Chris W Posted March 19 Share #121 Posted March 19 Advertisement (gone after registration) I saw a Youtube reviewer using the black BF and it still looked very slick, nice. There is no argument it is stunning industrial design, but trying to use it would drive me mad. 1 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Advertisement Posted March 19 Posted March 19 Hi Chris W, Take a look here Sigma BF camera. I'm sure you'll find what you were looking for!
helged Posted March 19 Share #122 Posted March 19 3 hours ago, Chris W said: I saw a Youtube reviewer using the black BF and it still looked very slick, nice. There is no argument it is stunning industrial design, but trying to use it would drive me mad. Wouldn't surprise me if the BF gets quite popular. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chris W Posted March 19 Share #123 Posted March 19 25 minutes ago, helged said: Wouldn't surprise me if the BF gets quite popular. Like the FP and FP-L? Which are not very popular. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
BernardC Posted March 19 Share #124 Posted March 19 35 minutes ago, Chris W said: Like the FP and FP-L? Which are not very popular. Sigma says that sales exceeded their expectations, so it's all relative. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chris W Posted March 19 Share #125 Posted March 19 19 minutes ago, BernardC said: Sigma says that sales exceeded their expectations, so it's all relative. Yeah, relative to Fuji, Panasonic, Sony, Nikon, Canon and Leica. Honestly I love Sigma. I have their contemporary lenses and used the FP for about four years, but they have always been niche, ever since the Merrill's and the Quattros. I highly doubt the BF is going to match the sales of a Nikon Z8, or Fuji X100 VI, leica Q3 43 or Sony A7. But I'm happy to be proved wrong. The Zeiss ZX also looked amazing, but was over priced and people didn't like the similarity to a phone. 1 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
LocalHero1953 Posted March 19 Share #126 Posted March 19 27 minutes ago, Chris W said: Yeah, relative to Fuji, Panasonic, Sony, Nikon, Canon and Leica. Honestly I love Sigma. I have their contemporary lenses and used the FP for about four years, but they have always been niche, ever since the Merrill's and the Quattros. I highly doubt the BF is going to match the sales of a Nikon Z8, or Fuji X100 VI, leica Q3 43 or Sony A7. But I'm happy to be proved wrong. The Zeiss ZX also looked amazing, but was over priced and people didn't like the similarity to a phone. If sales of the fp, fpL and BF exceed expectations, what's gone wrong? I'm all in favour of niche products - they're much more interesting. 4 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
BernardC Posted March 19 Share #127 Posted March 19 Advertisement (gone after registration) I think that Sigma builds cameras for themselves, based on what isn't already available from other brands. Don't we wish we could all do that! 3 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chris W Posted March 19 Share #128 Posted March 19 (edited) 2 hours ago, LocalHero1953 said: If sales of the fp, fpL and BF exceed expectations, what's gone wrong? I'm all in favour of niche products - they're much more interesting. I was replying to the suggestion the BF would be 'quite popular'. I doubt any Sigma camera has been 'quite popular' compared to similar products (that I outlined). I've owned more niche cameras than I have popular ones. I've had a Leica M6, an an Epson RD1-S, a Hasselblad X Pan, a Leica M8, two of the Sigma Merrill's and an FP. I prefer them as well. My only two points are I feel the BF is going to be hard to use (practically), and added to the price, it's not going to be a popular camera, a sales success for Sigma - we'll see. It feels more Zeiss ZX1 to me. I would love a Zeiss. One sold on Ebay for £1800 last week....down from £6000. Edited March 19 by Chris W 1 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chris W Posted March 19 Share #129 Posted March 19 2 hours ago, BernardC said: I think that Sigma builds cameras for themselves, Why would a camera company build cameras for themselves? They make lenses for everyone, the public at large. I think they like the prestige of being out there, trailblazing. But the product also has to be fit for purpose. The Quattro DP1, 2 & 3 also looked amazing, were controversial and not cheap initially. I don't think they've been a success. Also hampered by fatal flaws, again the lack of EVF, plus poor performance above lower ISO values. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
jrichie Posted March 19 Share #130 Posted March 19 1 hour ago, Chris W said: I was replying to the suggestion the BF would be 'quite popular'. I doubt any Sigma camera has been 'quite popular' compared to similar products (that I outlined). I've owned more niche cameras than I have popular ones. I've had a Leica M6, an an Epson RD1-S, a Hasselblad X Pan, a Leica M8, two of the Sigma Merrill's and an FP. I prefer them as well. My only two points are I feel the BF is going to be hard to use (practically), and added to the price, it's not going to be a popular camera, a sales success for Sigma - we'll see. It feels more Zeiss ZX1 to me. I would love a Zeiss. One sold on Ebay for £1800 last week....down from £6000. The hype is for the design which will engage people, and then they will get put off on the cost especially when they also take in mind the negativity on the screen in sunlight. The funny thing is this - I looked at the S9 and dismissed it due to no EVF, and now I am considering a very similar camera that costs more, just because of the design. My rational brain tells me it is stupid to buy it, but the foolish part says buy buy buy......... 1 1 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Olaf_ZG Posted March 19 Share #131 Posted March 19 4 hours ago, Chris W said: I was replying to the suggestion the BF would be 'quite popular'. I doubt any Sigma camera has been 'quite popular' compared to similar products (that I outlined). I've owned more niche cameras than I have popular ones. I've had a Leica M6, an an Epson RD1-S, a Hasselblad X Pan, a Leica M8, two of the Sigma Merrill's and an FP. I prefer them as well. My only two points are I feel the BF is going to be hard to use (practically), and added to the price, it's not going to be a popular camera, a sales success for Sigma - we'll see. It feels more Zeiss ZX1 to me. I would love a Zeiss. One sold on Ebay for £1800 last week....down from £6000. The Merrils where great. I have done a very special project, photographing over 250 long exposure portraits with them. The DP’s where terrible for long exposure, sadly, and I sold them in the end. Having a normal sensor, I don’t see any advantage for me, owning already a Q and SL. If Sigma comes with a l-mount foveon lens, I might consider it. 2 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chris W Posted March 20 Share #132 Posted March 20 I have a few amazing images (colour and quality) from my Merrill's. Hard to use all the time due to the ISO restriction and that EVF only again. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Simone_DF Posted March 21 Share #133 Posted March 21 On 3/19/2025 at 5:30 PM, Chris W said: and added to the price, it's not going to be a popular camera, a sales success for Sigma - we'll see. Sales != profit Sigma has already said they won't be able to make more than 9 of these per day, so they expect low sales to begin with. But that doesn't mean it won't be profitable. Look at Leica, they don't sell in high numbers like Sony, but have high profits anyway. On 3/19/2025 at 5:35 PM, Chris W said: Why would a camera company build cameras for themselves? Because Sigma is a private and family-owned company, and the CEO is an actual photographer, not a bean-counter a la Tim Cook, so Sigma can pretty much do whatever they want. But anyway, companies also tend to invest into "halo products", where the money return is not great, but they raise prestige, overall appeal and perception with the public, generating income in increased sales of other products. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
jaapv Posted March 21 Share #134 Posted March 21 On 3/19/2025 at 10:35 PM, Olaf_ZG said: The Merrils where great. I have done a very special project, photographing over 250 long exposure portraits with them. The DP’s where terrible for long exposure, sadly, and I sold them in the end. Having a normal sensor, I don’t see any advantage for me, owning already a Q and SL. If Sigma comes with a l-mount foveon lens, I might consider it. They first have to get their FF Foveon sensor working… Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Stuart Richardson Posted March 21 Share #135 Posted March 21 (edited) On 3/9/2025 at 5:50 PM, nykv said: They probably do the cams as Cosina does M<m Voigties: fun and prestige. I watched an interview with him from 2016 where they asked Yamaki san (the CEO) why they keep doing cameras, and he had a really endearing and funny answer. He implied that the cameras were not necessarily a good business decision from a financial side, but that there were three main reasons they keep making them. The engineers in the company really liked working on cameras and it inspired them. Making their own cameras in house allowed them to tune the images and improve the quality of their lenses. Finally, he said that his father had founded Sigma, and that his dream was to build a company that made cameras. He said he was worried that if he stopped making cameras his father would come back as a zombie and haunt him. I thought it was so funny and charming, and it really made me love Sigma. They are a family company doing everything in house and seemingly with a lot of love and respect for their community (everything is made in their factory in rural Japan). On top of that, their lenses are really well made, economical and extremely good. What's not to love? I am glad that nearly ten years after the interview they are still making better and better cameras. (He starts to talk about it at 4 minutes) Edited March 21 by Stuart Richardson 9 3 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Simone_DF Posted March 21 Share #136 Posted March 21 I wonder if the lack of IBIS is really a big issue with this camera, considering that it has only an electronic shutter, so shake should be minimal Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chris W Posted March 21 Share #137 Posted March 21 4 hours ago, Simone_DF said: But anyway, companies also tend to invest into "halo products", where the money return is not great, but they raise prestige, overall appeal and perception with the public, generating income in increased sales of other products. We'll have to agree to disagree. The lenses sell based on the multiple reports by word of mouth and extremely positive reviews. I don't think someone is going to buy a Sigma lens for Nikon or Sony because of the BF....or the FP-L. Outside of enthusiasts, like us, I'm pretty sure most people have never heard of any Sigma camera, let alone touched one. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
LD_50 Posted March 21 Share #138 Posted March 21 1 hour ago, Simone_DF said: I wonder if the lack of IBIS is really a big issue with this camera, considering that it has only an electronic shutter, so shake should be minimal I’m seeing similar feedback on the new Fuji GFX100RF excluding IBIS but including leaf shutter in the lens. The assumption being made is the leaf shutter negates the need for IBIS. I can’t see how that would be the case. The same goes for electronic shutter. IBIS isn’t really a solution for shutter vibration. It is a solution for overall camera motion. 1 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
BernardC Posted March 21 Share #139 Posted March 21 24 minutes ago, LD_50 said: The assumption being made is the leaf shutter negates the need for IBIS. I can’t see how that would be the case. The same goes for electronic shutter. "Negate" is over stated. The lack of shutter vibration, along with high available EIs, and the fact that you are less likely to use a BF/fp handheld with long unstabilized lenses minimizes the need for IBIS. For most users. It may be a showstopper for photographers who are prone to camera shake, in which case the Lumix S9 is a perfectly serviceable alternative. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
LD_50 Posted March 21 Share #140 Posted March 21 2 minutes ago, BernardC said: "Negate" is over stated. The lack of shutter vibration, along with high available EIs, and the fact that you are less likely to use a BF/fp handheld with long unstabilized lenses minimizes the need for IBIS. For most users. It may be a showstopper for photographers who are prone to camera shake, in which case the Lumix S9 is a perfectly serviceable alternative. I was replying to a question about whether electronic shutter reduced shake and therefore the need for IBIS. If you isolate to shutter vibration, I don’t see how IBIS is helpful. If I’m inaccurate and someone has information that IBIS corrects for that vibration, please provide details. If you include other factors (smaller lenses, less weight, higher ISO/shutter speeds), then yes, IBIS becomes more or less helpful. I would also expect that the lack of VF, which requires the photographer to hold the camera away from their face, will induce more camera shake and therefore more of a need for IBIS. 1 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now