Here is a chart for some of the difference between the 2. Only you know if they are worth it to YOU. Some people want the "extra dial" and can't live without it, some people want the extra megapixels to crop more, some people can't live without weather sealing, some people want IBIS. If you don't have these features will you miss them by not having them, or do you just want to try them out. Analysis paralysis is a thing sometime you just have to go with your gut. Will you regret your decision (mentally) not just buying the more expensive body? https://www.kenrockwell.com/canon/eos-r/compared/r7-r10-r50-r100-compared.htm More on reddit.com

Based on some recent discussion and comments scattered about in the 'equipment discussions' topics, I am convinced that I should finally ditch my EOS EF 50D's and get a more modern camera body, in this case either the Canon R7 or R10 (I have an RP already, but my son uses it for sports). More on photomacrography.net

I'm not a pro and don't make any money from photography but I do enjoy it. I wanted to stick with Canon. Not because I have such a vast investment in lenses, I just like the Canon that I have. I started looking at the R7. I also decided that I wanted the in-body IBIS so didn't consider the R10 very ... More on dpreview.com

The R10 is a very capable camera and combined with the RF 100-400 would work great for wildlife photography. Going with the R7 would be an upgrade to treat yourself, not a necessity. I own the R7 and use it for hobbyist wildlife photography with the RF 100-400 (planning to upgrade to a 100-500L or 200-2800 eventually but I'm currently a broke college student). Here's my perspective on what the R7 offers over the R10: Sensor resolution (33 vs 24 MP) nice to have when cropping heavily, but not that important unless you're printing large photos. Won't matter at all for posting to social media. In-body image stabilization is extremely useful when shooting still subjects in low-light conditions handheld with a lens that doesn't have image stabilization. If any of those conditions aren't satisfied: you need to freeze motion, have a tripod, or are using a lens with image stabilization it's still slightly useful but far from critical. The same applies to shooting handheld video with a non-stabilized lens. Weather sealing. I'm not sure how to rate this one. Weather-sealed is far from waterproof, and non-sealed cameras can generally survive a little bit of rain unless you get unlucky. It's definitely nice to have, and necessary for some, but personally I'm overprotective and put my camera away when it's raining so I can't say I've gotten that much use out of it. People use non-sealed cameras for 10+ years with no issues. Dual card slots (vs 1) ranges from useful to critical for professionals, but not really needed for a hobbyist. Battery life (rated 660 vs 450 shots) I love the R7's effectively all-day battery but just carrying spares is barely an inconvenience. Ergonomics I have giant hands and much preferred the R7's larger grip when I tried both. This was quite possibly the biggest deciding factor for me apart from IBIS. Larger viewfinder is nice but not necessary. Video features the R7 can shoot in log format and has better 4k video options, but personally I don't shoot video enough for it to matter. And what the R10 has over the R7: Size and weight (615 vs 430 grams) the R7 is a bit more bulky. I haven't found it to be an issue, but I'm seemingly more inclined than most to lug camera gear around. Built-in flash the R7 doesn't have one and I miss it sometimes. An external flash that can be angled to bounce is so much more versatile anyways though, I just picked up a 600EX-RT for for $80 used. In summary I don't think the R10 would fall short of your needs, and almost everything the R7 offers is in the category of "nice but not necessary". If the price difference factors into what lenses you can afford then get the R10, glass is more important than the camera body. More on reddit.com