Archived posting to the Leica Users Group, 1999/09/16
[Author Prev] [Author Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] [Author Index] [Topic Index] [Home] [Search]
Jim,
The weight advantage shift's again to the Canon EOS system when you
substitute the Canon 28-135 IS (Image Stabilizer) zoom for 35, 50 and 100
lenses. I have not personally experienced it, but Canon and others confirm,
this zoom allows sharp handheld shots down to 1/4 second. Yes, of course the
zoom can't match primes 1:1 and the Leica also allows low shutter speeds--but
when you factor "time to find and change lenses" into the equation the Canon
may give Leica and other systems a run for it's money.
Prior thread below.
Alex
In a message dated 1999-09-16 12:57:25 PM Eastern Daylight Time,
jplaurel@microsoft.com writes:
<<
Another point is that you have to compare apples to apples. Let's assemble
comparable systems and compare:
Elmarit 21 ASPH 300
Summilux 35 ASPH 310
Noctilux 50 630
Summicron 90 ASPH 500
M6 580
Total 2320 grams
EF 20 2.8 405
EF 35 1.4 580
EF 50 1.0 985
EF 100 f2 460
EOS1 895
Total 3325 grams
The additional weight of the SLR system, combined with its additional bulk
(hence, leverage, as the bag will stand out from your body more), makes for
a system that is more fatiguing to carry.
This is the most fair comparison. Weight could be further reduced for the
SLR by substituting the very good L-series zooms, but you know that they are
not the equivalent of the EF primes, much less the Leica primes. And, they
lack the high speed of the lenses I've included here. Next, you must ask
yourself how the Canon primes I've selected for this kit compare to the
Leicas.
On the other hand, considering all the advanced electronic technology the
Canon kit packs, as compared to the Leica, the fact that it only weighs 30%
more is quite remarkable. Then again, Leica packs alot of advanced optical
technology into a very small package. When you look at the whole picture,
thier claims of compactnes and light weight are not unfounded.
Cheers,
--Jim Laurel
>>