Missing the heft?

[danielfrimley]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

I have been a CL owner for some time and a member of this forum for just as long - I've read every post and comment I think and contributed a fair bit when I think I can be helpful.

So, as someone who is very familiar with both the camera and the membership's (very valid) stock opinion that it's diminutive size and weight are a real plus point, I wonder if anyone feels they're really missing something - the distinct lack of volume and mass.

Talk around the SL2 has made me consider what would make me switch to it (I can't justify both) and I've concluded that it's not IQ, nor FF, nor IS, not newer bells, whistles and MPs but the simple fact that (in comparison) it's a whopping great, fantastically engineered, lump.

I'm a big lad, 6' 5" and 18 stone wringing wet so I understand that I might be better equipped to deal with that than some, it's not that though - I sometimes feel completely disconnected from the CL, not as bad as I do when trying to use a mobile phone but certainly enough to disengage me from the act of making photos. Sometimes it just doesn't "feel" like a camera, and I can't be bothered, and that's sad.

I don't want to start an argument about the practical, physical and ergonomic pros and cons of the smaller CL package, that's a paper exercise, but more of a sharing of experience on whether, all things being equal, in the marriage of a photographer and his kit - size does matter and has a real impact on the symbiosis between man and machine.

[lct]

I prefer small bodies personally, especially in APS and 4/3 formats. Why choosing crop formats otherwise? As for FF bodies, the Leica R4 to R7 were pretty compact and allowed to use bulky lenses as well so i hardly see why the SL and SL2 are as bulky as MF cameras more or less. Must be cyclical at Wetzlar i guess. Leicaflex, R3, R8 and R9 were bulky too. Now the R3 to R7 were adapted Minolta bodies so perhaps the SL and SL2 would be smaller if Leica worked with Sony instead of Panasonic for them.

Edited November 24, 2019 by lct

[Advertisement]

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

[wda]

2 hours ago, danielfrimley said:

I have been a CL owner for some time and a member of this forum for just as long - I've read every post and comment I think and contributed a fair bit when I think I can be helpful.

So, as someone who is very familiar with both the camera and the membership's (very valid) stock opinion that it's diminutive size and weight are a real plus point, I wonder if anyone feels they're really missing something - the distinct lack of volume and mass.

Talk around the SL2 has made me consider what would make me switch to it (I can't justify both) and I've concluded that it's not IQ, nor FF, nor IS, not newer bells, whistles and MPs but the simple fact that (in comparison) it's a whopping great, fantastically engineered, lump.

I'm a big lad, 6' 5" and 18 stone wringing wet so I understand that I might be better equipped to deal with that than some, it's not that though - I sometimes feel completely disconnected from the CL, not as bad as I do when trying to use a mobile phone but certainly enough to disengage me from the act of making photos. Sometimes it just doesn't "feel" like a camera, and I can't be bothered, and that's sad.

I don't want to start an argument about the practical, physical and ergonomic pros and cons of the smaller CL package, that's a paper exercise, but more of a sharing of experience on whether, all things being equal, in the marriage of a photographer and his kit - size does matter and has a real impact on the symbiosis between man and machine.

Daniel, have you tried adding M-lenses or R-lenses to your CL, particularly longer focal lengths and faster primes? They certainly go some way to increasing your desired 'heft'.

[Boojay]

On 11/24/2019 at 10:23 AM, danielfrimley said:

I have been a CL owner for some time and a member of this forum for just as long - I've read every post and comment I think and contributed a fair bit when I think I can be helpful.

So, as someone who is very familiar with both the camera and the membership's (very valid) stock opinion that it's diminutive size and weight are a real plus point, I wonder if anyone feels they're really missing something - the distinct lack of volume and mass.

Talk around the SL2 has made me consider what would make me switch to it (I can't justify both) and I've concluded that it's not IQ, nor FF, nor IS, not newer bells, whistles and MPs but the simple fact that (in comparison) it's a whopping great, fantastically engineered, lump.

I'm a big lad, 6' 5" and 18 stone wringing wet so I understand that I might be better equipped to deal with that than some, it's not that though - I sometimes feel completely disconnected from the CL, not as bad as I do when trying to use a mobile phone but certainly enough to disengage me from the act of making photos. Sometimes it just doesn't "feel" like a camera, and I can't be bothered, and that's sad.

I don't want to start an argument about the practical, physical and ergonomic pros and cons of the smaller CL package, that's a paper exercise, but more of a sharing of experience on whether, all things being equal, in the marriage of a photographer and his kit - size does matter and has a real impact on the symbiosis between man and machine.

I understand what you mean about missing the heft and sometimes the CL not feeling quite like a real camera, though most days I'm using it somewhere, it rarely disappoints, and would always be camera of choice for travel, you obviously appreciate all of those things too.

I also agree about the "whopping great, fantastically engineered lump" that is the SL2, there will probably be one of those for me down the road a little, though that is for FF, and most definitely IS, not so much the MP's.  I'm using a Panasonic S1 at the moment to give me those things, heavier and IMO very ugly... but when I look though my images, ISO 10,000, handheld at 1/4 and less I'm happy to use it.  One more thing that has kind of surprised me is that I am actually enjoying having labelled knobs and dials again.  Even after nearly two years of constant use I still have to do the occasional reset of the CL because I have messed up wheel assignment and the function button.  

Have you thought about maybe renting one of the Panasonics to see how you get on, other than that as you don't seem enamoured of IS or the newer bells and whistles maybe a used SL, there's a few around now.  

 

 

 

Edited November 25, 2019 by Boojay
typo

[Mute-on]

This is actually a very real phenomenon for me, too. 
The M body with a moderate sized lens, say up to 50 Summicron or 90 Elmarit-M, both in brass, feels very substantial in hand, and more satisfying in use because of it. 
The heft is in the density (construction materials) rather than size. A similarly sized body and lens of lower mass would likely be far less substantial in hand. 
I think the OP’s attraction to an SL2 for its mass is likely well justified. 
Good luck!

[danielfrimley]

2 hours ago, Boojay said:

I understand what you mean about missing the heft and sometimes the CL not feeling quite like a real camera, though most days I'm using it somewhere, it rarely disappoints, and would always be camera of choice for travel, you obviously appreciate all of those things too.

I also agree about the "whopping great, fantastically engineered lump" that is the SL2, there will probably be one of those for me down the road a little, though that is for FF, and most definitely IS, not so much the MP's.  I'm using a Panasonic S1 at the moment to give me those things, heavier and IMO very ugly... but when I look though my images, ISO 10,000, handheld at 1/4 and less I'm happy to use it.  One more thing that has kind of surprised me is that I am actually enjoying having labelled knobs and dials again.  Even after nearly two years of constant use I still have to do the occasional reset of the CL because I have messed up wheel assignment and the function button.  

Have you thought about maybe renting one of the Panasonics to see how you get on, other than that as you don't seem enamoured of IS or the newer bells and whistles maybe a used SL, there's a few around now.  

 

 

 

No, I hadn't - excellent idea, thank you

[Le Chef]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

5 hours ago, Boojay said:

I understand what you mean about missing the heft and sometimes the CL not feeling quite like a real camera, though most days I'm using it somewhere, it rarely disappoints, and would always be camera of choice for travel, you obviously appreciate all of those things too.

I also agree about the "whopping great, fantastically engineered lump" that is the SL2, there will probably be one of those for me down the road a little, though that is for FF, and most definitely IS, not so much the MP's.  I'm using a Panasonic S1 at the moment to give me those things, heavier and IMO very ugly... but when I look though my images, ISO 10,000, handheld at 1/4 and less I'm happy to use it.  One more thing that has kind of surprised me is that I am actually enjoying having labelled knobs and dials again.  Even after nearly two years of constant use I still have to do the occasional reset of the CL because I have messed up wheel assignment and the function button.  

Have you thought about maybe renting one of the Panasonics to see how you get on, other than that as you don't seem enamoured of IS or the newer bells and whistles maybe a used SL, there's a few around now.  

 

 

 

You make a good point about controls Jayne. I recently took out my little DL-109, needing something pocketable, and thoroughly enjoyed having all the controls labeled. That sense of being able to adjust controls easily between shots is something I miss with the CL. The trade off of course is flexibility of controls. I’ve yet to try an M camera but feel it’s worth trying out. 
 

“Heft” is a funny thing - it doesn’t have to mean weight, but perhaps is much more about density of the object. American cars from the 60’s and 70’s had weight but not heft. A Mercedes from the same era really did have heft in terms of sense of density of the whole vehicle. 

[mikbau]

I will say, coming from the SLR world - I have a harder time holding the CL steady than I did with the SLR - the heft definitely played in to keeping it steady at lower shutter speeds. At least for me. The Fuji XPRO-2 was a little better as it was slightly larger and had the moulded bump in the front to grab on to. I'm going to try a leather case with a built in hand mould or the hand grip to see if it helps. 

[wda]

5 minutes ago, mikbau said:

I will say, coming from the SLR world - I have a harder time holding the CL steady than I did with the SLR - the heft definitely played in to keeping it steady at lower shutter speeds. At least for me. The Fuji XPRO-2 was a little better as it was slightly larger and had the moulded bump in the front to grab on to. I'm going to try a leather case with a built in hand mould or the hand grip to see if it helps. 

The handgrip will certainly help you. I find mine indispensable.

[mikbau]

1 hour ago, wda said:

The handgrip will certainly help you. I find mine indispensable.

Any issue with constantly removing it/putting it back on? Part of the reason I was looking at the leather case is there are models with it built in - and you don't have to remove it to access the battery/card

[wda]

10 hours ago, mikbau said:

Any issue with constantly removing it/putting it back on? Part of the reason I was looking at the leather case is there are models with it built in - and you don't have to remove it to access the battery/card

Not really for my tempo of shooting. The only negative issue is lack of tripod bush. But for home long exposure work I use my old X Vario which solves that problem.

[LocalHero1953]

All things being equal, I prefer small and light to 'heft', 'density', 'mass' or 'volume'.
I guess I'm a normal sized fit and strong guy with normal sized hands. I have the CL and SL, and would be very happy if the SL was smaller and lighter; I accept it is as it is to balance the SL lenses, and that they are big and heavy for optical reasons.

If the CL was bigger and heavier I wouldn't own it. It sounds like you would be happier with the SL (and I don't mean that in the normal forum passive-aggressive way!)

[Boojay]

11 hours ago, mikbau said:

Any issue with constantly removing it/putting it back on? Part of the reason I was looking at the leather case is there are models with it built in - and you don't have to remove it to access the battery/card

It would be an issue for me.  I have a Lim's half case with the grip attached, and dovetail plate for tripod mounting which is so useful.  Nothing to remove for card and battery access and a little extra protection for the body.  If I'm using smaller lenses the case stays home but it's a must with any of the larger ones.  Battery life isn't bad on the CL, but it's not great, most times I'm out shooting requires at least one battery change so having to remove the grip would be a pain for me.

 

[Marac]

I certainly do not 'miss' the heft since going with the Leica CL but I do 'kind of' miss the images from larger sensors, especially CCD sensors (I know, I'm weird)

I have just recently purchased a Mamiya ZD medium format DSLR style camera that is medium format CCD... forget ISO over 200 (unless you want grainy B&W like me then 400 is the max this camera can do and it looks wonderful). Huge hand filling lump but gloriously nostalgic.

[gerri_k]

Long time ago i've worked with Linhof (18x24 cm), Hasselblad 6x6 as well as Canon F1 and Nikon F - but i don't miss it. Today i'm using  (just for fun as well as work) my T and TL2 - and i love it!

[tommonego@gmail.com]

1 hour ago, gerri_k said:

Long time ago i've worked with Linhof (18x24 cm), Hasselblad 6x6 as well as Canon F1 and Nikon F - but i don't miss it. Today i'm using  (just for fun as well as work) my T and TL2 - and i love it!

Yeah, my Canon F1 with a full motor drive, about 4.5 lbs without a lens. While photographing surgery I'd have a 2.2lb 90-180 macro on the camera. Really like the CL even with that same macro lens. Also still have a Linhof Technica 4x5 inch, but generally use that off a tripod. 

[mikbau]

I wish Lims offered the plate without the leather half case. While I really like the look of the leather, I’d prefer to not have to use one - would prefer just to have the plate. 

[Boojay]

16 hours ago, mikbau said:

I wish Lims offered the plate without the leather half case. While I really like the look of the leather, I’d prefer to not have to use one - would prefer just to have the plate. 

Might be worth contacting them - cannot see why they would not be able to offer that.  Looking at mine I would guess (wouldn't want to do it) the leather case would be easily removed.

http://limsdesign.com/contact.html?cate_no=32

 

[mikbau]

4 hours ago, Boojay said:

Might be worth contacting them - cannot see why they would not be able to offer that.  Looking at mine I would guess (wouldn't want to do it) the leather case would be easily removed.

http://limsdesign.com/contact.html?cate_no=32

 

I may do that. I couldn’t tell based on all the photos I’ve seen whether or not the leather was integral to any part of it. Sounds like it isn’t. 

[Advertisement]

Hallo,

Look here: Leica L-Mount

[Jake]

As technology progresses, cameras will become smaller and smaller. And I expect the top of the line image makers to be a pair of glasses in the future, recording everything you see to be processed later. On the other hand, I remember my father telling me B&W was dead in 1972 when he gave away the canonet I wanted desperately, for a farking Konica T. Although I must say I produced a few decent images with that camera. . . But I digress. 

Of course size matters. It's what ergonomics/ human factors is all about. However, human's ability to adapt has overcome much of the disparity between the 50th percentile and the 90th. One cannot design for everybody. You either adapt, or find something that suits your needs. I personally like small cameras. Not because I'm not a giant, but the weight, size of bag, and the inconspicuous nature of small cameras. Everybody feels intimidated when you pull out a massive camera. 

/shrug.