Canon’s newly-announced EOS R10 and EOS R7 are both aps-c cameras and part of the mirrorless R System. Although they share some similarities in features, they’re aimed at separate audiences and have plenty of important differences. This article compares the two cameras, including their construction and detailed specifications.
Canon EOS R10 vs EOS R7 Size and Button Layout
The EOS R10 is a midrange camera that’s more consumer-oriented, whereas the EOS R7 is a more advanced camera with a heftier build quality. Neither camera is particularly large, but the EOS R10 is the more portable of the two. The following images are to scale.
Front view:
Top view:
Back view:
Alongside the differences in size, the EOS R7 also has a slightly more advanced control layout. Note the additional dial on the back and the dedicated ISO button on the top of the EOS R7. These features will be appreciated by advanced photographers who want quick manual controls. That said, the EOS R10’s layout is still reasonably advanced, including a dedicated AF-On button and joystick that are usually found only on higher-end cameras.
Canon EOS R10 vs EOS R7 Specifications
Below is a detailed comparison of the features offered by the Canon EOS R10 and Canon EOS R7:
| Camera Feature | Canon EOS R10 | Canon EOS R7 |
|---|---|---|
| Sensor Resolution | 24.2 MP | 32.5 MP |
| Low-Pass Filter | Yes | Yes |
| Sensor Type | CMOS | CMOS |
| In-Body Image Stabilization | No | Yes, 5-Axis |
| Sensor Size | 22.3 × 14.9 mm (APS-C) | 22.3 × 14.8 mm (APS-C) |
| Image Size | 6000 × 4000 | 6960 × 4640 |
| Pixel Size | 3.72 µm | 3.20 µm |
| Image Processor | DIGIC X | DIGIC X |
| Viewfinder | Electronic / EVF | Electronic / EVF |
| Viewfinder Type / Resolution | OLED / 2.36 Million Dots | OLED / 2.36 Million Dots |
| Viewfinder Coverage | 100% | 100% |
| Viewfinder Magnification | 0.95× | 1.15× |
| Built-in Flash | Yes | No |
| Flash Sync Speed, Mechanical | 1/200 | 1/250 |
| Flash Sync Speed, Electronic | 1/250 | 1/320 |
| Storage Media | 1× SD, UHS-II Compatible | 2x SD, UHS-II Compatible |
| Maximum FPS, Mechanical | 15 FPS | 15 FPS |
| Maximum FPS, Electronic | 23 FPS | 30 FPS |
| Buffer Capacity (Lossless Compressed RAW) | 21 frames (23 FPS), 29 Frames (15 FPS) | 42 frames (30 FPS), 51 Frames (15 FPS) |
| Buffer Capacity (Lossy Compressed C-RAW) | 43 frames (23 FPS), 157 Frames (15 FPS) | 93 Frames (30 FPS), 187 Frames (15 FPS) |
| Max Shutter Speed | 1/4000 (Mechanical and Electronic) | 1/8000 (Mechanical), 1/16,000 (Electronic) |
| Electronic Front-Curtain Shutter | Yes | Yes |
| Exposure Metering Sensor | 384-Zone Metering | 384-Zone Metering |
| Base ISO | ISO 100 | ISO 100 |
| Expanded Low ISO | None | None |
| Highest Native ISO | ISO 32,000 | ISO 32,000 |
| Expanded High ISO | ISO 51,200 | ISO 51,200 |
| Autofocus System | Dual Pixel Phase Detect AF | Dual Pixel Phase Detect AF |
| Focus Points | 651 | 651 |
| Low-Light AF Sensitivity (f/2 Standardized) | -2.5 to 21.5 EV | -3.5 to 21.5 EV |
| Internal Video Modes | H.264 4:2:0 8-Bit, or H.265 4:2:2 10-Bit | H.264 4:2:0 8-Bit, or H.265 4:2:2 10-Bit |
| Canon C-Log Video Recording | No | Yes |
| Video Maximum Resolution | 4K UHD @ up to 60p | 4K UHD @ up to 60p |
| Mandatory Video Crop | Yes, 1.6× Mandatory Crop at 4K 60p | No |
| Headphone Socket | No | Yes |
| Articulating LCD | Yes | Yes |
| Touchscreen | Yes | Yes |
| LCD Size | 3.0″ Diagonal LCD | 3.0″ Diagonal LCD |
| LCD Resolution | 1,040,000 dots | 1,620,000 dots |
| Built-in GPS | No | No |
| Wi-Fi | Yes | Yes |
| Bluetooth | Yes, 4.2 | Yes, 4.2 |
| Battery | Canon LP-E17 | Canon LP-E6NH/LP-E6N/LP-E6 |
| Battery Life (CIPA) | 430 Shots (LCD),260 Shots (EVF) | 770 Shots (LCD), 500 Shots (EVF) |
| Weather Sealed Body | No | Yes |
| USB Version | Type-C 2.0 | Type-C 3.2 Gen 2 |
| Weight (Including Battery and Card) | 429 g (0.95 lbs) | 612 g (1.35 lbs) |
| Dimensions (W×H×D) | 123 × 88 × 83 mm (4.8 × 3.5 × 3.3 in.) | 132 × 90 × 92 mm (5.2 × 3.6 × 3.6 in.) |
| MSRP, Body Only | $979 (Pre-Order/Check Price) | $1,499 (Pre-Order/Check Price) |
Summary and Recommendations
As expected, the EOS R7 has more wins in its column than the EOS R10. The most important benefits of the R7 are the higher-res sensor, dual card slots, bigger buffer, and in-body image stabilization. A headline difference between the two cameras is 23 FPS shooting on the EOS R10 compared to 30 FPS shooting on the EOS R7, although personally, I think 23 FPS is already enough for 99.9% of applications. Remember that 24 FPS is already considered video.
Other differences here and there may be relevant to the types of photography that you do. The EOS R7 has better battery life, while the EOS R10 is smaller and more portable, as the construction comparison showed. The weather sealing and video features on the EOS R7 are also a bit more advanced than on the EOS R10.
Of course, the EOS R10 is lower in price by $520. That’s a lot of money to save, or to spend on other gear like a better lens or sturdier tripod. I’ll put it this way: a 24 megapixel camera with a good lens and a stable platform will give you sharper images than a 33 megapixel camera without them, every time.
Which one of these cameras would I recommend? The choice is actually pretty easy. If you’re planning to use this camera for advanced or even pro-level sports and wildlife photography, I would pick the EOS R7. The higher resolution lets you put more pixels on a distant subject, while the bigger buffer lets you take longer bursts of images before the camera slows down. Other features like dual card slots and better weather sealing are also nice to have.
Meanwhile, if you don’t plan to photograph those subjects very often – or even if you do, but you’re on a budget and want to put more money toward lenses – go with the EOS R10. It’s still extremely capable for sports and wildlife, thanks to the high frame rate and essentially the same autofocus system as the EOS R7. The R10’s 24 megapixel resolution also isn’t too much lower than 33 MP anyway, so landscape and other photographers don’t need to worry.
I hope that helps you choose between the Canon EOS R10 and EOS R7. Both cameras should be very capable in the right hands, and neither one is a bad choice even though they’re geared toward different photographers. Let me know below if you have any questions about how the two cameras measure up.
Which would be the best for video recording for songs??
Both have almost the same video quality. Audio quality is terrible on both, so I recommend getting the less expensive EOS R10 and putting the money you save toward a good microphone.
Viewfinder resolution of R7 is wrong. It’s the same as R10.
Thank you Marcus, I’ve fixed it!
Best comparison of the 5 or 6 I’ve read. It was really helpful
Thanks for a wonderful comparison. I’ve been agonizing over the choice.
Should of made the r10 with the r7 battery.
That’s the only thing that’s putting me off getting the r10- battery life compared to my 6d.
For sports (and I think wildlife) one of the real questions is the noise and the low-light AF performance.
In the canon website it shows that the 18-150mm telephoto zoom lens has 7 stops of stabilization. If I pair that lens with EOS R10, will I still be able to take sharp pics at 150mm? I’m considering the fact that R10 doesn’t have IBIS.
The Canon RF-S 18-150mm F3.5-6.3 IS STM has 4.5 stops of optical image stabilization when mounted on an RF body without IBIS. This should provide you with sharp pictures throughout its zoom range.
How does the difference in image stabilisation between the models make an impact in the output of the picture?
Image stabilization in general is helpful when shooting handheld. It compensates for slight camera shake while you’re taking the picture. With image stabilization ON, I’d easily be willing to use something like 1/20 second with a 50mm lens. With image stabilization OFF, I would stick to 1/80 second or faster. So, the R7 has a nice advantage there.
However, some Canon lenses already have built-in image stabilization, including both of the newly-announced 18-45mm and 18-150mm RF-S lenses. With these lenses, you don’t really need a camera that has image stabilization. There might be a bit of benefit if *both* the lens and camera have stabilization, but you’ll get most of the benefits if just one of them has it.
Bottom line, if you plan to use lenses without IS, the R7 has a nice advantage for handheld shooting.
It would be interesting to see if there is any limitation in the autofocus accuracy/speed of these cameras, compared to the Canon full-frame options. I am always afraid that Canon will apply some subtle cripple to the autofocus performance.
I am a Sony shooter and one thing I have noticed is that whilst people say the A1 and the A7iv share the same autofocus system, there is a significant difference in performance when it comes to wildlife and sport photography (in almost all scenarios that have subject movement). The A1 is significantly better at tracking and gives you a better in focus hit rate than the A7iv (when shooting with the mechanical or electronic shutter).
I really hope that the autofocus system on the R7 is truly performing at the same accuracy as the R6 and R5, and not a slightly dumbed down version of it.
You make a great point. Most of the reason to buy something like the R10 is to get a capable sports/wildlife camera at a lower price point. That’s predicated on an autofocus system that lives up to Canon’s other high-speed cameras.
Why do they call them EOS? That’s a glaring omission of stupidity prevention right there.
Something tells me no one will answer this for you but don’t worry Trolls usually aren’t up to bask in her glory anyway so, you’re not missing a thing. Have a nice day, Richard.
I’m just going to add to this summary that even the R10 + Canon 100-500 at just under $3900 would make a very capable wildlife hybrid stills/video package, the IQ of which would not have been possible at this price five years ago.
I agree, it looks pretty impressive!
I paid about £2,000 for my D7500 and 200-500. For $3,900 I could almost get a Z5 and 24-200 as well. Pretty much does for landscape and wildlife. (I don’t do video, so am quite ignorant about that aspect).