"Downgrade" to an SL1?

ThrillaMozilla wrote:

jjz2 wrote:

ThrillaMozilla wrote:

sleibson wrote:

It's not really a good foundation on which to attach a really large and heavy tele lens.

Then just attach the camera to the large and heavy lens and all will be well.

The SL1 is at the "just big enough" that I don't think a heavier lens, well, at least the f4 lenses won't break off the mount or look absolutely ridiculous and unwieldy on it, esp with an added battery grip.

The internet is full of this sort of consideration. Do you see reports of lens mounts breaking? I haven't. As for "looking" unwieldy, is anyone really that fashion conscious?

If you're worried about how to hold a big lens, you hold it in your left hand, just like any other lens, and you mount the lens on the tripod, not the body. The SL2 should be fine.

Having shot Nikon as well, I prefer the SL1 to the Nikon D3*** and D5**** lines as a cheapo backup and general small dslr walkaround. It's smaller, weighs less, and Canon has the 24mm pancake lens. Nikon doesn't. You would have to get the 750 dollar Nikon 24 1.8g lens just to have a 35mm equivalent on DX, what a joke.

I like the Nikon D5500 (or is it the D5400?). Just as small, better sensor, but it lacks some nice lenses that Canon has. And the Nikon equivalent of the Canon EF-S 10-18mm costs $900.

I was referring to the EOS M not the SL line as being too small for the bigger lens. I didn't mean looking unwieldy, I meant actually unwieldy and uncomfortable to hold sans tripod, sorry.  You could certainly get the job done with an EOS M if you are often shooting with a tripod in studio/landscape, etc.