[Rover]

I knew you'd cling to this, but let me repeat again: my gripe was with the whole concept of a mirrorless that accepts DSLR lenses by adding a tube instead of mirror box (Pentax K-01, I look at thee through the infathomable depths you've sunken into), and with the horrible (to me) body design that runs counter to ergonomics.

 

If I had been simply enchanted with anything having integrated VG (which this Sigma is not), I would have been all over something like this:



By the way, a journalist I know is using this thing for recording videos. I have to admit, it looks pretty novel, and not exactly terrible.

[JJ_SO]

You see, so different are tastes   I'm not trying to get you angry by saying: As it looks like a shrunk Canon EOS 1 whatever, I'm not surprised that you like it - while I'm sticking to the Sigma design. Of course, the tube looks stupid at first. And at second. But once you ask an owner (of 226?) of the older Sigma DSLRs, he/she would be quite happy to have NOT to buy new "mirrorless" lenses. For those people, as they were (with some reason) complaining not to have LiveView in their Sigma DSLRs but like their Foveon sensors, this concept IS a serious update. About ergonomics: At least it has an EVF, Canon EOS M3 needs that as an  extra. Plus another adapter to use EOS DSLR lenses. Altogether about the same price as a Canon PowerShot G1x Mark II Premium Kit - but why are these prices constantly and massively decreasing?


While straight forward DSLR users just shake their head about this kind of thing. Now, you might want to tell me or others, why the big boys hesitate to introduce their idea of mirrorless APS-C or FF? EOS M3? Slow AF, no EVF, no exactly small when with EVF + lens adapter... Nikon V series which is not even close to APS-C?

 

The reason might be that they don't have the answer what to do with more than 100 millions DSLR lenses around and still make the new systems complete but not too big?

 

Sigma answered this question in their own way. We'll see if it finds customers. I'm sure they won't have to bother much about you 

[Rover]

I'm also an owner of an (old) Sigma lens but... in Canon mount. I used to have a few more - and none of those were ever in the SA version.  I don't think that mount was ever a big seller so maybe it's more of a matter of prestige to have it around. Well, let them... though I still think this was a faux pas. But since their lenses (for other mounts  ) are selling so well, they can afford to have a "hobby" thing that doesn't generate that much profit (if any).

 

I would've loved to see them make an E-mount body... with the MC-11 adapter bundled.  B)

[JJ_SO]

You know, Sigma's CEO clearly states they are loosing money with their cameras, but they think the Foveon sensor is the best around to test their lenses 100% (at least the Art and Sport series, I don't know about Contemporary). Now, one could ask, why not take any of the others sensors?

 

I still don't know what of that stories just reads good but is a nice lie to hide wrong decisions and what appears outright bizarre although it is true: Not seeking for big benefits but want to keep their workers employed because those are the true value - not money.

 

I'm sympathising with the ideas of CEO Kazuto Yamaki. If I had the choice, I would like to work at Sigma. I appreciate the efforts they did and they just put themselves on a complete different track - away from lowcost and showing bigger companies for how much less money high(est) quality is possible. I accept that part of my decision for those lenses and some cameras (which all are kind of special use and not my all-day everywhere to use tool) is the sympathy for their way. However, I don't consider these reasons as worse than others for me. Everybody else can enjoy a different way. I just don't like prejudice-based opinions about that brand.

 

And I don't think, they could just go to Sony and ask for a license for their E-mount - or do you n^know any Non-Sony manufacturers offering E-mount? Why should Sigma go that stupid way which only costs money and increase the financial loss? To be frank, if I would get one of those Sigma cameras, I'd knew they are no competiton in terms of universal use for many subjects like a D810 is. But some pictures look so much better with a Sigma sensor.

[toni-a]

Well even if Sigma cameras are a loss, they do well for the marketing of their lenses.

Making formula one cars gives no profit, but it boosts their sales.

[JJ_SO]

True. At least people talk about the Sigma stuff 

 

For 25% of the 3479 voters at DPReview, 4 Sigma introductions are the answer to "What's the most exciting CP+ announcement".

 

Maybe 30 of them buy something ...  :lol: