100D/SL1 is not that small

brightcolours wrote:

Lame. Why did you pick the one "picture" that shows the size difference the least (the top)? Showing them from the front makes clear just how much the camera body has shrunk. You really have to struggle not to back down, don't you?

When I feel the counter arguments are poor and/or don't address the issue at hand, I do have difficultly letting them rest.   I chose this angle because it is the most relevant as it is by far the largest dimension since it includes the lens.   These cameras are not usable without a lens and I did pick small ones.  The only time the size difference in arguably meaningful is when you do not include the lens.   Factoring lens into the equation, the total volume and size profile is much less than 10% difference.

Even with a small prime (24mm f2.8) vs the T3 there is zero real-world advantage.

Nonsense. The 450D in my backpack makes a BIG difference compared to a 50D. In exactly the same way, the size difference of the 100D compared to others (even including the 1000D) makes a noticable difference.

Having owned both rebels and xxD sized bodies, I disagree.  I use the same bag I had prior and it fits the same camera slot.   I do save about half a pound, but depending on the lens used it is often not noticeable.  I also get MUCH better battery life with the xxD so I do not need to carry a spare, which honestly probably makes the total weight a wash.

Is the one on the left going to fit in your pocket or even a smaller camera bag? No.

The one on the left will take up considerably less space in my small backpack, yes. It is noticably less high and wide.

But since your backpack stays the same size, what's the advantage?  This is where mm vs % is relevant.   You save roughly 10x90mm and 9x70mm.  What else do you carry that fits that area? Maybe you slide your iphone in under the camera? Maybe 1 filter, assuming you don't mind letting them rub your camera.