The illusion of SL camera size

[ramarren]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

On Saturday I saw the SL on display next to a Hasselblad X1D - the Hasselblad is smaller... Though the SL seemed to convey much more confidence that you can use it - but I have to confess that I am in no way familiar with both cameras. 

 

 

In the hand, the X1D feels a little smaller and friendlier mostly because the shape of the body and grip isn't so strictly Bauhaus minimalistic as the SL's are, and the lenses are a good bit smaller than the SL's zooms. But the control ergonomics of the SL are actually better... 

[Keith_W]

Thank you for your reply ramarren. Great answer - large size of exit pupil to permit more orthogonal rays = larger lenses. I honestly don't see what unique selling point the SL has, apart from ability to use native Leica SL lenses and ergonomics. Arguably, you could get a more versatile imaging system for less money if you went with a Sony A7R3 + Zeiss Otus - with arguably superior image quality as well. That is, if you were willing to carry all that obscene weight around. I look at the comical size of the Summilux-SL 50 and I shake my head. What were they thinking? 

[helged]

Thank you for your reply ramarren. Great answer - large size of exit pupil to permit more orthogonal rays = larger lenses. I honestly don't see what unique selling point the SL has, apart from ability to use native Leica SL lenses and ergonomics. Arguably, you could get a more versatile imaging system for less money if you went with a Sony A7R3 + Zeiss Otus - with arguably superior image quality as well. That is, if you were willing to carry all that obscene weight around. I look at the comical size of the Summilux-SL 50 and I shake my head. What were they thinking? 

 

 

Image quality in combination of auto focus.

[ramarren]

Thank you for your reply ramarren. Great answer - large size of exit pupil to permit more orthogonal rays = larger lenses. I honestly don't see what unique selling point the SL has, apart from ability to use native Leica SL lenses and ergonomics. Arguably, you could get a more versatile imaging system for less money if you went with a Sony A7R3 + Zeiss Otus - with arguably superior image quality as well. That is, if you were willing to carry all that obscene weight around. I look at the comical size of the Summilux-SL 50 and I shake my head. What were they thinking? 

 

 

The second round of SL lenses (the primes, Summicron-SL 75, 90, and 35 mm) are about to appear in users' hands. Leica has listened and they look to be much more compactly sized and lighter, about the same as the R lenses they replace but necessarily a little longer because of the 20+mm shorter mount register and with all the servos and such to support AF etc. The Summilux-SL 50mm, when I handled it, was a big lump but lighter, slightly smaller than the SL24-90, and with very nice balance. It reminded me of its FourThirds SLR sibling, the Panasonic/Leica Summilux-D 25mm f/1.4 ASPH: a big lump for a FourThirds SLR but imaging quality to die for. I loved that lens when I had it despite its bulk. The SL50 is not that much bigger or heavier than its only real competition in imaging quality for this class of camera, the Zeiss Otus 50mm, and it supports AF and all the other stuff. 

 

Trade-offs. Nothing is ever perfect.

[FlashGordonPhotography]

On Saturday I saw the SL on display next to a Hasselblad X1D - the Hasselblad is smaller... Though the SL seemed to convey much more confidence that you can use it - but I have to confess that I am in no way familiar with both cameras. 

 

I have both. They're both great in use. The X1D grip is better but the SL's buttons and layout is superior.

 

But once you add lenses they end up being a similar size and weight. Then the SL, with zooms, trumps the X1D for flexibility and usability.

 

Gordon