Let’s compare the R10 to its bigger brother the R6 and its smaller brother the R50, which I already reviewed. The only reason for going for a smaller camera is to save weight. And then the question is what you lose in return for saving weight.
The R6 weighs 680g, so there is no way a person of normal physique could shoulder it and not know it is there. And on holiday when you are lugging around a water bottle and a guide book etc, that weight becomes even more important..
The R10 weighs 429g and the R50 just 375g.
Things I notice immediately is that compared to the EVF of the R6, which is big and clean, the EVFs on the R10 and the R50 are smaller. The refresh rate in the EVF on the R10 is slower in power saving mode, with a slight wobble as you move the camera while looking in the EVF. Change it by going to the Shooting menu (the red camera icon) and then screen 9 and Display Performance and changing from power saving to smooth.
So why the R10 over the R50? The grip on the R50 is too small to be much use. And because of its lack of a good grip and its small size the camera feels like a little heavy lump. The R10 is just 6mm longer but it has a good grip and so it is easier to hold.
And the R10 has a front dial as well as a rear dial so it is quicker to change aperture and shutter speed. Actually in aperture priority the rear dial is changing exposure compensation. I didn’t set that up, so perhaps that is its default function. Can it be changed? Do I want to change it? Not at the moment – ISO seems like a good use of the dial.
The R50 is better in one respect – the LCD is 1.62 million dots whereas on the R10 is 1.04 million dots. I can’t say I felt the loss of resolution.
The R6 has in-body image stabilisation and neither the R10 nor the R50 has it. Hold that thought.
The Canon RF-S 18-45mm f4.5-6.3 IS STM kit lens has a maximum aperture at the short (18mm) end of f4.5 and f6.3 at the narrow (45mm) end. Compare that to a standard lens with a maximum aperture of f1.8 and in round terms – f4.5 lets in less than half the light and f6.3 lets in less than one third the light.
I didn’t imagine it would win any prizes for sharpness but I felt I had to judge for myself how good the lens is despite the constraints of the maximum aperture and because the lens has a four-stop Optical Image Stabiliser.
So now let’s look at what ‘good’ lenses with optical image stabilisation are available for the R10.
They must not be heavy or we are back to square one. For weight, or lack of it, the Canon RF-S 18-45mm f4.5-6.3 IS STM lens is hard to beat at 130g. The Canon RF 24-50mm f4.5-6.3 IS STM Lens at 210g is heavier with no better maximum aperture.
Two lenses that kind of stand out as possibilities are the Canon RF 24mm f1.8 Macro IS STM Lens (270g) and the Canon RF 35mm f1.8 Macro IS STM Lens (305g).
Or forget image stabilisation and go for the 16mm lens at 165g or the 28mm lens at 120g or the 50mm lens at 160g. I think the 28mm lens, which is a 45mm ‘normal’ lens in full frame equivalent is probably about right – lightweight and tighter than a 35 on full frame.
