Sigma fp

[NorBro]

In my heart, I'm hoping Sigma can work with RED in some ways to get better CinemaDNG inside of their cameras (if they are sticking with it).

RED seems like they have always been open to business relationships like with Apple and Atomos.

And now even more with Canon after EF (Komodo's RF)...which would maybe explain how Canon still has CRL inside of their cameras (either that or it's not technically classified as RAW like BRAW and/or RED's idea of RAW).

 

[DLD]

.... either that or it's not technically classified as RAW like BRAW and/or RED's idea of RAW ...

They got off on a technicality.

Florida Power and Light ... oh, sorry, locality error ... Forte Pianissimo Leica will likely have no AF, no ND's and a sub-optimal codec. But if it's an 8K camera for $2,500 ($3,000 with an EVF), it'll fly off the shelves.

Unless it line-skips/pixel-bins in 8K.

Or skips directly into a moire ridden 4K without the external recorder. Which is why it has a diagonal CFA.

And, yes, I expect a "gotcha" somewhere. I'd be greatly surprised otherwise.

 

[NorBro]

They got off on a technicality.

I've never read the white papers on CRL on "Canon's Knowledge Base", so I don't know what they are saying about the engineering - but there's clearly a similar technicality if there's no business relationship.

Everyone has had to remove any internal real RAW recording from their cameras besides Canon.

So they either don't think CRL is real RAW or it's one big happy family.

 

[ahalpert]

Unless it line-skips/pixel-bins in 8K.

Or skips directly into a moire ridden 4K without the external recorder. Which is why it has a diagonal CFA.

And, yes, I expect a "gotcha" somewhere. I'd be greatly surprised otherwise.

I'm more optimistic. We know that the sensor can do full readout at 58fps. As long as the hardware can keep up, it shouldn't be binned or skipped.

I mean, the point of the fp was to deliver uncompromising image quality in a bare bones package. So, they really can't afford to compromise on the IQ.

Aren't the "gotchas" up front? No usable AF for video? (No IBIS? Or does it have it now?) External recording required? How many more gotchas do you need? This is not a competitor to the A7SIII or fx3 or other fully-featured self-contained mirrorless video shooters that ARE compromised on the image quality or recording modes or sensor resolution

 

[DLD]

... So they either don't think CRL is real RAW or it's one big happy family.

From what I remember, it's not deemed "real RAW", not even a real compressed Raw. What they did to get around Red's patent I don't recall (I do recall there was another raw codec that was also deemed "not real Raw" as well but I fail to recall what it was).

Just thinking about it in terms of marketing, the lower end is perfectly fine with the existing compressed codecs. Anything high bit rate Intra is fine for the online presentation and the high end can shoot either barely compressed or uncomressed Raw or ProRes 444. The latter saves some file space but is generally visually indistinguishable from "real barely compressed/uncompressed Raw".

I'm more optimistic. We know that the sensor can do full readout at 58fps. As long as the hardware can keep up, it shouldn't be binned or skipped.

I mean, the point of the fp was to deliver uncompromising image quality in a bare bones package. So, they really can't afford to compromise on the IQ.

Aren't the "gotchas" up front? No usable AF for video? (No IBIS? Or does it have it now?) External recording required? How many more gotchas do you need? This is not a competitor to the A7SIII or fx3 or other fully-featured self-contained mirrorless video shooters that ARE compromised on the image quality or recording modes or sensor resolution

If it's an 8K camera at $2,500 ($3,000 with an EVF), it'll compete with everything in its range and a grand above both in stills and video. Can Sony afford to do this? I'd say no, unless there are a few gotchas. We'll find out soon enough.

PS. With regards to the high res stills, there's been a lot of software based upscalers that have come out on the market recently. I mentioned it a year or so ago when A7SIII was bandied about but now it's a free-for-all. You don't even need an in-body pixel shift mode.

 

[ahalpert]

If it's an 8K camera at $2,500 ($3,000 with an EVF), it'll compete with everything in its range and a grand above both in stills and video. Can Sony afford to do this? I'd say no, unless there are a few gotchas. We'll find out soon enough.

PS. With regards to the high res stills, there's been a lot of software based upscalers that have come out on the market recently. I mentioned it a year or so ago when A7SIII was bandied about but now it's a free-for-all. You don't even need an in-body pixel shift mode.

First of all, did anyone say that it records 8K? I was still under the assumption that it only records 4K DCI, but gives you the benefits of supersampling plus a crop mode.

Second, I think you're overly fixated on resolution, which seems to me more important in still photography. After all, the Panasonic S series cameras are recording 6K now internally, but I don't think they're challenging Canon/Sony dominance. I'm not seriously considering buying an fp-L at this time because it probably doesn't have good autofocus, while my lowly 4K a7siii does. Then there's the relatively limited lens selection in L mount. And some odd business with limits on how the fp recorded internally, not sure if those are removed.

I think that the P6K does well because of its bit depth and codec (as well as video exposure/control tools) more so than its resolution. And I don't think those are primary considerations for shooting lots of run-and-gun footage that needs to be turned around quickly whilst minimizing disk space. So...horses for courses. I have zero expectation that the fp-L would be a market-conquering camera. At most, it will conquer a niche. But if the IQ is compromised, it won't even do that.

 

[DLD]

First of all, did anyone say that it records 8K? I was still under the assumption that it only records 4K DCI, but gives you the benefits of supersampling plus a crop mode...

That's what it looks like as of this moment. It has an 8K sensor but doesn't record 8K. We don't even know if it downsamples to 6K or 4K only. Or whether it center-crops into 4K from ... something.

But the stills mode can't be ignored either (well. it can be on the DVXUser). A $3,000 60 MPX stills camera is pretty much equal to A7RIV, which currently goes for $3,500, and better than Z7/II, S1R and anything that Canon has. At the present. Which means that the Canon high res camera with 80 MPX isn't that far away and that it's unlikely to be $8,000, as speculated on Canon Rumors.

PS. There's also a rumor of an "inexpensive" medium format Fuji with their aging 50 MPX sensor. Their 100 MPX GFX S is 60% of (40% off) their top of the line. If they can match the discount, one can be looking at a $3,000 medium format model. If this wasn't a Sony sensor, it might even have 8K. But if it has a downsampled 4K, it'll be a very good all-rounder/hybrid.

 

[ahalpert]

But the stills mode can't be ignored either (well. it can be on the DVXUser). A $3,000 60 MPX stills camera is pretty much equal to A7RIV, which currently goes for $3,500, and better than Z7/II, S1R and anything that Canon has. At the present. Which means that the Canon high res camera with 80 MPX isn't that far away and that it's unlikely to be $8,000, as speculated on Canon Rumors.

I've gotten the impression that the camera is marketed more for video. At least, they put way more emphasis into its video chops and interface than other hybrids do.

According to Steve Huff, the video autofocus of the fp is "horrendous" and on par with the gh5. He says that it's better in photo mode, but that it doesn't put a patch on sony or canon, that it can't track a subject across the frame, and no one will be using it for sports or autofocus-demanding situations. I assume this is because it only has contrast-detect AF. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cg5vsh3BAjg&t=291s

So, I sort of feel like we CAN ignore the stills mode? Unless you're getting it for video first and stills as an afterthought? Or unless they improve the autofocus by adding phase-detect.

But the thing is - for shooting stills, there are so many useful design and interface elements of the pro canikony cameras, plus little features for various scenarios (such as a mechanical shutter, which the fp lacked, but is probably preferable to electronic shutter for most photogs in most situations), plus IBIS, plus lens selection and compatibility with legacy lenses, plus brand compatibility with flash/lighting gear, plus certainty about future product developments that will reward your investment in the system...

There are a million reasons why the fp-L can't just waltz in and steal substantial photog marketshare overnight. It could be an opening volley and it could apply downward price pressure on the product tier. But the sony a7riv is currently selling for $3k (evf included :tongue and shoots 61MP. So, the fp-L is not even really price-disruptive as a high-resolution stills camera. Plus, pros who make a decent living and are spending FAR more on accessories and lenses than on the camera body won't abandon their brand to save $1k on the body

 

[Teddy_Dem]

When it comes to video autofocus for cameras at the $6500 and below range Sony and Canon are so far ahead of other cameras that they could really squeeze the market depending on how they choose to price their cameras. There was the thinking that other manufacturers would have closed the gap a little bit by now, but that doesn't seem to be the case. Panasonic are putting out cameras with such incredible videos specs, that you think that they should own the market, but their poor autofocus is all that gets talked about. I'm sure those cameras (S1H, S1, S1R, S, etc.) are doing ok, but they are not dominating the way that they would if the autofocus was closer to what Sony and Canon have. And if I am remembering correctly, Panasonic released those cameras months before the Sony A7SIII, Canon R5, etc. were released. Fuji to an extent (and you could add the Sigma fp) are also putting out cameras with good video features.

I think the next generation of Sony and Canon's autofocus will be the ones that convince the non-believers to really take notice and give autofocus a chance. I know that I was a non-believer about autofocus and felt that it would never have a place in video, and then 2 things happened. The first was about 2 years ago I had to shoot some footage solo on a gimbal, and I quickly realized that without autofocus trying to pull and maintain focus while shooting on a gimbal was hell. Trying make sure that the framing was what I wanted/intended and also in focus at the same time was painful. The second thing was seeing what the current generation of Sony and Canon autofocus was capable of. If the other companies do not close the gap soon, it will really become a tough market for them.

 

[Samuel Dilworth]

When it comes to video autofocus for cameras at the $6500 and below range Sony and Canon are so far ahead of other cameras that they could really squeeze the market depending on how they choose to price their cameras. There was the thinking that other manufacturers would have closed the gap a little bit by now, but that doesn't seem to be the case.

Nikon is practically there, technically, with the Z6 II and Z7 II. The interface for controlling the autofocus is slightly more complex (not by much, really). But the bigger problem is perception. Nikon autofocus has a PR problem, as your comment shows. Moreover, Nikon cameras have other problems for video (e.g. no internal 10-bit). I suspect these remaining problems will be fixed with the next round of Nikon cameras, but it might be too late for Nikon to grab significant market share among video shooters.

 

[Teddy_Dem]

Nikon is practically there, technically, with the Z6 II and Z7 II. The interface for controlling the autofocus is slightly more complex (not by much, really). But the bigger problem is perception. Nikon autofocus has a PR problem, as your comment shows. Moreover, Nikon cameras have other problems for video (e.g. no internal 10-bit). I suspect these remaining problems will be fixed with the next round of Nikon cameras, but it might be too late for Nikon to grab significant market share among video shooters.

You're right about the perception of Nikon as I rarely think about them when it comes to video. How adaptable is the Z-mount? I'm going to assume that plays a part as most who shoot video with these kind of cameras are more or less coming from EF lenses. Going to the RF-mount is also very easy for EF lens owners.

The E-mount picked up steam for Sony for video shooters because if I am remembering it correctly, the first A7S was one of the very first affordable mirrorless/DSLR cameras that offered cine shooting profiles like s-log2, so it was very popular, and it has some ok adapters. I own a Sony A6000 and only own one E-mount lens, the Sigma 30mm. All my other lenses are EF-mount, as I mainly own the Sigma Art series of lenses in EF-mount, and I use the Sigma MC-11 adapter.

With the fact that most of these cameras now offer some sort of RAW, either internal or external to an ATOMOS or BMD recorder. Autofocus is one of the main specifications that is a decider for which one to get. Hopefully internal ND will be the next specification. The FX-6 is in the $6500 and below range and has Sony's fantastic e-ND.

The popularity of the Sony FS7 also played a part as far as selling E-mount lenses although that camera was not in the $6500 and below range. However, there are FS7 users who moved/are moving to the FX6.

 

[Samuel Dilworth]

You're right about the perception of Nikon as I rarely think about them when it comes to video. How adaptable is the Z-mount?

Mechanically, it offers good scope for adaptors: it has a particularly short register distance and particularly wide throat. (This also allows great freedom of lens design.)

But that’s only half the story. Electronically, the Z-mount is probably the worst of them all for third-party lenses. Nikon took great pains to retain control of it. Specifically, they used a bizarre double serial interface for the communication protocol so that they could patent it (satisfying the non-obviousness requirement). Communication starts on one interface and proceeds to the other.

Moreover, the patent applies to lenses rather than the camera-lens system. There have been cases where lawyers have argued that such communication protocol patents don’t apply to third-party lenses because they are not a system.

All of which makes it unusually difficult – maybe impossible – to reverse engineer the Z-mount communication protocol without infringing a strong Nikon patent. You could get around this by making an F-mount lens and using Nikon’s adaptor to talk to the camera, but the F-mount is poor for adapted lenses because it has a long register distance and narrow diameter.

None of which rules out Nikon licensing the protocol to others as Sony has done with the E-mount. However, Sony was a new entrant with a disruptive technology (mirrorless) and a strong reason to seek legitimacy at the time they opened the E-mount. There’s no guarantee Nikon will think the same.

 

[DLD]

... So, I sort of feel like we CAN ignore the stills mode? Unless you're getting it for video first and stills as an afterthought? Or unless they improve the autofocus by adding phase-detect.

But the thing is - for shooting stills, there are so many useful design and interface elements of the pro canikony cameras, plus little features for various scenarios (such as a mechanical shutter, which the fp lacked, but is probably preferable to electronic shutter for most photogs in most situations), plus IBIS, plus lens selection and compatibility with legacy lenses, plus brand compatibility with flash/lighting gear, plus certainty about future product developments that will reward your investment in the system...

There are a million reasons why the fp-L can't just waltz in and steal substantial photog marketshare overnight. It could be an opening volley and it could apply downward price pressure on the product tier. But the sony a7riv is currently selling for $3k (evf included :tongue and shoots 61MP. So, the fp-L is not even really price-disruptive as a high-resolution stills camera. Plus, pros who make a decent living and are spending FAR more on accessories and lenses than on the camera body won't abandon their brand to save $1k on the body

I posted the various manufacturers adaptations of the same 24 MPX Sony sensor - Sony itself got 693 phase detect and 425 contrast detect points, Panasonic had to drop phase detect, Nikon contrast detect, and Sigma all detect.

But there was also typical flesh peddling with other features - Sony had to keep 8-bit codec for video; others had to do some line-skipping, et cetera, et cetera.

So, in 2021, with FPL already out in the wild, what does it need to challenge others in that price bracket with Sony's approval? It needs to have a decent codec, a negligible crop for video and some photo AF. It can't step on the big toe of the upcoming A7IV, even if A7IV gets the same 60 MPX sensor and a $2,500 price tag. Which it wasn't supposed to. But now, who knows.

 

[NorBro]

Sigma also has to answer to Panasonic (there's that great alliance).

I was actually thinking that Panasonic's FW update came at an opportune time...I wouldn't be surprised if the fp-L shoots 6K.

 

[ahalpert]

You're right about the perception of Nikon as I rarely think about them when it comes to video. How adaptable is the Z-mount? I'm going to assume that plays a part as most who shoot video with these kind of cameras are more or less coming from EF lenses. Going to the RF-mount is also very easy for EF lens owners.

The E-mount picked up steam for Sony for video shooters because if I am remembering it correctly, the first A7S was one of the very first affordable mirrorless/DSLR cameras that offered cine shooting profiles like s-log2, so it was very popular, and it has some ok adapters. I own a Sony A6000 and only own one E-mount lens, the Sigma 30mm. All my other lenses are EF-mount, as I mainly own the Sigma Art series of lenses in EF-mount, and I use the Sigma MC-11 adapter.

I think Nikon has pretty good autofocus, but not at all if you want to adapt a different brand.

I think the A7S was also popular because it was the first full-frame no-crop 4K camera, right?

DLD - I believe that the sigma fp still uses all the contrast-detect points

does anyone know what time the fp-l announcement is today? i see "21:00" - is that GMT? if it were JST it would have happened already right?

 

[NorBro]

Probably around midnight EST...that's when they usually happen.

Original a7S required an external recorder for 4K, but nonetheless a great camera at that time for various reasons (this was 2014).

 

[ahalpert]

Original a7S required an external recorder for 4K, but nonetheless a great camera at that time for various reasons (this was 2014).

aside from the rolling shutter and the overheating?

 

[NorBro]

The overheating notoriety came about 2-3 years later in several other models...mainly the a6300.

Looking back...it was just more shenanigans. That camera had the best oversampled quality I've seen up to that point in my life for the price and for that kind of hybrid.

But, per usual, since it had the best IQ in its class and way beyond, it overheated in 20 minutes and received the worst rolling shutter in the history of cameras. lol

IMO, Sony was years ahead of Canon with the tricks. Canon's tricks for that 4-5 year window before they were forced to make better cameras was simply not adding any high-spec features in cameras less than $10K. lol

 

[NorBro]

And Sony's massive, industry-changing mirrorless effort from 2014-2017 completely flipped the business upside down with many of these photo cameras receiving video-heavy features that you would only see in more specialized cinema bodies at that time.

a7S had the full-frame, the 4K output, low-light, early stages of video AF, 720/120p, XAVC-S...just a handful of things we've never seen before in stills cameras.

Panasonic was also very much responsible for the worldwide mirrorless transition with amazing systems like the GH3 and GH4, but have been forgotten about a bit since most of the world has moved to larger sensors and they don't make that many cameras.

[Of course the 5D Mark II, GH2, and Nikon D750 are the OGs...with many others pitching in before the main mirrorless movement.]

 

[DLD]

DLD - I believe that the sigma fp still uses all the contrast-detect points ...

49 contrast detect, just for the sake of saying, "we have the AF".

Howevah - the DJI LiDAR based AF is getting solid reviews and the nicest thing about the LiDAR AF is that the transitions - they are not pulls even - are super slow and super smooth. Of course, one would need to buy a DJI gimbal too but there are other systems on the way also. For video, one might even go with a manual and a long focus throw. And that brings all the Chinese knock-offs of the classic German glass into play. Plus, the anamorphic as a side benefit.