Why is the SL so large?

[Carlton Chase]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

My first foray in to Leica was the Q.  I waited a decade for that particular camera to be built by someone and was assuming it would be Sony.  The Sony RX2 or whatever was ready to be announced and then Leica announced the Q.  I looked at it and was really interested and bought it and I am wild about the Q and now want a Leica with a 70mm or 90mm full frame or larger lens for so am thinking about the SL or the M or the Hasselblad x1D. 

 

I get Leica now.  Sony is a computer company and it shows.  On paper no one would buy anything but a sony.  In practice, lets be real.  Sony images aren't what Leica's are and the experience is scrolling through menus as opposed to quick, intuitive adjustments.

 

The Leica images are beautiful and I no longer want to own another brand in digital.

 

Why is the SL so large since it is mirrorless? It seems it should be smaller.  It seems about right for many things.  The size is holding me from grabbing it.  A little size to balance is good but seems too much?

 

What are thoughts?

 

Thanks you for time and counsel

 

Carlton

 

 

[Mute-on]

Have you had the chance to handle an SL?

I agree that next to a Q it is more substantial, but I actually find it easier to hold comfortably.

I would urge you to try an SL with a 50 Summicron attached, and see how you find the balance, weight and size. I think you might be pleasantly surprised

 

 

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Advertisement]

The Leica Q3 is available for pre-order at B&H Photo Video and Adorama

[kikouyou]

I have both the SL and the Q and the SL with a Summicron/Summilux 35 or 50 or 75 is just way more comfortable to hold than the Q (I do have big hands). In addition I have also the Match Technical Thumb which I am using all the time on the M, Q and SL as it makes the SL grip even more secure. On the SL it somewhat protect the joystick, which I find useful.

The Thumb is a must if you use the 24-90.

Since I have the SL, I have not touch the Q a lot and I like the Q a lot :-) The overall experience is that much better...

[Carlton Chase]

Thank you for your responses and advice.

 

The only reservation I had was size.  It is amazing camera.

 

I understand what both of you are saying and now I no longer have reservation on size.

 

Thanks again for your advice.  I will be excited to purchase SL. 

 

Carlton

[ramarren]

I don't find the SL to be terribly large at all. It fit my hands very well and that's what matters. The SL24-90 lens is a bit large, but then so are the R system lenses that work so well on the SL. For these reasons, it all feels of a piece to me.

 

I had a Sony A7 a while back. It was too small and cramped for use with my lenses, and its dedicated lenses are not much smaller. I much prefer the size and shape of the SL.

[sillbeers15]

'Why is SL so large', you are referring to camera body or lens?

 

Camera body can be reduced, Sony A7 has shown it.

 

AF lenses for full frame 36x24 means larger diameter than MF lenses found M series, to house micro motor/s and electronics, therefore I have yet to see smaller lenses available today.

 

Together as a camera + lens package, I do not see the rational to have a tiny camera body w. un-proportionally larger lens. A good example is to mount M21lux & Notilux on M240, very poor ergonomics.

 

So 'why' not complain 'All DSLRs so large' ? Ans: Go Manual focus or to compromise, go Micro43s.

[Guest]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

I find the SL is almost perfect with a range of M lenses. I have no need for the SL lenses, they really are too large and heavy for me. But 21/50/90and 135 M lenses work well with the SL.

 

At first I thought the size and weight would be not good, but I guess I got used to that quickly. There are so many good points about the SL. What makes it for me is that I no longer have hassles with auto-focus! I love on the SL Manual Focus, the way you can magnify the image and get the shimmering effect when in focus. Something after years of AF, I thought would be impossible MF, is actually in most instances easy! I tried an M, but with the same lenses I had difficults to focus. I then tried the SL and could instantly get focus and be confident of getting it. That is why I chose the SL over an M. Size wise I would much prefer the M, but I cannot have everything.

[Guest]

I had a Sony A7 a while back. It was too small and cramped for use with my lenses, and its dedicated lenses are not much smaller. I much prefer the size and shape of the SL.

 

I too come from the Sony A7. I much prefer the SL, when coupled with M lenses. I surprised myself too after years of AF, I now prefer MF.

[wildlightphoto]

'Why is SL so large', you are referring to camera body or lens?

 

Camera body can be reduced, Sony A7 has shown it.

 

 

The SL has dual card slots and a bigger battery, among other things.

[ramarren]

I find the SL is almost perfect with a range of M lenses. I have no need for the SL lenses, they really are too large and heavy for me. But 21/50/90and 135 M lenses work well with the SL.

...

 

 

I'm in the middle of a kitchen renovation and fitted the SL24-90 to do some record/documentary recording of the progress. I guess I've been using the Super-Elmar-R 15mm a lot, but the SL24-90 didn't really feel all that big or heavy anymore. 

 

I think it's a matter of what I become accustomed to more than anything else. The M-D fitted with 'Lux 35 v2 now seems tiny... 

[jaapv]

Well, I must admit it is one of the aspects that hold me off.

[FlashGordonPhotography]

Well, I must admit it is one of the aspects that hold me off.

 

If you use the multifunction grip and EVF on the M, the SL is almost identical in size and weight. Apart from the grip, which is lovely, it's not a big camera at all. In 35mm only the M and A7 series are smaller, although the SL is heavier than a few more. It's also the best built mirrorless camera by a large margin. The Noctilux is much better balanced on the SL, as is the 90 AA and 135 APO. The 24-90 is better matched to the SL than the 24-70 GM is to the A72 in balance and handling.

 

If you are drawn to the faster/larger M lenses you'll really like the SL. It is also highly suited to adapting lenses from other systems.

 

I can also say that I found the more I used the SL, the more I appreciated the size, balance, utility and grip. It's an ugly duckling but it definitely grows on you.

 

Gordon

[jaapv]

Yes- but I do not use the multifunction grip on the M because I think it is an expensive lump -I prefer a Joby hand strap-,and the EVF only when needed or long or wide lenses...:

[ramarren]

The SL grip is particularly nice when using long, large, or heavy lenses, like 15, 19, 90, 135, Etc R system lenses. Since these lenses are not typically M lenses, nor used on an M, I've not seen the need for an M Grip. The Noctilux or other large, heavy M lenses benefit from the grip too.

 

I basically keep M lenses on the M and put SL and R lenses on the SL.

[Guest]

I'm in the middle of a kitchen renovation and fitted the SL24-90 to do some record/documentary recording of the progress. I guess I've been using the Super-Elmar-R 15mm a lot, but the SL24-90 didn't really feel all that big or heavy anymore. 

 

I think it's a matter of what I become accustomed to more than anything else. The M-D fitted with 'Lux 35 v2 now seems tiny... 

 

The SL with the 21mm Super Elmar is what I would use for the job you describe. Also would seem tiny next to SL & 24-90!

[sillbeers15]

The SL with the 21mm Super Elmar is what I would use for the job you describe. Also would seem tiny next to SL & 24-90!

The M240 or M9 matches the 21mm SEM way better than the SL. I had the lens while I had my M9, it was a wonderful little lens, until I traded it for a 21mm Lux. The 21mm Lux matches my SL better in handling over my M240.

[ramarren]

The SL with the 21mm Super Elmar is what I would use for the job you describe. Also would seem tiny next to SL & 24-90!

 

 

Actually, no, I disagree completely. The SL24-90's zoom range, image stabilization, and autofocus is what has made it work best. I've done some photos with the WATE and Super-Elmar-R, and with the M-D, but the SL+24-90, supplemented by the SER15 for a couple of shots, really nails it beautifully. 

[Leicaiste]

The M240 or M9 matches the 21mm SEM way better than the SL. I had the lens while I had my M9, it was a wonderful little lens, until I traded it for a 21mm Lux. The 21mm Lux matches my SL better in handling over my M240.

I don't agree.

 

The SL viewfinder make it way better with the 21SEM.

[Guest VVJ]

IMHO the SL is not so large and I am a Q user as well...  The zooms on the other hand are large but excellent and very well balanced on the SL body.  

[Advertisement]

Hallo,

Look here: Leica L-Mount

[earleygallery]

IMHO the SL is not so large and I am a Q user as well... The zooms on the other hand are large but excellent and very well balanced on the SL body.

I think this is the point. If the SL was smaller it wouldn't balance well with the (rather large) SL lenses & people would complain about the awkward handling.