Weight Comparison - Post for other Leica newbies

[ALScott]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

I am new to Leica, I don't even have a body yet only lenses.  I keep reading here about weight this and that, mostly negatives on all the lenses I have purchased, Leica 100-400, 24-90 and Lux 50 1.4.  I thought I would compare them to my usual Canon kit to actually see how much difference there really is and IMO it's not enough difference to matter.  The Canon chart shows what I have always carried for 30+ years and most of the years it was far worse than what I show here because I always had a vertical grip on the body with however many AA batteries in it but I don't now.  This also does not consider the battery pack I currently carry which weighs 1lb and the 580exII flash, neither of which I will need with the SL3 which can basically shoot in the dark, if my Q3 is any indication of it's low light ability.  Sure, I am looking at total carry weight and there will be those that want to point that out but a lot of posts say, "this is ok but not when you start carrying it all together, etc. etc."  For example, individually the SL3 with the 50 is 1.7lbs heavier but there is absolutely no comparison between the images you get with the two.  I haven't taken a pic with it but you only have to do a cursory look on the web to see there is no comparison at all.  The 50 Lux is a special, special lens.  Point being, there is almost always some cost, actual cost, weight, operation or the like to getting a result you want with any tool whether it be a drill or screwdriver.  At the end of the day if I carry apples to apples as below, and I can't handle 2.4 lbs more I have bigger problems other than a camera system to choose.  All I know is I truly love the images out of my Q3 and IMO they blow my 6D away.  People poop on its focus abilities like the SL3 but so far it has not disappointed me with dog (has her own social media pages), sports and anything else I have shot.  Are some OOF?  Yes, but same would apply to my 6D and the 6D can't produce the beautiful images of the Q3.  I only expect the SL3 to do the same and give me far more flexibility with the lenses I have chosen.  All this to say, don't fret about weight, get what you want.

 

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 May 1, 2024 by ALScott

[Advertisement]

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

[dpitt]

You forgot to mention one thing... Leica, even the SL series and certainly the lenses and M series tend to keep their value much better than Canon. I remember buying my M8 at the same period when a friend of mine upgraded his Canon 5D to a Canon 5DMkII. The cost new was about the same at the time (M8 was end of life). I did not buy mine new, but paid 1500€
Now, I can get the same for the M8, and the Canon 5D MkII is worth next to nothing (400€ ?) + the M8 gave me 1000s of images the Canon could never take.

I do own a Leica SL (601) and I do not complain about the weight. I just use it around the house and close to my car. When there is need to carry if for a longer distance, I prefer my Leica M8 / M9 and my Leica TL2. Everything is relative... In a way these last three will also blow your Canon 6D away - not on all points but on most points where it matters to me - so, yes, I think the SL series is heavy, but that is because I am spoiled by the M and T series. In my eyes Leica SL, Canon R, Nikon Z, Sony... bodies and lenses all look enormous and heavy.

Many  members of this owning the SLx have the same issue. They also are spoiled by their Q, M or TL/CL ...

Edit:
I try to keep my travel/walking gear below/around 1 Kg for 1body + lens(es). Which is easy to do with Q, M , T series.

 

Edited May 1, 2024 by dpitt

[davflys]

If the Q3’s performance is anything to go by, the SL3 is going to be a game-changer for you. Sure, some shots might be out of focus, but that’s just part of photography.  So, I’d say don’t sweat the small stuff.

[LanceR]

@dpitt I like your idea of keeping the walk around kit to less than 1kg.  When I travelled with my M11 and a 35mm lens that was easy, but I increasingly struggled with critical focus.

I traded out the M11 for the SL3.  I did get an adapter for my M lenses, but experimenting with the autofocus capabilities of the SL3 and SL lenses freed me up to devote more to what I was trying to achieve with the photo.

I recently picked up the Leica SL 35mm f/2 ASPH, which comes in just over 1kg with the SL3.  Although it feels a bit too heavy, one reason I decided on that route vs the Panasonic 35mm f/2 because of the improved weather sealing.  As a travel setup it will be nice to not have to worry as much about the elements.

I previously rented the Leica 24-70.  I quite liked the photos with the SL3, but I found that I stopped taking my camera when I left for the day because of the overall weight and size.

I have an upcoming trip to NY, so it will be interesting to see how it goes with the SL3 and SL 35mm f/2 ASPH combo.  (even though it breaches the 1kg mark!)

[dpitt]

29 minutes ago, LanceR said:

I previously rented the Leica 24-70.  I quite liked the photos with the SL3, but I found that I stopped taking my camera when I left for the day because of the overall weight and size

Exactly the reason why I try to have a lightweight alternative. My health does not always permit to take the weight of a larger SL + SL lens (which I don't have). But I still take it with me when I travel by car, and on some days I take it out with a Leica R or M lens.

I also struggle with my eyes, which makes that using the Leica M gets harder. I need to use special glasses to focus. Still it is my most enjoyable camera. Lately I started to use my Leica TL2 + EVF (same as for the M10) with adapter and a small M or R lens. That is easier on the eyes because I can just use my normal reading glasses or none with the dioptre adjustment. I am quite pleased with the results from the TL2. It is very close to the SL at base ISO and better in low light than both the M9 and the SL. My preferred walkaround kit is now the TL2 + adapter (alu Novoflex) + 35 Summicron v3 (50mm eq. on APSC).

The SL3 (769g.) weighs 80g. less than the SL, so that helps, but the TL2+half case + EVF only weighs 480g , which is even with adapter slightly (50g. ?)  less than the M9 (585g)
The M9 wins for compactness, the TL2 for versatility and compactness compromise. I can recommend it as a second camera. Also very handy that it takes the same lenses as the SL. For example both SL and TL2 make a very light and "compact" combo with the Lumix 20-60mm zoom.

Edited May 1, 2024 by dpitt

[ALScott]

5 hours ago, dpitt said:

You forgot to mention one thing... Leica, even the SL series and certainly the lenses and M series tend to keep their value much better than Canon. I remember buying my M8 at the same period when a friend of mine upgraded his Canon 5D to a Canon 5DMkII. The cost new was about the same at the time (M8 was end of life). I did not buy mine new, but paid 1500€

 

 

4 hours ago, davflys said:

If the Q3’s performance is anything to go by, the SL3 is going to be a game-changer for you. Sure, some shots might be out of focus, but that’s just part of photography.  So, I’d say don’t sweat the small stuff.

dpitt...  Tell me about it.  My entire Canon kit, well, all they would take, just arrived at KEH this AM.  I could not give it away online and KEH made a fair offer.

davflys:  I try not to sweat the small stuff and that is what I was hoping to encourage others to do.  It's just so hard to figure out what should be a real concern and what isn't.  Like all of the AF and weight talk.  When researching I probably read too much into it, that's on me.  I should just take it at face value and then wait to see if it's an issue for me.  I started in photography when AF didn't exist and have been through many iterations of it up to the 6D.  I am getting back into shooting and I just can't believe that the SL3 will not be at least as good at AF as the 6D or much much better simply due to its age.  I know the IQ is far better, at least for what I like.  When I want a light and easy option I will just take my Q3.

[dpitt]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

5 minutes ago, ALScott said:

When I want a light and easy option I will just take my Q3.

Yes, of course that is the perfect light weight solution. The main reason I  personally prefer my TL2 over a Q is that I do not like 28mm that much. I would be cropping all the time. For shooting 50mm the Summicron 35 v3 is better on the TL2 than the Q1 and the Q3 is far out of budget now. And I can go wider or longer if I want to. Maybe the Q3 is in my far future some time if they do not offer a good successor to the TL line soon (like a FF - L mount compact one).

[Luke_Miller]

8 minutes ago, ALScott said:

I started in photography when AF didn't exist and have been through many iterations of it up to the 6D.  I am getting back into shooting and I just can't believe that the SL3 will not be at least as good at AF as the 6D or much much better simply due to its age.  I know the IQ is far better, at least for what I like.  When I want a light and easy option I will just take my Q3.

Similar story here except I went with the Nikon FTn in 1974.  My first autofocus body was the F4. Went digital with the D1 in 2002 and stayed with the big single digit bodies and pro series f2.8 zooms.  Rather than going all in on Nikon mirrorless I decided that if I was going to buy new lenses, I would go with Leica glass.  The weight of my SL bodies and lenses is very much like that of my Nikon rigs so I have no problem with it.  I think a lot of the concerns expressed over the SL system weight are from those coming from smaller and lighter gear.  I'm an event shooter and my SL and SL2 autofocus performance works fine in my photography.

[geronimosan]

I have a feeling many who get into the SL line are moving from the M or Q series - smaller and lighter bodies and lenses - so it probably is a bit of a weight shock.  While the Q2 was my gateway drug into the SL line (and the Leica ecosystem), I'm moving from Canon where the 1DxMk2 + 24-70/2.8 or 70-200/2.8 was my walkabout kit for years, so the SL3 + 24-90 was much lighter.  The SL3 + 90-280, on the other hand, was pretty darn hefty, but wow I'm in love with that lens, so I'll deal with the extra heft  (images are phenomenal and that extra 80mm reach more than makes up for the extra weight).

It's all perspective. Same thing with the shutter sound. I've read so many people say the SL3 shutter was So Loud, but for me coming from the 1DxMk2, the SL3 shutter is so subtle and quiet.

[Simone_DF]

17 hours ago, ALScott said:

 I thought I would compare them to my usual Canon kit to actually see how much difference there really is

Why are you comparing a mirrorless to a DSLR which has also been deprecated for about 4 years now? It should be compared with the current Canon mirrorless lens offerings. 
Anyway, I think the main issue is that Leica doesn’t offer a middle ground. Most brands have heavy fast lenses (f1.2 / f1.4), and smaller and lighter f1.8/f2 lenses. 
Leica has the heavier 1.4 Summilux and the heavy APOs. Then there’s the rebadged Panasonics, which are lighter but they are as pathetic as it gets. 

[FlashGordonPhotography]

Agreed. When comparing weights I'd be comparing it to what's currently available from other brands.

The SL3 is 130 grams heavier than the Sony A7R5, 30 grams heavier than the Canon R5 and 80 grams lighter than the Nikon Z8.

The 24-70 f2.8 is heavier than the other brands by a small margin. Leica don't make a 70-200. So say the Sigma which is close to the Nikon and heavier than Canon and Sony's offerings. The 100-400's are all close enough. Canon's lens has a few grams but also has extra reach. L mount has so many primes to choose from you can have  both heavier and lighter. Pick your poison.

My SL3 travel kit is the 14-24, 24-90 and 100-400. Plus the primes I feel like carrying. I did the measurements against other brands and I'm a kilo heavier than Sony and a few grams heavier than Canon. About the same as Nikon. And you know what. It doesn't matter. All that matters is if *I* am happy with that weight. Someone else may tell me I need to go to the gym or I'm mad for carrying so much gear. Screw them! It's my back. My choice.

Yes. I get it. Too many people going on about SL's being heavy. No one complaining about the Z8 on Nikon forums, which is heavier. It's tiresome. If you can't lift an SL too bad. Buy a Sony and enjoy the menus and tiny buttons. But their opinion doesn't have any relevance to you and your load capacity.

Gordon

[ALScott]

1 hour ago, Simone_DF said:

Why are you comparing a mirrorless to a DSLR which has also been deprecated for about 4 years now? It should be compared with the current Canon mirrorless lens offerings. 
 

I was comparing it to what I know and have experience with which is, of course, my Canon gear.  My point was that I do not know anything lighter than that so it doesn't matter to me.  I have always wanted to give Leica a try and started with the Q3.  I hoped I would like the UI better and I did, significantly more than my Canon DSLR's, various point and shoots and also the Sony RX's I have had.  Looking at the newer offerings from Nikon, Canon or Sony they didn't appear to solve what I dislike about UI's on any of those.  I am not buying anything new just because of what some say is the greatest due to small size, weight etc.  Obviously I keep my gear for a long time so that was also a big consideration for me.  

[Simone_DF]

12 hours ago, FlashGordonPhotography said:

No one complaining about the Z8 on Nikon forums, which is heavier.

That’s because Nikon offers lighter bodies. Leica offers a one size fits all. Also Nikon primes are lighter than the APO’s set, that contributes a lot to the weight. Leica alternative is rebadged Panasonics, and only 35 and 50mm. 

[Stuart Richardson]

I think another elephant in this crowded room is that the average age of Leica buyers is high, due to the higher cost, so a larger percentage of buyers is older and perhaps a bit more concerned than they used to be about how much the gear weighs. Old men also tend to complain more, lol, so again, it makes it a louder constituency. There are of course other reasons, like prizing optical performance over weight, most people coming from M and Q cameras, but I think the one people don't want to talk about is that a good proportion of the user base are no longer in the days of their life when they could load up with a bunch of gear and walk all day without thinking about it.

[FlashGordonPhotography]

2 minutes ago, Simone_DF said:

That’s because Nikon offers lighter bodies. Leica offers a one size fits all. Also Nikon primes are lighter than the APO’s set, that contributes a lot to the weight. Leica alternative is rebadged Panasonics, and only 35 and 50mm. 

And you have very good options to sensational choices from both Sigma and Panasonic. Nikon's mount is extremely limited to other native options.

I use the SIgma i primes all the time. They're really good. And light.

Gordon

[Donald M]

All interchangeable lens camera outfits are more or less the same as far as weight is concerned. While my SL is back to the mothership for an eyecup repair (quite expensive for what should be a simple repair) I use a Lumix S5xII. With my 24-90 I don’t feel much difference in weight.
When walking I always take 1 extra lens (Sigma 17mm or some R lens) with me, so I never travel light. I do so for nearly 50 years with different cameras and the weight was always about the same. I am used to it and don’t complain. 

[Luke_Miller]

2 hours ago, Stuart Richardson said:

I think the one people don't want to talk about is that a good proportion of the user base are no longer in the days of their life when they could load up with a bunch of gear and walk all day without thinking about it.

There is a song by Toby Keith Don't let the old man in that has become an anthem for many in my generation.  Born in 1941 I still carry and use pro bodies and f2.8 zooms.  Not as easily as when younger, but I'm not going to give then up.

[Stuart Richardson]

It was not a value judgement, just an observation. I am not old enough to retire yet, but I am certainly old enough to realize that I complain more now than I did when I was 25, haha.

Edited May 2, 2024 by Stuart Richardson

[Advertisement]

Hallo,

Look here: Leica L-Mount