Sigma announced two new mirrorless cameras.
APS-H and APS-C respectively.
Sigma SA mount.
JUST
[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]
Camera-Specific Properties: Camera Software Adobe Photoshop CS6 Macintosh Image-Specific Properties: Horizontal Resolution 72 dpi Vertical Resolution 72 dpi Color Space Information sRGB Image Width 916 Image Height 640 Scene Capture Type Standard
>>2775809
[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]
Camera-Specific Properties: Camera Software Adobe Photoshop CC 2015 (Windows) Image-Specific Properties: Image Width 2400 Image Height 3000 Number of Bits Per Component 8, 8, 8 Pixel Composition RGB Image Orientation Top, Left-Hand Horizontal Resolution 72 dpi Vertical Resolution 72 dpi Image Created 2016:02:22 10:12:38 Color Space Information sRGB Image Width 650 Image Height 300 Scene Capture Type Standard
>>2775809
>APS-H
what in the holy hell possessed them to make a fucking APS-H camera in 2016?
I actually kind of love how delightfully bonkers Sigma can be sometimes. SA mount is a stupid thing to do, though, they'd be much smarter to offer it in F or EF and pitch it to Canikon shooters who want a mirrorless option that shares lenses with their systems.
>Sigma SA mount
Literally why
>>2775809
>mirrorless camera
>with a huge junk on front so it fits their for-mirror-made lenses
just fuck my shit up senpai
LMAO
>>2775809
I hope it's good.
I'm so glad Sigma exists.
Not that I'd buy their cameras, but I love watching the absurd shit they come up with. Fucking APS-H, what are they even thinking?
I love their Art lenses though.
Holy fuck, is that a 21:9 rear LCD?
Sigma what the fuck are you even doing, it's a 2:3 sensor?!
Full frame Foveon sensor when?
Oh Sigma, u so crazy.
But then, the new SD doesn't look bad at all.
>>2775834
They most definitely pride themselves on making gloriously fucked up shit.
With the bottom shaped like that, it won't even stay upright if you put it on a flat surface, right?
>>2775834
Assuming all that area is actually the display and not just black space they could just put the settings or other info on the side of the screen. You can then have an uncluttered LCD image.
Holy shit it looks fucking nice though
>>2775834
The LCD is split, I'm almost positive that small LCD on the left will display the settings
what the fuck sigma
>>2775845
Small LCD on the right*
>>2775847
>>2775845
>>2775844
>>2775834
>>2775845
Wait, there are TWO displays in there, like a reverse Nintendo 2DS?
Oh Sigma, you glorious motherfuckers.
>>2775809
My body is so ready for scanning film with one of these.
I like this view.
Not only would it be the least stable thing ever if set down, but it also is basically unrecognizable from this angle. I'm not sure if I'd realize it was a camera if I only saw this pic.
This is weird as fuck
I want it
What they should have done is given it a copy of the Leica m-mount without the rangefinder coupling but with electronic contacts for autofocus etc.
The real question is how they managed to fit a beastly quad core processor and 32gb of ram into such a small camera body.
>oh you mean they didn't?
>dat 15sec lag on image review
Lmao.
Well, at least they try new things.
Innovation is good. The split screen looks really good.
The viewfinder location and lens mount choice is weird as fuck though.
>>2775855
Sigma will probably ask $3k for the APS-H version.
>>2775839
Their best lenses are slr ones, but at least they are back working with mirrorless, even making an official adapter.
I hope they make a mirrorless one or even use the e-mount in a few years.
Kinda weird choice of EVF positioning, it is off center, but on the opposite side of rangefinder cameras... I think only in film point and shoot I saw this configuration.
>>2775894
As a left eye dominant person, I am okay with this.
>>2775821
>with a huge junk on front so it fits their for-mirror-made lenses
I'm guessing this also destroys the ability to adapt M mount glass. Sigma confirmed for not understanding the mirrorless market.
>>2775843
Damn I just noticed that. Such a pointless piece of crap.
So close...
I wanted Sony to make their rumored A9 like this one, there's no need to emulate SLRs anymore.
>>2775850
Damn, that menu. I'm impressed. That's a really great idea.
Aren't sigma lenses over hyped with poor quality control?
Holy shit I'm so fucking hyped.
Sadly these will be ungodly expensive at launch, I just can't afford this sort of stuff right now.
>>2775821
>>2775938
I don't think you people realize that this is pretty much a studio medium format camera. Look at its freaking shape. Look at any Foveon camera ever made.
The APS-H sensor will probably give a run for its money to the new 645 digital 100mp Bayer that Phase One recently showcased.
>>2775811
>>2775820
Sigma offers a mount change option. Let's say you bought a nice set of Art primes for your studio Nikon D810, well, you can just sell that, swap mounts, buy this and jizz your pants away.
>>2775989
Nah
>>2775989
About 5 years back, yes.
Any lens in their later EX production (i.e. like the 85mm 1.4, it's better than Canon's 1.2 in most areas.) and any lens of their new line (Art and such) have no issues at all.
Well one issue: the rubber on their zoom/focus rings tends to deteriorate too quickly. My 18-35 has wobbly rubber on the zoom ring, I bought it as soon as it was announced so its a very early production one, maybe they fixed that.
It would be great if it was a E-mount.
I just dont get the point of making the body compact when you have to attach a phat lens on it anyway.
>>2775989
yep, over priced too. It's a shame because the performance is okay.
Why didn't they make the right side flush for a nice and secure grip? It looks more "interesting" this way but ergonomically it can only be worse I think.
Why SD mount?? They could have made it mirrorless (same flange distance as e-mount) and bundled it with an adapter for SD, with alternate mounts as an option down the road. That way they could have adapted their own mirrorless designs for Sony and just changed the mount (lets call it SD-M) and at the same time have access to all kinds of legacy lenses. No one is going to be stupid enough to buy into SD lenses.
Not even going to say anything about the placement of the EVF.
Sigma u crazy
>>2775809
I like to think of Sigma as the Lancia of cameras. There's so many things wrong with them: You can't shoot high iso, You'd get more shots off a roll of film sometimes than with a battery, the proprietary RAW converter software is so slow you feel like it's 1995.
they're so impractical as all around cameras, but when conditions are right, they have the most amazing image quality of just about any camera out there, and when you see the full res shots taken with them it almost makes you want to buy one...almost.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=N1RKpdFjE4I
>>2775809
>JUST
just what? did you click submit too quick by accident?
>why no mirrorless mount!
>why weird shape
>why this and that
People, this is mirrorless only because it has no mirror. As in, it's not focused at the mirrorless market, the foveon sensor is a bad choice for that in any case.
I understand wanting to adapt legacy lenses such as Leica M stuff, but everything from this camera points in the "medium format studio" direction.
Want a Sony? Buy a freaking Sony. This is not in the same market section, like you wouldn't have to choose between a DP2 and an RX100, you won't have to choose between an SD Quattro H and an A7.
>>2775839
The Leica glow is in front of the lens, not on the image. The front element is radioactive.
If you want glowy images use a Takumar lens.
>>2776062
??? You think that the glow is the radio-activity?
Leica glow is poorly corrected aberrations. That's literally it.
>>2776038
heh.
>>2776055
> you won't have to choose between an SD Quattro H and an A7.
Why do you think this to be the case?
The high end of the A7 series is very much a medium format camera replacement, and the lenses out right now are strongly focused on typical studio / portrait use primes.
>>2776070
Because have you ever used a Foveon sensor cameras?
They're not versatile. Not fast. Not point and shoot. No video. All they have is super high quality and 100% accurate color recording, they take pictures that no other sensor takes in quite the same way.
>The high end of the A7 series is very much a medium format camera replacement
Doesn't really come that close, it's not just a matter of resolution.
>>2776070
>he thinks megapickles makes a camera
>he thinks a camera without lens is a replacement for anything
>>2776079
Says the EM FUR TURDS fanboi.
>>2776073
> Because have you ever used a Foveon sensor cameras?
Only once or twice. A pretty direct result of the color recording or anything not actually seeming much better to me.
Even seemed like some aspects of it were worse (online research says color separation and stuff, but I can't really remember in that detail, I just kinda mentally discarded the respective cameras).
> Doesn't really come that close, it's not just a matter of resolution.
Eh, if you say so... obviously someone thinks they need 'em.
>>2776079
> he thinks a camera without lens is a replacement for anything
That's another argument that might be weighing against the Sigma?
The E-mount lineup is really good for studio primes at this point.
>>2776085
The e-mount is really really good, /p/ shitposts about it because it doesn't have long telephoto. Who cares. None of you shoot sports photography be cause [spoiler] you are't professionals[/spoiler] and no one cares about bird photography because no one gives a shit about ducks.
>>2776085
>The E-mount lineup is really good for studio primes at this point.
But the Art line of primes are better or on par, if you want to adapt Zeiss glass you can, no big deal. I just don't see why Sigma should give a freebie to Sony for absolutely no reason when lens adapters are readily avaivable and they already have a native set of lenses that make pretty much any other brand eat shit. (Either because of much higher quality, like when the 35 1.4 was first released, or because the price is a fraction and the quality is 99.9% the same, like Sigma's 50 1.4 vs the Zeiss one.)
>>2776112
>sigma
>good
jeez, with that piss poor build quality i wouldn't even invest in them. 5 years down the road those lenses will be broken while the zeiss will work for eternity. I'm talking light abuse too. you shillma shills need to stop. "art"
>>2776089
>None of you shoot sports photography be cause [spoiler] you are't professionals[/spoiler]
Speak for yourself, faggot.
>>2776115
You're 5+ years back on your assumptions. Sigma's line is nothing short of exceptional when it comes to build quality. Their pricing and strategy reflects this. Nikon and Canon scrambled their fucking ass to catch up and they aren't even doing it that well - see, Canon's new 35 1.4 that is barely on par with Sigma's for twice the price.
>>2776137
Nice opinion shillma.
>>2776139
>opinion
>Sigma's is pretty much building to compete with Zeiss
k e k
>>2776112
> But the Art line of primes are better or on par,
For primes between 80-140mm, it's not really on par.
Personally, I do like the Sigma Art lenses, but I can't see the Sigma SA mount winning this one, certainly not with those cameras (which will likely again just cost too much and perform too poorly).
> I just don't see why Sigma should give a freebie to Sony for absolutely no reason when lens adapters are readily avaivable
They'd be able to have some share of the market's sales?
The island that is the Sigma SA mount won't be doing well with a camera like this.
>>2775809
Smegma should just keep to making lenses, they're squandering their money on a awkward camera that no one will buy when they should be trying to make their lenses better. Interested to see how this will perform, if the D2 is any indication i'm not holding my breath.
I'm wondering why the sensor is so close to the front of the camera. It seems a strange choice when you consider the rest of the body design.
>>2776070
>The high end of the A7 series is very much a medium format camera replacement
>medium format camera replacement
I'm buying this. I stuck with my DP Merrills waiting for this to show up.
>>2776143
>For primes between 80-140mm, it's not really on par.
The 85 1.4 is a very fine lens, that's why it still hasn't been upgraded to "A" line. It was a late product of the EX line.
They do have some cool superteles past that, but it's pro sports photography material. If the 50-100 1.8 fits on APS-h without excessive issues, that'd be incredible.
>>2776038
it's a meme ya dip
>>2775809
sony on suicide watch.
>>2775809
>they made an e mount adapter
>lock their camera to sa
what a misoppurtunity.
someone should tell yamaki to saw off that tube.
>>2776150
rich fucks from chinese mainland will buy this.
>>2775843
With a lens attached it probably would, without one it still might depending on how the weight of the internals are distributed.
Not like i would ever buy this but i'm kinda digging the aesthetics of the rear of the camera.
Also a note on Foveon:
As far as i understood the press release this one only has a quarter resolution in the red and green channel, as opposed to the blue top layer, similar to the Quattro variant Foveon sensors. The Merill cameras were the last ones to have full res color channels.
Also from all examples i've seen on flickr, foveon has pretty terrible dynamic range, worse even than the old canons. And unless they've made some breakthrough with the tech (which they would have likely announced if it was the case) these cameras will essentially be unusable past ISO400. And if their past track record holds through, you'll be getting like 50 shots per battery charge.
>>2775978
>EVF on the right
A7 design is still better. Maybe if they made a scaled up A6000 for FF though.
>>2776261
>foveon has pretty terrible dynamic range
It's actually the exact opposite. They have the best dynamic range of any sensor.
>>2775978
Well, now that is just Ricoh GRX
>>2776005
>The APS-H sensor will probably give a run for its money to the new 645 digital 100mp Bayer that Phase One recently showcased.
No. Bear in mind that it's not the old Foveon, it's Foveon Quattro which no longer provides full RGB data for every pixel. Even in Sigma's own PR, which has to be adjusted for bullshit, the APS-H version has "resolution equal to 51MP Bayer sensor on resolution testing".
>>2776268
Numbers please? When I last read about Foveon, I also heard they had pretty bad DR that just gets worse depending on ambient light color.
>>2776051
>Smegma offers a lens mount swap.
Yeah, for five select lenses, at $150 per lens, and with a significant wait time as the lens has to be shipped to Japan. And if you for some obscure reason want to use that 35 Art on your Canikon as well as on SD Quattro, tough shit.
If only they could swap the mount on the CAMERA instead....
>>2776073
>Doesn't really come that close, it's not just a matter of resolution.
It *is* a matter of resolution in most cases where MF is used.
Gone are the days when MF sensors had visibly superior DR and color reproduction, and you can pick very, very sharp lenses for 35mm.
>>2776268
Never seen any data supporting that claim.
Old Foveons also had a nasty habit of blowing highlights to pure white even if only one channel was clipped.
>>2775809
>on/off switch
what does it do?
>>2776298
It turns on and off. Can't you read?
>>2776298
>Sony users.
>>2776298
>>2776288
I got a DP2M. I would put its DR at a lower point than a 5d2, maybe.
In black and white you can pull out a lot of stuff but in any other way you get unfixable magenta and green blotches with even half a stop of recovery.
o_O
>Sony Spillover Shills from /v/ are now claiming they can compete with MF
beyond the pale
[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]
Camera-Specific Properties: Image-Specific Properties: Image Orientation Top, Left-Hand Color Space Information sRGB Image Width 352 Image Height 450
>>2776286
In that case the 5DS is a better competitor to MF than the A7.
>>2775809
So... is this a Smegma-mount Pentax K-01 but not as ugly?
>>2776286
>It *is* a matter of resolution in most cases where MF is used.
>>2776070
>The high end of the A7 series is very much a medium format camera replacement
How is the A7 in any imaginable way a MF replacement?
It doesn't even have a resolution advantage, current MF backs are in the 100MP range, and the Canon 5DS(R) beats it as well.
Let's look at the other major advantages of MF:
One of the most important, and least understood by /p/-types, is that most professional MF cameras have leaf shutters. This means you can shoot with studio strobes at speeds as high as 1/800 (in the case of digital Hasselblads) or even 1600 (with Phase One), which can make a huge difference compared to the A7's stated 1/250th sync speed. (Users report that with studio strobes it's more like 1/200, as well.)
You don't get the incredible bokeh of MF with a FF35 sensor, either, so that benefit is missing.
Sony's lenses vary in quality, but even the best can't compare to good MF lenses. In a way, it's actually an unfair comparison, because the bigger MF frame means that you can actually have higher overall detail in a photo with slightly lower quality glass.
Another major MF advantage is workflow - MF cameras are designed from the ground up for working tethered. The A7RII is still using USB2, which makes it borderline useless for RAW tethering considering the size of its files. The newest MF cameras, like the Phase one XF, have USB3, and even the older Hasselblads have Firewire 800.
So yeah, the A7 is comparable to an MF camera in no way at all, except for resolution, and even in that regard is only comparable to older MF backs.
>>2776399
What he's trying to say is that MF is unnecessary for most people. FF will do you just fine, or even APS-C for that matter.
>>2776399
the fuck bruh. all i said was that sony > MF. why did you need to write a whole paragraph of text that nobody will read?
>>2776399
> the Canon 5DS(R) beats it as well.
The 5DS R could *also* largely act as film MF replacement, yes.
> leaf shutter
If you need it, sure. That 1/250 (or just setting up the strobes faster with the room dimmed) is not enough is not a given, though.
> incredible bokeh of MF
You can also Bokeh whore just fine with a Batis 25mm or a Sigma Art 35mm or whatever.
I'm not seeing what you'd be missing from your MF 35mm...
> Sony's lenses vary in quality, but even the best can't compare to good MF lenses.
I think they can.
The FE 90mm seems better than a Pentax D FA 645 Macro 90mm F2.8 ED, a 55mm Sonnar T* looks better than a Hasselblad Wide Angle 50mm f/3.5 HC II, and there are a bunch more like that.
> The A7RII is still using USB2, which makes it borderline useless for RAW tethering considering the size of its files.
You can't transmit ~42.5MB pictures over a ~40MB/s connection?
> So yeah, the A7 is comparable to an MF camera in no way at all, except for resolution
Yea, it isn't exactly *everything* a modern digital MF is.
It just delivers about the same / better pictures as a film or like one-two generations old digital MF do. It can replace many a MF camera anyhow.
>>2776426
>this level of self-delusion
goddamn.
>>2776418
>>2776426
Anybody for whom an A7R can replace MF doesn't need MF in the first place.
>If you need it, sure. That 1/250 (or just setting up the strobes faster with the room dimmed) is not enough is not a given, though.
There are situations where fast sync speed is absolutely critical, and they're one of the main reasons MF digital is still popular at all. You need those speeds for "freezing" motion, and also for "killing" daylight, both of which are very common in fashion, advertising, and glamour photography.
It's also worth noting that between MF's shallower DoF for the same F-stop and its high sync speed, it lets you pull a shallow DoF with strobes in daylight, which often isn't possible on a FF35 system. (Remember that 2.8 on MF looks like 2 on FF, and then you're talking about shooting at 2.8 on MF vs. f/8 on FF in the same light with the same ISO.)
>I think they can.
The FE 90mm seems better than a Pentax D FA 645 Macro 90mm F2.8 ED, a 55mm Sonnar T* looks better than a Hasselblad Wide Angle 50mm f/3.5 HC II, and there are a bunch more like that.
Don't forget that digital MF is usually about 2x the size of FF, so you're dealing with a 1.5x crop factor from MF to FF. That Pentax 90 2.8 is more like a 50/2 on FF, and the Hassy 50mm is like a 30/2.5 or so. It's also worth mentioning that the Pentax system isn't on par with Hasselblad or Phase One.
>You can't transmit ~42.5MB pictures over a ~40MB/s connection?
Peak speeds are rare in the real world, and remember that you have to wait for processing on both sides. There was a noticeable and annoying delay when shooting tethered 12MP RAWs with my D3S on USB2.
>It just delivers about the same / better pictures as a film or like one-two generations old digital MF do. It can replace many a MF camera anyhow.
In the case of people like rich amateur landscape photographers who are working in natural light, sure. For commercial/fashion shooters, digital MF's core market, not at all.
>>2776426
>FF wide lenses
>comparable to MF
It's not a case of give me all the bokeh.
>I'm not seeing what you'd be missing from your MF 35mm.
That depends entirely on which camera you're using.
You seem to be absolutely sure that you're right and that a 135 sensor and body can meet the requirements of anyone who shoots MF.
Do you own and use medium format regularly? Your post seems to imply that you don't.
I'd post a picture with the Sony A7RII, but I returned that camera after 2 months.
>>2776436
>You need those speeds for "freezing" motion, and also for "killing" daylight, both of which are very common in fashion, advertising, and glamour photography.
You can do these with HSS at up to ... was it 1/8000, no?
> Don't forget that digital MF is usually about 2x the size of FF, so you're dealing with a 1.5x crop factor from MF to FF.
I know. You can also compare the Pentax 90 2.8 to the Sonnar T* 55mm, and the Hassy 50mm to a Batis 25mm. Or some Sigma Arts. Or whatever.
> Peak speeds are rare in the real world
This isn't the peak speed. Peak would be 60 MB/s, 40MB/s is just the realistic value for USB2.
> and remember that you have to wait for processing on both sides
Sure? Precisely the case that USB3 doesn't help with that, though, so the overall difference isn't *that* huge.
> For commercial/fashion shooters, digital MF's core market, not at all.
I wouldn't even be surprised if most commercial product/fashion shooters were using FF cameras at this point already, actually.
But maybe those of the rest that evaluated their needs to include a 100MP sensor and a fast leaf shutter, or less perspective distortion in their smaller shooting location... maybe not?
>>2776452
> that a 135 sensor and body can meet the requirements of anyone who shoots MF.
Hm, I guess not. Probably just works out for many "film" MF setups.
>>2775809
Sony user here, why should i care?
>>2776463
It's cornering the market on ugly as fuck, unergonomic, soapbox, slow mirrorless cameras and is happy to take Sony's place as the best and ugliest MILC.
>>2776467
oh i see, you're a nikon user.
>>2776139
>Confusing opinions with facts
Okay faggot
>>2776482
T. Shillma shill. So much misinformation here. Almost as bad as sony shilling.
>>2776455
HSS only works with dedicated flash and entails a severe reduction in flash output. You need the full power of a studio strobe to kill daylight. We're starting to see some HSS-capable stuff come out from Elinchrom and Profoto, but they've stuck to Nikon and Canon compatibility so far, and I'm not sure if they've got the power to do the kinds of shots that people are doing with leaf shutters. I've assisted on a few commercial fashion shoots that used MF + strobe in daylight, and the power they're putting through their flashes is immense.
As for tethering, the speed still makes a pretty noticeable difference, because even if processing takes the same time, taking the transfer time from a full second or more to 1/10 of a second is a big deal.
There's certainly a lot of commercial and fashion stuff shot on FF these days, but that same stuff has been being shot on FF for close to a decade, since stuff like the 1DS, 5D, and D3X, and now with the D800E and 5DSR. The A7 might take a minuscule amount of THAT marketshare, although I doubt it'll be much because it offers very little in the way of reasons to switch away from Canikon and many reasons not to, and commercial shooters are generally very heavily invested in gear.
The photogs that are shooting MF in this day and age do it for very good reasons, and another FF camera coming into the market isn't really going to matter to them.
>>2776471
i'm not him but i am a nikon user
and mirrorless is garbage
>>2776492
Now, there is one place where I think Sony really COULD make an impact in the pro market, and that's through their relationship with Hasselblad.
Here's my idea:
Sony can take the tech they developed for Hasselblad, and use it to make the biggest possible square sensor that'll fit into a 35mm image circle.
Put it in a shrunken version of a traditional Hasselblad body, only without a mirror, and with an incredible 6x6cm EVF (borrow the screen tech from Sony's phone division) on top, which could then take traditional Hasselblad finders.
Optimize the camera's systems for tethering and studio strobes (maybe built in Elinchrom or Profoto TTL).
Make the front of the body interchangeable, and available in mounts and flange distances to suit Canon, Nikon, or E-Mount lenses, and then a proprietary mount (or, hell, E-Mount, which would benefit Sony) which would go along with a new series of super high-quality leaf shutter lenses from Zeiss or a similar manufacturer.
Alternately, I wonder if you could actually implement a leaf shutter into the body or mount and thereby give the leaf shutter's advantages to every lens you put on the system.
You'd end up with something the size of a typical DSLR, but totally optimized for studio and commercial photogs, and with advantages that are currently only available in MF. With Sony's help and the scaled-down size, a starting system could cost under $10k, instead of the $40k+ that it takes to get into an MF digital system. FF shooters could use their existing lenses with the camera, so they wouldn't have to sell everything to switch.
Finally, sell the thing under both Sony's and Hasselblad's nameplates.
I think it's win-win, and could simultaneously give Sony a toehold in the commercial photography world and save Hasselblad from the slow decline they've been in recently.
>>2776298
I feel you bro. I thought it was for autofocus because it's in the exact same position in some lenses. Even sigma lenses have af on/off switch in that position. It's just a regular on/off switch for the camera in a weird position.
>>2776513
I had exactly the same thought too, until I saw the posts about it and realized that there wasn't another on/off switch anywhere on the camera.
>>2776368
Take your memes back to /v/.
I'm selling my A7R for this
>>2776079
This
>>2776089
Well sigma announced their adaptor to put their long glass on the e mount system along with these cameras so... now it does. Also the 500mm sony plus a LA-EA3 is totally viable on e-mount
>>2776436
Have you ever heard of neutral density filters?
You can match any flash image on a fullframe dslr that you can do on a medium format studio camera.
First of regarding bokeh:
Strangely enough i for the longest time thought MF was capable of some magical shallow depth of field that was impossible on FF35, for the most part i was wrong when it comes to Film MF, and especially when it comes to Digital MF. Let me arrogantly explain.
Lets look at the various MF systems and their fastest lenses.
>Mamiya 67
>Fastest wide lens, 75mm f/3.5
fullframe equivalent is 38mm f/1.8. 35mm f/1.4 is both wider and shallower and this lens is abundant.
>Fastest Normal lens, 110mm f/2.8
FF eqv. 55mm f/1.4, Nikon made one, Zeiss Otus has one etc.
>Fastest Telephoto, 250mm f/4.5
FF eqv. 125mm f/2.2, you get pretty close with 135mm f/2
>Mamiya 645
>Fastest Wide lens, 45 f/2.8
30mm f/1.9, very close to 28mm f/1.4 which both nikon and zeiss have.
>Fastest normal lens, 80mm f/1.9
FF eqv. 53mm f/1.2, very close to 50mm f/1.2 that Canon and nikon makes, or the otus 55/1.4, canon even made a 50/1 once, and Leica noctilux f/0.95.
>Fastest Telephoto, 300 f/2.8
FF eqv. 200mm f/2, At least Canon makes one since 2008.
>Pentax 67
>wide, 75mm f/2.8
38mm f/1.4, here it gets a bit iffy, closest you could get is probably a Voigtlander nokton 35mm f/1.2 although a 35mm f/1.4 is very close.
>normal, 105mm f/2.4
53mm f/1.2
>telephoto, 800mm f/4
400mm f/2, well here they actually got fullframe beat, fastest 400mm is f/2.8
>Digital Pentax 645
(note, 6x4,5cm film format has an image size of 56 mm × 41.5 mm. However digital Medium Format sensor are crop sensors at only 44x33mm (645D, 645Z)
>wide 35mm f/3.5 and 45mm f/2.8
28/2.8 and 35/2.2 respectively.
>normal 75mm f/2.8
59mm f/2.2 any 50/1.4 handily beats it in terms of field of view and shallow depth of field.
>tele 150mm f/2.8
118 f/2.2, awkward in between focal length but 85mm f/1.2 and 135mm f/1.8
contd.
>>2776634
>Implying all focal lengths have the same geometry and compression
>>2776436
So since Medium Format really doesn't have a bokeh advantage to Fullframe 35mm in terms of shallow depth of field (not bokeh aesthetic), all it really has going for it is High sync speed and low ISO noise performance, previously they were shit with high-iso when they had ccd sensors but with the sony cmos they're equivalent to FF in terms of noise and dynamic range, although CCD MF had 16bit files but i'm not really sure if that really was any advantage.
And when it comes to flash, you can do everything you can on MF on FF as long as you have powerful enough strobes( or simply enough of them). You can shoot wide open at f/0.95 if you so please on a noctilux with a ND filter shooting straight into the sun and overpower it with flash at 1/60th as long as you have enough flashes and strobes with you. You can't even get that shallow depth of field with anything available on medium format.
>>2776639
i'm not pulling this out of my hat
http://www.pointsinfocus.com/tools/depth-of-field-and-equivalent-lens-calculator/
Getting that shallow look with 3D effect has a lot more to do with how you frame your shot with out of focus elements both in front of and behind the subject. seeing as medium format usually has a more square aspect ratio digital MF being 4x3 they have more vertical space than fullframe which makes it easier to get OOF elements leading into your subjects which make this pop effect.
>>2776370
Canon positions it that way, yes.
But the difference in print sizes possible with 50 vs 42 MP is not too big (<10% linear dimensions), so it makes sense that more people prefer Sony for its other advantages.
>>2776634
>MF was capable of some magical shallow depth of field that was impossible on FF35
I've seen a madman rig a Canon 85L on a MF camera once. But that depth of field is basically unusable for anything but "Look what this lens can do!" shots.
The point of using MF in this regard is that fast-ish MF designs on average provide smoother, more pleasing borkeh than extreme FF designs like Noctilux. But again, for most non-whoring purposes both a 100/2.4 on 6x7 and 50/1.2 on FF are going to be excessively shallow.
>>2776492
>The photogs that are shooting MF in this day and age do it for very good reasons
Nah, not always. It's true that there are people who need extreme resolution and/or better studio capabilities than modern FF can provide, but some use MF purely to impress clients, some are paid well enough that the price difference between a Hasselblad and D810 is not important, and some stick with MF simply out of old and no longer rational contempt for "lesser" systems.
It's not much different from what happens with FF vs. crop - it's obvious that there are tons of people that legitimately need FF, but I've seen way too many people buying 5D's just because bigger is better.
>>2776673
You can do 80 pickles on a Pentax K-200 with a bit of tripod time.
You don't need fancy new technology when you have the wits.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=E-GbuXU8YMQ
>>2775809
I don't like it.
If I was Sigma, I would create a short flange mirrorless mount of 15mm that would work electronically exactly the same as SA mount.
So you can use a adapter for SA lens and still have perfect speed, and perfect compatibility.
But also adopt Canon lens, Nikon lens with less perfect adapters.
>>2776707
You can do an infinite number of pickles with any camera on a nodal mount and stitching software. But all of that only works with static subjects and no flash.
>>2776707
With my Sony one shot is all you need. Nice try though.
>>2776723
With my camera I get the same result with 1/10th of a price so I can buy better lenses. Because my camera actually has lens options.
>>2776725
> better lenses
A7 can use Leica M lenses with autofocus now.
Your argument is invalid.
>>2776725
>>2776723
Children, it's bedtime. Please just go to sleep.
>>2776725
>20 minutes taking multiple photos for a single shot
>30 minutes or more for processing
>Can only be done in optimal conditions of bright sunlight and an unmoving subject
But muh pentacks glass.
just ask your mom for your allowance to buy gear that's good.
>>2776728
Just one more, mom!
[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]
Camera-Specific Properties: Camera Software Adobe Photoshop CS2 Windows Image-Specific Properties: Image Orientation Top, Left-Hand Horizontal Resolution 72 dpi Vertical Resolution 72 dpi Image Created 2012:07:09 11:46:12 Color Space Information sRGB Image Width 300 Image Height 450
>>2776423
>why did you need to write a whole paragraph of text that nobody will read?
This is /p/, we have the time...
>>2776217
What does it mean then?
>>2776733
It's part of the "JUST FUCK MY SHIT UP!" meme on /b/
>>2776731
>Sony tears
>645Z has a Sony sensor
Well...
Also, 645Z is literally the m43 of medium format. Phase One XF has a 50% larger sensor.
>>2776737
not really. m43 managed to be more expensive than APS-C and some FF even.
Pentax 645Z is actually affordable for a mere mortal human being.
>>2776739
>m43 managed to be more expensive than FF
When was that? Only if you take a GH4 with its interface box versus a D600 or something. But then you might as well complain that pro camcorders have sensors too small.
>Pentax 645Z is actually affordable for a mere mortal human being.
It is, but it's also little more than a bloated FF DSLR - it doesn't have leaf-shutter lenses, swappable backs, 16-bit raws and most other shit "real" MF prides itself on.
>>2776745
Pentax 67 lenses are adaptable or 645 and some of those lenses have leaf shutter.
Actually you can adapt a 67 lens with leaf shutter to a K-3, K-1 etc...
Go figure.
>>2776748
>or
*to
>>2776737
>Phase One XF has a 50% larger sensor.
I'm more interested in that 16 bit colour resolution though. That's just so nice... Hopefully one day it will drizzle down to the lesser cameras.
>>2776739
>affordable for a mere mortal human being.
Anything over 1500 dollars is utter insanity to a normal human.
I asked my uncle what he thought about my 3000 dollar camera, and he didn't know what to answer.
>>2776752
That's weird. I asked my friend what she thought of my Sony A7Rii and she asked me out right there and then. Pretty impressive imo.
>>2776755
No you go back there, since you seem to be a M43 enabler.
>>2776752
>I'm more interested in that 16 bit colour resolution though. That's just so nice...
It's mostly a marketing meme though. Even with 12-bit raws, you have to do some heavy PP for the lack of precision to become visible, and I dare anyone to post a real-life photo example where 16 makes a difference over 14.
>>2776755
Leaf shutters are not about image circles, ya doofus. It's about insane flash sync times.
>>2776759
I was talking about using Pentax 67 lenses on a 40x30mm sensor.
>>2776761
...so? Focal length is focal length, it will still have an image on the sensor.
Tilt/shift lenses for FF cameras are also medium format lenses and those work
Why am I explaining this to you? Are you stupid? Have you not finished school yet? Do you even have a camera or used one, ever?
You are bringing up pointless arguments that make me believe you are an idiot and don't understand the concept of basic optics an lens projections.
>>2776762
I was talking about the resolution. A lens that is sharp on 6x7cm film is not necessarily going to be sharp when you crop the middle 4x3cm and enlarge to the same print size (similar to how 35mm lenses typically look mediocre on m43)
>>2776779
Who the fuck cares about m43?
>>2776780
You, apparently
>>2776779
Why is m43 even relevant?
>>2776784
Because he has to move the goal posts to justify his stupidity.
Whats with the stunted little grips? Have designers forgotten that men tend to have large hands.
>>2776792
It's literally a camera for faggots.
Being part of m43 group is rubbing off on Sigma.
>>2776794
Strange how Sonyfags started to shake in their panties from the Pentax K-1, now they are shitting themselves from the new Sigma SA body.
Maybe they do have reasons to fear from them.
>>2776794
Why does M43 have to shit up everything.
>>2776792
It's to make you buy a battery grip - which they will, no doubt, release in time.
>>2776736
>"JUST FUCK MY SHIT UP!" meme on /b/
It's a twitter meme. It's the best way to spot people who are new to 4chan.
>>2776634
>>2776640
>Have you ever heard of neutral density filters?
>You can match any flash image on a fullframe dslr that you can do on a medium format studio camera.
Holy shit. This may be the dumbest thing I've read on /p/ for a while.
While ND filters will certainly help you open your aperture to use flash, you're still limited by the shutter speed itself.
There are other issues with using ND filters and flash depending on what type of photography you are doing. If you are using an AF lens and are required to take multiple shots and re-acquire focus (to go along with the shallow DOF) then the ND filter will interfere.
If you are using an ND filter on an SLR, depending on the situation you won't be able to see through the viewfinder for MF.
ND filters don't solve everything.
You need to do a little less gearfagging. Though thanks for adopting a trip I can filter.
>>2775811
>what in the holy hell possessed them to make a fucking APS-H camera in 2016?
Sigma has always had trouble finding a source for their large Foveon sensors. Why do you think even their most recent SD camera is the first to use an APS-C sensor? The APS-H is now the largest to date.
>>2776005
>Sadly these will be ungodly expensive at launch
They could cut the prices like they did with the SD1 after a while.
>>2776089
>The e-mount is really really good, /p/ shitposts about it because it doesn't have long telephoto.
Or wide angle
>Foveon thread
>thread shitted up by non-foveon shooters
As usual on /p/
>>2776860
Who cares about foveon when you got sony actually revolutionizing the industry.
>>2776860
It's not a foveon thread. It's a new camera thread where people either are excited for it or hate it. Happens every time.
>>2776843
>While ND filters will certainly help you open your aperture to use flash
Uh, what? How does flash usage depend on aperture?
>>2776883
If the background is too bright to shoot wide open then you need an ND filter. Flash is there to overpower the strong backlight.
>>2776883
>how does flash usage depend on aperture
I'm not sure if you're serious or not. In case you are, It's maybe worth explaining to you.
You can suffer some real exposure problems when shooting a model in a bright scene. When you expose for the background the model will often be left underexposed and in an unflattering light.
This is where you'd use a fill flash. Now you're limited to your sync speed and ISO only. Chances are if it's too bright, it's going to be overexposed now.
To expose properly, you will likely:
>have to stop down (killing the shallow DOF).
>use a faster shutter speed (limited by X/Sync speed)
>Lower your ISO/Shoot another roll
The workaround for this? Using an ND filter to keep the DOF shallow, kill the backlight and allow the flash to be used at the maximum sync speed.
Leaf shutters allow for much higher sync speeds. Certain types of photography require it and certainly ND filters can be a problem for focusing (depending on the subject).
More info:
http://pastebin.com/7BMcxMyj
www.youtube.com/watch?v=bpvQdrSx2Bg
>>2776860
That's because there's probably not a lot of them on /p/. If you go by posts, there seem to be a lot more Sony shooters around.
>>2776890
>>2776897
Oh, alright, I was just confused by the phrasing.
>Leaf shutters allow for much higher sync speeds.
The difference between 1/250 and 1/500-1/800 is certainly noticeable but not massive. When Sony/Panasonic/whatever finally make sensors with global electronic shutter, I hope we will be finally free from this bullshit.
>>2776732
>no time to take pictures
>plenty of time to shitpost
sounds about right
>>2776639
>Implying all focal lengths have the same geometry and compression
>implying perspective has anything to do with focal length
>>2776748
And it works? How? Do you just keep the camera shutter open?
>>2777859
Take a look at wide shots taken with large format, unless you're insanely far away it would be impossible to get that kind of compression
>>2777861
>compression
as long as we are comparing rectilinear lenses, it's only a function of distance
>>2777860
Ask yourself how you trigger the flash above sync speed on some cameras :^)
