Camera Gear Review News (Page 7)

Image quality test results are now available on the Sigma 20mm F1.4 DG DN Art Lens page.

This lens is considerably sharper at f/1.4 than Sigma's first 20mm f/1.4 Art lens.

Compared to the Sigma 20mm f/1.4 DG HSM Art Lens

Compared to the Sony FE 20mm F1.8 G Lens

Compared to the Sony FE 24mm F1.4 GM Lens

Compared to the Sigma 20mm F2 DG DN Contemporary Lens

Compared to the Sigma 24mm f/1.4 DG HSM Art Lens

Compared to the Tamron 20mm f/2.8 Di III OSD M1:2 Lens

Order the Sigma 20mm F1.4 DG DN Art Lens from B&H | Adorama | WEX

Rent the Sigma 20mm F1.4 DG DN Art Lens from Lensrentals.

Please share!

While announcing the Canon EOS R10, promoting the camera as the least expensive R-series option seemed logical. However, the Canon EOS RP was only $20.00 more expensive. That price differential is meaningless to anyone investing in a camera at the quality level we are discussing.

Let's make some lists highlighting many of the differences between these models.

Here are some of the R10 advantages:

• DIGIC X vs. DIGIC 8
• Higher density imaging sensor provides greater reach
• HEIF and Dual Pixel RAW formats available
• Joystick multicontroller
• EVF magnification 0.95x vs. 0.70x
• EVF has greater nose relief
• Built-in flash
• X-Sync 1/200 with mechanical shutter, 1/250 electronic 1st curtain vs. 1/180sec
• Superior AF system featuring Subject Tracking and Eye Detection AF independant from AF area selection
• Continuous shooting up to 15 fps with mechanical shutter for 460 JPG or 29 RAW images vs. 4 fps for card capacity limited images (fast memory cards can far exceed specifications)
• Continuous shooting up to 30 fps with electronic shutter
• RAW burst mode and preshooting
• 4K 30 fps with 6k oversampling and Full HD 120 fps vs. 4k 24p and Full HD 60 fps
• Max movie duration of up to 2 hours vs. 29:59
• Max Live View frame rate 120 fps vs. 59.97 fps
• HDMI Micro out vs. HDMI Mini
• Power switch is accessible to grip hand
• Longer battery life: 290 vs. 210 with EVF, 450 vs. 250 with LCD
• Slightly different shape: 4.8 x 3.5 x 3.3" vs. 5.22 x 3.35 x 2.76" (122.5 x 87.8 x 83.4mm vs. 132.5 x 85.0 x 70.0mm)
• Slightly Lighter: 15.1 vs. 17.1 oz (429 vs. 485g)
• Slightly Less expensive

Here are the RP advantages.

• Slightly higher resolution (26.2 MP vs. 24.2 MP, here is that comparison)
• Larger imaging sensor with larger pixels shows less high ISO noise, including less high ISO noise at the pixel level (here is that comparison)
• AF working range down to EV -5 vs. EV -4
• Metering Range to EV -3 vs. -2
• ISO 100-40000 (in 1/3-stop or whole stop increments), expanded to L:50, H1: 51200, H2: 102400 vs. 100-32000 (in 1/3-stop or whole stop increments), H1: 51200
• 3 Custom Modes vs. 2

As seen in the product images, the controls for these cameras do not differ greatly.

Those shooting fast action will find the R10 better suited to their needs. Portrait photographers will appreciate the better image quality the RP delivers.

More Information

Canon EOS R10 Review
Canon EOS RP Review

Orders

Support this site by ordering the Canon EOS R10 at B&H | Adorama | Canon | Amazon | WEX.

Rent the Canon EOS R10 from Lensrentals.

The simultaneously announced Canon EOS R7 and Canon EOS R10 are the first APS-C imaging sensor format cameras in the Canon R-series. With identical era technology, they provide an interesting comparison.

Here are a pair of lists highlighting many of the differences between these models.

These are some of the R7 advantages:

• Significantly higher resolution (32.5 MP vs. 24.2 MP, here is that comparison), with greater reach
• 5-axis IBIS (In-Body Image Stabilization) provides approximately 7-stops of shake correction (increases with lens IS coordination) and auto image level
• AF working range down to EV -5 vs. EV -4
• Mechanical shutter to 1/8000 and electronic shutter to 1/16000 vs. 1/4000 for both
• EVF magnification of 1.15x vs. 0.95x
• Rear LCD with 1.62m dots vs. 1.04m
• X-Sync of 1/250 vs. 1/200 with mechanical shutter and 1/320 vs. 1/250 with electronic 1st curtain
• Continuous shooting up to 30 fps with electronic shutter for 224 JPG or 51 RAW images vs. 23 fps. for 70 JPG or 21 RAW images (fast memory cards can far exceed these specifications)
• Rear control dial vs. top control dial
• 4K 60 fps with 7k oversampling vs. 4K 30 fps with 6k oversampling
• Movie position on the power switch
• Canon Log 3
• Movie record duration up to 6 hours vs. up to 2 hours
• Water & dust resistance specified vs. not specified
• Dual side-accessible memory card slots vs. single slot in battery door under camera
• Larger LP-E6NH battery provides longer life (EVF: 500 vs. 290 shots, LCD: 770 vs. 450 shots) than LP-E17
• Shutter Durability Rating specified at 200,000 vs. not specified
• Dual Pixel RAW format

Here are the R10 advantages.

• Considerably less expensive
• Built-in flash
• Smaller: 4.8 x 3.5 x 3.3" vs. 5.2 x 3.6 x 3.6" (122.5 x 87.8 x 83.4mm vs. 132.0 x 90.4 x 91.7mm)
• Lighter: 15.1 vs. 21.6 oz (429 vs. 612g)

As seen in the product images, the controls for these cameras differ somewhat.

It is easy to justify the higher cost of the R7, but if those benefits are not important, the R10's advantages just might be.

More Information

Canon EOS R7 Review
Canon EOS R10 Review

Orders

Support this site by ordering the Canon EOS R7 at B&H | Adorama | Canon | Amazon | WEX.

Rent the Canon EOS R7 from Lensrentals.

Order the Canon EOS R10 at B&H | Adorama | Canon | Amazon | WEX.

Rent the Canon EOS R10 from Lensrentals.

What would a comparison between the more expensive, larger-sensored R6 and the higher resolution, faster-shooting R7 look like? Soon after the Canon EOS R7 announcement, I put a comparison with the Canon EOS R6 on the to-do list.

Let's make some lists highlighting many of the differences between these models.

Here are some of the R7 advantages:

• Significantly higher resolution (32.5 MP vs. 20.1 MP, here is that comparison) with greater reach
• Modestly superior AF system featuring Subject Tracking and Eye Detection AF independant from AF area selection
• Electronic shutter with up to 1/16000 vs. 1/8000 (the R7's mechanical shutter also tops out at 1/8000)
• Viewfinder magnification 1.15x vs. 0.76x
• X-Sync of 1/320 with electronic 1st curtain shutter vs. 1/250
• Continuous shooting up to 15 fps with mechanical shutter vs. 12 fps.
• Continuous shooting up to 30 fps with electronic shutter vs. 20 fps.
• RAW burst mode and preshooting
• Movie mode setting on power switch that is accessible to grip hand
• Movie recording up to 6 hours vs. up to 29:59
• Canon Log 3 vs. Canon Log
• Dual Pixel RAW format
• Auto image level
• USB 3.2 Gen 2 vs. USB 3.1 Gen 2
• Slightly Smaller: 5.2 x 3.6 x 3.6" vs. 5.45 x 3.84 x 3.48" (132.0 x 90.4 x 91.7mm vs. 138 x 97.5 x 88.4mm)
• Slightly Lighter: 21.6 oz (612g) vs. 24.0 oz (680g)
• Less expensive

Here are the R6 advantages.

• Battery grip available (the R7 should have this option)
• Larger imaging sensor with larger pixels shows less high ISO noise at the pixel level (here is that comparison)
• AF working range down to EV -6.5 vs. EV -5
• Metering Range to EV -3 vs. -2
• Larger image buffer — 1,000+ JPG or 240 RAW images vs. 224 JPG or 51 RAW images (fast memory cards can far exceed these specifications)
• ISO 100-102400 (in 1/3-stop or whole stop increments), L:50, H1: 204800 vs. 100-32000 (in 1/3-stop or whole stop increments), H1: 51200
• 0.5" (12.7mm) EVF with 3.69 M dots vs. 0.39" (9.9mm) with 2.36M dots

As seen in the product images, the controls for these cameras differ significantly.

The primary choice here is between the R6's larger sensor featuring lower noise and a stronger background blur vs. the R7's higher resolution, modestly more advanced AF system, faster shooting capabilities, and lower price. Both options have merit the choice.

More Information

Canon EOS R7 Review
Canon EOS R6 Review

Orders

Support this site by ordering the Canon EOS R7 at B&H | Adorama | Canon | Amazon | WEX.

Rent the Canon EOS R7 from Lensrentals.

Order the Canon EOS R6 at B&H | Adorama | Amazon USA | WEX

Rent the Canon EOS R6 from Lensrentals.

With eight years separating their introductions, the Canon EOS R7 and Canon EOS 7D Mark II are significantly different cameras. However, both cameras were designed to deliver high-performance at a reasonable price — and both have a "7" in their moniker.

Let's look at a comparison highlighting many of the differences between these models.

Here are some of the R7 advantages:

• Significantly higher resolution (32.5 MP vs. 20.2 MP, here is that comparison) with greater reach
• 5-axis IBIS (In-Body Image Stabilization) provides approximately 7-stops of shake correction (increases with lens IS coordination) and auto image level
• DIGIC X vs. Dual DIGIC 6
• Vastly superior AF system featuring Eye Detection AF and near full-frame coverage, functioning in light level ranging from EV -5 to EV 20 vs. -3 - 18 and with apertures as narrow as f/22
• Silent electronic shutter with up to 1/16000 vs. mechanical shutter to 1/8000 (the R7's mechanical shutter also tops out at 1/8000)
• Metering Range to EV -2 vs. 0
• EVF with up to 120 fps refresh rate, OVF emulation, considerably more information configurably available, greater nose relief, and 1.15x magnification vs. OVF with 1.00x
• Vari-angle touch screen 2.95" (7.5 cm) LCD with approx. 1620k dots vs. 3.0" (7.7cm) LCD with approx. 1040K dots
• X-Sync of 1/320 with electronic 1st curtain shutter (both cameras X-Sync at 1/250 with the mechanical shutter)
• Has CRAW compressed file format available vs. reduced resolution M-RAW and S-RAW (R7 CRAW files are smaller than 7D II RAW images, despite the 32.5 MP vs. 20.2 MP difference)
• Continuous shooting up to 15 fps with mechanical shutter for 224 JPG or 51 RAW images vs. 10 fps for 130 JPG or 31 RAW images (fast memory cards can far exceed these specifications)
• Continuous shooting up to 30 fps with electronic shutter for 126 JPG or 42 RAW images (fast memory cards can far exceed these specifications)
• RAW burst mode and preshooting
• 4K UHD (3840 x 2160) 60 fps movies and Full HD up to 120 fps, recording up to 6 hours vs. Full HD (1920 x 1080) 60 fps for up to 29:59
• Canon Log 3
• ISO 100-32000 (in 1/3-stop or whole stop increments), H1: 51200 vs. 100-16000 (in 1/3-stop or whole stop increments), H1: 25600, H2: 51200
• Built-in Wi-Fi (vs. Wireless File Transmitter WFT-E7) and Bluetooth
• HEIF and Dual Pixel RAW format available
• USB 3.2 Gen 2 vs. USB 3.0
• USB Power
• Dual UHS-II SD memory card slots vs. one CF and one UHS-I SD slot
• HDMI Micro out vs. HDMI mini out
• Utilizes newer RF mount, compatible with all RF lenses in addition to adapting to all 7D II compatible lenses
• Smaller: 5.2 x 3.6 x 3.6" vs. 5.9 x 4.4 x 3.1" (132.0 x 90.4 x 91.7mm vs. 148.6 x 112.4 x 78.2mm)
• Much lighter: 21.6 oz (612g) vs. 32.10 oz (910g)

That list is solid, but the old 7D Mark II holds some advantages.

• Battery grip available (the R7 should have this option)
• Cross-type AF points sensitive to lines of contrast in two directions
• Exposure compensation of -5 to +5 EV vs. -3 to +3 EV
• OVF with instant response
• Top LCD panel (I don't find these to be as important on mirrorless cameras)
• Higher level of weather sealing
• N3-type remote control terminal vs. E3
• Built-in GPS
• Built-in pop-up flash with remote flash master control capabilities
• PC Terminal socket
• Anti-reflection LCD surface
• Longer battery life with viewfinder use — 670 vs. 500 shots.

As seen in the product images, the controls for these cameras differ greatly.

Introducing a new camera does not make an old camera perform worse. However, the newer cameras' features are often highly attractive.

When the Canon EOS 90D was introduced, the 7D II recommendation was challenged. With the R7, there is no question about which camera I prefer — get the R7. Of course, the 7D Mark II being discontinued makes the decision even easier, unless that camera's considerably lower used price attracts you.

More Information

Canon EOS R7 Review
Canon EOS 7D Mark II Review

Orders

Support this site by ordering the Canon EOS R7 at B&H | Adorama | Canon | Amazon | WEX.

Rent the Canon EOS R7 from Lensrentals.

Thanks to suggestions and comments, clarifications and additional information have been added to the Does an APS-C Format Imaging Sensor Increase Reach? EOS R7 vs. R5 Comparison article.

Let's talk about "reach", which I'll loosely define as the number of pixels remaining in the desired composition, rendering a subject large when the image is viewed at 100% resolution. Longer focal lengths are the ideal method for accomplishing "reach" with any camera, but the term "reach" is usually reserved for when the longest available lens focal length is not long enough for the desired composition.

This article evolved from its conception, and with crop factors, focal lengths, extenders (teleconverters), pixel density, and reach in the discussion, I take on the challenge of omitting confusion.

To get started, I'll share the original purpose behind this article. A friend is on a mission to obtain sharper, higher-resolution images of distant birds. He is using an EOS R5, currently Canon's highest resolution mirrorless camera, with a Canon EF 600mm f/4L IS III USM Lens and EF 1.4x III Extender mounted.

The primary question is, will the Canon EOS R7 and 600mm F4 lens provide better final image quality than the R5, 600mm F4 lens, and 1.4x extender combination? I'll answer that specific question while providing more widely relevant information.

An important clarification is that an APS-C imaging sensor's smaller size does not provide more "reach" than a full-frame imaging sensor. Instead, it crops away a portion of the image circle. While the cropping provides a significant 1.6x narrower angle of view, simulating better reach in the viewfinder, a higher pixel density on the imaging sensor is what provides reach. That most APS-C imaging sensors have a higher pixel density than the full-frame camera models means that photographers touting APS-C cameras as having a reach advantage are usually right, regardless of why they think that.

Mounting a 1.4x extender behind the lens on a full-frame camera makes up for much, but not all, of the full-frame vs. APS-C angle of view difference just discussed. That comment addresses the final framing available but not the reach. When focal length limited, the max available framing is often less important as cropping is likely still necessary. Again, for this article's primary purpose, we are looking for the option that affords the most reach.

For reach, high pixel density is paramount.

A simple way to measure pixel density is to view the pixel size spec. For example, the EOS R5 has a 4.39µm pixel size, and the Canon EOS R7's spec is 3.20µm. Modern image sensors are gapless, so a smaller pixel size correlates to a higher pixel density, and in this example, the R7 has a significantly higher pixel density than the R5.

Interesting is that the R7 pixels are 1.37x smaller than the R5 pixels — creating R7 reach nearly equivalent to that of the R5 with a 1.4x mounted behind the same focal length. The full-frame camera will provide a wider angle of view (1.4x vs. 1.6x) and will provide more pixels overall (45 MP vs. 32.5 MP). Still, when the images are zoomed in to a 100% pixel level view, individual subjects are contained in approximately the same number of pixels from both options. Crop both images to the same composition within the APS-C angle of view, and the images will be nearly identical — assuming that the pixels from both solutions have equivalent quality.

Pixel-level image quality can vary from factors that include low pass filter strength (or lack of this filter), processing applied to the base RAW image, etc.

Another important clarification is that global statements about extender performance must be carefully crafted, as every extender model performs differently with every lens it is mounted behind. Magnifying the image circle of a lens that barely out resolves the imaging sensor may push it past that resolving point, resulting in some amount of blur imparted in an image.

I've long wanted to create an exhaustive extender comparison, but that means testing every camera, lens, and extender combination available, an unrealistic endeavor that is sure to have results impossible to describe concisely. Testing only the lens manufacturer's latest extender models with each lens test provides relevant, valuable results.

When comparing reach, the pixel-level image quality matters, and the R7 and R10 are both excellent in this regard. Always true is that extenders magnify lens aberrations. However, so do higher density imaging sensors.

Another universal truth is that 1.4x extenders reduce the maximum aperture, the focal length to entrance pupil diameter ratio, by one stop (and a two-stop reduction comes with 2x extenders). That one stop is approaching the difference in the amount of light captured by an APS-C sensor vs. the full-frame variant — before any cropping.

Extenders can impact geometric distortion. For example, the Canon RF 1.4x Extender introduces modest barrel distortion. Barrel distortion magnifies the details in the center of the frame more than those in the periphery. In that case, is the 1.4x rating is from the center of the frame (with the periphery magnification something less), or is the magnification rating an average over the entire frame?

Extenders impact AF performance.

"While it’s apparently less than was the case with EF-mount tele extenders and AF, there’s a designed-in reduction in actual AF drive speed of a lens with extenders mounted. This isn’t a design flaw, but rather a feature to ensure consistent AF, and ability for the AF drive to stop at the precise point of sharpest detected focus. Obviously, there’s also the issue of light loss with extenders, and while modern R-series cameras can technically AF at effective max apertures down to f/22, it’s clear that any modern AF system performs better with more light hitting the AF sensor, or image sensor in the case of mirrorless cameras." [Rudy Winston, Canon USA]

As a generalization, smaller pixels create a lower signal-to-noise ratio (SNR) and show more noise visible at a 100% resolution view. While that aspect does not distinguish between full-frame and APS-C imaging sensor sizes, APS-C imaging sensors often have higher pixel densities. This means that 100% view comparisons typically show full-frame models outperforming APS-C models.

Because of its larger size, a full-frame format (35mm) imaging sensor captures over a stop more light than an APS-C format sensor, with equivalent output size reflecting that difference in noise levels.

If cropping the full-frame image to the APS-C angle of view or narrower, the sensor size advantage evaporates, and in that case, f/4 is twice as wide as the f/5.6 max aperture of the 600 F4 + 1.4x combination.

Higher density imaging sensors show the effects of diffraction more readily, with slight effects beginning to show at about f/5.2 for the R7. However, those photographing long-distance subjects with long telephoto lenses likely want the widest aperture available, avoiding diffraction issues.

Should I get a higher pixel density camera or a longer focal length lens is a legitimate question. When getting to the long telephoto focal lengths, with reach as a goal, the camera option may be smaller, lighter, and less expensive.

A variation of that decision and the specific comparison investigated by this article is: should I get an EOS R7 or a 1.4x extender for a full-frame camera? Both options meet the same need.

When focal length limited with the highest resolution full-frame camera model, moving to a longer focal length lens with equal or better image quality is the ideal solution. However, such a lens is not always available, and it may be extremely expensive if it is — potentially far more costly than the R7.

In the case of the Canon RF 600mm F4 L IS USM Lens, Canon offers longer lenses, but with integrated 2x extenders, the Canon RF 800mm F5.6 L IS USM and Canon RF 1200mm F8 L IS USM Lenses do not have equivalent image quality and they are extremely expensive.

Let's take a look at a single APS-C vs. full-frame plus 1.4x comparison.

Note that I am testing the RF versions of the 600 F4 and 1.4x as they are what I currently have. The RF 600mm F4 and EF 600mm F4 III lenses have the same optics, and the RF 1.4x has only a slight optical advantage over the EF 1.4x III.

The images below were processed identically to the samples in the image quality test tool, with the low contrast neutral picture style and a very low sharpening value selected. However, the target was photographed at the same distance for both cameras and framed from farther than the standard framing distance.

Here is the R7 vs. R5 resolution comparison using the proper chart framing.

Numerous other camera combinations can be tested, but with the densest imaging sensor available, the R7 will rule all of them at this time, slightly besting the M6 II and the 90D.

Back to the promised test images:

The R7 image appears to have very slightly better resolution, and the R5 result's details are slightly larger, though I doubt these slight differences will be noticed in real-world images. The R5 image has more pixels and a modestly wider angle of view, but the R5 + 1.4x and the R7 have about the same reach.

When composed and cropped identically, the background blur created by 600mm f/4 should be similar to that of the 840mm f/5.6. At the same APS-C or wider angles of view, the R7 should take some high ISO noise advantage from the wider aperture enabling a lower ISO setting, and the R7 should avoid the (minor) AF performance penalty imparted by the extender.

Obtaining a sharp image requires all subject details to remain within the indivdual pixels capturing them during the entire exposure. In other words, motion blur is created by subject details crossing into adjacent pixels while the shutter is open. As imaging sensor pixel density increases, so does the shutter speed required to avoid camera and subject motion blur. The image brightness effect from increasing the shutter speed will often be offset by increasing the ISO setting, which increases noise.

However, increasing the focal length has the same effect. So in the end, the option with the most reach will have the highest shutter speed requirement.

Sometimes the camera settings required for a situation include a shutter speed sufficient for stopping motion at the lowest-noise ISO setting, making this point irrelevant.

Did you notice the diffraction softness showing in the R7 f/8 result vs. f/5.6?

Usually, a lens produces better image quality in the center of the image circle than in the periphery. APS-C imaging sensors utilize only the optimal center of the imaging circle. However, extenders magnify the center of the image circle, also utilizing the sweet spot. Thus, both options avoid the worst aberrations.

Here is a periphery comparison from the test described above:

These results tell a story similar to the first results.

Hopefully, the mix of information presented in this article was helpful. A conclusion from this discussion is that the Canon EOS R7 (or another high-density APS-C format camera) is a viable alternative to a 1.4x extender on a full-frame model when significant cropping (APS-C angle of view or smaller) will be required. That's just in case you needed an excuse to get this high-performance camera.

Just posted: Lowepro Powder Backpack 500 AW Review.

The Powder 500 AW is a great ultralight multipurpose photography backpack.

Order the Lowepro Powder Backpack 500 AW from B&H | Adorama | WEX

Please share!

Just posted: ProMediaGear GKJRC Katana Gimbal Head Review.

I borrowed this awesome-looking gimbal head along with the ProMediaGear GKC Katana Gimbal Head to test the Canon RF 800mm F5.6 L IS USM Lens. The reviews of the same product type from the same manufacturer will read similarly.

The GKJRC Katana is the smaller, lighter, and less expensive option.

Order the ProMediaGear GKJRC Katana Gimbal Head from ProMediaGear | B&H | Adorama | Amazon USA

Please share!

Just posted: ProMediaGear GKC Katana Gimbal Head Review.

I borrowed this gimbal head along with the ProMediaGear GKJRC Katana Gimbal Head Review to test the Canon RF 800mm F5.6 L IS USM Lens. The reviews of the same product type from the same manufacturer will read similarly.

The GKC Katana is the larger, heavier, and more expensive option. Few tripod heads are as strong and rigid as this one.

Order the ProMediaGear GKC Katana Gimbal Head from ProMediaGear | B&H | Adorama | Amazon USA

Please share!

Just posted: Canon EOS R10 Review

This is an impressive-performing camera, especially at this price point.

Please share!

Order the Canon EOS R10 at B&H | Adorama | Canon | Amazon | WEX.

Rent the Canon EOS R10 from Lensrentals.

Just posted: Canon EOS R7 Review

Sometimes you need to call a long term project finished. While I'll call the R7 review that, I expect udpates to go on long into the future. Minimally, I hope to add some more complete camera comparisons.

Please share!

Order the Canon EOS R7 at B&H | Adorama | Canon | Amazon | WEX.

Rent the Canon EOS R7 from Lensrentals.

Check out the brief Canon EOS R7 Auto Level Feature Demo on the updated review page.

This is a valuable feature.

Working through the Canon EOS R7 and Canon EOS R10 reviews, I just crossed the buffer capacity testing line item off of the to-do list and thought I'd share the results here.

The question was: Does a fast memory card make a difference in Canon EOS R7 performance?

Let's create some datapoints.

The Canon EOS R7 15 and 30 fps continuous shooting modes were tested using manual mode (no AE time lag) using ISO 100, a 1/8000 (or 1/16000 electronic) shutter speed (no waiting for the shutter operation), a wide open aperture (no time lost due to aperture blades closing), and manual focus (no focus lock delay). The image was black for the smallest file size, the battery was near full charge, and the specified freshly-formatted fast memory card was loaded.

In the table below, the V90 and V60 indicate the minimum write speed specifications for the memory cards used in the test. You care about the minimum write speed when photographing (or during movie capture), and fast card reading is always associated with fast writing.

Specifically, these tests used the Lexar 256GB Professional 2000x V90 300 MB/s UHS-II SDXC (high performance option) and Lexar 256GB Professional 1667x V90 250 MB/s UHS-II SDXC (great value, still fast option) memory cards. The first two sets of tests were so fun that I added a reasonably fast UHS-I V30 card to the chart.

The numbers indicate the image count at buffer full — the first pause in continuous shooting.

Breaking it down — what do those numbers tell us?

First, those of us who need the camera fully ready as fast as possible or need to review the last-captured image immediately after shooting a long burst (and those of us who are impatient) will want a faster card for the considerably faster buffer clearing ability.

Photographers selecting the RAW file format will notice the performance benefit of a V90 card, but the V60 card benefit over V30 is limited to the 1st curtain RAW mode — and there is a noticeable difference.

Those shooting in CRAW format will not notice an increased continuous image capture count from the faster card.

The CRAW file format is made attractive by these numbers, and those shooting in JPG format will enjoy a considerably higher number of images captured before the buffer full condition.

A vast number of memory cards are available, and they have varying speeds, but these tests give us a look at this camera's performance.

What about the R10? Does a fast memory card make a difference in Canon EOS R10 performance? Here is the that chart:

With few exceptions, the faster card provides more images before the buffer full pause and a shorter time until the buffer is clear.

I became bored after capturing a huge number of V90 and V60 1st curtain electronic shutter CRAW format images and didn't complete those tests. The camera appeared to support that frame rate indefinitely.

Again, the CRAW file format appears attractive by these numbers, and those shooting in JPG format will enjoy a considerably higher number of images captured before the buffer full condition.

Order the Canon EOS R7 at B&H | Adorama | Canon | Amazon | WEX.

Order the Canon EOS R10 at B&H | Adorama | Canon | Amazon | WEX.

Rent the Canon EOS R7 from Lensrentals.

Rent the Canon EOS R10 from Lensrentals.

Just posted: Canon RF-S 18-45mm F4.5-6.3 IS STM Lens Review.

As small, light, and inexpensive as zoom lenses come.

Support this site by ordering the Canon RF-S 18-45mm F4.5-6.3 IS STM Lens from B&H | Adorama | Canon USA | Amazon USA | WEX

Rent the Canon RF-S 18-45mm F4.5-6.3 IS STM Lens from Lensrentals.

Please share!

Just posted: Canon RF-S 18-150mm F3.5-6.3 IS STM Lens Review

Because of its small size, light weight, and low cost characteristics, this lens can make sense even in a full-frame kit.

Support this site by ordering the Canon RF-S 18-150mm F3.5-6.3 IS STM Lens from B&H | Adorama | Canon USA | Amazon USA | WEX

Rent the Canon RF-S 18-150mm F3.5-6.3 IS STM Lens from Lensrentals.

Please share!

Image quality, vignetting, flare, and distortion test results along with specs, measurements, and standard product images are now available on the Canon RF-S 18-45mm F4.5-6.3 IS STM Lens page.

How does Canon's tiny, lightweight, inexpensive, new standard zoom lens perform? Check out the test results and create comparisons, including:

Canon RF-S 18-45mm compared to the Canon RF-S 18-150mm Lens

Support this site by ordering the Canon RF-S 18-45mm F4.5-6.3 IS STM Lens from B&H | Adorama | Canon USA | Amazon USA | WEX

Rent the Canon RF-S 18-45mm F4.5-6.3 IS STM Lens from Lensrentals.

Please share!

Image quality, vignetting, flare, and distortion test results along with specs, measurements, and standard product images are now available on the Canon RF-S 18-150mm F3.5-6.3 IS STM Lens page.

Create some comparisons!

Support this site by ordering the Canon RF-S 18-150mm F3.5-6.3 IS STM Lens from B&H | Adorama | Canon USA | Amazon USA | WEX

Rent the Canon RF-S 18-150mm F3.5-6.3 IS STM Lens from Lensrentals.

Please share!

Just posted: Sigma 16-28mm F2.8 DG DN Contemporary Review.

Support this site by ordering the Sigma 16-28mm F2.8 DG DN Contemporary Lens from B&H | Adorama | Amazon USA | WEX

Rent the Sigma 16-28mm F2.8 DG DN Contemporary Lens from Lensrentals.

Please share!

Image quality, vignetting, flare, and distortion test results along with specs, measurements, and standard product images are now available on the Sigma 16-28mm F2.8 DG DN Contemporary Lens page.

This is a small, lightweight lens.

Here is the Sigma 16-28mm F2.8 DG DN Contemporary Lens compared to the Tamron 17-28mm f/2.8 Di III RXD Lens, the most similar alternative.

Support this site by ordering the Sigma 16-28mm F2.8 DG DN Contemporary Lens from B&H | Adorama | Amazon USA | WEX

Rent the Sigma 16-28mm F2.8 DG DN Contemporary Lens from Lensrentals.

Please share!