Sigma introduces world's ugliest mirrorless

While this thing might not be the best-looking, it probably has good image quality--but the Sigma SA lens mount is the kiss of death. If it had a lens mount with a REAL following, like Canon EF or Nikon F, it would at least stand a chance of selling some units.

Here's how the Foveon disappointment went for me:

So Sigma has this cool new sensor tricolor sensor!
10 megapixels???!!! That's AMAZING!
Wait. That's 10 mega pixels total? So, uhm then like 3.4mp? That seems kinda .. huh.
Well, it will improve once Nikon or Canon adopt the technology
Wait, the technology is proprietary, well, we'll see
(years later)
Hey cool, there is a new Foveon camera from Sigma!
14 megapixels? Hey cool. So that's like 5 mega ... oh f*ck it.
 
One of the biggest turn-offs for me when it comes to digital cameras is how everything is so menu-driven, and this camera seems just about as bad as it gets. I mean, what the hell do I know about how bad other cameras are in that regard, but I just see very few controls other than the menu buttons on the back, and even ignoring everything else about the design, that alone makes me back away in horror.
 
Well, in my long life I have come to one conclusion that I believe is a universal law: the quality of the picture bears no relation to the looks of the camera or lens. Take that one to the bank! :abnormal:
 
I expected really big ugly clunky like a Fotron or something. It actually resembles my Ricoh digital, but I pretty mine up with vintage lenses so everybody oohs and aahs over the lens not the body! lol yeah sure they do.

Hasn't Sigma always been more low budget quality? I've never bought anything Sigma to know.
 
Well, in my long life I have come to one conclusion that I believe is a universal law: the quality of the picture bears no relation to the looks of the camera or lens. Take that one to the bank! :abnormal:

Poor equipment limits good photography just as good equipment cannot elevate bad photography. But this is hardly the same as saying that the quality of an image "bears no relation" with the camera that took it. That's kind of a silly cliche.


Hasn't Sigma always been more low budget quality? I've never bought anything Sigma to know.

When I was first exposed to Sigma in the 1990s that was definitely the case. I think though over the last twenty years or so this has changed somewhat and their reputation has improved. Still, I think a big part of the reason I find their cameras so expensive probably has something to do with their "off brand" reputation, not entirely.

Their cameras were never really "pro", and I suspect that the SD1's original price tag was a marketing thing.

Still, if someone were to donate me a Sigma DSLR/Mirrorless/Weirdo Bridge, I'm sure I'd probably enjoy it.
 
Well, in my long life I have come to one conclusion that I believe is a universal law: the quality of the picture bears no relation to the looks of the camera or lens. Take that one to the bank! :abnormal:

Poor equipment limits good photography just as good equipment cannot elevate bad photography. But this is hardly the same as saying that the quality of an image "bears no relation" with the camera that took it. That's kind of a silly cliche.
.

Didn't read that close did you! Didn't say a dam thing about the QUALITY of the equipment...just the LOOKS of it! :fangs:
 
us young guns don't have time for reading, just voicing opinions.
 
limr said:
One of the biggest turn-offs for me when it comes to digital cameras is how everything is so menu-driven, and this camera seems just about as bad as it gets. I mean, what the hell do I know about how bad other cameras are in that regard, but I just see very few controls other than the menu buttons on the back, and even ignoring everything else about the design, that alone makes me back away in horror.

Canon PowerShot G12 and G15 and GX-1 sort of look analog and feel that way, to an extent. Fuji X-series, Nikon Df, Oly Pen-F digital, there are a few sort of retro camera designs that help give you some fixed control locations over the critical, day-to-day controls.
 
I don't know. I don't think it's any uglier than any other camera. They're all just small black boxes with a lens in some form or other.

With the lens attached I like the look of it.
 
I don't know. I don't think it's any uglier than any other camera. They're all just small black boxes with a lens in some form or other.

With the lens attached I like the look of it.

I do kind of want one. It's so funky. Curious how it will be priced. I've always liked the idea of Foveon ... I'm a little worried about the flange distance, however. That weird "Omega nose" makes me think it will be pretty long.
 
I don't think it looks too bad. After all a camera is a tool right? Who cares what it looks like if it gets the job done.
 
[/QUOTE] Curious how it will be priced.[/QUOTE]

Based on recent history, it will be priced at a simply ridiculous, outlandish, sales-killing price point. Like their $9,995 d-slr was... like their earlier SLR/n and SLR/c full-frame models for Nikon and for Canon were priced...

Not sure why Sigma felt like their tinny little SR-1 could compete with a $7995 tank like the Nikon D3x when it was brand-new, and it was built on an utterly untested platform, and built with a proprietary lens mount that almost NOBODY had any lenses for...the degree of moronic corporate hubris they showed then, and with the later two models of their Merrill fixed-lens compacts does not bode well for the price of this new pair of cameras.

Sigma might even do the same thing again--and try to price this so it looks like an alternative choice to the Leica SL, which today is retailing at from at $7,499 to $7,899 body-only. It would be hilarious to see Sigma do the same thing they did last time!
 
One of the biggest turn-offs for me when it comes to digital cameras is how everything is so menu-driven, and this camera seems just about as bad as it gets. I mean, what the hell do I know about how bad other cameras are in that regard, but I just see very few controls other than the menu buttons on the back, and even ignoring everything else about the design, that alone makes me back away in horror.
I agree. The one thing that irritates me with my D3300 and Coolpix P7100 is all that menu fluff. I think most of it is worthless. I have found messing with the settings makes things worse as well. I am now just leaving most of the settings at default. I can't remember to turn s*** off or back either. Too many things to think about.

Sent from my XT1254 using Tapatalk
 

Most reactions

Back
Top