ramarren Posted August 4, 2016 Share #21 Posted August 4, 2016 Advertisement (gone after registration) 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. I agree ... I don't know why it is so controversial either, or why people complain about it. Just pick the camera that suits you and enjoy it. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Advertisement Posted August 4, 2016 Posted August 4, 2016 Hi ramarren, Take a look here Why Are People Complaining About "Large". I'm sure you'll find what you were looking for!
Peter H Posted August 4, 2016 Share #22 Posted August 4, 2016 I agree ... I don't know why it is so controversial either, or why people complain about it. Just pick the camera that suits you and enjoy it. People make observations about cameras because they're interested in cameras, and for some the size of an otherwise interesting camera is worth mentioning. That's all. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
FlashGordonPhotography Posted August 4, 2016 Share #23 Posted August 4, 2016 I did a lot of procrastinating for my recent trip. When I was sorting through the gear toi take I weighed my possible combinations. It was interesting to me, that a complete SL kit (body, WATE/adaptor, 24-90 and 90-280) was only 4.5 kg for a range of 16-280mm. Not a massive burden for such a range. Alas I wanted to carry medium format on this trip (body and a 21-100mm equiv. weighed 6kg) so I had to leave the SL at home. An A7R2 with G and GM lenses was 3kg (16-300mm). What was especially interesting was that the bag I had planned to take was 3.5kg, empty. Sure it was a better bag to walk with and relatively weather proof. But since I was usually close to a vehicle I saved 1.8kg by carrying a much simpler pack. My tripod/head was 3kg. Lee filters, batteries, release cable etc added another 1.5kg. For a normal work day, with my standard kit (which is based around the SL) the weight is 12kg with another 8kg bag of extras and spares in the car. That's significantly more than my entire Pentax 645Z landscape kit (8kg in total) or my S based kit. On the other hand the SL with a Noctilux is only 130 grams heavier than an M with the Noctilux and the EVF I need to guarantee wide open focus accuracy. So unless I'm throwing a camera with a single lens over my shoulder I learned to be a bit more conscious of the other stuff when it comes down to camera weight/size decisions. And if I'm doing that it wouldn't be the SL anyway but it could be because with a single M prime it's not that different to an M. Gordon Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jon Warwick Posted August 4, 2016 Share #24 Posted August 4, 2016 In response to the question, maybe it's more acute for the SL now that the similarly sized Hassie x1d has been announced, especially given the latter boasts 2x the megapixels and with the benefit of a larger medium format sensor? If one wants small - the M series (esp its lenses) remain fairly invincible despite the march in technology elsewhere. The 50 APO costs a lot, given its precision of manufacturing is presumably challenging in order to achieve what is a magnificent performance. The M246 and 50 APO is flat out the best image quality performance I've ever seen from a full frame 35mm sensor combo in a superbly compact form to boot. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Peter H Posted August 4, 2016 Share #25 Posted August 4, 2016 ...........The M246 and 50 APO is flat out the best image quality performance I've ever seen from a full frame 35mm sensor combo in a superbly compact form to boot. Shame it can't make colour photos. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
pico Posted August 4, 2016 Share #26 Posted August 4, 2016 Do not ignore the part/% of the population which does not have hands capable or large enough for the 'standard.' Nuff said. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
erl Posted August 5, 2016 Share #27 Posted August 5, 2016 Advertisement (gone after registration) Do not ignore the part/% of the population which does not have hands capable or large enough for the 'standard.' Nuff said. Victor Hasselblad was a small man, with small hands. That is why he designed the Hasselblad specifically to fit his hands. Although my hands are not particularly small, it is a design I really appreciate for it's ergonomics, amongst other things. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
jaapv Posted August 5, 2016 Share #28 Posted August 5, 2016 I agree ... I don't know why it is so controversial either, or why people complain about it. Just pick the camera that suits you and enjoy it. I don't complain - I simply do not buy it... Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
kikouyou Posted August 5, 2016 Share #29 Posted August 5, 2016 For me the SL body size is perfect. On my M I always use the MF grip which get me back to an SL form factor, with the difference that again for me the grip and the feel and features set of the SL is better. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
steppenw0lf Posted August 5, 2016 Share #30 Posted August 5, 2016 A M246 looks nice from the front, but not really from above. When holding it, it is too fat and too heavy compared to its size for a comfortable grip. Looking at it is nicer than holding it. The SL looks not very beautiful from the front, but looks quite interesting from above. It feels very good in the hand: robust, and cannot easily slip. So holding it is much better than looking at it. Which is more important for a camera in daily use ? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Peter H Posted August 5, 2016 Share #31 Posted August 5, 2016 A M246 looks nice from the front, but not really from above. When holding it, it is too fat and too heavy compared to its size for a comfortable grip. Looking at it is nicer than holding it. The SL looks not very beautiful from the front, but looks quite interesting from above. It feels very good in the hand: robust, and cannot easily slip. So holding it is much better than looking at it. Which is more important for a camera in daily use ? Conversely, I like the look of the SL (apart from the faux-prism) but found the grip uncomfortable. These are all very personal preferences. I can't criticise a camera for not matching my personal whims. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
farnz Posted August 5, 2016 Share #32 Posted August 5, 2016 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'! ... For fifteen years I lugged my monstrous Pentax 67 plus lenses, accessories, and heavy, steel, Manfrotto tripod up and down mountains at silly o'clock to get that magic light (and wouldn't trade a moment of it because of the sheer pleasure and breathtaking scenes it offered me) because that was the right tool for the job and I often internally used the argument that one must suffer for one's craft so I understand your point very well. My tiny Leicas, including the SL, just seem so lightweight and wonderful in comparison (never mind having to change the roll every 10 shots). Pete. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
lct Posted August 5, 2016 Share #33 Posted August 5, 2016 People make observations about cameras because they're interested in cameras, and for some the size of an otherwise interesting camera is worth mentioning. That's all. Indeed and some of them may regret that Leica did not take the Sony wagon as far as body size, rightly or wrongly. Not a reason to complain for sure but i've just broken a CV adapter on my A7s mod and this wouldn't have happened to a Leica one i suspect. Now there is zero chance that i ever purchase SL lenses anyway. Definitely too big for me. YMMV. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted August 7, 2016 Share #34 Posted August 7, 2016 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 SL + M-lenses 21/ 50/90/135 weighs in at under 5 kilos in a Hadley Pro bag. No problem with carry-on-limits even in 'economy' or cattle-class as I prefer to call the cramped quarters. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sandokan Posted August 7, 2016 Share #35 Posted August 7, 2016 SL + M-lenses 21/ 50/90/135 weighs in at under 5 kilos in a Hadley Pro bag. No problem with carry-on-limits even in 'economy' or cattle-class as I prefer to call the cramped quarters. Add a laptop, plus spare clothes in case your luggage is delayed, ipad, documents and a magazine or book to read and you soon reach 10kg. Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
erl Posted August 7, 2016 Share #36 Posted August 7, 2016 The worst part of that plan is that YOU have to carry it for the entire trip. No thanks Ravi. I can amuse myself just fine anywhere I get held over. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
pico Posted August 30, 2016 Share #37 Posted August 30, 2016 Victor Hasselblad was a small man, with small hands. That is why he designed the Hasselblad specifically to fit his hands. He took the design, in part, from a Russian aerial camera scaled down. Speaking of handling the Hasselblad, here is an unusual grip apparently made by Linhof. http://www.digoliardi.net/unusual-linhof-grip-2.jpg http://www.digoliardi.net/unusual-linhof-grip-1.jpg Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
David Dennis Posted August 30, 2016 Share #38 Posted August 30, 2016 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. If you don't go over 49' – admittedly a big if – the X-U is worth a look. I got one and I've been really enjoying underwater photography with it. It's just a simple integrated camera with a APS-C sensor and it's worked perfectly underwater so far. I really love it, although I did switch to the Q for above-water shots. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
MRJohn Posted August 30, 2016 Share #39 Posted August 30, 2016 I am not sure if all the mentioning about "large" is a complaint. Some might be just an observation, i.e. descriptive. I bought it, I sold my M, it is currently my only serious system. I feel it is large and heavy compared to some other cameras, but I am willing to accept this because I believe in the image quality and versatility of the system. I would still definitely prefer it to be smaller and lighter, is that an un-legitimate complaint or criticism? It is the best camera system I have ever used, but a comparatively large and heavy proposition. That's all, can't have it all. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
satijntje Posted August 30, 2016 Share #40 Posted August 30, 2016 I bought it, I sold my M, it is currently my only serious system. I feel it is large and heavy compared to some other cameras, but I am willing to accept this because I believe in the image quality and versatility of the system. Not completely true! I did not want to cope with the weight and the size of the SL, so I took the consequences, sold it and got an M back. The reason why I switched from Canon to Leica was the size/weight of the M8 and later the M9 etc. Carrying an SL the whole day even with an M lens or with the SL lenses did not pleasure me at all. I did it several days during my holidays this month. I could even have taken my DSLR (Nikon Df) gear with me, that would have been even lighter! Ok. I'm not a strong and big person, so I imagine that others have no problem with it. But for me the SL is out,and I'm back in M territory! John Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.