benkam said:
LukasS said:
BTW. probably someone already did mention this, or will in the future. But how about that weight and size of the SL2 - it's really important factor for users!
Let's just think about it while looking at this setup:
Haha. Now stick it with an 800mm.
And put it next to a 1DX with a 40mm pancake, please.
Thanks.
My primary use for the 1100D is with a Supertelephoto lens (the venerable, not terribly heavy but still large 400f5.6).
My favorite lens to use on a gripped 5D2 (basically the same size and weight as 1D) was the 40mm Pancake.
It's ironic that in practice I find the best lens/body combinations are opposite of what most people "think" would work best.
When I have a large lens strapped to my body I want the camera body to fit within the same width and height as the lens, carrying the whole camera by my side while hiking, a large body is always digging into my side.
The smaller body (the 1100D is only slightly larger than a SL1) is much more comfortable, not to mention being about a pound lighter.
If the body were small enough I could even put the whole thing in a single lens sized pouch.
I took the Gripped 5D2 through Disneyland a few years ago, it went on all the rides (including Splash Mountain) stowed between my feet, walking around it only took a few seconds to whip it out of my backpack.
Of course Disneyland is not the most extreme theme park, I probably wouldn't have taken it anywhere with more "serious" rollercoasters, but the principle proves well enough, putting a pancake lens on one of the largest camera bodies available does indeed make it vastly more portable.
Similar to my reasoning with a small body on a large lens, when you have a body that's tall and wide, but relatively flat, then using a flat lens complements that shape, it basically creates a "turtle" shaped profile that is very convenient to handle.
Oppositely, putting a "normal" lens on that body gives you something with effectively the same footprint as a toaster oven.