4 ms·

before you bag on this, try to ask some questions like: - who is this product trying to reach? - what does it do well? - what do it's designers know that I d

before you bag on this, try to ask some questions like: - who is this product trying to reach? - what does it do well? - what do it's designers know that I don't? If you see something that strikes you as weird, there's a reason for it. You're looking at a highly designed product, it's all intentional, try to be curious.

gwill 2y ago
Would you mind answering those questions? I love photography and when looking over a camera can get an idea around strengths/weaknesses. This seems like they wanted to cheap out on construction with fewer physical controls and still be able to advertise as a compact FF camera despite having a low MP sensor.
- 0_____0 2y ago
  I think primarily it's targeting a user segment that's sort of distinct. The mainly younger folks who carry a camera very often or daily, for whom it's not just a hobby but also something that's fashionable. They do care about image quality, but also care about form factor and the looks of the thing, which is a distinct need vs. pro or typical prosumer users (DSLR dads, I lovingly call them). Dropping the physical controls doesn't really save a ton of money. They went for a unibody chassis, which itself is a bit of an expensive way to make a production component (see their very nice staged dry-run toolpath simulation on a 5-axis CNC machine). I do think they wanted something extremely compact for what it is (hence no viewfinder), without a bunch of stuff sticking off of it. Something that people who design EDC objects think about - will this snag on things?
cgomez 2y ago
Sure, but also no. By that reasoning, you might say there's no such thing as bad art. In most cases, things are designed with the best of intentions and may or may not be successful for their audience. But a standalone ILC is already a small addressable market so the choices do matter, especially for a company of Sigma's size.
- 0_____0 2y ago
  Whether or not the choices are good ones depends on what factors matter to you. Even then, not all choices made are the best ones to achieve the ends of the designers and users, but in a product like this, they were made. One way art can be bad is by refusing (or being unable to) make choices. Whether that's from lack of perception, skill, or interest. Of course you can subvert this by refusing to make choices, but that in itself is its own choice - it has intent. I think the HN crowd often make an assumption that they have all the information necessary to judge something. It doesn't have an SD card slot! Is it possible that Sigma saw how their customers use these cameras and figured that they could significantly simplify the enclosure design and packaging by omitting an SD card facility? I don't know! But I think that this is interesting, and makes me think of the 20-somethings I see toting MLCs in the city, for whom I get the sense that a camera is a lifestyle component, not a professional one. Maybe they don't need to shoot >200GB a day? What's it like to have technology as a fashion statement? Being utility-minded engineer, what am I missing about people's relationships to objects?

gwill 2y ago

Would you mind answering those questions? I love photography and when looking over a camera can get an idea around strengths/weaknesses. This seems like they wanted to cheap out on construction with fewer physical controls and still be able to advertise as a compact FF camera despite having a low MP sensor.

0_____0 2y ago
I think primarily it's targeting a user segment that's sort of distinct. The mainly younger folks who carry a camera very often or daily, for whom it's not just a hobby but also something that's fashionable. They do care about image quality, but also care about form factor and the looks of the thing, which is a distinct need vs. pro or typical prosumer users (DSLR dads, I lovingly call them). Dropping the physical controls doesn't really save a ton of money. They went for a unibody chassis, which itself is a bit of an expensive way to make a production component (see their very nice staged dry-run toolpath simulation on a 5-axis CNC machine). I do think they wanted something extremely compact for what it is (hence no viewfinder), without a bunch of stuff sticking off of it. Something that people who design EDC objects think about - will this snag on things?

cgomez 2y ago

Sure, but also no. By that reasoning, you might say there's no such thing as bad art. In most cases, things are designed with the best of intentions and may or may not be successful for their audience. But a standalone ILC is already a small addressable market so the choices do matter, especially for a company of Sigma's size.

0_____0 2y ago
Whether or not the choices are good ones depends on what factors matter to you. Even then, not all choices made are the best ones to achieve the ends of the designers and users, but in a product like this, they were made. One way art can be bad is by refusing (or being unable to) make choices. Whether that's from lack of perception, skill, or interest. Of course you can subvert this by refusing to make choices, but that in itself is its own choice - it has intent. I think the HN crowd often make an assumption that they have all the information necessary to judge something. It doesn't have an SD card slot! Is it possible that Sigma saw how their customers use these cameras and figured that they could significantly simplify the enclosure design and packaging by omitting an SD card facility? I don't know! But I think that this is interesting, and makes me think of the 20-somethings I see toting MLCs in the city, for whom I get the sense that a camera is a lifestyle component, not a professional one. Maybe they don't need to shoot >200GB a day? What's it like to have technology as a fashion statement? Being utility-minded engineer, what am I missing about people's relationships to objects?