chrismuc Posted October 23, 2015 Share #1 Posted October 23, 2015 (edited) Advertisement (gone after registration) Comparison of sizes of some cameras: 1. Sony RX-1 Quite the minimum size required for a 24x36mm mirror-less camera, w/ integrated medium fast wide angle lens (similar to the good old Rollei 35 camera :-). (just as reference, not for comparison) 2. Sony A7RII + Sony FE 55f1.8 "Typical" size of 24x36mm mirror-less camera w/ interchangeable lenses + f1.8 normal lens. 3. Leica SL + SL 50f1.4 4. Canon 5DsR + Sigma 50f1.4 Art 5. Leica S + S 70f2.5 With the Leica S, Leica succeeded to integrate a 25% wider and 25% higher sensor into a camera which is virtually not larger than a typical 24x36mm mirror-reflex camera. In contrary, with the Leica SL, Leica "succeeded" to make a 24x36mm mirror-less camera/lens system without need as huge (and heavy) as a 24x36mm mirror-reflex or even their own 30x45mm crop-MF mirror-reflex system. I don't get it ... all, or at least most benefits of mirror-less are gone ... Welcome, dear visitor! As registered member you'd see an image here… Simply register for free here – We are always happy to welcome new members! Edited October 23, 2015 by chrismuc 3 Quote Link to post Share on other sites Simply register for free here – We are always happy to welcome new members! ' data-webShareUrl='https://www.l-camera-forum.com/topic/252027-sl-size/?do=findComment&comment=2912042'>More sharing options...
Advertisement Posted October 23, 2015 Posted October 23, 2015 Hi chrismuc, Take a look here SL size. I'm sure you'll find what you were looking for!
bencoyote Posted October 23, 2015 Share #2 Posted October 23, 2015 I've started to to compile all the numbers and present them in a table format but I haven't gotten terribly far. If anybody has information that they want to contribute post it here and I'll add it to the table: https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/12FaKJi90fC3-0EoquUJg-MMC4y_665B0ml-tRYpb7DY/edit?usp=sharing Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
dkCambridgeshire Posted October 23, 2015 Share #3 Posted October 23, 2015 Comparison of sizes of some cameras: 1. Sony RX-1 Quite the minimum size required for a 24x36mm mirror-less camera, w/ integrated medium fast wide angle lens (similar to the good old Rollei 35 camera :-). (just as reference, not for comparison) 2. Sony A7RII + Sony FE 55f1.8 "Typical" size of 24x36mm mirror-less camera w/ interchangeable lenses + f1.8 normal lens. 3. Leica SL + SL 50f1.4 4. Canon 5DsR + Sigma 50f1.4 Art 5. Leica S + S 70f2.5 With the Leica S, Leica succeeded to integrate a 25% wider and 25% higher sensor into a camera which is virtually not larger than a typical 24x36mm mirror-reflex camera. In contrary, with the Leica SL, Leica "succeeded" to make a 24x36mm mirror-less camera/lens system without need as huge (and heavy) as a 24x36mm mirror-reflex or even their own 30x45mm crop-MF mirror-reflex system. I don't get it ... all, or at least most benefits of mirror-less are gone ... The original RX 1 is known for its vignetting. The SL lenses are telecentric to overcome vignetting and are thus larger than 'not so telecentric' designs. One UK Leica Premier dealer lists the SL with their CSCs dunk Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
bencoyote Posted October 23, 2015 Share #4 Posted October 23, 2015 The original RX 1 is known for its vignetting. The SL lenses are telecentric to overcome vignetting and are thus larger than 'not so telecentric' designs. I can readily accept that Leica decided to optimize for optical quality over size in this generation of lenses. I would argue that they need to market this fact better as a way to justify the relative size in comparison to other similar lenses. Much the same way that they market lenses with APO and ASPH like the "APO-Summicron-M 50mm f/2 ASPH." Maybe they should call the lens "TC-Summilux-SL 50mm f/1.4 ASPH" Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
IWC Doppel Posted October 24, 2015 Share #5 Posted October 24, 2015 This site is very helpful http://camerasize.com/compare/#639,624 I have noted Jono's very obvious and valid point. That when using larger lenses, R's 'S' lenses and the new SL's and some M's like my 75 Summilux for example the body size makes complete sense. The A7R II would look very undersized with a lot of lenses and the SL will handle these larger lenses much better. Personally I'm very happy with my carry everywhere M, but I would be warming to the SL if I wasnt solely an M user 1 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
almoore Posted October 24, 2015 Share #6 Posted October 24, 2015 The original RX 1 is known for its vignetting. The SL lenses are telecentric to overcome vignetting and are thus larger than 'not so telecentric' designs. It's also known for its startlingly high level of performance combined with small size. In a digital age, lens designers should be using every tool available (including software correction) to achieve a realistic balance between size and performance. Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
@McLeica Posted October 24, 2015 Share #7 Posted October 24, 2015 Advertisement (gone after registration) If I wanted a DSLR, the size is great, but I still can't get over the size of that 50mm fast lens!?!?!?!? Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
IkarusJohn Posted October 24, 2015 Share #8 Posted October 24, 2015 In a digital age, lens designers should be using every tool available (including software correction) to achieve a realistic balance between size and performance. I agree - it will be well balanced with my Distagon 15/2.8 (not sure about colour shift), 21 Summilux, Noctilux, 75 Summilux and 90 Summicron ... Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
thighslapper Posted October 24, 2015 Share #9 Posted October 24, 2015 (edited) If I wanted a DSLR, the size is great, but I still can't get over the size of that 50mm fast lens!?!?!?!? .... yes, but Leica have claimed it will be the sharpest 50mm lens they have ever made ....... which is a tall order ..... and clearly with an S sized body (which seems to have been the original brief) the need for compactness is somewhat unnecessary. Finally a camera which will not make my Noctilux look like a brick stuck on the front of a matchbox ...... Edited October 24, 2015 by thighslapper 1 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
@McLeica Posted October 24, 2015 Share #10 Posted October 24, 2015 .... yes, but Leica have claimed it will be the sharpest 50mm lens they have ever made ....... which is a tall order ..... and clearly with an S sized body (which seems to have been the original brief) the need for compactness is somewhat unnecessary. Finally a camera which will not make my Noctilux look like a brick stuck on the front of a matchbox ...... Yes, but that's my point. The SL is smaller than Canon and Nikon comparables, but that lens more than makes up for the size difference and turns it into an artillery piece. Having said that the Noctilux would be just about the right size, but then you lose the AF advantage, have the same res as an M and just a slightly better balanced camera. That's an expensive piece of ballast!!! 1 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
thighslapper Posted October 24, 2015 Share #11 Posted October 24, 2015 It's only money ....... and you can't take it with you ..... 3 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Peter H Posted October 24, 2015 Share #12 Posted October 24, 2015 It feels, probably unreasonably, that we've gone back to the late 1980s or early '90s when OM4s were suddenly ditched for Nikon F4s, approximately 1,000 times the size (give or take a ridiculous exaggeration or two) simply because the OM4, an incredibly wonderful camera, didn't offer AF. So the whole world started lugging vast lumps of heavy industrial plant around on the shoulders, supported by military-grade travel-cases that could house small communities, all because manual focussing was a bit of a bind. Yes, there are justifications for big cameras. There always have been. One day there won't be. I look forward to that day. 2 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mike Rawcs Posted October 24, 2015 Share #13 Posted October 24, 2015 It feels, probably unreasonably, that we've gone back to the late 1980s or early '90s when OM4s were suddenly ditched for Nikon F4s, approximately 1,000 times the size (give or take a ridiculous exaggeration or two) simply because the OM4, an incredibly wonderful camera, didn't offer AF. So the whole world started lugging vast lumps of heavy industrial plant around on the shoulders, supported by military-grade travel-cases that could house small communities, all because manual focussing was a bit of a bind. Yes, there are justifications for big cameras. There always have been. One day there won't be. I look forward to that day. +1. Perhaps, with the manual focussing aids available in an EVF camera, we may be offered a choice of large AF lenses or small MF lenses? If I could buy a couple of new Leica R lenses the SL would be very attractive to me. 2 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
diogenis Posted October 24, 2015 Share #14 Posted October 24, 2015 It's not just the size of the camera+lens. It's also the weight. On the other hand, Leica has sweeten the deal by giving a revolutionary EVF. Comparing with dSLRs this one has the benefit that comes with the absence of the mirror construction and the G shocks + VF blinds that come with this technology. With the typical superb lenses, it's not a bad product. On the other hand its very expensive. I can't see how Leica is going to compete with dSLRs that are 1/3 -1/4th the cost of this model. The price to pay for AF is extremely high. Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
John Black Posted October 24, 2015 Share #15 Posted October 24, 2015 The supposition in play here is "mirrorless = smaller", but clearly Leica did not enter into this with that assumption in mind. I think the Leica approached the SL system with a Zeiss Otus mindset and the camera's scale was matched (balanced?) with Otus-sized lenses. The 70S and 50SL have about the effective FOV on their respective sensors. The total length of each camera with its lens is also very similar. The SL lenses have the mount depth shifted from the camera to lens barrel. We see a similar things happening with the Sony 35mm F1.4 AF and 90/2.8 Macro lenses. I wish the SL 50 Lux was smaller. I've got a deep bench of M lenses and marvel at their very compact size, especially in contrast to lenses like the Zeiss Otus and Milvus lines. I am truly surprised at Leica's design choice to go with S-like sized lenses on the SL. My guess would have been repackaged M lenses, something along the lines of Zeiss' ZMs remixed as Loxia's. One thing is for sure, Leica placed the M system on sacred ground - the SL does not challenge (cannibalize it) the M system in any manner. Now the $64 question is - will the next M get a high rez 4.4 MP? Will it get a moveable magnification patch? Will it get essentially zero shutter lag in EVF / LV mode? Or, will Leica equally protect the SL and reserve those performance attributes for the SL? 3 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
IkarusJohn Posted October 24, 2015 Share #16 Posted October 24, 2015 (edited) I agree with this. I assume the decision was made to produce the best lenses possible, without regard to size. The lens is pretty standard from a size perspective - slight change from the fabulous R 28-90. I just hope they can produce some compact fast lenses. I keep referring to the Nikkor 180/2.8, but it was compact and had fabulous image quality. I'd love an Elmarit (f/2.8) somewhere between 180 and 250. I can live with the 24-90 zoom just, but while the range of the 90-280 would be useful ... it looks like a rocket launcher. I just don't think I'd use a lens that vast, yet my interest in this camera is largely to be able to gain good reach. What to do ... Edited October 24, 2015 by IkarusJohn 1 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
NZDavid Posted October 24, 2015 Share #17 Posted October 24, 2015 (edited) Well, I wrote elsewhere that getting out and about with your camera can be very therapeutic. You'll get a real workout toting the SL. Edited October 24, 2015 by NZDavid Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
jamriman Posted October 24, 2015 Share #18 Posted October 24, 2015 I saw and handled it today at the photo show in NY. Real nice camera. Feels great in the hand. I also like the grippy covering on both the Q and SL have. Not as big in reality. Not for me, I'm more inclined to get the Q as I am an M fan. 1 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
mjh Posted October 25, 2015 Share #19 Posted October 25, 2015 Now the $64 question is - will the next M get a high rez 4.4 MP? Will it get a moveable magnification patch? Will it get essentially zero shutter lag in EVF / LV mode? Or, will Leica equally protect the SL and reserve those performance attributes for the SL? I don’t see why Leica should withhold any improvements from the next M. Cannibalising M sales is a non-issue as the M and SL are sufficiently different concept-wise. 4 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
fotografr Posted October 25, 2015 Share #20 Posted October 25, 2015 It's only money ....... and you can't take it with you ..... I mentioned that to my wife and she said, "That's true, but you can leave it to me!" 1 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.