Eos R7 or R10?
Day,
I wanted to ask your opinion on which camera would be the better choice for me. I currently own the 2000D and plan to switch to a new camera soon. Since I mainly photograph wildlife (but also landscapes), the 3 fps limits me a bit. Let's not even get started on the 2000D's autofocus.
The question now is whether the €400-500 premium for the R7 is worth it. I've owned both, and the R7 felt much better and more valuable. The larger viewfinder also suited me better. I'm not sure yet whether the IBIS is really worth it for me. I often shoot with a tripod and fast shutter speeds, but I don't always have a tripod with me. And since I only work with the camera outdoors (in the forest, mountains), the weatherproof housing and the sensor cover for lens changes would be useful. Besides, the battery is also larger…
My budget isn't going to be an issue. I had this in mind: I'd get either the R7 or the R10 and save the rest for a lens.
Thanks
(1 votes)
Loading...
That’s kind of latte. What’s important is something coming out. If you often have the camera on tripod, it’s logically no matter how it feels. I think that you can get used to much if you are a little adaptable.
With long focal lengths it is not so effective. It’s better in the lens. A good lens is so well stabilized that you can’t realize the times at all in the wildlife because of motion blur. Then why another one?
Everything nice to have, but not absolutely necessary. Weather protection is easy to retrofit, you usually do not need and replacement battery is also not a topic.
But if you have the money and it doesn’t matter, you just get the “better” camera.
You have to decide.
As I see, you’ve been researching what’s the difference between the two cameras. Whether it’s worth the extra charge is your decision.
For a normal occasional photographer, the R10 is sufficient. The R7 is virtually the Luxu variant, which still offers many features that are all very comfortable but not a must-have. The R10 is more portable and weighs less.
R10 sample photo:
day,
has been a little longer, but thank you for your answer.
Recently, I’ve always been more concerned with the question of whether it might be better to switch to VF.
I know for telephotos is an Aps-c camera because of the extra. focal length safely in the advantage. (For my 70-300, hold 112-480) However, a full format camera would be of advantage for landscapes or also Milky Way recordings. Also from the lens selection. (Z.B Rf 16mm 2.8… Had the same focal length as with my 10-18mm but aperture 2.8 instead of 4.5. Image quality is also better at fixed focal lengths.) Canon’s aps-c cameras have always been a bit scary about lenses.
From the image quality and isolating: Do you notice a distinct difference from Aps-c to VF?
You get an eos R already quite cheap. For the more expensive R6, I would have to go deeper into my pocket. However, would be needed in the area of R7 (more expensive). I’m not sure about the eos R. It’s a bit older and the first camera in the R series. 8 B/s should also be sufficient for wild photography. However, it is necessary to dispense with features such as Animal eye AF. Also the processor is probably not at the level of an R7. I think the sensor is installed from the 5d m4. So probably a top image quality.
Overall, however, I am not sure. I get the R10 with ef-r adapter + Cashback already at 840€. Is it smarter to put the money in L-objectives, because they’re keeping so long, rather than in a more expensive camera?
Lg
You can look at the difference here.
Studio shot comparison: Digital Photography Review (dpreview.com)
If you look at it in 100% view, it is already a difference. You have a finer noise. However, it does not fall in weight in an insane manner on the Internet image/instagram size. More important is the difference in Bokeh, a 50mm 1.8 already provides beautiful blurs.
For wildlife photography, the R in my opinion is only Note 3, at least for things that move towards you. Since the R10/R7 is significantly better, they can also reliably track a dog that stands for you.
Jopp in the R is a Digic 8 and in the R10/R7 the succession generation Digic X, which is also installed in the 1DX III.
Correct, the image quality is on the same level.
Even only 800€:
Canon EOS R10 Housing + EF-EOS R Adapter – Foto Erhardt (foto-erhardt.de)
Thank you.
An R8 would be enough. Or hold used R6.
So if I also want a reliable VF camera for wildlife photography, would I have to invest in an R6?
if you are in the first line about a high serial number, you should access the now cheaper dslr of the 1digit row, even the 90D creates up to 11 images/sec
then rather invest in the L 2.8 70-200, if necessary with IS. for the R-series you need new objective ones and they are still really sauteuer
Hey,
I already have a tele (70-300mm IS II USM) and am happy with it. Of course, it does not come to the quality of an L-series lens, but for my purposes it is sufficient.
With the Canon lens adapter, all EF(s) lenses should work easily on R cameras. So I wouldn’t have to buy an R-Series lens.
Because of a used DSLR, I’ve been thinking more often. But the new cameras have interesting features such as eye autofocus, focus stacking… However, I would not like a DSLR of the 1-digit row less than an R7/R10.
The standard image speed was directed only against the 2000D. Do not need 30 B/s. But more than the 2000D would be helpful. Think 10B/S is a good medium.