This little camera body is not just for downsizing

[wburychka]

DPReview, in its list of who would buy this camera, left out an ever expanding group: people who want to downsize the load they have. Not to over use the term, but in fact, it was the Baby Boom generation that built the DSLR camera industry. The boomers were at the place where they had plenty of disposable income at the time DSLR's became a consumer product. They bought and bought all the new stuff, the big white lenses, carbon fiber tripods, flashes, and all the other stuff. Now, ten or twelve years later, the weight is becoming more burden than benefit.

Many of them have moved to mirrorless Sony or Micro four-thirds cameras, but the M4/3's from Olympus tend to be a little pricey and a bit low on pixels. Only Sony seems to be taking mirrorless seriously. Unfortunately some of us have small fortunes tied up in Canon mount lenses, and Metabones adapters are not 100% effective. I had hopes for Canon's mirrorless, but Canon decided that no one with serious photo objectives would buy mirrorless and apparently designed the EOS-M to prove it! So while I wait for Canon to learn (I estimate 2016) mirrorless, I took a look at the SL1. What a surprise! To quote Tony the Tiger, it's grreeaat!

The SL1 with the new Tamron 16-300 weighs 35 oz, or only 2 oz more than my 7D body alone. It's not much bigger than a compact digital, yet it has all the important (to me) features and capabilities of a DSLR. With my old-style Canon 35mm F2, it is a super compact "normal lens" back-to-basics camera, like the SLR I had in 1967 with one 50mm F1.8 lens. With the 16-300 it is a true all-purpose camera. Add the Sigma 8-16 and a 1.4x, and you have 8-420mm (13-670mm FF equivalent) with just two lenses and an extender!

The AF is better than it should be. With the Tamron 16-300 at 300mm wide open, it is F6.3, although it lies to the camera and says F5.6 to keep AF on. That works just fine. I tried adding a ten year old Tamron 1.4x standard (not Pro) extender to the 16-300. That extender lacks the extra electrical contacts to communicate its presence to the camera, so the camera "thinks" it's still just the 16-300 at F5.6, instead of a 420mm F9. Guess what? In bright light, the autofocus works.

From B&H, it came bundled with a 16GB Sandisk card and Ruggard Hunter 35 Holster bag. I thought the bag was almost a throwaway until I found I could put in it a Sigma 8-16mm (or the Tamron 16-300, whichever was no on the camera), the Tamron 1.4x extender, a Canon 500D closeup lens and step-up ring, a Canon 90EX flash and extra batteries, a spare battery and spare card. That goes on my left side with the strap over my right shoulder. The camera, and whichever of the two lenses is not in the bag, is on a BlackRapid strap on my right side with the strap over my left shoulder. The whole thing, bag, straps, lenses, etc. weighs 5 lbs 2 oz split almost evenly on my right and left side. And that total lightweight rig has 18MP APS-C, 8-420mm focal lengths plus closeup, external flash, and batteries for a full long day. A strap on one side of the Ruggard bag could accommodate either my small Manfrotto CF tripod or my Gorillapod camera support, if I chose, but I normally don't take a tripod these days.

I'm there. I've downsized.

 

[Chris Lofty]

I'm one of the very happy downsizers that you mentioned, I've had this camera since its launch in the UK and it never fails to impress. I'm in my late 60's, but still enjoy cycling and hiking; my 'heavy' gear was getting to be a burden, and more importantly was causing me back issues! I can now still enjoy my hobby with this lightweight set up and still have the control and results that I require!

The only thing I need to address is at the long end, I'm still using my Canon 70-200 f4.0 IS but am considering the Canon 55-250 STM or the Tamron 16-300 that you have.

What are your thoughts on the Tamron 16-300?

 

[wburychka]

I'm happy with what I've seen so far. My brick wall test for corner to corner consistency passed at 16 and 300. The lens suffers from extreme pincushion at 16 and CA at 300, as well as some minor vignetting. Photoshop RAW, selecting Tamron 18-270 (the 16-300 is not yet in the database) instantly corrects those flaws. The lens AF is fast and quiet. The stabilization is also quiet. Both of these are important for video.

Saturday I took the SL1 and 16-300 to a raptor shoot with the Houston Audubon Society. My wife took the 7D with the 500mm F4L and the 5D2 with the 100-400. Just for kicks, I also took a ten year old Tamron 1.4x extender--standard not Pro. The standard extender lacks the extra electrical contacts to tell the camera of its presence, so light permitting, the camera may still autofocus--even though it is in fact a 420mm F9 lens! Indeed it did autofocus, as we had very good light. I shot handheld only. Here is a screech owl, full size, center crop (about 1/3 of the frame horizontally, 85% vertically). It's good enough for me.


Tamron 16-300 with 1.4x Tamron extender (modified focal length and F Stop not reported)

--

Bill

 

[GD1]

Thanks for your review. I have seriously been considering the SL1 or a Sony Nex. I am really impressed with the SL1 pics i have seen. I currently have a Sony RX100 for my take anywhere cam.

 

[GDB]

Yes, I started shooting film seriously in 1961 using a wonderful Argus C20 range finder and soon picked up a light meter to learn how to take better shots. I got my first true SLR while in Viet Nam in 1968 and later got a sweet Pentax SLR kit in the 1980s. Then went the DSLR in 2003 with the first Rebel and have been shooting DSLRs ever sense.

So, I fit in with your assumption that us baby boomers made the SLR and DSLR cameras our choice in the 1960-2000 eras. But, like you and countless others, I grew older and tired of dragging around heavy tripods to hold heavy DSLRs, especially when backpacking (which I still do). I first switched to the Sony A6 but didn't like the in-camera jpegs it produced; I sold it to buy a Samsung NX20 that I loved but was having problems with the EVF. So, when the SL1 came, I jumped on it and it is now my favorite camera. Sure, sometimes I miss the speed of my 7D, but I enjoy going a tad higher in ISO for usable shots, and I love the light weight. And, as soon I sell more camera gear, I'll try out the Tamy 16-300mm.

BTW, the SL1 is terrific with the Tokina 11-16mm. It is great during the day and fantastic at night. So, folks, put me down as an active late-60s hiker who loves the SL1.

Cheers to all!

Gary

 

[grammieb14]

I am a baby boomer with a 5Dlll. I recently bought the SL1 for when I want to travel light. I bought the 55-250 STM & find it to be a very sharp lens. I still love my 5Dlll, but I am enjoying the SL1. Bab--

grammieb2008

Explore grammieb2008’s 3,771 photos on Flickr!

www.flickr.com

 

[Charles Sidney]

I am older than most of you guys, and I shoot with a Canon 6D for landscapes and a 70D for wildlife. I also have a Canon SL1, and it is great! I use it for backup and also as my main camera around town. I hope there is a 22mm pancake lens soon, but the 40mm is good and my 15-85mm is a good general purpose lens. Thanks Canon.

 

[gatorowl]

Nice review. However, I do disagree with your implication that Olympus does not take mirrorless seriously, but Sony does. I think the consensus out there is probably the reverse. The Olympus M43 cameras probably have better IQ than Canon APS-C cameras. Also, the difference between 16MP and 18MP is not significant at all. Moreover, the M43 lens selection is phenomenal. I think that only Canon and Nikon do better. The M43 platform actually produces quality small lenses to match their small camera bodies. I really can't say the same for Sony. Sony Nex bodies are very good, but the lens selection is mediocre.

Now, I'm not an Olympus fanboy. My only mirrorless is a Nex 5N, which takes wonderful shots when one finds a decent native lens to mate with it. There just aren't many good native lenses for the Nex platform (or whatever they're calling it these days).

Despite what I consider Oympus's strength in IQ, I chose the SL1 as my lightweight kit solution for much the same reasons you did. Olympus is very pricey, and I wanted to leverage my investment in Canon glass and accessories. I picked up my SL1 (why not just call it the 100D? So much easier to write) over Christmas for $360 (body only) during a sale and immediately put my already-owned 40mm STM on it. Since then I have added the 10-18mm (under $300), 55-250 stm (under $200), and 28mm IS (about $400). Okay, I ended up spending a lot more than planned (surprise!). Even so, comparable items--at least the wide angle lens--on other platforms would have been much more expensive. The Sony 10-18 lens is $750, and the Olympus 9-18 lens is $600. I suspect that these other lenses are better quality--I don't know--but for a lightweight kit, I'm willing to trade off quality for a better price. However, given how good the STM lenses are, I suspect that I'm not giving up much.

Another benefit of the SL1 is that Canon didn't cripple the UI the way Nikon and Olympus do with their entry-level cameras. I didn't mention Sony because their UI is god-awful regardless of price level. With those other brands, you have to purchase mid-tier or higher to get a UI that isn't completely frustrating. I was pleasantly surprised at how easy it is to control the SL1. Most of what I need is on a button or on the top level of the touch screen interface.

So, all-in-all, I'm very pleased with the SL1. I still pull out the heavy iron for critical shots (I'm at the tail-end of the baby boom, so the weight of FF cameras haven't gotten to me yet), but the SL1 is a camera I take with me all the time.

 

[Robert Snow]

Looks like I am late to the dance, but I'll make my comments anyway.



I like the feel and handling of the SL1, and enjoy the weight and smallness. That said, I have two bones to pick with Canon. First, it needs an articulating screen for animal and kiddie shots, etc.. Wouldn't need to be 'fully' like its big bros, but perhaps like on the Panasonic and Sony mirrorless cameras...up and down.

Second, the speed of focus in Live View still doesn't cut the mustard. Give me the 70D's focus system and I will be a happy camper.

I am hoping that this fall Canon will correct these omissions. Otherwise, a fine camera.



bob snow

 

[Mongrel]

Interesting comments on the SL1, especially regarding the lack of articulating screen and focus issues... While I can "almost" appreciate this I think we should remember a few things...

I don't know about you guys, but I paid exactly $383.99 plus tax for a Canon Refurbished camera with a one year warranty. For this I got a camera that as far as i can tell out performs my almost 10 year old 20D. Faster focusing, better image quality, better iso performance, better screen, larger screen, and smaller/lighter body. So far the only area that I can tell is lacking is fps and buffering. Basically, nine years ago I paid almost about $1200 MORE than I just paid for the SL1.

Apart from the cramped body (yes-it does bother me), the shooting experience with the SL1 has been GREAT and in two weeks use of the SL1 I've never felt that I was shooting my "second body" or a lesser camera.

That's why I find it curious that anyone would consider the SL1 to be "lacking" because it doesn't have the articulating screen of it's fellow Rebels or the 70D, or have the focusing system of the 70D. I briefly considered the T3i for it's articulating screen and comparative pricing. But I took advantage of the SL1 smaller size and Digic5 processing (the supposed better video capability didn't interest me much, but it may matter to some). I also considered the 70D (for many reasons-focusing included) but felt that with Photokina around the corner this would be a bad time to invest in a more expensive Canon body.

This SL1 is one heck of a camera for $400 even without an articulating screen or better focusing. Coming from an older Canon body like the 20D it's downright amazing what you can get for your money these days. Considering features like 3" touch screens, live view, and video weren't even available in 2004, for me coming from the 'dark ages' I think Canon did a real fine job with this little camera.

I really love being able to carry it around my neck while riding my motorcycle and taking pics on the fly...it's perfect in that role and allows the full use of my extensive EF and EF-S lens collection.

Highly Recommended!

(lol)

--
Just think, if every key-stroke was a shutter-press we would all be pros by now...

 

[technic]

That's why I find it curious that anyone would consider the SL1 to be "lacking" because it doesn't have the articulating screen of it's fellow Rebels or the 70D, or have the focusing system of the 70D. I briefly considered the T3i for it's articulating screen and comparative pricing. But I took advantage of the SL1 smaller size and Digic5 processing (the supposed better video capability didn't interest me much, but it may matter to some). I also considered the 70D (for many reasons-focusing included) but felt that with Photokina around the corner this would be a bad time to invest in a more expensive Canon body.

Lacking? The post above doesn't say that, just that those features are missed dearly and I fully agree with that. Nobody says the SL1 needs these features included for the same price. I really hope Canon builds on the SL concept and makes an SL2 with a tilt screen and much better Liveview, or maybe even an SL sized camera with a FF sensor (that would be difficult because of the viewfinder, but who knows). And of course they can charge extra for these features.

Why should such a light/compact system only be used for 'entry level' cameras? I'm looking to upgrade my 450D body and the new camera should have a tilt screen, better LV and if possible FF sensor (all my lenses except one are EF). For FF the 6D ticks some of the boxes but it doesn't have a tilt screen, limited AF (tracking) capabilities and it is relatively heavy compared to my current gear. The 70D is probably the best APS-C body now but its sensor isn't that much better than my old 450D, while the 70D is also relatively heavy (almost the same as 6D) and expensive; for the extra price and weight I would want better sensor (IQ) performance ...

If there was an SL1 like camera with a tilt screen and a bit better LV I would buy one immediately, as a light/compact and better alternative for my current system.

 

[Robert Snow]

Well said!

bob snow

 

[Mongrel]

Lacking? The post above doesn't say that, just that those features are missed dearly and I fully agree with that. Nobody says the SL1 needs these features included for the same price. I really hope Canon builds on the SL concept and makes an SL2 with a tilt screen and much better Liveview, or maybe even an SL sized camera with a FF sensor (that would be difficult because of the viewfinder, but who knows). And of course they can charge extra for these features.

Sorry if I misrepresented the post-not my intention at all. Really, my only point was that for the money I thought the SL1 was a good camera without those upgrades. I wouldn't expect a $400 camera to have the same features as the 70D, and the articulating screen was, I believe, more a concession to keeping a small form-factor than price or anything else.

Why should such a light/compact system only be used for 'entry level' cameras?

Well, if you look outside the Canon offerings there are many "light/compact" system cameras (albeit mirrorless) to pick from, and most are far from 'entry level' cameras I think.

I'm looking to upgrade my 450D body and the new camera should have a tilt screen, better LV and if possible FF sensor (all my lenses except one are EF). For FF the 6D ticks some of the boxes but it doesn't have a tilt screen, limited AF (tracking) capabilities and it is relatively heavy compared to my current gear. The 70D is probably the best APS-C body now but its sensor isn't that much better than my old 450D, while the 70D is also relatively heavy (almost the same as 6D) and expensive; for the extra price and weight I would want better sensor (IQ) performance ...

If there was an SL1 like camera with a tilt screen and a bit better LV I would buy one immediately, as a light/compact and better alternative for my current system.

Well, after using the SL1 for over 2 weeks, it doesn't live up to the "small and light" requirement in my opinion. Yes-the body is small and light. And like I said-it's good for carrying on my bike. But as soon as you put any non-pancake style lens on it the point is pretty much moot. It's just not compact to any great degree. Actually, the other Rebels-the T3i, 4i, 5i, all have the articulating screen, don't weigh much more and the size (to me anyway) would be more comfortable and not that much bulkier to carry.

A serious "small and light" kit from Canon should probably include a revamped lens line-like the M mount series that would make small and more compact than even the SL1...

Me? If I had a choice between an optical viewfinder or a tilt screen (any screen really), I would take an optical viewfinder every time. I don't like or use "live view" to begin with, and there are too many times for my style of shooting that I really need to compose through the viewfinder to change my technique now!

 

[gatorowl]

,,,

Well, after using the SL1 for over 2 weeks, it doesn't live up to the "small and light" requirement in my opinion.

Agreed. That's your opinion. YMMV. I searched for a pocketable camera but found that the IQ was too compromised. I then considered mirrorless but realized that though small, they were too big to fit in a pocket. I then considered the (regular-size) Rebel series, but they were actually too close to full-frame cameras in size and weight to accept those compromises.

Yes-the body is small and light. And like I said-it's good for carrying on my bike. But as soon as you put any non-pancake style lens on it the point is pretty much moot.

That is true of any ILC. Put on any non-pancake lens, and the camera ceases to be pocketable. Yet, depending on the lens, it is still very compact.

I find the SL1 to be small enough to throw in my day pack with a wide-angle (10-18stm) and telephoto (55-250 stm) and not be bothered by the weight. Frankly the T#i cameras are too big for this purpose. YMMV

It's just not compact to any great degree. Actually, the other Rebels-the T3i, 4i, 5i, all have the articulating screen, don't weigh much more and the size (to me anyway) would be more comfortable and not that much bulkier to carry.

I disagree. Did I say YMMV? The SL1 is at the upper limit of what I consider compact. You are one of the few who would not consider it compact and light when paired with the new 10-18 stm, especially when compared to my D800E equipped with a Tokina 16-28 lens. That is an extreme comparison. I sold my T4i simply because it was just a bit too large to carry with me on a run or a ride.

A serious "small and light" kit from Canon should probably include a revamped lens line-like the M mount series that would make small and more compact than even the SL1...

Yes, companies can make cameras smaller than the SL1. However, then it couldn't serve as a second body in a pinch when I want to use my 70-300L on a second body (or I'd have to use some unwieldy adapter on a smaller camera body). I consider the size a good compromise between an ultra-compact system like the M and one that is compatible with all of Canon's lenses.

Me? If I had a choice between an optical viewfinder or a tilt screen (any screen really), I would take an optical viewfinder every time. I don't like or use "live view" to begin with,

I agree.

and there are too many times for my style of shooting that I really need to compose through the viewfinder to change my technique now!

This really comes down to personal preference. For some, any body that's not pocketable is too big. Others find the M4/3 cameras to be as big as they want to deal with. For me, the SL1 is the right size to serve as a with-me-all-the-time camera. It still has the features I need, and it's compatible with all my Canon lenses. Each photographer has to decide where the line is for their specific needs.

 

[Mongrel]

Honestly, if Canon would design an SL1 without the "handgrip" (similar to the OM by Olympus, or more appropriately an AE-1) it would be a lot more compact imo. The handgrip doesn't do much for ergonomics imo, but it does get in the way in my experience.

Don't get me wrong, the SL1 is "smaller"....but small enough?

Other manufacturers have managed to put together narrow-body designs with EF sized lenses so why not Canon?

Otherwise...it's all good...

lol

 

[technic]

... and the articulating screen was, I believe, more a concession to keeping a small form-factor than price or anything else.

I don't doubt they could include a tilt screen at the same size, I think this was more of a cost factor (and to make a bigger difference with the higher Rebel models).

Well, after using the SL1 for over 2 weeks, it doesn't live up to the "small and light" requirement in my opinion. Yes-the body is small and light. And like I said-it's good for carrying on my bike. But as soon as you put any non-pancake style lens on it the point is pretty much moot. It's just not compact to any great degree. Actually, the other Rebels-the T3i, 4i, 5i, all have the articulating screen, don't weigh much more and the size (to me anyway) would be more comfortable and not that much bulkier to carry.

A serious "small and light" kit from Canon should probably include a revamped lens line-like the M mount series that would make small and more compact than even the SL1...

This is very much personal taste, but for me (and apparently for others) the SL1 is a very good compromise between capabilities, size/weight and ergonomics. Yes, it only is compact with suitable lenses but there are some very good lenses for the SL1 to make a compact and lightweight kit (that competes very well with ILC cameras). For those who also have 'normal' Canon lenses it still can be considered a compact backup body.

Agree that the grip needs improvement, but on my 450D the grip is not comfortable either (and I have small hands).

Me? If I had a choice between an optical viewfinder or a tilt screen (any screen really), I would take an optical viewfinder every time. I don't like or use "live view" to begin with, and there are too many times for my style of shooting that I really need to compose through the viewfinder to change my technique now!

Of course I prefer the optical viewfinder to the LV display, but sometimes you really HAVE TO use LV and in that case it is sad how crappy it works compared to ILC cameras (or recent Canon models like 70D).

 

[Abu Mahendra]

Many of you are just now discovering what some us have known ever since the 300D; that the xxxD-series cameras are great, light little rigs.

For those who want better AF points, flip screen, better battery life, better ergonomics and higher fps, the 650D and the 700D only weigh about 170 grams more.

 

[Mongrel]

Many of you are just now discovering what some us have known ever since the 300D; that the xxxD-series cameras are great, light little rigs.

Actually my second digital camera was the 300D! Great image quality and pretty revolutionary when it came out for under $1000.

I remember the discussions here about how lame it was that the 20D didn't offer spot metering and didn't show ISO in the viewfinder.

That's why to someone like me, the SL1 is a fantastic camera when you consider it has all of that and more.

My posts are really geared toward someone coming from a similar background. We've been satisfied for the most part with an older Canon body and have so far avoided the yearly temptation to upgrade to the next thing down the pike. To someone in that situation the SL1 (and even the other Rebel bodies) offer a great chance to upgrade image quality without having to drop a $1000 or more to get it.

Now that I no longer shoot sports or events I've found I don't really need the fastest AF, weather seals, FPS, or some of the other features of the higher end bodies like my 1D. For that reason alone the Rebel line is a great alternative...

 

[totleytom]

You're absolutely right, of course. But my reason for getting the 100D + 18-55 STM was to go small and light. I was (and am) prepared to make compromises as regards lenses and body features in order to achieve small & light, while remaining within the DSLR paradigm (which for various reasons is where I want to stay.)

So yes, a body with a flip screen or more convenient buttons, or a different lens, would all offer more utility but would detract from small & light. Right now, a DSLR outfit that majors on small & light is something I am happy with, in certain situations, e.g. trying to stay within airline carry-on baggage limits.

Let me also say that in other situations I'm not universally wedded to small & light. I'm about to go away on a two week holiday. It's a cruise, from a port to which we will drive so there's no flying involved. This time the 100D is staying at home, but the 60D, 15-85, 700-200L F4 IS & 35mm F2 are all coming along. Horses for courses....

 

[Jeff Peterman]

You may have seen my posts on this too. I love my 7D and 17-55 f2.8, but when I'm traveling that pair is very heavy and bulky. I'd already bought a 55-250 for travelling because my 70-200 was just too much bulk and weight for trips. Several months ago, I bought an SL1, 18-55 f1.8 STM, plus a newer 55-250 (the STM version - mine was a MK1). The weight saving is huge, and just as important is the reduction in bulk. But I have a camera with a great sensor, and with a lot of the capabilities of the 7D, with a better high ISO (by around a stop), Liveview that is usable without a tripod, and better video capability. I miss the joystick focus selection, and hate the extra steps needed for exposure compensation, but for travel it is a wonderful camera.