Practical vs slick

[dmanthree]

I think I can get use to navigating without the buttons or dials.

But the slippery grip, no neck strap, no viewfinder and no fully articulated screen are kiss of death for me.

If someone gives if to me as a gift and I don't want to embarrass him/her by selling it on eBay, I may use it as a paper weight on my desk.

You still use paper?

Fair to say . . . Even with ubiquitous electronic media, paper is still not totally eliminated from human civilization.

Yes I do. And so do you.

Sigh...true. But I no longer have a desk or a need for an expensive paper weight.

 

[MoreorLess]

To be fair this does actually look to be more controls based than touch screen based but your having to cycle though options before using the dial

I have a camera like that- Nikon D3300. It has fewer knobs and buttons than the other Nikon DSLR models. I also have a D750 and D810, and a Z6ii. Each one has a different interface with different functions available in different ways. I don't mind the D3300 if I don't have to do things in a hurry but I don't use it frequently enough to have everything memorized so I have to search sometimes.

I'd got a Df I use when I want something a bit smaller and with a different user experience and indeed an old Pentax K-5 when I want something I don't have to worry about much but neither of those are really the same as this.

Its not "cheap" but I think as a modern fashion camera with a FF sensor it is "cheaper" than you might expect otherwise.

 

[Sam Bennett]

I saw some pictures of the new Samsung BF camera. Initial reactions was, well, it's slick.

Even since Steve Job gave us the iPhone, it seems the pinnacle of consumer products is simplicity and miniaturization. The BF certainly has a lot less buttons than my GH6. The smooth deck of card body makes the camera look like a creamy piece of white chocolate.

From an esthetics standpoint, I would tip my hat.

But as a photographer (someone who intend to use it as a camera), I wonder how practical it is.

The smooth chocolate design did away with ergonomic rubber grip that makes holding a camera easy without slipping.

Granted that you can do mostly everything with a touch screen. But a lot of us like to see the screen's content changes as with adjust the dials. Buy having the "dials" as a screen function obstruct viewers from seeing the change in the screen.

I want to know how you feel about this design.

I applaud Sigma for thinking so outside the box, and the thing is a real beaut. As someone who uses L-Mount part time, I would certainly be tempted to grab one just to have a piece of history.

However… I think it is also a case of “form over function” and the camera is compromised by sticking to having the shutter release be the only top-mounted control. Having a two-control dial approach for adjusting one aspect of the exposure triangle (ex. Aperture) while being able to dial in Exposure Compensation without having to reposition your hand is a system that has been proven to work over and over again. So this real fails for me right out of the gate.

That said, if you’re a smartphone photographer wanting something a little better with interchangeable lenses and are used to using full-auto controls, maybe this would work great for you!

--
Sam Bennett
Instagram: @swiftbennett

 

[RetCapt]

I think it is beautiful. Aesthetics only carry one so far though.

I am used to memory cards. I see no benefit to getting away from them.

I need a viewfinder, or at least a tilt screen. My preferred way to hold a camera is at waist level with a tilt screen. My torso is able to give me the shade I need. With a viewfinder, since I wear glasses, there is always that interference. Not so with a tilt screen.

The major design element, at least to me, is the machined aluminum alloy body. In fact it was one of the factors of my starting my 'Magnesium vs aluminum' thread here.

A machined aluminum body is an indicator of high structural integrity, far higher than cast magnesium alloy (a reason for my starting the thread).

But to what end? The body may be bullet proof, but not the electronic components attached to it. If the electronics fail at any point, which the body has no real control over, then the camera becomes (as one poster put it) an expensive paper weight.

For all this structural integrity I would look for more. I would look for what I get from my 'tough' cameras; ratings for impact/drop distance, water depth resistance, weight compression resistance. 'Tough' cameras have proven this can be done. I take them where I would not otherwise carry a conventional camera, and I have gotten photographs I would not otherwise have gotten.

Do that and Sigma will have something of real significance, far beyond an interesting and elegant, but otherwise (in my opinion) pointless design exercise.

One other note: That expensive machined body need not be. All the top end fly reels are now CNC machined from aluminum alloy (generally 6061-T6). Demand has long since allowed the economies of scale to kick in for mass production. Top quality fly reels are now available far less costly than they ever used to be.

 

[Barleyman]

It's not a camera for photographers.

It a camera for people who want to be able to capture an image, and look good doing so. With simplicity. And I hear the image quality is exceptional.

Now, the Venn diagram may overlap, but for many, it does not. And that's OK. This isn't meant to be a replacement for your Z9, or A1, etc.

For Christmas one year, I got a small pocketknife made with silver, and embedded with beautiful polished stones. It is a beautiful knife, and I carry around sometimes. Worth every penny. But if I am in the yard cutting twine or branches, I use my "garden knife" that is old and rusty, but still sharp and does the job.

Both have their place.

 

[joseph_AU]

I want to know how you feel about this design.

There are always 'boutique' products where the designer's main objective is to create a product with a striking visual identity to separate themselves from their competition and perhaps add brand prestige to their company. This is nearly always done at the cost of usability & ergonomics, with few exceptions. There are also customers whose are attracted to products with a unique visual identity and who place other considerations way down their list (if at all).

This is one of those products.

 

[Ainisru]

I wasn't born in this time period, but weren't you guys shooting with "bricks" back then too?





(I kind of wish I was born earlier- all those film stocks, ugh, I love landscapes.... all that Velvia...)



--
I like cameras, they're fun.

 

[Aizuri]

I love Apple stuff. Since the late 90s, they've been taking otherwise boring and mundane devices and actually making them look aesthetically pleasing. iMac, iPod, iPad, Apple Watch etc. Even things like the Apple TV have had more careful thought put into their design than most other brands' bits and pieces. Apple set the tone for much of the design of consumer technology over the last 30 years or so. Even Microsoft ended up copying them with hardware and software aesthetics.

Apple have made too many major design blunders in the Ive era to just overlook. Some of them are actual hardware defects, some compromised usability and ergonomics: they all happened because Apple put aesthetics above functionality and robustness. Their obsession with ultra-thin doesn't help, either.

People love to invoke Rams, but looking at his 10 principles of good design - I don't know how successfully he adhered to them himself - Apple observes about half of them. They also have an ungracious habit of denying problems that do become apparent and placing the blame on the user.

I'm not sure if you're saying that the Apple Watch is simply an improvement over other smart watches, or if it's conventional wristwatches that you find boring and mundane. If the latter, a drawback is that for the wearer, a smartwatch occupies space that could be used for a wristwatch. As such, some unflattering comparisons can be drawn: cost, performance, aesthetics, battery life/running time, and lifespan.

 

[Hal Wilson]

I love Apple stuff. Since the late 90s, they've been taking otherwise boring and mundane devices and actually making them look aesthetically pleasing. iMac, iPod, iPad, Apple Watch etc. Even things like the Apple TV have had more careful thought put into their design than most other brands' bits and pieces. Apple set the tone for much of the design of consumer technology over the last 30 years or so. Even Microsoft ended up copying them with hardware and software aesthetics.

Hmm. Had a response removed for absolutely no reason I can tell. Annoying. I'll try again:

Apple have made too many major design blunders in the Ive era to just overlook. Some of them are actual hardware defects, some compromised usability and ergonomics: they all happened because Apple put aesthetics above functionality and robustness. Their obsession with ultra-thin doesn't help, either.

Admittedly they've made a few, but you can probably count them on the fingers of one hand. 'Hockey puck' mouse, G4 Cube, iPod Shuffle with no buttons, Magic Mouse 2 charging port, butterfly keyboard. Name a manufacturer/brand that hasn't had the odd mistake/failure? Microsoft: countless OS's, Zune music player, Microsoft Phone, X-Box One, Surface laptops andSurfaceStudio to name just a few. There have been many more. Apple score pretty well on success vs most other companies. And much of that was down to Ive; the iMac G3 revolutionised the way personal/home computers were looked at, and designed. No question. Many companies, Microsoft included, have tried to copy Apple's designs ever since. In terms of how ordinary people interact with computer technology, Apple have influenced the market and led the way more than anyone else.