 FPS and 24MP is definitely up to the job for birding with these lenses.

 

[AlanF]

The R10 will be an interesting option for the RF 600mm (equivalent 960mm) and RF 800mm F11 (equivalent 1280mm) for those who would just end up cropping a lot if they had a full frame. The rumored 15 FPS and 24MP is definitely up to the job for birding with these lenses.

Putting them on an APS-C crop narrows the field of view by a factor of 1.6, but it doesn’t increase the reach 1.6x. The maximum extra resolution you could get on a 24 Mpx sensor vs a FF 45 Mpx is 1.17x, and that’s with a very wide aperture lens at very low iso. With a narrow f/11 lens at higher isos there would be very little extra resolution or reach because of diffraction and noise. What the R10 would give you would be a much cheaper way of getting similar resolution to an R5.

 

[SnowMiku]

What the R10 would give you would be a much cheaper way of getting similar resolution to an R5.

Exactly, the R10 will be a lot more affordable and will pair well with the 600mm and 800mm F11.

 

[gruhl28]

Continue reading...

So, 25% fewer megapixels than the M6 Mk ii? I don't get it.

I guess most people don't need more than 24, but most people don't need 15-23fps either. With this and the R7, and the R6 and R5, we're getting very high fps with either lower or higher resolution, but I'd rather have higher resolution without having to pay for crazy-high fps. It seems Canon are focused more towards sports and journalism. I guess that's where the money is on the professional side, but for this amateur I would rather have the higher resolution at a lower price (especially in FF, could crop to APS-C for distant wildlife and still have good resolution) than have 15+ fps.

 

[Czardoom]

So, 25% fewer megapixels than the M6 Mk ii? I don't get it.

I guess most people don't need more than 24, but most people don't need 15-23fps either. With this and the R7, and the R6 and R5, we're getting very high fps with either lower or higher resolution, but I'd rather have higher resolution without having to pay for crazy-high fps. It seems Canon are focused more towards sports and journalism. I guess that's where the money is on the professional side, but for this amateur I would rather have the higher resolution at a lower price (especially in FF, could crop to APS-C for distant wildlife and still have good resolution) than have 15+ fps.

Just a guess, but perhaps Canon's thinking is that that people buying the R7 will also be buying higher end lenses that will better take advantage of the 32 MP sensor. There are some websites out there that have kept track of which lenses do not really have the optics to take advantage of the 32 MP sensor that Canon put in the 90D and the 6D II. So 24 MP may be just as good as 32 MP for many folks with consumer grade lenses. So, I'd be perfectly happy with 24 MP for a crop camera. I think 32 MP would give little or no ACTUAL benefit in resolution, but would would create bigger files, slower processing, less files in the buffer. I know spec lovers and internet influencers will howl, but they don't really bother to look at photos and see what happens in real world results.

 

[AlanF]

Just a guess, but perhaps Canon's thinking is that that people buying the R7 will also be buying higher end lenses that will better take advantage of the 32 MP sensor. There are some websites out there that have kept track of which lenses do not really have the optics to take advantage of the 32 MP sensor that Canon put in the 90D and the 6D II. So 24 MP may be just as good as 32 MP for many folks with consumer grade lenses. So, I'd be perfectly happy with 24 MP for a crop camera. I think 32 MP would give little or no ACTUAL benefit in resolution, but would would create bigger files, slower processing, less files in the buffer. I know spec lovers and internet influencers will howl, but they don't really bother to look at photos and see what happens in real world results.

True. From experience, I had to use f/4 lenses or wider and very low isos to get more resolution than from a good 20 Mpx sensor.

 

[takesome1]

"No benefit to a viewfinder": I hope you are kidding.
Ever tried to use a 600mm or a macro without tripod only using the screen to focus and frame?

Yes, all the time. It is the best way to do macro. Every try focusing through the viewfinder when it your subject is sitting on the ground and you want a side or front view? Shooting slow moving wildlife it is a great way to shoot using the back screen, of course I seldom shoot hand held and almost always use a monopod.

 

[Del Paso]

Yes, all the time. It is the best way to do macro. Every try focusing through the viewfinder when it your subject is sitting on the ground and you want a side or front view? Shooting slow moving wildlife it is a great way to shoot using the back screen, of course I seldom shoot hand held and almost always use a monopod.

Understand it may be your best way to do macro , but it depends on the motives, magnification and also on one's preferences.
I just dislike peeking through a tiny screen, even more with the sun behind me. I far prefer the VF's magnified image, sometimes even with an angle-finder.
But: on a tripod or a monopod, the situation changes! Besides, I almost never use tripods or monopods and you do !
I once was asked by a friend of mine to take pictures of his huge watch collection: tripod and rear screen focusing, of course...

 

[stevelee]

One reason that I haven't got a 5D IV when the price was down or when recently I could get a $1999 refurb Is that I would still use the 6D2 when I'd want to use the tilty flippy screen. And while $2,000 is a bargain for that camera, that would be $2,000 I could apply toward the Fujifilm 100S I keep talking myself out of buying. And I have lost one of my excuses now that B&H have the camera in stock, so a more convenient impulse purchase. It helps that I can't decide what lenses I would get with it. And obviously the 5D IV could use the panoply of fine lenses I already have. But I mention this mainly to show how my using live view for certain things colors my actions and purchases.

 

[neuroanatomist]

I just dislike peeking through a tiny screen, even more with the sun behind me. I far prefer the VF's magnified image, sometimes even with an angle-finder.

Have you tried? Not as a one off, I mean. I shot film SLRs for years, then DSLRs. I’d used little PowerShots with only a rear LCD, but I thought I’d really miss the VF on an ILC. After buying the original M (at the fire sale price), it turned out I didn’t.

I’d miss it on a larger rig, yes. But I don’t adapt lenses for general use on an M body, and the M lenses are small and light.

 

[Del Paso]

Have you tried? Not as a one off, I mean. I shot film SLRs for years, then DSLRs. I’d used little PowerShots with only a rear LCD, but I thought I’d really miss the VF on an ILC. After buying the original M (at the fire sale price), it turned out I didn’t.

I’d miss it on a larger rig, yes. But I don’t adapt lenses for general use on an M body, and the M lenses are small and light.

I did!
I use the rear screen almost exclusively on my Oly Mft, even though I bought for it an accessory EVF.
If I ever buy an APS/C, provided it's a small as the, I'll certainly use the rear LCD too.
PS: I'm farsighted and hate wearing glasses...

 

[AlanF]

I said no inherent benefit, not no benefit. Just because you learned to do it that way doesn't make it correct or the only way. Have you dried using a screen to focus and frame for more than a few minutes? You write as though your first effort with a viewfinder was a masterpiece and took no practice.

There is an inherent benefit of an evf/ovf when the camera plus lens has to be braced against your cheek for stability or for rapid tracking. Other situations have their own requirements.

 

[sanj]

Were the pictures any good? There's no inherent benefit to a viewfinder, it's just there because that's how many people learned to take pictures. The stability of holding it close can still be achieved with a screen, although I imagine a good number of these cameras will never take any photos anyway, video will be the primary use-case where an EVF is not only a waste of space but takes up valuable real estate which could have been used for a mic or speaker. I also have no use for a flash on mine and would love to see a model where that is replaced with a bright LED array.

I am sure the pictures were 100% fine.

 

[jam05]

Newsflash. The Canon 24mp R10 will not replace the 32mp M6 mk 2