[Klaus]

Surely good cameras but with just 2 native lenses you have to be a little desperate.

https://www.canon.co.uk/cameras/eos-r7/
https://www.canon.co.uk/cameras/eos-r10/

https://www.canon.co.uk/lenses/rf-s-18-4...-3-is-stm/



https://www.canon.co.uk/lenses/rf-s-18-1...-3-is-stm/

[Rover]

That all does look a little underwhelming tp me, to be honest. Although at least the lens lineup is hopefully bound to expand, with at least a wide zoom and a better standard one (come on, 18-45/4.5-6.3? Wat?)

P.S. at least is the mount to be confirmed as "bog standard" RF? No alterations like EF-S had?

[toni-a]

P.S. at least is the mount to be confirmed as "bog standard" RF? No alterations like EF-S had?

they don't have to, they can simply do it digitally, EFS lenses adapted  on EOSRP are automatically set to crop mode that you cannot change .
for the lenses side they are giving you a free adapter with the cameras meanwhile

as for 18-45 and R10 a sample image taken at ISO12000 with the lens wide open isn't really bad 

https://i1.adis.ws/i/canon/pg_eos_eos-r1...ry-desktop$

[davidmanze]

That all does look a little underwhelming tp me, to be honest. Although at least the lens lineup is hopefully bound to expand, with at least a wide zoom and a better standard one (come on, 18-45/4.5-6.3? What?)

P.S. at least is the mount to be confirmed as "bog standard" RF? No alterations like EF-S had?

I had a little twinge of hope after seeing the preliminary specs, that this might be the APS-c sports camera that many are waiting for ........... all was good untill ......

  ...... I read here the EVF is 2.36 million dots ..... derr !!

[Rover]

Well that EF-S baffle was not a deal breaker - for instance, I kept detaching it from the 18-135 STM owned by my wife (much to her dismay) to use it as a 135mm prime - but it's good that Canon is renouncing at least some of their hacky, quirky ways of doing things... Differently compared to anyone else.

If only they could get rid of that 1.6x crop and just be like everyone else in this regard too.

[Klaus]

Using an adapter on FF mirrorless cameras is silly enough but on APS-C cameras it's just weird.
They are even more aligned to providing a small package.

[Rover]

Why not? If I ever go mirrorless I expect to just keep using my Canon EF mount lenses for quite a while. And while I've been (an almost constant) APS-C user for the last 15 years (having no Canon APS-C camera in da house only from late 2009 to 2014, and for most of the time, there was a Sony NEX unit around), I've mostly used FF lenses anyway.

[[email protected]]

Any chance of adding R5 @ 1.6 crop to lens review (particularly 70-200) to compare with R7 once available?

[Klaus]

Well, an APS-C cropped image from the R5 has just 20mp so there's quite a difference vs the pixel density of the R7.

I suppose that I will get the R7 eventually - but this requires more than just 2 native APS-C lenses. It's a pity that Canon refuses to open up the system.

[Arthur Macmillan]

"I had a little twinge of hope after seeing the preliminary specs, that this might be the APS-c sports camera that many are waiting for ........... all was good untill ......

...... I read here the EVF is 2.36 million dots ..... derr !! " - Dave M.


Yes, this was what I was afraid of. Canon insists on making APS-C users feel like second class citizens. Well, eventually they saw the light and beefed up the viewfinders of the 7D / 7D II, but never seemed very committed to keeping them current, or making exceptional lenses for them.

I guess we can only wait and see. I'd still like to see how my RF 100-500 would perform on the R7, but I can wait until the owners of both weigh in on them!

-Mac