steppenw0lf Posted August 4, 2016 Share #21 Posted August 4, 2016 Advertisement (gone after registration) The size is ok when used with the 90-280 or with R lenses. Even with M lenses it is fine. You have to ask the designer why he chose those dimensions. I can just say it is ok in size or weight and it feels good in my hand, even if it is not a perfect beauty - the M246 or an old R4 look better, but so what. The functionality it offers is much more valuabe than "the looks". I once heard a user saying that it is actually too small with the 90-280 and that he would like to have the additional handgrip. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Advertisement Posted August 4, 2016 Posted August 4, 2016 Hi steppenw0lf, Take a look here Why is the SL so large?. I'm sure you'll find what you were looking for!
HeinzX Posted August 4, 2016 Share #22 Posted August 4, 2016 I do not feel the SL is so large - the lenses are - that is for sure. But it is quite clear, that the AF and the telecentric construction of these lenses demand their tribute - they can never be as small as the M lenses. The weight of the Canon EF 70 - 200 2.8 II IS USM is 1490 g, the weight of the Leica 90 - 280 is 1850 g. But we have to consider, that for use on the SL for the Canon an adapter is required, which adds a bit of weight. Length of the Leica lens is 238 mm (without lens hood) - that of the Canon is 199 mm - but again there would be to add the length of the adapter - and not much difference would be the result at the end. Remains a high difference in price - and the fact that the Leica Lens has 80 mm more tele and loses 20 mm at the low end. And the fact, that the IS of the Canon does not work with the Novoflex adapter. For me I have made the following decision - at least for a while - I bought the SL with the 24/90 and sold my 5 D III and the 24/70 2.8 II. And I bought th Novoflex adapter and kept the Canon 11/24, the Canon MP-E 65, the Canon Macro 100mm and 180 mm and the Canon 70/200 2.8 IS II USM. Maybe later on the last lens has to go, but the others will remain. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
rriley Posted August 4, 2016 Share #23 Posted August 4, 2016 And I bought th Novoflex adapter and kept the Canon 11/24, How do you like the 11-24 on the SL? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
helged Posted August 4, 2016 Share #24 Posted August 4, 2016 I find the M-bodies smallish with the bigger M-lenses like 21Lux, 28Lux, 50Noct, 75Lux, 90Cron, etc., not to mention R-lenses like 100 f2.8 macro and 280 f4APO. Yes, you can add a grip to the M, but then you are almost at the size of the SL. For much of my shooting I find the SL closer to perfect than the opposite. I am not a big fan of the large AF-zooms though, although I admire the technical quality of - and the ease of shooting with the 24-90. For hiking, the SL with 21SEM (or 28 Elmarit), 50APO and 90 Macro-Elmar is a (sufficiently) compact package for me. I have not figured out how to conveniently carry the SL+24-90 for, say, 8+ hours and 1500+ height meters a day, however. The large and heavy AF-lens does not only add volume and weight, it also adds inertia that is certainly not welcome in difficult terrain, during climbing, via ferrata, etc. Likewise, one-hand shooting is very difficult with the 24-90, whereas doable with a small M-lens. So thumbs up for the SL from my side! Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
HeinzX Posted August 4, 2016 Share #25 Posted August 4, 2016 @rriley I like the 11/24 very much together with the SL. The results are excellent - the AF works as weill as together with the 5 D III. IMHO even only for this lens the adapter is worth the money. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
steppenw0lf Posted August 31, 2016 Share #26 Posted August 31, 2016 Only the designer of the camera will know the details why he had to make it as it is. The large battery is certainly one of the reasons. But lately I have seen the description of the EVF coming from Epson. It simply uses a larger area than other EVFs - it does not fit in the current cameras with the exception of the SL. So it probably takes a bigger part in the size decision than I had expected before. And this is maybe also the reason why nobody else has announced another camera with a similar highres EVF, yet. The bodies would need a redesign. Maybe this leads in the future to an increase in size in other EVF cameras - which I would welcome. Or they simply wait to upgrade the EVF until a smaller device is available. The 4.4 "MegaPixel" are technically speaking SXGA x 3dots, while the 2.3 "MegaPixel" in Sony a7R II or the new Hasselblad X1D are XGA x 3dots. Meaning the Sony has XGA resolution, while the SL has twice XGA resolution (SXGA+) And the pixel density is about 2600ppi for the SL. While it is 326ppi for my iphone 5s and 264ppi for my "Retina" iPad. Here the link about the EVF: http://photorumors.com/2015/12/09/epson-announces-mass-production-of-the-evf-found-in-the-leica-sl-typ-601-mirrorless-camera/ Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
ramarren Posted August 31, 2016 Share #27 Posted August 31, 2016 Advertisement (gone after registration) I find the M-bodies smallish with the bigger M-lenses like 21Lux, 28Lux, 50Noct, 75Lux, 90Cron, etc., not to mention R-lenses like 100 f2.8 macro and 280 f4APO. Yes, you can add a grip to the M, but then you are almost at the size of the SL. For much of my shooting I find the SL closer to perfect than the opposite. I am not a big fan of the large AF-zooms though, although I admire the technical quality of - and the ease of shooting with the 24-90. For hiking, the SL with 21SEM (or 28 Elmarit), 50APO and 90 Macro-Elmar is a (sufficiently) compact package for me. I have not figured out how to conveniently carry the SL+24-90 for, say, 8+ hours and 1500+ height meters a day, however. The large and heavy AF-lens does not only add volume and weight, it also adds inertia that is certainly not welcome in difficult terrain, during climbing, via ferrata, etc. Likewise, one-hand shooting is very difficult with the 24-90, whereas doable with a small M-lens. So thumbs up for the SL from my side! The problem with the M-P and other M bodies with LCDs and buttons on the back is that there's not enough places to put my fingers without also pressing a button or putting my thumb on the LCD. That's why I always put them into a half-case ... a little thicker, with some nice material to afford me a better grip. The M-Ds lack of buttons and LCD demonstrate this immediately. It feels smaller, it lets me hold it the way I always held an M before, and it works with any size lens san grip or half-case. It is so much more comfortable to work with ... I really love it. Just like the SL. The SL gives my fingers and hands room to hold it properly, even with very large and heavy lenses. Just like my Leicaflex SL and R8. I wouldn't have it any other way. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
screwmount Posted August 31, 2016 Share #28 Posted August 31, 2016 They should make an SL without LCD !!!!! Das Wesentliche..... Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
ramarren Posted August 31, 2016 Share #29 Posted August 31, 2016 They should make an SL without LCD !!!!! Das Wesentliche..... No. Different kind of camera and control idiom. The SL does with thirteen controls what takes a Nikon twenty-eight controls to perform, however. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.