Moreno Posted February 25 Share #41 Posted February 25 Advertisement (gone after registration) Yes, I understand, but I mainly photograph landscapes and architecture. As a result, focus almost always on infinity. But FP rear screen ... unusable in sunny condition. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Advertisement Posted February 25 Posted February 25 Hi Moreno, Take a look here Sigma BF camera. I'm sure you'll find what you were looking for!
BernardC Posted February 25 Share #42 Posted February 25 2 hours ago, roydonian said: When a company says that something cannot be divulged, my immediate reaction as a technical journalist is to wonder what they are trying to hide. In this case maybe they are trying to stay out of a subject that many internet experts fixate on, but is irrelevant. The BF's cover glass is very likely to be the same (within a few microns) as the fp and fp-l's cover glass. The sensor will work acceptably well with some M lenses, and not so well with others. Sigma doesn't sell M lenses, so it's no wonder they don't care to answer. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
BernardC Posted February 25 Share #43 Posted February 25 4 hours ago, Chris W said: I used the onboard FP sound to help me sync up my separate recorded audio. I usually don't mind double-system sound, but it goes against the fp's (and bf's) extreme portability. With the fp I use a tiny Olympus stereo mic most of the time. That's only a few extra grams, much less than the smallest standalone sound recorder. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
LocalHero1953 Posted February 25 Share #44 Posted February 25 2 minutes ago, BernardC said: I usually don't mind double-system sound, but it goes against the fp's (and bf's) extreme portability. With the fp I use a tiny Olympus stereo mic most of the time. That's only a few extra grams, much less than the smallest standalone sound recorder. I used mine on a tripod, typically at the back of a performance venue. My sound recorder was much closer (for a play, usually hidden on stage). I have been using the BM CC6K in similar scenarios; I found the BM's on board mics were actually better (subjectively less noise, clearer) than the shoe mounted Rode Videomic I tried. I'll be curious about the Bf's mics. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chris W Posted February 25 Share #45 Posted February 25 20 minutes ago, LocalHero1953 said: I'll be curious about the Bf's mics. There are none, nor an input socket, except perhaps the USB-C. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chris W Posted February 25 Share #46 Posted February 25 31 minutes ago, BernardC said: The sensor will work acceptably well with some M lenses, and not so well with others. I found image quality using M lenses with the FP extremely good, far above acceptable. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dazzajl Posted February 25 Share #47 Posted February 25 Advertisement (gone after registration) 2 minutes ago, Chris W said: There are none, nor an input socket, except perhaps the USB-C. There are internal stereo mics, should be up to the task of providing a source to sync a quality audio file to but possibly not much more, in a commercial use case. My partner, who is in charge of all things video in our operation, quite likes the look of this. She doesn’t like large bulky kit and is much more interested in what she can achieve with kit than its spec or place in the food chain. 1 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
BernardC Posted February 25 Share #48 Posted February 25 13 minutes ago, Chris W said: I found image quality using M lenses with the FP extremely good, far above acceptable. It depends on the lens. Some of my favourite M lenses don't work on the fp at all, not even in crop mode. The corners are unsharp in an extremely unpleasant way. The same lenses are outstanding on Leica digital bodies. As a general rule, longer M lenses (50mm and over), and more recent lenses (ASPH generation) tend to work better on non-Leica bodies, but there are exceptions. 1 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
LocalHero1953 Posted February 25 Share #49 Posted February 25 26 minutes ago, Chris W said: There are none, nor an input socket, except perhaps the USB-C. The specs say there are stereo mics, and they're shown on some annotated images of the camera. They also say the USB-C port supports an external mic. 1 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
SrMi Posted February 25 Share #50 Posted February 25 5 hours ago, roydonian said: When a company says that something cannot be divulged, my immediate reaction as a technical journalist is to wonder what they are trying to hide. No manufacturer divulges that information (the thickness of the sensor glass). 1 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chris W Posted February 25 Share #51 Posted February 25 Yes, I saw the bit about using the USB-C port for a mic. A few of the more well known YouTubers at the Sigma launch seemed to think there were no internal mics. Apologies if I got that wrong. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
roydonian Posted February 25 Share #52 Posted February 25 1 hour ago, SrMi said: No manufacturer divulges that information (the thickness of the sensor glass). Well, there is certainly plenty of information on this topic in the public domain. It took me less than a couple of minutes to learn the cover glass thickness of my first DSLR. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
SrMi Posted February 25 Share #53 Posted February 25 3 minutes ago, roydonian said: Well, there is certainly plenty of information on this topic in the public domain. It took me less than a couple of minutes to learn the cover glass thickness of my first DSLR. I believe the source was not the manufacturer but people disassembling the sensor and measuring. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Filip Baraka Posted February 25 Share #54 Posted February 25 TBH I believe Leica is now probably pretty pissed with sigma. They played their game and gestalt. Not going into usability, design look pretty good and striped of everything but necessary. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
BernardC Posted February 25 Share #55 Posted February 25 1 hour ago, roydonian said: Well, there is certainly plenty of information on this topic in the public domain. It took me less than a couple of minutes to learn the cover glass thickness of my first DSLR. Was it in the LensRentals article? I recall they measured a whole bunch of sensor covers, found-out that there was a wide variance even within the same manufacturer, and concluded that it didn't seem to make a material difference to the images. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
costa43 Posted February 26 Share #56 Posted February 26 (edited) Same old story for me, it is obviously a generational thing but no EVF/OVF is always a dealbreaker, I have to be able to bring the camera up to my eye. This camera looks really nice though and it is good for a manufacturer to take a different approach to design. Edited February 26 by costa43 1 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
roydonian Posted February 26 Share #57 Posted February 26 16 hours ago, SrMi said: I believe the source was not the manufacturer but people disassembling the sensor and measuring. You could be right, but it's fair to assume that once any new digital camera becomes available, the main digital camera manufacturers will dismantle a copy in order to assess it. So there is no way that cover glass thickness can be kept a secret. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
BernardC Posted February 26 Share #58 Posted February 26 1 hour ago, roydonian said: So there is no way that cover glass thickness can be kept a secret. It's not a secret, it's just a totally irrelevant number. You may as well ask manufacturers what they had for breakfast. I understand the history of this quest to compare sensor glass thickness, but nothing has changed in the past decade: Leica M lenses perform best on Leica bodies. You can send a Sony body off to be shorn of its sensor glass and it still won't be in the same ballpark. Actually, one thing has changed: you can find used Leica bodies at very reasonable prices these days, so there's little financial logic behind the quest for Leica alternatives. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chris W Posted February 26 Share #59 Posted February 26 3 hours ago, roydonian said: You could be right, but it's fair to assume that once any new digital camera becomes available, the main digital camera manufacturers will dismantle a copy in order to assess it. Only if it's in direct competition or is selling like hotcakes and exhibits some ground breaking new ideas. If you are comfortable with the cameras you offer, I don't think you'd purchase and pull apart every new camera that comes along. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Simone_DF Posted February 26 Share #60 Posted February 26 This looks like a great second camera to have. Granted, it's not for everyone, but I'm sure it has its niche. I would love to see a direct BF vs Panasonic S9 side by side comparison. 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