6 ms·
I think those folks would rather buy a Leica/Ricoh. what does this offer? worse glass, sensor, controls. I really don't get this camera.
by gwill 2y ago
I think those folks would rather buy a Leica/Ricoh. what does this offer? worse glass, sensor, controls. I really don't get this camera.
- tern 2y agoIf the autofocus is reliable, it will sit perfectly between the Ricoh GR III and the Leica Q3, which could be the right mix for some people GR III = ultra-compact, fixed focal length, $1000, poor autofocus Sigma BF = compact, interchangeable lens, $2000 + lenses, ??? autofocus Leica Q3 = compact, fixed focal length, $6000, reliable autofocus These cameras are loved by street photographers, casual landscape photographers, documentary / environmental portrait photographers, and there's a significant Japanese lifestyle photography scene ... I often wonder if Sigma has this market in mind, which is not so visible if you're not in Japan or don't know where to look on Instagram (dig into the #sigmafp / #sigmafpl tag and look for washed out / blue-tinted photos of flowers/nature, for instance). The major downside is no stabilization, which will severely limit the shooting envelope compared to these other cameras. I shot with a Sigma FP for awhile and the combination of poor autofocus, no stabilization, no viewfinder, and it still being heavy compared to, say, a Fujifilm camera, made for a very limiting experience. This will, however, be a user-experience upgrade for people who are happy with FP (which, honestly, I still miss sometimes).
- rodgerd 2y ago"Worse glass" is a religious position if we're talking about Sigma glass. Especially considering how likely it is that any given name-brand lens is actually a Sigma design, or a Sigma design and build.
- gwill 2y agothat's fair. i was whack. one of my favorite lenses is a Sigma, i was just comparing to Leica and let some bias slip in.