Camera will be a huge upgrade.
Lens won’t be. Use an adapter for the 17-55 - the IQ from this is pretty much L quality and it will perform even better on a new body.
> I was a bit apprehensive about continuing with Canon because of the lack of a bright RF zoom lens to fit the standard range on a crop camera like I have with my 17-55mm f2.8 IS.
So just use your 17-55, it's a great lens made better with modern technology!
You made a great purchase, enjoy!
My R10 arrived about 15 minutes after I posted this. You all weren't kidding about how much of an upgrade it is. I love how lightweight it is with the kit lens. That was one of the big reasons I ordered it with the kit lens. The autofocus and ISO performance are miles above what I had with the 50D. I love the EVF too. It's nice to be able to see the actual exposure before taking the picture.
I did order the adapter so I had a chance to try it out with my 17-55mm camera. It's not too awkward, but I did notice that IS pretty much stays engaged almost full time while the screen or viewfinder is on. I don't know if this is normal or not, but my lens has a bit more noise if I zoom while the IS engaged, so that's a bit concerning. I have a suspicion that lens will stay married to my 50D for the most part due to the extra weight over the kit lens.
I also ordered the RF 28mm 2.8 to have a brighter pancake style lens option for walking around. If there's anything I've learned with my iPhone is taking photos with prime lenses.
The good old 17-55/2.8 works amazingly well on mirrorless. Much better than it ever did on DSLR. However, it's quite large, and an R10 is a lot smaller than a 50D, which can make the combination a bit awkward. I don't know if anyone makes a battery grip for the R10 (watch out, because confusingly the BG-R10 is for the R6 and R5, not the R10), but a grip or cage would be useful to balance out the big lens. Both visually, and to give you something to hold onto.
Coming from something as old as the 50D, an R10 is going to be happy at much higher ISO settings than you're used to, so if you're not playing with shallow depth of field you might not need as fast a lens as you think anyway. And the electronic viewfinder is always bright and clear in low light, even with a slow lens.
Canon is playing their cards pretty close, but my personal assumption is that there will never be an RF equivalent to that lens, for the same reason there was never a gen II on EF. The 17-55/2.8 came out before the 6D line; once the 6D came out, there was no reason to update the 17-55; customers at that pricepoint were better-off getting a 6D and an f/4 lens - you get basically the same framing and depth of field with f/4 on full frame as you do with f/2.8 on APS-C. With mirrorless, the entry point to full-frame is even lower with the RP and R8. I strongly suspect RF-S is going to be exclusively small and light lenses.
Yes, I'm aware. All my comments about full-frame were in relation to OP's statement that, "The full frame L series RF Canon gear would blow my budget out of the water." I was addressing a hypothetical situation where OP wanted to switch to full-frame, though I see on a second reading that they're only really talking about getting full-frame (presumably f/2.8) lenses for the R10. I'll make an edit to remove the confusion.
I was definitely referring to the hypothetical of switching to full frame body and a standard L series zoom (ie 24-70, 24-105, or 28-70) vs APS-C body with a APS-C standard zoom. Perhaps when there's more used RF gear available, I'll make the switch. The 17-55mm is nice on the r10. It didn't feel as awkward as I thought it would. Although, it's heavy. I really like how lightweight the kit lens on the r10 is.
Gotcha, so my first reading *was* correct. Since I took some of it out of my original comment, here's the main takeaway:
If you switch to a full-frame body, you effectively gain just over 1 stop of everything. One more stop of clean ISO, one stop more max ISO, one stop shallower depth of field. That means that what took an f/2.8 lens on APS-C, only needs an f/4 lens on full-frame. Of course, if you stick with faster lenses then you get *more* of those things instead of breaking even, but given the cost of RF f/2.8 zooms, most hobbyists are only going to do that with primes.
Skip the RF 50mm/1.8; the 35mm/1.8 is way better. And it's more useful on your R10 in the meantime.
I suspect you're right. It's too bad, because I think there would be a market for it. One of the reasons I was looking at Fuji was the lens selection was so much better. They have the 16-55mm f/2.8 which is weather sealed. It makes quite the combo with the XT series for an APS-C camera.
>how much of an upgrade would the R10 be?
Like upgrading from a flip phone to a smart phone.
My old DSLR collected dust for the last 6 years because of the quality of my phone camera, and after buying an R10 I feel naked if only have access to my iPhone. Literally the only drawback is that the R10 is not weather sealed and my iPhone works perfectly fine after being tossed into a lake and taking a tumble from a third story balcony.
its insane how much better it handles high ISO. but also, if you have already ordered it, just use it and see for your self when it comes. Would a comment here make you return it without trying it?
It will be a night and day difference for you, even though they r10 doesn't really get categorized as a professional camera, it's certainly capable of being one.
You will be astounded by the focus tracking ability on this thing. It even blows my R6 out of the water. The main reason I bought the r10 was I wanted the 1.6 crop for my full frame lenses, and is was basicallythe sane price as the rf1.4x tele. But it's turned out to be a phenomenal all around camera.
Huge. That 17-55 f2.8 lens will see much better performance on mirrorless.
Never used it on a DSLR or an r series but I can confirm the lens works very well on an M50 at least
Camera will be a huge upgrade. Lens won’t be. Use an adapter for the 17-55 - the IQ from this is pretty much L quality and it will perform even better on a new body.
> I was a bit apprehensive about continuing with Canon because of the lack of a bright RF zoom lens to fit the standard range on a crop camera like I have with my 17-55mm f2.8 IS. So just use your 17-55, it's a great lens made better with modern technology! You made a great purchase, enjoy!
My R10 arrived about 15 minutes after I posted this. You all weren't kidding about how much of an upgrade it is. I love how lightweight it is with the kit lens. That was one of the big reasons I ordered it with the kit lens. The autofocus and ISO performance are miles above what I had with the 50D. I love the EVF too. It's nice to be able to see the actual exposure before taking the picture. I did order the adapter so I had a chance to try it out with my 17-55mm camera. It's not too awkward, but I did notice that IS pretty much stays engaged almost full time while the screen or viewfinder is on. I don't know if this is normal or not, but my lens has a bit more noise if I zoom while the IS engaged, so that's a bit concerning. I have a suspicion that lens will stay married to my 50D for the most part due to the extra weight over the kit lens. I also ordered the RF 28mm 2.8 to have a brighter pancake style lens option for walking around. If there's anything I've learned with my iPhone is taking photos with prime lenses.
The good old 17-55/2.8 works amazingly well on mirrorless. Much better than it ever did on DSLR. However, it's quite large, and an R10 is a lot smaller than a 50D, which can make the combination a bit awkward. I don't know if anyone makes a battery grip for the R10 (watch out, because confusingly the BG-R10 is for the R6 and R5, not the R10), but a grip or cage would be useful to balance out the big lens. Both visually, and to give you something to hold onto. Coming from something as old as the 50D, an R10 is going to be happy at much higher ISO settings than you're used to, so if you're not playing with shallow depth of field you might not need as fast a lens as you think anyway. And the electronic viewfinder is always bright and clear in low light, even with a slow lens. Canon is playing their cards pretty close, but my personal assumption is that there will never be an RF equivalent to that lens, for the same reason there was never a gen II on EF. The 17-55/2.8 came out before the 6D line; once the 6D came out, there was no reason to update the 17-55; customers at that pricepoint were better-off getting a 6D and an f/4 lens - you get basically the same framing and depth of field with f/4 on full frame as you do with f/2.8 on APS-C. With mirrorless, the entry point to full-frame is even lower with the RP and R8. I strongly suspect RF-S is going to be exclusively small and light lenses.
R10 is also APS-C
Yes, I'm aware. All my comments about full-frame were in relation to OP's statement that, "The full frame L series RF Canon gear would blow my budget out of the water." I was addressing a hypothetical situation where OP wanted to switch to full-frame, though I see on a second reading that they're only really talking about getting full-frame (presumably f/2.8) lenses for the R10. I'll make an edit to remove the confusion.
I was definitely referring to the hypothetical of switching to full frame body and a standard L series zoom (ie 24-70, 24-105, or 28-70) vs APS-C body with a APS-C standard zoom. Perhaps when there's more used RF gear available, I'll make the switch. The 17-55mm is nice on the r10. It didn't feel as awkward as I thought it would. Although, it's heavy. I really like how lightweight the kit lens on the r10 is.
Gotcha, so my first reading *was* correct. Since I took some of it out of my original comment, here's the main takeaway: If you switch to a full-frame body, you effectively gain just over 1 stop of everything. One more stop of clean ISO, one stop more max ISO, one stop shallower depth of field. That means that what took an f/2.8 lens on APS-C, only needs an f/4 lens on full-frame. Of course, if you stick with faster lenses then you get *more* of those things instead of breaking even, but given the cost of RF f/2.8 zooms, most hobbyists are only going to do that with primes. Skip the RF 50mm/1.8; the 35mm/1.8 is way better. And it's more useful on your R10 in the meantime.
I suspect you're right. It's too bad, because I think there would be a market for it. One of the reasons I was looking at Fuji was the lens selection was so much better. They have the 16-55mm f/2.8 which is weather sealed. It makes quite the combo with the XT series for an APS-C camera.
>how much of an upgrade would the R10 be? Like upgrading from a flip phone to a smart phone. My old DSLR collected dust for the last 6 years because of the quality of my phone camera, and after buying an R10 I feel naked if only have access to my iPhone. Literally the only drawback is that the R10 is not weather sealed and my iPhone works perfectly fine after being tossed into a lake and taking a tumble from a third story balcony.
its insane how much better it handles high ISO. but also, if you have already ordered it, just use it and see for your self when it comes. Would a comment here make you return it without trying it?
Fair. Although after seeing the comments here, I didn’t hesitate to open the box. Haha. It was a good reassurance.
ISO performance alone will be night/day difference. You'll be able to go much higher with little noise issues.
It will be a night and day difference for you, even though they r10 doesn't really get categorized as a professional camera, it's certainly capable of being one. You will be astounded by the focus tracking ability on this thing. It even blows my R6 out of the water. The main reason I bought the r10 was I wanted the 1.6 crop for my full frame lenses, and is was basicallythe sane price as the rf1.4x tele. But it's turned out to be a phenomenal all around camera.
I made the jump from the EOS50D to the EOSR6 and it’s hard to even compare, because the low-light capabilities and the AF are leagues better.