Sigma Enters Mirrorless: The Sigma SD Quattro

[powerslave12r]

Quattro owners who have used Merrills, how does the Quattro generation Sigma Photo Pro perform in stability? The Merrill generation SPP (5.5) gives me fits because it crashes after about ten minutes of use on an admittedly 5 year old top-spec MacBookPro with 8G RAM. I have been pruning back the hard disc to more reasonable amounts of space, and I haven't seen an improvement in stability. No, I am NOT nostalgic for old MS Windows operating systems. I don't like having the computer crash or develop the eternal spinning beach ball.

I think that this new development would be of some interest if there were EF and F mount options, or a generic option to which one could add the electronic pass-through adapter of one's choice. Sigma is offering mount changes on lenses - why not offer options on the CAMERAS?

Just out of curiosity, have your Merrills been updated to the latest firmware?

[NancyP]

I haven't really looked for firmware for a good year, so probably not. I assumed that once Quattro came out, Merrills wouldn't be getting updates.

[NancyP]

Thanks, Alan, I will save my files as is, on a separate drive, then try uploading SPP 6 and testing it on a few duplicate files.

[MoreOrLess]

To go a bit off topic I wonder could Sigma style sensors actually be a problem for Mirrorless in the future? if this tech did end up being the future then the small flange distance is suddenly going to become a significant disadvantage.

[NancyP]

Oopsie! First I get my lazy *ss in gear     and update my OS, THEN I try SPP 6.3...........................

[Ancient Tiger]

To go a bit off topic I wonder could Sigma style sensors actually be a problem for Mirrorless in the future? if this tech did end up being the future then the small flange distance is suddenly going to become a significant disadvantage.

Doesn't pose a problem at all for their DP series.....

[MoreOrLess]

Doesn't pose a problem at all for their DP series.....

There fixed lens APSC cameras though and those lenses are quite large for their specs, especially the new 20mm equivalent.

I spose it depends what format your talking about, I would guess something like m43 might have much less of a problem but the FE system might well be unable to use such a sensor.

[Ancient Tiger]

There fixed lens APSC cameras though and those lenses are quite large for their specs, especially the new 20mm equivalent.

I spose it depends what format your talking about, I would guess something like m43 might have much less of a problem but the FE system might well be unable to use such a sensor.

I'm just saying the distance from the rear of the lens to the sensor is quite short and there is no problem. The DP2M and Q have quite small lenses.

[BJL]

... I wonder could Sigma style sensors actually be a problem for Mirrorless in the future? if this tech did end up being the future then the small flange distance is suddenly going to become a significant disadvantage.

Not really:
1) Nothing about a shorter flange distance forces lens designs to have rear elements close to the focal plane; it just adds more options to lens designs
2) The flexibility allows some useful new design options for highly telecentric designs – ones with the light striking all parts of the focal plane close to perpendicular. Some telecentric lens designs in use have the rear lens element extremely close to the focal plane, such as with the zoom lenses used in some fixed lens digital cameras.  In technical terms, the exit pupil can be well forward of the rear lens element.

The only down-side I see to short flange distance is that some lens bodies get longer, adding extra "empty tubing" between the rear lens element and the lens mount.

[MoreOrLess]

Not really:
1) Nothing about a shorter flange distance forces lens designs to have rear elements close to the focal plane; it just adds more options to lens designs
2) The flexibility allows some useful new design options for highly telecentric designs – ones with the light striking all parts of the focal plane close to perpendicular. Some telecentric lens designs in use have the rear lens element extremely close to the focal plane, such as with the zoom lenses used in some fixed lens digital cameras.  In technical terms, the exit pupil can be well forward of the rear lens element.

The only down-side I see to short flange distance is that some lens bodies get longer, adding extra "empty tubing" between the rear lens element and the lens mount.

That's true but it would likely entail something like the FE system having to release a new collection of larger lenses to work with such a sensor.

Again as well fixed lens camera seem to have less of an issue when it comes to light angles, I would guess because they can include large rear elements.

[BJL]

That's true but it would likely entail something like the FE system having to release a new collection of larger lenses to work with such a sensor.

Again as well fixed lens camera seem to have less of an issue when it comes to light angles, I would guess because they can include large rear elements.

If you mean new lenses covering the 36x24mm frame, agreed: although recent lenses for 35mm format SLRs tend to have high exit pupils that make them work well with digital cameras, and so would function fine with an adaptor, I expect at some new native lenses for any new mirrorless mount would be needed to make the system sufficiently marketable.

I also agree that fixed lens digital cameras seem to offer very good opticla performance — due I think ,to the great flexibility in lens design, allowing for example large rear elements that sit very close to the sensor.

My fantasy future lens mount is somewhat shalllow but mote importantly is rather wide, for maximum optical design flexibility. But that goes against the current (and for me slightly misguided) emphasis in mirrorless systems on _body_ compactness as a major selling point.