# Sigma introduces world's ugliest mirrorless



## unpopular

With all the class and grace of a Koni-Omega, introducing the Sigma Quattro!

Sigma Joins the Mirrorless Wars with the sd Quattro and sd Quattro H


----------



## IronMaskDuval

Ew


----------



## Gary A.

LOL ... yes it is. (Man, I love my Fuji's.)


----------



## cherylynne1

Not just that, but the specs look so unimpressive...this must be priced around, what, $250? $300? If it's above that, I can't see anyone choosing this over the Nikon d3300. Then again, I don't know anything about old Sigma cameras. Maybe they had some redeeming qualities? 

At least we know now why they're releasing a bunch of APS-C lenses. Hopefully they keep at it, because that's good news for APS-C users.


----------



## DarkShadow

Just wait to they come out with there Cinco model.. there going to fly off the shelf.


----------



## unpopular

cherylynne1 said:


> Not just that, but the specs look so unimpressive...this must be priced around, what, $250? $300?





> If it's above that, I can't see anyone choosing this over the Nikon d3300. Then again, I don't know anything about old Sigma cameras. Maybe they had some redeeming qualities?



Well. Foveon is a really nice sensor, actually. It works by layering three translucent color-sensitive arrays on top of one another resulting in good color and hilight rendering at the expense of low light performance and file size. Foveon cameras also tend to be very expensive, so no, this will certainly not be cheap!

I am unsure if they're still doing it or not, but previously they'd specify a camera as having, say, 30mp but what they really meant was that there was three 10mp sensors in the foveon stack.

This isn't all THAT misleading compared to a traditional bayer array, except that in a bayer array the pixels are offset and this permits some interpolation to yield back (most) of the resolution. With a foveon stack, you don't have that benefit - all RGB pixels occupy the same space and thus do not record anything unique about the scene aside from color. 

So this results in a smaller file size. Advocates claim that the smaller file size has better resolution (doubtful) and better color.

If this is how they are specifying the camera, though, a 45mp foveon stack producing 15mp files could be pretty interesting, though I am pretty certain it will cost a fortune.


----------



## Derrel

There are 500 to 600 people who own Sigma SA mount lenses--and there are at least one to three dozen of them who are excited about this! Rumor has it that ten or eleven of them might buy one of these puppies!


----------



## jack2016

Get the Sigma


----------



## BrickHouse

I don't know. I don't think it's any uglier than any other camera. They're all just small black boxes with a lens in some form or other.


----------



## Solarflare

WHOW !!!!

....

And here I thought the Quattro compacts would be awful.

Obviously there are people at Sigma on the project of making the most ugly and disfunctional camera possible.

And they've really impressed me. Seriously, the EVF placement makes sure one cant hold this camera comfortably. What the hell have they been thinking.


----------



## Derrel

IronMaskDuval said:
			
		

> Ew



One-Adam 12, One-Adam 12, see the man, be advised, extremely ugly camera

http://a.disquscdn.com/uploads/mediaembed/images/3252/6920/original.jpg?w=600&h[/QUOTE]


----------



## Solarflare

BrickHouse said:


> I don't know. I don't think it's any uglier than any other camera. They're all just small black boxes with a lens in some form or other.


Its very obvious, but since you apparently missed it: the extra disfunctional feature of this camera is that you will have a hard time to (a) hold the camera and (b) watch through the EVF, because the EVF is right next to the grip for the hands. Basically your thumb will be in your face a lot.

And THAT is pure ugly.

The form otherwise is stupid, too. Where there should be an as large as possible space for the battery, they recessed the camera instead. Ugh.


----------



## Derrel

Does anybody recall the ridicule, jokes, and controversy surrounding the Sigma SD1 digital SLR, which had an actual retail price close to $10,000 US at launch?  It was ridiculed around the world. It was re-named the SD1 Merrill some time later..and today the B&W price is $1,899.

Sigma  SD1 Merrill DSLR Camera (Body Only) C26900 B&H Photo Video

While this thing might not be the best-looking, it probably has good image quality--but the Sigma SA lens mount is the kiss of death. If it had a lens mount with a REAL following, like Canon EF or Nikon F, it would at least stand a chance of selling some units.


----------



## BrickHouse

Solarflare said:


> BrickHouse said:
> 
> 
> 
> I don't know. I don't think it's any uglier than any other camera. They're all just small black boxes with a lens in some form or other.
> 
> 
> 
> Its very obvious, but since you apparently missed it: the extra disfunctional feature of this camera is that you will have a hard time to (a) hold the camera and (b) watch through the EVF, because the EVF is right next to the grip for the hands. Basically your thumb will be in your face a lot.
> 
> And THAT is pure ugly.
> 
> The form otherwise is stupid, too. Where there should be an as large as possible space for the battery, they recessed the camera instead. Ugh.
Click to expand...


Cool man. Whatever you say.


----------



## Derrel

Reminds me of the 1991 film with River Phoenix, a movie called Dogfight...

Dogfight (film) - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


----------



## unpopular

Derrel said:


> While this thing might not be the best-looking, it probably has good image quality--but the Sigma SA lens mount is the kiss of death. If it had a lens mount with a REAL following, like Canon EF or Nikon F, it would at least stand a chance of selling some units.



Here's how the Foveon disappointment went for me:

So Sigma has this cool new sensor tricolor sensor! 
10 megapixels???!!! That's AMAZING!
Wait. That's 10 mega pixels total? So, uhm then like 3.4mp? That seems kinda .. huh.
Well, it will improve once Nikon or Canon adopt the technology
Wait, the technology is proprietary, well, we'll see
(years later)
Hey cool, there is a new Foveon camera from Sigma!
14 megapixels? Hey cool. So that's like 5 mega ... oh f*ck it.


----------



## limr

One of the biggest turn-offs for me when it comes to digital cameras is how everything is so menu-driven, and this camera seems just about as bad as it gets. I mean, what the hell do I know about how bad other cameras are in that regard, but I just see very few controls other than the menu buttons on the back, and even ignoring everything else about the design, that _alone_ makes me back away in horror.


----------



## Didereaux

Well, in my long life I have come to one conclusion that I believe is a universal law:  the quality of the picture bears no relation to the looks of the camera or lens.    Take that one to the bank!


----------



## vintagesnaps

I expected really big ugly clunky like a Fotron or something. It actually resembles my Ricoh digital, but I pretty mine up with vintage lenses so everybody oohs and aahs over the lens not the body! lol yeah sure they do.

Hasn't Sigma always been more low budget quality? I've never bought anything Sigma to know.


----------



## unpopular

Didereaux said:


> Well, in my long life I have come to one conclusion that I believe is a universal law:  the quality of the picture bears no relation to the looks of the camera or lens.    Take that one to the bank!



Poor equipment limits good photography just as good equipment cannot elevate bad photography. But this is hardly the same as saying that the quality of an image "bears no relation" with the camera that took it. That's kind of a silly cliche.




vintagesnaps said:


> Hasn't Sigma always been more low budget quality? I've never bought anything Sigma to know.



When I was first exposed to Sigma in the 1990s that was definitely the case. I think though over the last twenty years or so this has changed somewhat and their reputation has improved. Still, I think a big part of the reason I find their cameras so expensive probably has something to do with their "off brand" reputation, not entirely.

Their cameras were never really "pro", and I suspect that the SD1's original price tag was a marketing thing.

Still, if someone were to donate me a Sigma DSLR/Mirrorless/Weirdo Bridge, I'm sure I'd probably enjoy it.


----------



## Didereaux

unpopular said:


> Didereaux said:
> 
> 
> 
> Well, in my long life I have come to one conclusion that I believe is a universal law:  the quality of the picture bears no relation to the looks of the camera or lens.    Take that one to the bank!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Poor equipment limits good photography just as good equipment cannot elevate bad photography. But this is hardly the same as saying that the quality of an image "bears no relation" with the camera that took it. That's kind of a silly cliche.
> .
Click to expand...


Didn't read that close did you!   Didn't say a dam thing about the QUALITY of the equipment...just the LOOKS of it!


----------



## unpopular

us young guns don't have time for reading, just voicing opinions.


----------



## Derrel

limr said:
			
		

> One of the biggest turn-offs for me when it comes to digital cameras is how everything is so menu-driven, and this camera seems just about as bad as it gets. I mean, what the hell do I know about how bad other cameras are in that regard, but I just see very few controls other than the menu buttons on the back, and even ignoring everything else about the design, that _alone_ makes me back away in horror.



Canon PowerShot G12 and G15 and GX-1 sort of look analog and feel that way, to an extent. Fuji X-series, Nikon Df, Oly Pen-F digital, there are a few sort of retro camera designs that help give you some fixed control locations over the critical, day-to-day controls.


----------



## xenskhe

BrickHouse said:


> I don't know. I don't think it's any uglier than any other camera. They're all just small black boxes with a lens in some form or other.



With the lens attached I like the look of it.


----------



## unpopular

xenskhe said:


> BrickHouse said:
> 
> 
> 
> I don't know. I don't think it's any uglier than any other camera. They're all just small black boxes with a lens in some form or other.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> With the lens attached I like the look of it.
Click to expand...


I do kind of want one. It's so funky. Curious how it will be priced. I've always liked the idea of Foveon ... I'm a little worried about the flange distance, however. That weird "Omega nose" makes me think it will be pretty long.


----------



## nerwin

I don't think it looks too bad. After all a camera is a tool right? Who cares what it looks like if it gets the job done.


----------



## unpopular

nerwin said:


> Who cares what it looks like if it gets the job done.



tried to look up ugliest hammer. got nothing but toes.


----------



## Derrel

[/QUOTE] *Curious how it will be priced*.[/QUOTE]

Based on recent history, it will be priced at a simply ridiculous, outlandish, sales-killing price point. Like their $9,995 d-slr was... like their earlier SLR/n and SLR/c full-frame models for Nikon and for Canon were priced...

Not sure why Sigma felt like their tinny little SR-1 could compete with a $7995 tank like the Nikon D3x when it was brand-new, and it was built on an utterly untested platform, and built with a proprietary lens mount that almost NOBODY had any lenses for...the degree of moronic corporate hubris they showed then, and with the later two models of their Merrill fixed-lens compacts does not bode well for the price of this new pair of cameras.

Sigma might even do the same thing again--and try to price this so it looks like an alternative choice to the Leica SL, which today is retailing at from at $7,499 to $7,899 body-only. It would be hilarious to see Sigma do the same thing they did last time!


----------



## jcdeboever

limr said:


> One of the biggest turn-offs for me when it comes to digital cameras is how everything is so menu-driven, and this camera seems just about as bad as it gets. I mean, what the hell do I know about how bad other cameras are in that regard, but I just see very few controls other than the menu buttons on the back, and even ignoring everything else about the design, that _alone_ makes me back away in horror.


I agree. The one thing that irritates me with my D3300 and Coolpix P7100 is all that menu fluff. I think most of it is worthless. I have found messing with the settings makes things worse as well. I am now just leaving most of the settings at default. I can't remember to turn s*** off or back either. Too many things to think about. 

Sent from my XT1254 using Tapatalk


----------



## Solarflare

Excellent: there is a battery grip.

See for example: More on the new Sigma sd Quattro mirrorless cameras | Photo Rumors


----------



## Braineack

nerwin said:


> I don't think it looks too bad. After all a camera is a tool right? Who cares what it looks like if it gets the job done.



It's actually somewhat refreshing to see a manufacturer try somethign other than "this is how we designed them in 1940, so this is how they are designed today"

Hasselblad seem to be the only company that's actaully thinking about ergonomics, and not how to make it look "retro" or just not bothering resigning the same thing they've used since 2007 when they made their first DSLR.

Honestly though, if it wasnt for the pointless notch on the grip on this Sigma body, it would look just like all the rest, but at least Sigma thought about designing an unstable body that will constantly fall over instead of just sitting flat on a surface...


----------



## Derrel

unpopular said:


> xenskhe said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> BrickHouse said:
> 
> 
> 
> I don't know. I don't think it's any uglier than any other camera. They're all just small black boxes with a lens in some form or other.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> With the lens attached I like the look of it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I do kind of want one. It's so funky. Curious how it will be priced. I've always liked the idea of Foveon ... I'm a little *worried about the flange distance,* however. That weird "Omega nose" *makes me think it will be pretty long*.
Click to expand...




Photo Lady said:


> oh i see theres a drop down menu.. but weird i do not see the Nikon d7100





Solarflare said:


> Excellent: there is a battery grip.
> 
> See for example: More on the new Sigma sd Quattro mirrorless cameras | Photo Rumors



Flange/film distance is 44.00 mm on the Sigma SA mount according to this chart Flange focal distance - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

But, yeah...another bone-headed engineering and marketing decision, to make an impressive mirrorless camera series, with two different models, with different sensor size options, and then to go ahead and make it on a long flange focal distance mount and pretty much ensure that the body would be useless with most 35mm system lenses with simple adapters. On the other hand, this ought to work easily with all of the medium-format system lenses, which have flange focal lengths in the 60 and 70 mm range, up to 111mm for the Mamiya RB67 mount. Still though...that means a hefty FOV factor that will make even the widest of wide-angle lenses for medium format a fairly narrow-angle lens. A Hasselblad 50mm wide-angle would be 68mm e-FOV on the H-model, and that's pretty narrow in view.

It's almost as if Sigma wants this thing to be no more than a very marginal seller; the flange focal distance of the other mirrorless camera brands is quite short, and 35mm legacy and medium format mounts are all wayyyyyy longer than the typical mirrorless brands use-- which is the characteristic that allows the several mirrorless camera brands to use adapted lenses from other camera brands (m42,Nikon F,Canon FD, Leica,etc) with no need for glass in the adapter ring.

The camera looks okay with a larger zoom lens mounted on it, as shown in the Photo Rumors site's camera show photos of the camera, both held in the hands, and also on display both with and without a lens. But that Sigma SA mount on the front of the box...man...,


----------



## unpopular

Foveon was Sigma's best investment, and they TOTALLY flubbed it - and continue to flub it.

They should have licensed out the sensor from the start.


----------



## unpopular

Derrel said:


> and also on display both with and without a lens.



IDK. Still looks like if a Rapid M and an NEX 7 had an illegitimate child.


----------

