Why Are People Complaining About "Large"

[rriley]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

Its the functionality and performance that counts!

[DTM]

There is a solution to this.

 

If it is too heavy and large for you buy something else that is smaller.

[Advertisement]

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

[pico]

Is the camera large, or are the users small?

 

[DTM]

That's just proof on how much smaller cameras have gotten over the last 40 years. 

[sillbeers15]

Why are there no complains about Medium Format digital cameras and lenses too large and heavy by these ppl???

[Manoleica]

Most of the excuses are Anti Sales/Buy -- (I really cannot afford it -- it's too big!) (Wifey will kill me -- I'm sorry, I thought it could sing & dance!)  (Thinks/My photographic skills are negligible -- do you have anything smaller in the "Good P&S range) (It's a lovely combo, so thats $15,000 -- I'm actually on my lunch break, i will be back tomorrow!) And there are many many more..

[Herr Barnack]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

Is the camera large, or are the users small?

 

 

There's no doubt about it - they got small:

 

Edited August 4, 2016 by Carlos Danger

[FlashGordonPhotography]

Its the functionality and performance that counts!

 

Not always. I recently went on a trip where the carry on limits were strictly enforced. As a result my SL gear stayed at home although I would have liked to take it with me.

 

Smaller cameras are so good now that they can be used in many places instead of a larger/heavier system with little or no noticeable difference. Personally I would never buy a Canon 1Dx2 or D5. There's nothing these cameras do *for me* that the smaller and lighter SL can't.

 

Personally, I don't find the SL too big for the applications where it is most useful to me. But I travel with a Fuji XPro2 or an M, not the SL. Once you add in the lenses the XPro2 with it's excellent standard zoom is a magnitude smaller than the SL with 90% of the image quality.

 

Gordon

[FlashGordonPhotography]

Why are there no complains about Medium Format digital cameras and lenses too large and heavy by these ppl???

 

My back complains all the time when I carry my MF system.

 

Seriously, now the Hasselblad is coming I think you'll see similar discussions in the medium format forums.

 

Gordon

[ramarren]

.. Because it seems people must complain about something these days.

 

I don't find the SL too large, nor my 'Blads. But if I want to carry something small, I carry something else. That's why I have several different cameras, after all.

[erl]

First, you must suffer for your craft!

Seriously many of you would probably not have ever carried the weight of gear I did with my comprehensive Hasselblad outfit, plus lights and stand, plus tripods and power leads. All 'standard equipment for my assignments. I was occasionally asked which gym I went to to get so fit. My answer was always - 'work'!

 

The other day I was looking at that gear and thinking 'how the hell did I carry it all?'

The fact is, I couldn't now.

It's called age, I fear, and many of of us suffer it now. Viva la Leica for it's compactness and relative lightness I say.

[HeinzX]

_{Weight counts too - but it is only one point in the sum of making a yes or no decision. Performance is another point - more important. I have sold my M 240 plus the lenses and bought a SL - mainly because of the finder and the autofocus. And because of the possibility to use some of my excellent special lenses of Canon together with the Novoflex adapter.}

_{But of course it would by nice to have a system with the weight of the M system and the features of the SL. But I know, that this is wishful thinking and completely irrealistic. And sometimes I have my Sony RX 10 III with me, when I do not want to carry too much weight with me and the SL is not necessary - makes fun and gives good results too under condition of enough light and when no quick autofocus is required.  May Leica forgive me.}

Edited August 4, 2016 by HeinzX

[earleygallery]

What about all the moaning about the last M being 'larger' when that was only the little thumb wheel protrusion?!!

[pgk]

Seriously many of you would probably not have ever carried the weight of gear I did with my comprehensive Hasselblad outfit, plus lights and stand, plus tripods and power leads. All 'standard equipment for my assignments. I was occasionally asked which gym I went to to get so fit. My answer was always - 'work'!

 

The other day I was looking at that gear and thinking 'how the hell did I carry it all?'

The fact is, I couldn't now.

It's called age, I fear, and many of of us suffer it now. Viva la Leica for it's compactness and relative lightness I say.

 

I have a friend who used to do a lot of industrial photography but switched over to running a photo library instead. I once asked him why - because he clearly still enjoyed taking photos. His answer was that one day he and an assistant had just loaded up a trolley full of gear - cameras, tripods, lights, stands, reflectors and more - and he realised that he detested having to lug around such quantities of gear with all its implications (including weight, hassle, security and so on). At the end of the day this sort of work had become a chore which he no longer enjoyed, so he gave it up.

 

I'll stick with my M cameras although my underwater rig (Canon 1DS3 based) weights over 10Kg above water when ready to use, and if I could find an alternative which operates as well, wouldn't cost a small fortune and which I could actually travel with easily these days, then I'\d be tempted.

[erl]

I have a friend who used to do a lot of industrial photography but switched over to running a photo library instead. I once asked him why - because he clearly still enjoyed taking photos. His answer was that one day he and an assistant had just loaded up a trolley full of gear - cameras, tripods, lights, stands, reflectors and more - and he realised that he detested having to lug around such quantities of gear with all its implications (including weight, hassle, security and so on). At the end of the day this sort of work had become a chore which he no longer enjoyed, so he gave it up.

 

I'll stick with my M cameras although my underwater rig (Canon 1DS3 based) weights over 10Kg above water when ready to use, and if I could find an alternative which operates as well, wouldn't cost a small fortune and which I could actually travel with easily these days, then I'\d be tempted.

I never felt the gear was too much hassle etc. Rather it inspired me to try harder to get a good result to make it all worthwhile!

OTOH, it was all good when I stopped doing it because physically I could not do it now.

 

Re your underwater gear. Have you tried a GoPro? (Half said with tongue in cheek). Fantastic camera within it's limitations. I hardly go anywhere without one.

[pgk]

Re your underwater gear. Have you tried a GoPro? (Half said with tongue in cheek). Fantastic camera within it's limitations. I hardly go anywhere without one.

 

No, but within their limitations they are brilliant (but wouldn't work for what I do). I know scientific divers with GoPros on their heads who record simply each work dive - an extraordinary resource on occasions. 

Edited August 4, 2016 by pgk

[Guest]

SL with M lenses is definitely not too heavy, obtrusive for me. I would feel sub-conscious if I add the 24-90 around my neck on holiday, whereas SL and 21mm Super-Elmar just feels like a discreet camera to me by comparison. On a recent holiday most day-trips would have been happy with the SL + 21mm and maybe the 50 or 90 or 135 depending on location so camera and two lenses. I fit those easily in a Croots Byland 100-cartridge bag. Very discreet, expensive yes, but high quality leather good protection. Weight very manageable.

[zlatkob]

Its the functionality and performance that counts!

 

Size and weight are key aspects of functionality and performance.  You can't separate them.  Size and weight have been key selling points for a long time because most people appreciate having both better image quality and less to carry.

[ramarren]

Size and weight are indeed key aspects in the desirability of a camera. The SL body is not overly large or heavy, it's the lenses which make it seem big. Big lenses like the SL24-90 and SL90-280 take additional effort to carry and use, for sure. They provide flexibility and additional features for when those are important and worth carrying them. 

 

For me, these are working lenses: lenses I take out when I am doing work that requires them. In fact, I haven't bought the SL90-280 yet because I don't have the need for that lens at present. For when I'm traveling, walking, and doing my usual art photography, I switch to R and M lenses as they make the package handier and more useful for my purposes. My infrequent need for very long lenses is met by my current 180mm, 250mm, and 2x doubler. 

 

And when I simply want smaller and lighter than the SL can be, I pick up another camera. As I said before, this is why I have more than one camera. No one camera suits all possible uses and desires best. 

Edited August 4, 2016 by ramarren

[Advertisement]

Hallo,

Look here: Leica L-Mount

[Peter H]

...........................

 

And when I simply want smaller and lighter than the SL can be, I pick up another camera. As I said before, this is why I have more than one camera. No one camera suits all possible uses and desires best. 

 

 

And that is why it is perfectly legitimate for people to say that the SL is too large for them. That is not to say that it could or should be smaller, but for some people, for their purposes and preferences, it is too large. As it sometimes is for you.

 

I don't know why this is so controversial.