CCC Forum

davidc wrote:Sony has already done that with the A7 series, they're about the same size & weight as a 6D. Size/weight of the body is irrelevant when you mount proper glass on it anyway.

Mike Farley wrote:The Leica is a bit taller and wider than the Sony, 147 x 104 x 39 mm compared to 127 x 96 x 60 mm, but is a lot heavier at 847 g to the Sony's 599 g. Overall is a bit smaller than the 6D which is 145 x 111 x 71 mm. Where it really bulks up is with the 24-90 zoom attached, which does not have a constant f/2.8 aperture despite its size.

I am not sure that I understand the second part of your comment. It would be a total surprise if the image quality is anything less than excellent, but the body and lens combo sure has heft. Given that the lens has image stabilisation, it is obviously intended to be used away from the studio or a tripod, but I can imagine it could be tiring to use over an extended period. Mind you, that will be academic consideration for most people.

Mike Farley wrote:There are probably a number of similar posts all around the Internet, but I found this tongue in cheek post at The Online Photographer. At least it shows a comparison between the SL and Sony A7. Those extra millimetres really do make a difference.



http://theonlinephotographer.typepad.co ... -sony.html

davidc wrote:

Mike Farley wrote:The Leica is a bit taller and wider than the Sony, 147 x 104 x 39 mm compared to 127 x 96 x 60 mm, but is a lot heavier at 847 g to the Sony's 599 g. Overall is a bit smaller than the 6D which is 145 x 111 x 71 mm. Where it really bulks up is with the 24-90 zoom attached, which does not have a constant f/2.8 aperture despite its size.

The A7R2 and A7SII are both over 600g and the 6D is 770g - regardless, we're talking about the weight of a Snickers between them. For cameras that are in the same broad capability bracket, weight & size stopped being a factor a while back. That Leica have gone even larger/heavier is still not a big deal in relative terms but the fact it's mirrorless shows they are going BACKWARDS in the class rather than leveraging what little advantage mirrorless had in that regard. The photo of the guy holding it looks like a small child holding an exaggeration of a toy camera, not a cutting edge "masterpiece"

I am not sure that I understand the second part of your comment. It would be a total surprise if the image quality is anything less than excellent, but the body and lens combo sure has heft. Given that the lens has image stabilisation, it is obviously intended to be used away from the studio or a tripod, but I can imagine it could be tiring to use over an extended period. Mind you, that will be academic consideration for most people.

The main point people have been making about mirrorless for years is that they are smaller, though that always glossed over the fact m43 sensitivity/quality is lower than full frame and the good glass didn't often go past f/4, also contributing to smaller sizes. When you do add pro glass to a mirrorless camera the size/weight/heft is basically the same as an SLR, negating that most common of proclaimed benefits. Size & weight were never really a selling point for me anyway, it was always that the smaller systems didn't offer me anything new that my existing kit can offer. Only now with some of the newer Sonys is that happening and it's not because they are mirrorless (and even then it's not yet good enough to make me switch). It's just a better sensor

Leicas have so far fallen into the same category - they don't offer something I can't get with other cameras. I understand the emotional bond some photographers have but so far it's not been strong enough for me to buy one. I think the closest I've come was the M Monochrom