Sigma BF (Beautiful Foolishness).

JoeV said:
The BF seems like Sigma’s answer to the LUMIX S9. Both are L mount, both lack a mechanical shutter or flash sync, but at least the S9 has an articulating LCD, SD card slot and mic jack input. There was lots of criticism last year against the S9, but now the BF makes the S9 seem like a bargain!
Click to expand...
You don't see value in the simplicity of the BF's menu system (besides it being a truly beautiful object)? I'd gladly pay extra for that in any of my cameras; I'm just not interested in a photo-centric camera without a curtain or a global shutter, which is where I think the BF falters.
 
It's a boutique product, but unlike others that we've seen, it doesn't attempt to mimic an old film camera. I thought Sigma FP was a dramatic rethink of what a modern camera might be, but perhaps someone at Sigma decided that it didn't go far enough. Would I buy one? I don't know; sometimes it takes me months or even longer to decide these sorts of things.
 
JeffS7444 said:
It's a boutique product, but unlike others that we've seen, it doesn't attempt to mimic an old film camera. I thought Sigma FP was a dramatic rethink of what a modern camera might be, but perhaps someone at Sigma decided that it didn't go far enough. Would I buy one? I don't know; sometimes it takes me months or even longer to decide these sorts of things.
Click to expand...
Months??!! By that time, the BF Mk II will be the rage. With a steep price increase, of course. But you could maybe get a NOS BF at a discount, as no one would want that old thing... ;)
 
Dunning-Kruger, again. Other than internet photos and short write-ups we know little about this camera. Yet without using one or even holding one some folks are sure it is no good. Eugene and Orville were met with scorn and so was Henry. But we do have airplanes and lots and lots of cars. None of us can predict the viability or usability of the BF. Would it be wise to wait and see?
 
boojum said:
Dunning-Kruger, again. Other than internet photos and short write-ups we know little about this camera. Yet without using one or even holding one some folks are sure it is no good. Eugene and Orville were met with scorn and so was Henry. But we do have airplanes and lots and lots of cars. None of us can predict the viability or usability of the BF. Would it be wise to wait and see?
Click to expand...
Oh dear. That's not how the internet works. Wisdom and patience have no place here. ;)
 
JoeV said:
The BF seems like Sigma’s answer to the LUMIX S9. Both are L mount, both lack a mechanical shutter or flash sync, but at least the S9 has an articulating LCD, SD card slot and mic jack input. There was lots of criticism last year against the S9, but now the BF makes the S9 seem like a bargain!
Click to expand...
I'd say the S9 was Panasonics answer to Sigma's fp. The BF is either its own thing or Sigma's take on the Leica T.

Edit: The cool part of the above statement is that they all share the same lens mount.
 
JoeV said:
The BF seems like Sigma’s answer to the LUMIX S9. Both are L mount, both lack a mechanical shutter or flash sync, but at least the S9 has an articulating LCD, SD card slot and mic jack input. There was lots of criticism last year against the S9, but now the BF makes the S9 seem like a bargain!
Click to expand...
The problem with all of these tiny FF cameras are the lenses are either not small enough or F8. If they had a 45mm half the size of the Sigma, then they'd be onto something for me. I'm not a wide angle user.
 
How small do you want?

53846449070_b48f466bc0_b.jpg


The 45mm and 17mm are about the same size. The 10-18mm f2.8 zoom is a little bigger and is my current walk around lens for the Sigma. I have it on a Capture clip on my belt.

The Panny 18-40 is tiny and looks like a great size fit for the Sigma.
 
Here is the Sigma in a cage with the 10-18mm f2.8 in comparison to a Yashica.

IMG_7681.JPG

Lets go smaller...

How about the Sigma with a 50mm f2.5 on it compared to a CL with a 35mm pancake.

IMG_7682.JPG

The 50mm focuses to about 14 or 16" on the Sigma. The Sigma body is smaller than the CL.
 
Heh. Another cool looking (and pricey) Sigma camera. Great.
Anyone try one yet and see what kind of photographic quality it produces?

G
 
Two things seem to come up when discussing this camera:
1. "all those sharp edges!" I've looked at a number of youtube videos on the camera, with people who are actually handling the camera, and none of them have complained about "sharp edges". They were not handing out bandages at the Sigma event either...
2. "no viewfinder!" There are many many people, most of them younger, that find it really strange holding a device upon to their face to make a photo. I suspect they outnumber the "no viewfinder" people.

It's a cool little camera, and I'm glad Sigma does things their own way.
 
splitimageview said:
Cool comparisons although only one of the cameras has an eye-level viewfinder. :)

Do you have the Sigma aux vf?
Click to expand...
And only one of them shoots video. :)

I had worked out a viewfinder for the Sigma

53846305914_1f4fbf22be_b.jpg


That one is masked for the 17mm shot in 1x1 mode.

I ended up basically never using it and removed the shoe. I prefer the LCD for wide angle.

I do not have the EVF.

When I am shooting something telephoto or where a viewfinder would be helpful I use my S1R, S1H or S1 for IR. Part of why L mount is awesome, lots of camera options that all share the same lenses so it gives mix and match flexibility.
 
I cradle the lens to hold the camera so the size is just about right to me. Smaller lenses feel a bit funny due to that.

Might be interesting if Sigma pit out a pancake at some point though. The Panny would be tiny on thr fp.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom