Approve the Cookies
This website uses cookies to improve your user experience. By using this site, you agree to our use of cookies and our Privacy Policy.
OK
Index  •   • New posts  •   • RTAT  •   • 'Best of'  •   • Gallery  •   • Gear  •   • Reviews
Guest
New posts  •   • RTAT  •   • 'Best of'  •   • Gallery  •   • Gear  •   • Reviews
Register to forums    Log in

 
FORUMS Canon Cameras, Lenses & Accessories Canon EOS Digital Cameras 
Thread started 21 Mar 2013 (Thursday) 00:22
Search threadPrev/next
sponsored links
(this ad will go away when you log in as a registered member)

The Offical Canon EOS Rebel SL1

 
RTPVid
Goldmember
3,365 posts
Likes: 3
Joined Aug 2010
Location: MN
     
Mar 21, 2013 16:07 |  #61

mafoo wrote in post #15740578 (external link)
From that link:

...Canon Rebel SL1 is 12% (7.5 mm) thicker than Canon EOS Rebel XS...

The stated thickness dimensions would appear to be in conflict with the pictures. If you put both cameras on side view, with one in front of the other, the XS covers the SL1 when it is in front, but the SL1 does not cover the XS when it is in front.


Tom

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
sponsored links
(this ad will go away when you log in as a registered member)
weeatmice
Senior Member
Avatar
763 posts
Joined Oct 2009
Location: Essex UK
     
Mar 21, 2013 16:13 |  #62

I like it, but would want a wider tiny prime to go with it. 20 or 30mm.


FS: UK: 1D Mark IV.
Twopixel.co.uk (external link) | 500px (external link) | flickr (external link) | Twitter (external link) | Pinterest (external link) |

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
tkbslc
Cream of the Crop
24,567 posts
Likes: 18
Joined Nov 2008
Location: Utah, USA
     
Mar 21, 2013 16:16 |  #63

I ignore the thickness anyway because the thickness is essentially determined by the lens. Although stated dimensions from Canon put the XS at 65mm thick, which is 2mm thinner. I think the SL1 has a viewfinder cup that is a little more protruding.

So we are mainly talking 7% smaller than the XS. That's what I was trying to say. In what world does 7% size difference put it in a different category. That's like the difference between the G12 and G15.


Taylor
Galleries: Flickr (external link)
60D | ELPH 330 | iPhone 5s

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
newone757
Member
235 posts
Joined Nov 2012
Location: San Antonio
     
Mar 21, 2013 16:25 |  #64

tkbslc wrote in post #15740657 (external link)
I ignore the thickness anyway because the thickness is essentially determined by the lens. Although stated dimensions from Canon put the XS at 65mm thick, which is 2mm thinner. I think the SL1 has a viewfinder cup that is a little more protruding.

So we are mainly talking 7% smaller than the XS. That's what I was trying to say. In what world does 7% size difference put it in a different category. That's like the difference between the G12 and G15.

well how about that its updated tech? Being able to cram more technology in a smaller package has to count for something. Even if its only 7% smaller thats still impressive considering they still have to fit a mirror box and whatnot in there

Id really like to check one out. Prices would have to come down though


5D Mark III - 135L 2.0 - Sigma 35 1.4 - 85 1.8 - 40 2.8 pancake
500px (external link)

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
TeamSpeed
01010100 01010011
Avatar
36,838 posts
Gallery: 111 photos
Best ofs: 2
Likes: 5742
Joined May 2002
Location: Midwest
     
Mar 21, 2013 16:27 |  #65

I wouldn't want 7% less home, that would be an entire living room gone... :lol:

I think the ergos are going to make the camera feel much smaller than the numbers are saying, though.


Past Equipment | My Personal Gallery (external link) My Business Gallery (external link)
For Sale: 2x Teleconverter
For Sale: Sigma USB Dock

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
moltengold
Goldmember
4,296 posts
Likes: 9
Joined Jul 2011
     
Mar 21, 2013 16:28 |  #66

i want to see the EF 500mm f/4L IS on this body


| Canon EOS | and some canon lenses

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
Charlie
Guess What! I'm Pregnant!
16,002 posts
Gallery: 8 photos
Likes: 6093
Joined Sep 2007
     
Mar 21, 2013 16:34 |  #67

tkbslc wrote in post #15740657 (external link)
I ignore the thickness anyway because the thickness is essentially determined by the lens. Although stated dimensions from Canon put the XS at 65mm thick, which is 2mm thinner. I think the SL1 has a viewfinder cup that is a little more protruding.

So we are mainly talking 7% smaller than the XS. That's what I was trying to say. In what world does 7% size difference put it in a different category. That's like the difference between the G12 and G15.

well it does weigh nearly a 100 grams less, and I thought the xs was light as hell as is.


Sony A7riii/A9 - FE 12-24/4 - FE 24-240 - SY 24/2.8 - FE 28/2 - FE 35/2.8 - FE 50/1.8 - FE 85/1.8 - EF 135/1.8 Art - F 600/5.6 - CZ 100-300 - Astro Rok 14/2.8 - Tamron 17-28/2.8 - 28-75/2.8 RXD, 70-200/2.8 VC

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
mafoo
Goldmember
Avatar
1,503 posts
Likes: 2
Joined Dec 2011
     
Mar 21, 2013 16:40 |  #68

tkbslc wrote in post #15740657 (external link)
So we are mainly talking 7% smaller than the XS. That's what I was trying to say. In what world does 7% size difference put it in a different category. That's like the difference between the G12 and G15.

Don't forget 19% lighter.

But no one has an XS, so really that does not matter. I have a 5D2, And this camera is 23% x 20% x 7% smaller, and is 57% lighter.

It would make a great carry anywhere camera. I could see this thrown in a bag, along with the Sigma 35 1.4, and never have to think about it.

I am pretty sure I am going to get it. I might pickup a pancake lens if I can get past how slow they are.


-Jeremy
5D Mk II | SL1 | 24-105 f4.0L IS | 70-200 f2.8L IS | S35 1.4 | 40 2.8 Pancake | Samyang 14 2.8 | 430EX II

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
msowsun
Cream of the Crop
Avatar
9,237 posts
Gallery: 14 photos
Best ofs: 1
Likes: 267
Joined Jul 2007
Location: Oakville Ont. Canada
     
Mar 21, 2013 16:57 |  #69

weeatmice wrote in post #15740651 (external link)
I like it, but would want a wider tiny prime to go with it. 20 or 30mm.

The Canon EF 24mm 2.8 IS would be the one I would choose, but these others are also light and compact.

(listed in order of weight)

130g 68.2mm X 22.8mm EF 40mm 2.8 STM

185g 67.4mm x 42.5mm EF 28mm 2.8

210g 67.4mm x 42.5mm EF 35mm 2.0

260g 68.4mm X 51.5mm EF 28mm 2.8 IS

270g 67.5mm x 48.5mm EF 24mm 2.8

280g 68.4mm X 55.7mm EF 24mm 2.8 IS

310g 73.6mm x 55.6mm EF 28mm 1.8

(the Sigma's are are probably too heavy)

430g 76.6mm x 59.0mm Sigma 30mm 1.4

665g 77.0mm x 94.0mm Sigma 35mm 1.4

EF 28mm 2.8 non-IS (cheap and light)

IMAGE: http://i2.photobucket.com/albums/y17/msowsun/photo%20stuff/Newer/IMG_5045a.jpg

Mike Sowsun / S110 / SL1 / 80D / EF-S 24mm STM / EF-S 10-18mm STM / EF-S 18-55mm STM / EF-S 15-85mm USM / EF-S 18-135mm USM / EF-S 55-250mm STM / 5D3 / Samyang 14mm 2.8 / EF 40mm 2.8 STM / EF 50mm 1.8 STM / EF 100mm 2.0 USM / EF 100mm 2.8 USM Macro / EF 24-105mm IS / EF 70-200mm 2.8L IS Mk II / EF 1.4x II
Full Current and Previously Owned Gear List over 40 years Flickr Photostream (external link)

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
tkbslc
Cream of the Crop
24,567 posts
Likes: 18
Joined Nov 2008
Location: Utah, USA
     
Mar 21, 2013 17:09 |  #70

mafoo wrote in post #15740736 (external link)
Don't forget 19% lighter.

But no one has an XS, so really that does not matter. .

The implication was that the XS and T3 would have been more popular if having a camera this size was extremely desirable.

And you can get a Refurb T3 for $330 with kit lens at Canon estore right now.


Taylor
Galleries: Flickr (external link)
60D | ELPH 330 | iPhone 5s

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
RTPVid
Goldmember
3,365 posts
Likes: 3
Joined Aug 2010
Location: MN
     
Mar 21, 2013 17:20 |  #71

tkbslc wrote in post #15740817 (external link)
The implication was that the XS and T3 would have been more popular if having a camera this size was extremely desirable...

I haven't drawn any such inference from what has been said. Canon's Rebel line has always been a very good seller. The T3 has low price as its primary reason for being, but even so, the 1000/1100D cameras did not outsell the 5xx-6xx models.

The SL1 has in many ways higher end features than the 1xxx line does, and its objective is size rather than selling price.


Tom

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
HaroldC3
Goldmember
3,020 posts
Gallery: 28 photos
Likes: 286
Joined May 2007
Location: West Richland, WA
     
Mar 21, 2013 17:46 |  #72

It's good for the hobbyists that do aerial photography via RC helicopters of kites (but then they could also get an Eos M.


Flickr (external link) ~ Buy/Sell Feedback

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
moltengold
Goldmember
4,296 posts
Likes: 9
Joined Jul 2011
     
Mar 21, 2013 18:05 |  #73

i want this camera :)


| Canon EOS | and some canon lenses

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
garciarf
Senior Member
317 posts
Gallery: 12 photos
Likes: 4
Joined Aug 2012
Location: Central Ohio
     
Mar 21, 2013 18:58 |  #74

moltengold wrote in post #15740698 (external link)
i want to see the EF 500mm f/4L IS on this body

I want to see that $650 lens cap :)


Felipe G
EOS 1Ds, 1D Mark III, 7D, XT. 18-55, 70-200 f4L, 28-135, 28-70 f2.8L, 40mm 2.8, Tokina 12-24, Sigma 80-400 OS, EF 100-400 f4.5-5.6 L IS, 1.4x Extender III.
My Gallery: http://fgrphoto.smugmu​g.com/ (external link)
My Flickr (external link)

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
garciarf
Senior Member
317 posts
Gallery: 12 photos
Likes: 4
Joined Aug 2012
Location: Central Ohio
     
Mar 21, 2013 19:00 as a reply to  @ moltengold's post |  #75

I might even consider one (I already like it a lot for those times I don't want the much bigger and flashier 7D) to take camping, offroading, etc., as I can keep it in smaller bags or compartments.


Felipe G
EOS 1Ds, 1D Mark III, 7D, XT. 18-55, 70-200 f4L, 28-135, 28-70 f2.8L, 40mm 2.8, Tokina 12-24, Sigma 80-400 OS, EF 100-400 f4.5-5.6 L IS, 1.4x Extender III.
My Gallery: http://fgrphoto.smugmu​g.com/ (external link)
My Flickr (external link)

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
sponsored links
(this ad will go away when you log in as a registered member)

46,209 views & 1 like for this thread
The Offical Canon EOS Rebel SL1
FORUMS Canon Cameras, Lenses & Accessories Canon EOS Digital Cameras 
AAA
x 1600
y 1600

Jump to forum...   •  Rules   •  Index   •  New posts   •  RTAT   •  'Best of'   •  Gallery   •  Gear   •  Reviews   •  Member list   •  Polls   •  Image rules   •  Search   •  Password reset

Not a member yet?
Register to forums
Registered members may log in to forums and access all the features: full search, image upload, follow forums, own gear list and ratings, likes, more forums, private messaging, thread follow, notifications, own gallery, all settings, view hosted photos, own reviews, see more and do more... and all is free. Don't be a stranger - register now and start posting!


COOKIES DISCLAIMER: This website uses cookies to improve your user experience. By using this site, you agree to our use of cookies and to our privacy policy.
Privacy policy and cookie usage info.


POWERED BY AMASS forum software 2.1forum software
version 2.1 /
code and design
by Pekka Saarinen ©
for photography-on-the.net

Latest registered member is DdsT
1816 guests, 326 members online
Simultaneous users record so far is 15144, that happened on Nov 22, 2018

Photography-on-the.net Digital Photography Forums is the website for photographers and all who love great photos, camera and post processing techniques, gear talk, discussion and sharing. Professionals, hobbyists, newbies and those who don't even own a camera -- all are welcome regardless of skill, favourite brand, gear, gender or age. Registering and usage is free.