Hey all, New member here and new to photography (sort of) I've been having a look on the Canon website and I've came across a couple different options so far that fit my budget. I'm looking to do some general pictures of family, holiday pictures, garden views, some wildlife, some sports etc. What would you recommend? The first one being the R10: Canon EOS R10 Mirrorless Camera + RF-S 18-45mm F4.5-6.3 IS STM Lens With the Canon RF 100-400mm F5.6-8 IS USM Lens Or option 2 Canon EOS R7 Mirrorless Camera + RF-S 18-150mm F3.5-6.3 IS STM Lens If you have any other kits or recommendations I'd be glad to hear them also (Sorry if I've posted this in the wrong section I'm new here)
lens wise, for what you want and what you mention the rf 18-150mm and rf 100-400mm is a solid choice body wise depends on how much you want to do wildlife, for that the R7 is the body to go for, if you want a mix of photography the R6mkII might be the best option, you will also want one or two prime lenses but i would wait until you gotten used to things with the new body and back into photography. you will then be able to see what focal lengths you want that suit your needs. a bit of background to why i say the 18-150mm and 100-400mm, i started out on the eos M50 which has been replaced as a current camera by the R50, i found the efm 18-150mm to be such a versatile lens i always recommend it to both efm and rf users, i got the M50 for wildlife 4 years ago and went to the sigma 100-400mm c, and its still my goto lens for walk about hand held photography, having an rf body makes the rf 100-400mm or, if you can afford it the rf 100-500mm better choices, not be cause the sigma is a bad lens, far from it its been and still is excellent lens but price weight and communication updates make it better to go with rf, the reason i've not changed to Rf mount are a few reasons, mainly efm lens sizes, the two criteria for me thats the most important in a system is small and light weight but also capable of 400mm / 600mm wildlife, though the rf bodies themselves can be as compact as the M50 the lenses wont be, wildlife wise the M50 is still pulling great images, it even does well at 1200mm on some subjects. my thoughts on the rf bodies, if i were to get one i'd still be keeping my M50's, i'd be looking at a body with IBIS which rules out the R50 and R10, price wise i cant justify R3 or R5 though they would be welcome anytime, R7 has some short comings that i don't feel i need to change from the M50, for sure its a much better camera and if i was a beginner and had both the knowledge i have now and the money i'd be getting the R7 and 18-150mm and 100-500mm, that 200-800mm also looks mighty fine for a lux item. the R6mkII looks like a really good body for everything else has ibis and handles higher iso pretty well.
Thanks for your reply. At the moment my budget is around 1,700 though. That's why I was thinking about the R10 with the two lenses. I believe the 100-400 lens gives me the range that I'd need
I think the R7 is a much more capable camera, I am leaning to that as a recommendation. I don't really like variable aperture kit lenses, I think a single kit lens is a good way to get used to the camera and develop what you want in future lenses. Zooms are nice when you can get them on the wider side, and fixed aperture. I like fast wide primes generally speaking, and you can get some great performers without having to buy expensive L or art glass. You may eventually buy that 100-400 but a lens that tries to be everything only does everything ok, and nothing excellent. That being said you pay for quality, hence why I say you may eventually get the 100-400 anyway, I just know you can adapt much better EF telephoto lenses, so you don't have to rush to a long lens.
for wildlife a zoom lens is the best way to go, you cant always move to or way from you subject if it appears out of prime range, i've tried it with a prime lens and sure when its at the right distance its great but thats not always the case,
I've been looking at the ef 100-400mm f/4.5-5.6l is ii usm with an ED/RF adaptor. Or is the RF 100-400 a better lens?
The RF 100-400 for its money seems to perform very well optically from what I have seen in reviews, definitely worth a consider if you know it has limitations, its also lighter weight if thats what your looking for. It is however slower on the aperture side if it can only go to f8 on the long end, typically I would like a faster lens, this would not lend itself towards using a teleconverter. The better optics, and build quality would be on the L lens so the ef 100-400 II would be a nicer lens, it is also a bit faster being 5,6 on the long end. It is more comparable to the rf 100-500 but it is faster and can be used on a EF mount body so it would be my choice out of all three lenses just mentioned. It is however a bigger heavier lens. Do you have the ability to rent and try them out, or even go see them in a shop in person before buying?
