Canon EOS R7 and R10 User review and commentary 10 December 2022

 

Grey mangrove

The Canon EOS R7 and R10 were announced together in May 2022 together with two RF-S lenses designed for RF mount APSC crop cameras. These are the RF-S 18-45mm and RF-S 18-150mm. The latter is optically the same as the EF-M mount 18-150mm but the 18-45mm is entirely new.

The two new cameras were greeted with considerable interest from reviewers and consumers alike. There had been much speculation about Canon’s intentions for their poorly supported mirrorless  EF-M system and  for  EF-S crop sensor DSLR bodies and lenses.

With the introduction of RF-S bodies and lenses it appears that Canon is signalling without actually announcing that the end is nigh for EF-M and EF-S bodies and lenses.

Inclusion of APSC crop sensor bodies and lenses into the RF mount catalogue will be good news for the many Canon users who prefer APSC cameras. It appears they now can reasonably expect an ongoing commitment by Canon to the APSC format within the RF mount ecosystem.

Even so, a clearly expressed announcement from Canon would be welcome.

I will discuss the R7 and R10 together as they have much in common including both desirable and not-so-desirable characteristics.

Specifications and features

Both these cameras are sophisticated modern mirrorless interchangeable lens models with advanced capabilities.

Their specifications include the high end Canon DIGIC X processor, very advanced autofocus and fast frame rates.

The shutter can operate in three modes: full manual (M-shutter), electronic first curtain (EFCS) and fully electronic (E-shutter).

The R7 can capture still photos at up to 30 frames per second with autofocus, tracking and autoexposure on each frame. The R10 runs a bit slower at 23 frames per second.

Both models use the latest version of Canon’s excellent dual pixel AF with subject detection, eye detection and tracking with all AF area modes.

Both offer many interesting and useful capabilities including auto-panorama with merged composite JPG generated  in camera, focus bracketing with merged composite JPG output generated in camera and raw burst mode with raw pre-burst mode. Few cameras from any maker offer these capabilities,  even more expensive models from Canon.

Image quality

Each camera utilises an existing sensor. The 32Mpx chip in the R7 has been seen previously in the EOS M6.2 and EOS 90D. Canon says the sensor is “new” however independent tests of noise and dynamic range suggest the newness might be found only in microlenses and the processor.

The R10 uses the well known Canon 24mm APSC sensor seen previously in the EOS M50 and numerous entry level and mid range DSLRs.

Although not exactly class leading both these sensors are very capable, producing very good image quality in most photographic situations.

Handling and ergonomics

These are proper cameras with a good quality integrated EVF in the optimum location over the lens axis, a comfortable handle which also serves to house essential controls which are mostly well  designed and positioned and a fully articulated rear touch screen of good quality.

Both cameras are comfortable to hold and operate although I take issue with one feature on the R7, see below.

Neither camera scores as highly on my standard ergonomic evaluation as the R5 but you would hardly expect them to.

Price point

Compared to entry level RF mount full frame models or similarly priced APSC DSLRs The R7 and R10 offer very good value for money, outperforming some more expensive models in several ways.

Lenses

Most reviewers have complained about a perceived lack of lens support for the nascent RF mount APSC sub-system. Indeed there are as yet only two bespoke APSC RF mount lenses, the 18-45mm and the 18-150mm.

However several RF mount full frame lenses are small, light and inexpensive enough to be viable on any of the APSC bodies. These include the 16mm f2.8 (equivalent focal length 25.6mm), 24mm f1.8 (38.4mm), 35mm f1.8 (56mm ), 50mm f1.8 (80mm), 15-30mm f4.5-6.3 (24-48mm) and 100-400mm f5.6-8 (160-640mm). There are rumors that the very good EF-M 23mm f2 will be released in RF-S form and I hope that Canon does the same with the well regarded EF-M 11-22mm ultrawide.

The burden of expectations

Numerous bird and wildlife photographers mounted their new R7 to an RF 100-500mm L lens  and went forth into nature. What they were hoping for was basically a high quality alternative to either cropping a full frame image or using a 1.4x extender to increase the effective reach of the lens. Expectations were high with several camera vendors and promoters saying the R7 has the “same” autofocus system as the EOS R3.

Some reviewers were happy with the way this turned out, others were not.

I suspect that in due course users will come to appreciate that expecting a $2000 camera to have the same AF capability as an $8000 one is a bit unrealistic and will come to appreciate the R7 for what it can do rather than what it struggles with.

Problems and frustrations

Canon has shown a willingness, or perhaps one might think over-enthusiasm, for experimenting with control systems at the human-machine interface. The original EOS R gave birth to the silly and useless C-Fn bar, thankfully not seen again. The RP is better but the AF-On button is in the wrong place so it frequently gets bumped inadvertently but is awkward to press when desired. The R5 and R6 have gotten  the ergonomic formula just right. The size and shape of the body, the handle, buttons and dials and customisation options are all as good as I have ever encountered in a camera. I wish Canon had simply used the R6 body and controls for the R7.

But no, they had to mess with the formula again. The R7 is narrower than the R6 for no apparent reason and the on/off switch is now on the right side presumably in response to some user feedback, displacing the top/rear control dial which on the R7 has been re-located concentrically with the thumb stick. I think I see what they were trying to do but the result is a schlimmbesserung.  (one of my favourite German language words:  look it up)

When I use the R7 there are four ergonomic issues which bug me.

The first is that my brain and finger memory want to find the top/rear control dial where it is on the R5/6. This is not mere habit. That is where my thumb wants to go and when it gets there it wants to turn the dial left<>right not up/down.

The second is that the dial is co-located with the thumb stick. Co-located dials and other controls are an ergonomic curse. Whether I am working the thumb stick or the dial I have to make a conscious effort to avoid bumping the other control module and to do this have to hold my right thumb in a position which does not feel natural.

Third, the Mode dial is a bit awkward to turn because the housing for the rear control dial projects forward into the space where my thumb wants to be when turning the Mode dial.

Fourth, when I am using the camera I like to switch it off when it is not in use. I have lost count of the number of times I inadvertently activated Video thinking that I was switching off. I notice the R6.2 has dealt with this issue by locating a separate Stills/Video switch on the left side of the EVF housing.

The R10 utilises a less adventurous control layout and in my assessment after using both cameras for several months a more user friendly ergonomic experience.  The On/Off switch to the right side of the top/rear control dial works just fine and the thumb stick does not have to compete with any other control module for space.

The next set of problems which affect both cameras involve shutter functions.

Both the R7 and R10 have undamped mechanical shutters. Consider the R5 shutter. It makes a soft shuffle sound. The reason for the quiet sound is that as the first and second curtains approach the end of their travel  a mechanism slows them down gradually so they arrive at the end of their travel with a whisper not a bang. Now fire the shutter of an R7 or R10. You can hear the difference and feel it in your hands. The R7 and R10 shutters produce a tangible shock which passes through the camera body and lens. And that shock can sometimes be a problem.

In single shot mode we can use EFCS and eliminate any possibility of shutter shock.

But when we use one of the high speed drive modes which are a key selling feature of these cameras shutter shock can cause degradation of image quality at slow shutter speeds with some lenses.

We can avoid  this by switching to E-shutter but now we have the problem of the so-called rolling shutter phenomenon which can produce distortion in fast moving parts of the subject such as the wings of little birds. This issue is even more apparent on the R10 than the R7 due to the slower sensor scan time on the R10.

There are ways of navigating around these issues but they involve the user always being aware of shutter speed, frame rate and lens type and switching from EFCS to E-shutter and back again as required. This can be done but I certainly prefer and I suspect most camera users will prefer to have a camera which can be used all the time in just one shutter mode.  For instance most users report they can leave the R3 in E-shutter all the time. I leave the R5 in EFCS all the time with no sign of shutter shock. Others use E-shutter all or most of the time on the R5 with few reports of images being rendered unacceptable by rolling shutter.

If Canon had fitted the R7 with a damped shutter like that in the R5 it would have been more expensive, sure, but it could have delivered a much more straightforward user experience.

Summary

I think the R7 and R10 will sell like hotcakes due to pent-up demand from Canon crop sensor users for  APSC cameras and lenses within the RF mount system. They are in many respects very good cameras but they have some built-in problems related to the mechanical shutter and the sensor read-out speed. These things cannot be fixed with a firmware update.

For this reason my preference in the same price point range is for one of the full frame RF mount models. At present these are the RP and R which after a series of firmware updates are actually better cameras than their earlier reviews might lead you to believe.